PDA

View Full Version : Tis the season....



K.Bullock
12-04-2008, 12:49 AM
OLYMPIA, Wash. — An atheist group has unveiled an anti-religion placard in the state Capitol, joining a Christian Nativity scene and "holiday tree" on display during December.

The atheists' sign was installed Monday by Washington members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a national group based in Madison, Wis.

With a nod to the winter solstice — the year's shortest day, occurring in late December — the placard reads, in part, "There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

The foundation's co-president, Dan Barker, said it was important for atheists to offer their viewpoint alongside the overtly religious Nativity scene and Christmas-style holiday tree.

"Our members want equal time," Barker said. "Not to muscle, not to coerce, but just to have a place at the table."

The three displays, all privately sponsored, were granted permits from state groundskeepers to be placed in the Capitol's grand marble hallways.

The 25-foot noble spruce, officially called the "Capitol Holiday Kids Tree," is sponsored by the Association of Washington Business and tied to a charity drive for needy families. It's been a Capitol fixture for nearly 20 years.




http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,461424,00.html#http://www.foxnews.com/images/474301/1_61_120308_atheist2.jpg

cotts135
12-04-2008, 06:53 AM
Just another arrow for Bill O'Reilly's quiver for his faux war on Christmas.

K.Bullock
12-04-2008, 08:16 AM
Just another arrow for Bill O'Reilly's quiver for his faux war on Christmas.

? What does Bill O"reilly have to do with this
"There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." being placed next to a Christian symbol.

Bob Gutermuth
12-04-2008, 09:55 AM
Bill has been in the forefront leading the charge against the secular progressive war on Christmas, which is not only a religious holiday, but a National Holiday, so enacted by Congress and signed into law by Pres U S Grant.

K.Bullock
12-06-2008, 10:54 PM
Bill has been in the forefront leading the charge against the secular progressive war on Christmas, which is not only a religious holiday, but a National Holiday, so enacted by Congress and signed into law by Pres U S Grant.

Ah ...thanks Bob I found this >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u_Vlmnt1rs

cotts135
12-07-2008, 09:18 AM
I see the display for the Aethist's has been stolen.

K.Bullock
12-07-2008, 12:17 PM
I see the display for the Aethist's has been stolen.

:confused:yeah I saw that.

This is usually the time when atheists start quoting stuff like the ten commandments ...that they wanted removed from schools. ;)

Bruce MacPherson
12-07-2008, 12:42 PM
Just another arrow for Bill O'Reilly's quiver for his faux war on Christmas.

I wonder how old you are? There was a time when those of us that were so inclined could celebrate a christian holiday and the birth of Jesus (spare me the actuall timing of his birth) without insult or being made to feel like insensitive jerks. There is no faux war on Christmas, it is quite real and by design.

Marvin S
12-07-2008, 02:07 PM
I wonder how old you are?

Just ask how many tattoos &/or piercings - that'll give you a chronology!


There was a time when those of us that were so inclined could celebrate a christian holiday and the birth of Jesus (spare me the actuall timing of his birth) without insult or being made to feel like insensitive jerks. There is no faux war on Christmas, it is quite real and by design.

Before cotts's time we used to have Christmas bazaar's in the church basement where we played bingo & won practical prizes. It was especially nice to win a cured ham which many did not have. It added variety to the diet.

When Christmas became a commercial holiday & you are not around friends & family, it's no longer the holiday of choice. Thanksgioving has stepped into that breach. But I still believe it important to impart the Christian traditions to children so they do not grow up tone deaf on the meaning of previous sacrifices made.

The Times had an article this AM about the atheists - now 122 dues paying members in their little group. The reporter gushs over the strides these people have made. Atheism has been around since I was a little guy, doesn't sound to me like much of a stride. If they want to be that way, let them, just stay out of my face.

But you have too love the print media - 2 years ago I owned this stock that owned a major paper & several TV stations, they separated the two units spun off the TV stations & sold the St Louis paper to another print media company who was salivating to go big time. They paid well, borrowed $1.5 billion to make the buy of all stock, as of the close of business Friday this company now is worth $27 million, the stock has gone from the mid 40's to $.61 per share. Love those print media people. I'm amazed they aren't trying for a bailout.

Patrick Johndrow
12-07-2008, 05:28 PM
I see the display for the Aethist's has been stolen.



How could people who dont believe in anything have a display about it?

As Larry The Cable Guy would say...that's just STUPID!

YardleyLabs
12-07-2008, 05:52 PM
How could people who dont believe in anything have a display about it?

As Larry The Cable Guy would say...that's just STUPID!

Believe it or not, as an atheist, I tend to agree. Personally. I care what kind of person you are and don't think your religion makes any difference. Having said that, I see no reason why Christians should have some form of monopoly on public displays related to the season and I don't consider an atheist display to be any more of an insult to Christian beliefs than a Christian display is an insult to mine. In my company I encouraged holiday displays from every group and we made sure we had displays for Christian (both Christmas and Kwanzaa as well as Easter), Jewish, Hindu and, to the extent we were able, Muslim holidays as well as national holidays such as the 4th of July, Thanksgiving, and MLK day. I think it let everyone feel welcome, encouraged everyone to be tolerant, and made it clear that no one group was dominant. I personally believe our public spaces should be managed with a similar attitude. Let everyone express their beliefs in a positive fashion but never permit any one perspective to dominate the landscape.

Patrick Johndrow
12-07-2008, 06:05 PM
Believe it or not, as an atheist, I tend to agree. Personally. I care what kind of person you are and don't think your religion makes any difference. Having said that, I see no reason why Christians should have some form of monopoly on public displays related to the season and I don't consider an atheist display to be any more of an insult to Christian beliefs than a Christian display is an insult to mine. In my company I encouraged holiday displays from every group and we made sure we had displays for Christian (both Christmas and Kwanzaa as well as Easter), Jewish, Hindu and, to the extent we were able, Muslim holidays as well as national holidays such as the 4th of July, Thanksgiving, and MLK day. I think it let everyone feel welcome, encouraged everyone to be tolerant, and made it clear that no one group was dominant. I personally believe our public spaces should be managed with a similar attitude. Let everyone express their beliefs in a positive fashion but never permit any one perspective to dominate the landscape.

Hell must have frozen over…we agreed on something. I would add to your comments when a group put a display next to another groups display with the intention of drawing attention to their cause and demean the other group’s display I do find it insulting.

An example…you will never find me with a heterosexual lifestyle display at a gay pride parade…for the record you will never find me near a gay pride parade.

Hoosier
12-07-2008, 06:07 PM
Believe it or not, as an atheist, I tend to agree. Personally. I care what kind of person you are and don't think your religion makes any difference. Having said that, I see no reason why Christians should have some form of monopoly on public displays related to the season and I don't consider an atheist display to be any more of an insult to Christian beliefs than a Christian display is an insult to mine. In my company I encouraged holiday displays from every group and we made sure we had displays for Christian (both Christmas and Kwanzaa as well as Easter), Jewish, Hindu and, to the extent we were able, Muslim holidays as well as national holidays such as the 4th of July, Thanksgiving, and MLK day. I think it let everyone feel welcome, encouraged everyone to be tolerant, and made it clear that no one group was dominant. I personally believe our public spaces should be managed with a similar attitude. Let everyone express their beliefs in a positive fashion but never permit any one perspective to dominate the landscape.


So your saying Christians should have a monopoly on the Christmas season. I guess I don't understand that logic.

Patrick Johndrow
12-07-2008, 06:12 PM
So your saying Christians should have a monopoly on the Christmas season. I guess I don't understand that logic.

We do have the market cornered on the birth of Christ… what we call the Christmas Story…the nativity. The rest of the world has whatever they do with Santa Clause, Elf and stuff.

YardleyLabs
12-07-2008, 06:17 PM
So your saying Christians should have a monopoly on the Christmas season. I guess I don't understand that logic.

I'm guessing that you left a word out of your sentence and meant to say "So your saying Christians should not have a monopoly on the Christmas season. I guess I don't understand that logic."

The simple answer is no, I do not believe that any group gets to lay exclusive claim to any particular dates or weeks on the calendar. If precedence rules, the Christians lose out to the pagans who claimed the solstice period long before and the Jews who claimed Hanukkah long before as well. We share the space and the calendar.

Hoosier
12-07-2008, 06:52 PM
I'm guessing that you left a word out of your sentence and meant to say "So your saying Christians should not have a monopoly on the Christmas season. I guess I don't understand that logic."

The simple answer is no, I do not believe that any group gets to lay exclusive claim to any particular dates or weeks on the calendar. If precedence rules, the Christians lose out to the pagans who claimed the solstice period long before and the Jews who claimed Hanukkah long before as well. We share the space and the calendar.

Well God bless ya. Jesus loves ya. In god we trust. Just because a large population base wants to celebrate Christmas it does not mean that you are forced too. How does their right to celebrate and believe how and what they want infringe upon you. Is someone forcing you to have a Merry Christmas?

Bruce MacPherson
12-07-2008, 07:37 PM
Believe it or not, as an atheist, I tend to agree. Personally. I care what kind of person you are and don't think your religion makes any difference. Having said that, I see no reason why Christians should have some form of monopoly on public displays related to the season and I don't consider an atheist display to be any more of an insult to Christian beliefs than a Christian display is an insult to mine. In my company I encouraged holiday displays from every group and we made sure we had displays for Christian (both Christmas and Kwanzaa as well as Easter), Jewish, Hindu and, to the extent we were able, Muslim holidays as well as national holidays such as the 4th of July, Thanksgiving, and MLK day. I think it let everyone feel welcome, encouraged everyone to be tolerant, and made it clear that no one group was dominant. I personally believe our public spaces should be managed with a similar attitude. Let everyone express their beliefs in a positive fashion but never permit any one perspective to dominate the landscape.

It's called Christmas the season when we traditionaly celebrate OUR beliefs. If you Atheists want to celebrate your own holiday feel free, I won't object and won't interfere, just stay out of mine.

YardleyLabs
12-07-2008, 08:00 PM
It's called Christmas the season when we traditionaly celebrate OUR beliefs. If you Atheists want to celebrate your own holiday feel free, I won't object and won't interfere, just stay out of mine.

So are you suggesting that the only public displays permitted during the "Christmas Season" would be Christian ones? And how exactly are you defining the "Christmas Season"? Right now it seems to start on Thanksgiving and continue until after New Years.

I believe in good manners and mutual respect in all dealings, including interactions among these with different religious beliefs. However, I don't expect others to defer to my beliefs and I don't see any reason why I should defer to the religious beliefs of others. This year Hanukkah begins on December 22. Are you suggesting that it should be rescheduled to stay out of the way of Christmas?

Personally I try to celebrate my beliefs every day that I am alive and am happy that I live in a country where that is not just possible but welcome.

Hoosier
12-07-2008, 08:46 PM
So are you suggesting that the only public displays permitted during the "Christmas Season" would be Christian ones? And how exactly are you defining the "Christmas Season"? Right now it seems to start on Thanksgiving and continue until after New Years.

I believe in good manners and mutual respect in all dealings, including interactions among these with different religious beliefs. However, I don't expect others to defer to my beliefs and I don't see any reason why I should defer to the religious beliefs of others. This year Hanukkah begins on December 22. Are you suggesting that it should be rescheduled to stay out of the way of Christmas?

Personally I try to celebrate my beliefs every day that I am alive and am happy that I live in a country where that is not just possible but welcome.

If the Jews want to put up a Hanukkah tree, I wont feel the need to go put a nativity display next to it. It's not like we're forcing holy water enemas on anyone.

K.Bullock
12-07-2008, 09:22 PM
So are you suggesting that the only public displays permitted during the "Christmas Season" would be Christian ones?
That would make sense to me. it is a Christian holiday.


And how exactly are you defining the "Christmas Season"? Right now it seems to start on Thanksgiving and continue until after New Years.
That would be about right, advent began just last Sunday.



I believe in good manners and mutual respect in all dealings, including interactions among these with different religious beliefs. However, I don't expect others to defer to my beliefs and I don't see any reason why I should defer to the religious beliefs of others. This year Hanukkah begins on December 22. Are you suggesting that it should be rescheduled to stay out of the way of Christmas?

No one is suggesting that, and the Jews would not follow Christians around forcing them to stick a disclaimer on the nativity either.

Pete
12-07-2008, 09:23 PM
Do you guys think we should knock down the washington monument or utterly destroy the infra structure or maby design your own city with your own government that leaves 0 traces of a Godly form of government.

Whatever one may think. DC was designed with crosses in the lay out . Biblical scripture was chisled in marble and granite in alot of the historical area in the days our founding fathers.
The original american dream was not a 4bedroon house with a corvette in the drive way and a 6 figure salery. It was to have the freedom to worship God as they saw fit.

A true atheist shouldn't care one way or another if people display religious symbols. The fact that it bothers them tells me they have a belief which knotes hatred of God and not a non existance of God,,,,,,which is the opposite of a religious person who knotes the love of God. Well most religioons

I dont care if people put leprecons statues on their front lawns I dont believe in them and it would never occure to me to put up an anti lepricon sign next to them noting my disbelief in them and telling people of the bondage all that guiness guzzling puts in those lepricon believers.

I tend to see atheists such as these as God haters and not merly someone who simply doesn't believe in God.
Oh yes there were plenty of God haters in biblical times ,,,very similar as today. Those with heardened hearts against that which is Godly.

While its true alot of religions put people in bondage and play with peoples emotions ,,,it has nothing to do with God. Religion and God are not synononous. . You can read some of that in Malachi.
All that matters to God is what you do according to his will not what you say!
And that has caused many religions to get a bad rap as it may have so justifyably deserve.

People who fight against God ,,hate God,,,pretty simple

Pete

K.Bullock
12-07-2008, 09:24 PM
It's called Christmas the season when we traditionaly celebrate OUR beliefs. If you Atheists want to celebrate your own holiday feel free, I won't object and won't interfere, just stay out of mine. My sentiments exactly.

YardleyLabs
12-08-2008, 06:45 AM
I guess my feeling is that if you want exclusivity, restrict your displays to church property and stay off public lands. There's big difference between being a country where the majority are Christian and being a Christian country. We are definitely the former for now, but I hope that we never become the latter. Happily that cannot happen without a Constitutional amendment.

cotts135
12-08-2008, 05:00 PM
Just ask how many tattoos &/or piercings - that'll give you a chronology!

Marvin, so you can make an informed and educated guess on what type of person I am I have one tatoo and no piercings.






The Times had an article this AM about the atheists - now 122 dues paying members in their little group. The reporter gushs over the strides these people have made. Atheism has been around since I was a little guy, doesn't sound to me like much of a stride. If they want to be that way, let them, just stay out of my face.


Your missing the point on this. This is not so much a issue of Freedom of Religion, It's more a Freedom of choice issue. So if I read your last sentence correctly it seems it's okay to have a Religious display but not so much for the Aethist's. Don't want them in your face ......... right.

Hoosier
12-08-2008, 05:14 PM
Your missing the point on this. This is not so much a issue of Freedom of Religion, It's more a Freedom of choice issue. So if I read your last sentence correctly it seems it's okay to have a Religious display but not so much for the Aethist's. Don't want them in your face ......... right.

I think the point is it's disrespectful to put the Atheist display right next to the Christian display. It's intent to get a reaction. So they can complain about the reaction.

YardleyLabs
12-08-2008, 05:45 PM
Do you guys think we should knock down the washington monument or utterly destroy the infra structure or maby design your own city with your own government that leaves 0 traces of a Godly form of government.

Whatever one may think. DC was designed with crosses in the lay out . Biblical scripture was chisled in marble and granite in alot of the historical area in the days our founding fathers.
The original american dream was not a 4bedroon house with a corvette in the drive way and a 6 figure salery. It was to have the freedom to worship God as they saw fit.

A true atheist shouldn't care one way or another if people display religious symbols. The fact that it bothers them tells me they have a belief which knotes hatred of God and not a non existance of God,,,,,,which is the opposite of a religious person who knotes the love of God. Well most religioons

I dont care if people put leprecons statues on their front lawns I dont believe in them and it would never occure to me to put up an anti lepricon sign next to them noting my disbelief in them and telling people of the bondage all that guiness guzzling puts in those lepricon believers.

I tend to see atheists such as these as God haters and not merly someone who simply doesn't believe in God.
Oh yes there were plenty of God haters in biblical times ,,,very similar as today. Those with heardened hearts against that which is Godly.

While its true alot of religions put people in bondage and play with peoples emotions ,,,it has nothing to do with God. Religion and God are not synononous. . You can read some of that in Malachi.
All that matters to God is what you do according to his will not what you say!
And that has caused many religions to get a bad rap as it may have so justifyably deserve.

People who fight against God ,,hate God,,,pretty simple

Pete

Pete,

As I noted in my original comment, I couldn't care less about anyone's religious beliefs. However, I do care about those who believe that they have some innate right to use public resources in a preferential manner because their beliefs are in some way special. There are millions of atheists in this country and millions of more around the world. It says something if a so-called atheist group only has 122 dues paying members. Obviously the members of the group represent only themselves, not some broader group.

I've never been a Christian, but I've always celebrated Christmas and even call it Christmas. I love the "spirit of Christmas", its celebration of generosity and love, and welcome those who seek to make it a little less commercial and a little more thoughtful. If that is done with a billboard in Washington saying "Just be good for goodness sake", it doesn't bother me that the message comes from an atheist. If the message comes from someone saying that anyone who believes in God is an idiot, my reaction is that the person has shown their own intolerance and character and deserves the respect they have earned.

All that said, the notion that any religious group should be given "ownership" of the messages associated with some particular day, month or months on the calendar is one I find to be ridiculous. Our world is full of self righteous people who shove their beliefs in the faces of people trying to go about their otherwise legal business. I suspect that many in this discussion have either done this themselves or supported those that have.

Usually those doing this justify their actions based on the fact that their beliefs are right (An example might be those who virtually assault women entering abortion clinics with messages that they are murderers.). In my mind, rude behavior is rude regardless of the reason. Our Constitution gives us the right to be rude. It doesn't mean any of us need to like it all the time.

cotts135
12-08-2008, 06:51 PM
I think the point is it's disrespectful to put the Atheist display right next to the Christian display. It's intent to get a reaction. So they can complain about the reaction.

If you know it is their intention to get a reaction then tell me why you react. If they are ignored maybe they will go away..........................

I think we can agree that their rights are the same as the Christians. You don't see them trying to put their signs at Churches or private property. Only at government institutions. You only find it disrespectful because you don't agree with them.
If you feel that they don't have those rights I would like to hear your reasons.

K.Bullock
12-08-2008, 07:29 PM
If you know it is their intention to get a reaction then tell me why you react. If they are ignored maybe they will go away..........................

I think we can agree that their rights are the same as the Christians. You don't see them trying to put their signs at Churches or private property. Only at government institutions. You only find it disrespectful because you don't agree with them.
If you feel that they don't have those rights I would like to hear your reasons.
What rights are you talking about exactly, ...then we can begin.

cotts135
12-08-2008, 07:33 PM
What rights are you talking about exactly, ...then we can begin.
I see this incident more a Freedom of Speech issue than a Freedom of Religion one.

K.Bullock
12-08-2008, 08:07 PM
I see this incident more a Freedom of Speech issue than a Freedom of Religion one.

How were the atheists rights violated?

Gerry Clinchy
12-08-2008, 08:41 PM
I think the point is it's disrespectful to put the Atheist display right next to the Christian display. It's intent to get a reaction. So they can complain about the reaction.

LOL! It just occurred to me ... what if Muslims wanted to put up a display at Rahmadan? Would the atheists feel compelled to "speak out"?

It really seems that Christmas gets all the "display" because it is a majority of the population. As long as a government institution is willing to give display space to any religious group that would request same, it doesn't appear that the government is actually beholden in any particular religion; more like "allowing" any and all religions freedom of expression.

I would agree that the issue becomes more one of free speech.

Hoosier
12-08-2008, 08:50 PM
If you know it is their intention to get a reaction then tell me why you react. If they are ignored maybe they will go away..........................

I think we can agree that their rights are the same as the Christians. You don't see them trying to put their signs at Churches or private property. Only at government institutions. You only find it disrespectful because you don't agree with them.
If you feel that they don't have those rights I would like to hear your reasons.


I think they have the legal right to do it. With that said just because you can do something within the law doesn't mean you should. It's rude, disrespectful, and they should get a boot in their ass for doing it. I'm not Catholic, does that mean I should go call a nun a bitch? Legally I probably can get away with it. I wouldn't because I shouldn't.

K.Bullock
12-08-2008, 09:02 PM
I think they have the legal right to do it. With that said just because you can do something within the law doesn't mean you should. It's rude, disrespectful, and they should get a boot in their ass for doing it. I'm not Catholic, does that mean I should go call a nun a bitch? Legally I probably can get away with it. I wouldn't because I shouldn't.

I guess I agree with your sentiment, but I do not agree that they have a "right" to display what they displayed next to the nativity. It wasn't about simply speaking to the atheist point of view, it was put there specifically to stifle a Christian expression of faith.

They do not have the right to shut Christians up, or put Christians in their place as it seems that is their goal. Your right ..it is rude, but it is even more than that.

YardleyLabs
12-08-2008, 09:25 PM
Kevin,

I agree with Hoosier's description of their behavior as rude. However, unless their display was in some manner defacing the nativity scene I don't see how an alternative display was an effort to prevent free expression of a Christian sentiment. Nothing was prevented other than the "atheists'" rights when their display was stolen. I put atheist in quotation marks since I find it hard to understand how a group with only 122 members could be considered as a representative of anything except itself. Blaming all atheists for the behavior of a boorish few is like condemning Christians because of the idiot church members who show up to protest every military funeral because of their belief that those death's are part of a divine retribution against our sinful ways. If I were going to look at things that are undermining the expression of the spirit of Christmas, I would worry a lot more about advertisements that define presents in terms of gifts of a new Lexus that will make your neighbors jealous than I would about stupid signs erected by insubstantial groups.

Patrick Johndrow
12-08-2008, 09:53 PM
It's rude, disrespectful, and they should get a boot in their ass for doing it.

Now that is Christmassy :)

K.Bullock
12-08-2008, 10:34 PM
Kevin,

I agree with Hoosier's description of their behavior as rude. However, unless their display was in some manner defacing the nativity scene I don't see how an alternative display was an effort to prevent free expression of a Christian sentiment.

Why did they pick this particular day to erect the sign? Why not put it up on Valentines day?

I don't see how this was an alternative display at all. If it was in the same spirit that you described your belief about Christmas, I might buy that. However the very language of the sign was such that their intent was obvious, it was to belittle the beliefs of the people who set up the nativity during their religious holiday.






Nothing was prevented other than the "atheists'" rights when their display was stolen. I put atheist in quotation marks since I find it hard to understand how a group with only 122 members could be considered as a representative of anything except itself.

Maybe that wasn't a Christian at all that stole their sign, it could have been another "atheist" coveting his neighbors property.;) ...at any rate I hope they repented.:D


Blaming all atheists for the behavior of a boorish few is like condemning Christians because of the idiot church members who show up to protest every military funeral because of their belief that those death's are part of a divine retribution against our sinful ways. Yep, I agree and so do the Christian bikers that surround them with their Harleys to drown out their protests. Are the other "atheists" willing to stand with the Christians in saying this isn't right?


If I were going to look at things that are undermining the expression of the spirit of Christmas, I would worry a lot more about advertisements that define presents in terms of gifts of a new Lexus that will make your neighbors jealous than I would about stupid signs erected by insubstantial groups.

Again I agree. In a lot of ways Christians can be their own worst enemies. That does not diminish their right to practice Christianity in peace.

Pete
12-08-2008, 11:28 PM
Jeff
When I posted that I wasn't even thinkin about you. Even though your a lib:D Your actually a very fair minded guy and can recognize injustices pretty easily.. When I speak of liberal people its the extremest that I usuasually am refering to. Your not an extremest,,actually you are quite logical guy and I enjoy your posts quite abit. I would be the first one to say your a good oneand a gentleman.. Something that perplexes me:p

People who push their way of life on others especially when their idea's are from another planet and then accuse the victim of the transgression are the ones that drive me nuts..

There are republicans that do the same by the way and their equally annoying. But the left way out number the right in that catagory.:)

Pete


I

Pete
12-08-2008, 11:57 PM
Kevin,

I agree with Hoosier's description of their behavior as rude. However, unless their display was in some manner defacing the nativity scene I don't see how an alternative display was an effort to prevent free expression of a Christian sentiment. Nothing was prevented other than the "atheists'" rights when their display was stolen. I put atheist in quotation marks since I find it hard to understand how a group with only 122 members could be considered as a representative of anything except itself. Blaming all atheists for the behavior of a boorish few is like condemning Christians because of the idiot church members who show up to protest every military funeral because of their belief that those death's are part of a divine retribution against our sinful ways. If I were going to look at things that are undermining the expression of the spirit of Christmas, I would worry a lot more about advertisements that define presents in terms of gifts of a new Lexus that will make your neighbors jealous than I would about stupid signs erected by insubstantial groups.
__________________
Jeff Goodwin
http://jeffgoodwin.com (http://jeffgoodwin.com/)
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/report.php?p=368857) Jeff
There is nothing wrong with someone not believing in God. That pretty standard. Nothing new.
But I see a problem with those who forcefull try to push their will and hatred on others and disrupt something viewed by many as wholesome.
I would think the same thing about a christian group who rudely forced themselves on an atheiest party.

I enjoy holding discussions with atheists and they seem to enjoy my reciprication. When people are courteous there is never any harm done and sometimes good stuff comes about because of it.

Its when the hatred starts to fly is when people get pissed and no one benefits. It doesn't matter if they are christian or have no beliefs. Hatetred eats a person up from the inside out.

Motivations are incredable ovious when and why people do things. and thasts on both sides of the isle. It doesn't take a huge brain with bulging eye balls to read the writing.
We are granted the right to hate in this country ,,,but I think it should stay in the closet and not forced down our throats,,, By either side,,,
But I have enjoyed conversations with atheists and understand why they believe as they do.
I might add there are many politicians full of hatred toward that which is wholesome . They hide behind their agendas

Pete

cotts135
12-09-2008, 07:42 AM
How were the atheists rights violated?
Don't know what your talking about, never said that there rights were violated

Hoosier
12-09-2008, 07:49 AM
Now that is Christmassy :)

Must have been the Colt 45

cotts135
12-09-2008, 07:50 AM
I think they have the legal right to do it. With that said just because you can do something within the law doesn't mean you should. It's rude, disrespectful, and they should get a boot in their ass for doing it. I'm not Catholic, does that mean I should go call a nun a bitch? Legally I probably can get away with it. I wouldn't because I shouldn't.

I can agree with you on some of those things. For instance the Supreme Court has ruled that Flag burning although as distasteful as it might be is an expression of Free speech and is allowed. I don't think you should do it but since it is allowed you shouldn't get a boot in the ass because you do.

cotts135
12-09-2008, 08:03 AM
I guess I agree with your sentiment, but I do not agree that they have a "right" to display what they displayed next to the nativity. It wasn't about simply speaking to the atheist point of view, it was put there specifically to stifle a Christian expression of faith.

They do not have the right to shut Christians up, or put Christians in their place as it seems that is their goal. Your right ..it is rude, but it is even more than that.
The sign the Aethist's put up was at the State Capitol Building in Olympia Washington. The Supreme Court has been consistent and clear about such displays and that once Government decides to allow one Religous display or point of view it can't discriminate and not allow another. You might not agree with it but yeah they are allowed to do it.
I fail to see where they are stifling any Christian expression of faith or trying to shut up people because of their Christian belief. It seems to me to be just the opposite is happening.

badbullgator
12-09-2008, 10:17 AM
So are you suggesting that the only public displays permitted during the "Christmas Season" would be Christian ones? And how exactly are you defining the "Christmas Season"? Right now it seems to start on Thanksgiving and continue until after New Years.

I believe in good manners and mutual respect in all dealings, including interactions among these with different religious beliefs. However, I don't expect others to defer to my beliefs and I don't see any reason why I should defer to the religious beliefs of others. This year Hanukkah begins on December 22. Are you suggesting that it should be rescheduled to stay out of the way of Christmas?

Personally I try to celebrate my beliefs every day that I am alive and am happy that I live in a country where that is not just possible but welcome.


I think everybody can practice what they want, however, I do not believe that they need to celebrate whatever it is atheist celebrate at the same time as Christians celebrate Christmas and Jews celebrate Hanukah. I feel this is even more true when the atheists feel that not only do they need to have a holiday during the same time, but they also feel the need to disparage the other groups calibration. If they want to have a holiday in January or June and have their own holiday season I will not feel the need to go put up signs next to their displays stating that they are WRONG, which is EXACTLY what they are doing in this case. Heck I will even join in the party, June has no exciting holidays so why not then? Seriously, Christmas as a holiday is a Christian Holiday. Why can’t those of other faiths just allow Christians to celebrate the season without having to cut in on it? There are 365 days in the year and Christmas is but one (given the “season” last nearly a month), leaving 364 OTHER DAYS for them. I don’t know much about the atheist “religion” but do they have a long standing tradition, 100’s of years, of celebrating during the Christmas season? I believe in freedom of religion, but I think raining on another’s parade is as close to being intolerant to another religion as you can be. They are shouting about their freedom while trying to take it from others.
From what I have seen and personally experienced this seems to be far more of an issue with the atheist than between any other religions. Jews are celebrating at the same time as Christians with no conflict (at least here). I have many friends that are Jews and I wish they Happy Holidays and they do the same to me. No conflict, I don’t beat them down and call them Christ killers and they don’t beat me down and say Christians are morons for believing in Christ.
I kind of look at it like this, Christians and Jews picked their days long, long ago. Those days are now like a hotel that is full. You are welcome anytime, but right now we cannot accommodate you so you will have to schedule for another date. Why is that such a problem? No one is forcing them to go to church or confess that Jesus is their savior. They don’t have to buy a single Christmas gift, a tree, a ham, or a single card if they chose not to. I promise that if the atheists pick a day as a holiday I will protest any attempt by Christians, Jews, or any other religion to interfere with their day(s).
Like old Rodney King said…”can’t we all just get along”?

Hoosier
12-09-2008, 12:37 PM
I can agree with you on some of those things. For instance the Supreme Court has ruled that Flag burning although as distasteful as it might be is an expression of Free speech and is allowed. I don't think you should do it but since it is allowed you shouldn't get a boot in the ass because you do.

I think this is the problem. People now think they can treat others as rude and disrespectful as they want without consequence. Maybe fear of getting their butt kicked would put some of these people on track. So yes I'm advocating slapping the rude.

cotts135
12-09-2008, 01:58 PM
I think everybody can practice what they want, however, I do not believe that they need to celebrate whatever it is atheist celebrate at the same time as Christians celebrate Christmas and Jews celebrate Hanukah. I feel this is even more true when the atheists feel that not only do they need to have a holiday during the same time, but they also feel the need to disparage the other groups calibration. If they want to have a holiday in January or June and have their own holiday season I will not feel the need to go put up signs next to their displays stating that they are WRONG, which is EXACTLY what they are doing in this case. Heck I will even join in the party, June has no exciting holidays so why not then? Seriously, Christmas as a holiday is a Christian Holiday. Why can’t those of other faiths just allow Christians to celebrate the season without having to cut in on it? There are 365 days in the year and Christmas is but one (given the “season” last nearly a month), leaving 364 OTHER DAYS for them. I don’t know much about the atheist “religion” but do they have a long standing tradition, 100’s of years, of celebrating during the Christmas season? I believe in freedom of religion, but I think raining on another’s parade is as close to being intolerant to another religion as you can be. They are shouting about their freedom while trying to take it from others.
From what I have seen and personally experienced this seems to be far more of an issue with the atheist than between any other religions. Jews are celebrating at the same time as Christians with no conflict (at least here). I have many friends that are Jews and I wish they Happy Holidays and they do the same to me. No conflict, I don’t beat them down and call them Christ killers and they don’t beat me down and say Christians are morons for believing in Christ.
I kind of look at it like this, Christians and Jews picked their days long, long ago. Those days are now like a hotel that is full. You are welcome anytime, but right now we cannot accommodate you so you will have to schedule for another date. Why is that such a problem? No one is forcing them to go to church or confess that Jesus is their savior. They don’t have to buy a single Christmas gift, a tree, a ham, or a single card if they chose not to. I promise that if the atheists pick a day as a holiday I will protest any attempt by Christians, Jews, or any other religion to interfere with their day(s).
Like old Rodney King said…”can’t we all just get along”?

I will go back to my analogy of the flag burning I might not like it which I don't but I respect their right to Free Speech. This is what makes America different than the rest of the world our ability to express our believes without recrimination. I certainly don't agree with what they have posted but again it is their right.
You seem to think this is a Freedom of Religion issue, I disagree, this is about Free speech. These people want equal opportunity to voice there opinions nothing more or nothing less. Nowhere are they asking to have a public holiday for themselves.
Another thing I don't understand is since when does posting a sign in a Public place equate with trying to take someones religion away from them. It would seem to me that that would only apply to someone insecure about their own beliefs.
Finally your humor and analogy's are very good:D

Steve Amrein
12-09-2008, 02:26 PM
I think the government offices that cave to this type of pressure should then be open for business. Then I Can go get my plates renewed.

Its also like a few years ago when I had a problem with some BS and long lines at walmart. The lady used the excuse "Sir you do know its busy at Christmas" My reply was since the store policy was to not acknowledge Christmas so your excuse does not hold water.

I had to add Merry Christmas on all of our holiday cards and all of our employees signed including those that held non Christian beliefs. both Jewish and Muslim folks I know are not threatened or offended with my Christian holiday any more than I am of there's. They seem happy for our holiday just as I do on theirs. If you can get a following and have a holiday for Darwin's birthday have at it.

Merry Christmas regards

badbullgator
12-09-2008, 02:41 PM
I will go back to my analogy of the flag burning I might not like it which I don't but I respect their right to Free Speech. This is what makes America different than the rest of the world our ability to express our believes without recrimination. I certainly don't agree with what they have posted but again it is their right.
You seem to think this is a Freedom of Religion issue, I disagree, this is about Free speech. These people want equal opportunity to voice there opinions nothing more or nothing less. Nowhere are they asking to have a public holiday for themselves.
Another thing I don't understand is since when does posting a sign in a Public place equate with trying to take someones religion away from them. It would seem to me that that would only apply to someone insecure about their own beliefs.
Finally your humor and analogy's are very good:D

I can go either way freedom of speach is fine too, but just becasue you have the right to do something does not mean it is right to do. By that token I have the right to call blacks niggers, Asians gooks, Polish Polocks.... I could do that becasue I have freedom of speech, but it is not the right thing to do (nor do I actually want to). Placing a sign knocking religion next to a religious display may be "free speech" but it not tolerant of others free speech. I have no problem with placing a giant sign along every interstate saying God id Dead or BS or whatever, but placing the same sign acroos the street from a church is mean sprited and an abuse of your freedoms. They ONLY reason the atheist want to display anything during this time of year is to disparage Christians and that is not right.
I never said it is trying to take their religion away by placing a sign. Please tell me in your opinion, what is the point of doing it though.

badbullgator
12-09-2008, 02:46 PM
I had to add Merry Christmas on all of our holiday cards and all of our employees signed including those that held non Christian beliefs. both Jewish and Muslim folks I know are not threatened or offended with my Christian holiday any more than I am of there's. They seem happy for our holiday just as I do on theirs. If you can get a following and have a holiday for Darwin's birthday have at it.

Merry Christmas regards

Steve
Most Christmas's I have at least two non Christians that I work with over for dinner. I can tell you neither of them are offended at our holiday and both are actually very much into "Christmas" just not for the religious reasons. They both have trees and buy and recieve presents and I can say one of them is actually way more into the "season" than I am. Both of them also enjoy Thanksgiving even though it has little or no significance to them. I think the people this was posted about are very much the vocal minority who only want to spoil things for others while preaching that they are in fact fighting for their freedom of speech or religion or lack of as the case may be

cotts135
12-09-2008, 05:06 PM
Placing a sign knocking religion next to a religious display may be "free speech" but it not tolerant of others free speech.


I never said it is trying to take their religion away by placing a sign. Please tell me in your opinion, what is the point of doing it though.

Agree with most of what your saying here. I am not sure I get your point that there not tolerant of others free speech. I really think it is much about nothing. One side puts up a display the other puts up a sign denouncing religion and it is all in a public place. I just think that people are a little more sensitive in this issue than they need to be.


They are shouting about their freedom while trying to take it from others.

Should have changed the word religion to Freedom.

I think they do it for equal time. Here is a quote from The Foundations Co president Dan Barker: ""Our members want equal time," Barker said. "Not to muscle, not to coerce, but just to have a place at the table."

Steve Amrein
12-09-2008, 05:52 PM
Maybe the Christian message should read non believers will go to hell and every day will be a 1000 times worse than the last.

Or

Have a Merry Christmas.


Maybe the atheist should get a PR person to word the sign

Its all in the delivery regards......

Patrick Johndrow
12-09-2008, 09:19 PM
Must have been the Colt 45

Sometimes a good boot to the ass is just what some people need for Christmas

badbullgator
12-10-2008, 06:41 AM
Agree with most of what your saying here. I am not sure I get your point that there not tolerant of others free speech. I really think it is much about nothing. One side puts up a display the other puts up a sign denouncing religion and it is all in a public place. I just think that people are a little more sensitive in this issue than they need to be.

I guess that what I am trying to say is everything does not HAVE to have equal time at EVERY moment in time. Just because someone says Praise the Lord, does not mean someone has to immediately jump up and say all praise to Satan, or all hail Mother Nature. You just don’t have to. More over you don't have to stand up and say your stupid for your beliefs or you are wrong and in this case who knows who is right and who is wrong. Doing this at this time is simple intolerance of others free speech because they feel the need to counter it. This is not about being left out, they can still have free speech and religious freedom, but they don’t have to mock someone else’s to do so.
I’ll say it again; having the right to do something does not make it right to do!



Should have changed the word religion to Freedom.

I think they do it for equal time. Here is a quote from The Foundations Co president Dan Barker: ""Our members want equal time," Barker said. "Not to muscle, not to coerce, but just to have a place at the table."

No they do it to say hey look at me, just like the gays. What do you need equal time for exactly, what are you selling? The notion that anyone needs equal time for anything is stupid. You don't always get what you want and for that matter you can have equal time, just not in this way and maybe not at this time. Take the month og June like I said before. I really don't even care if they put something up at Christmas, it is what they put up at Christmas that bothers me and where they put it up. Come on right next to a Christian display? They was no place down the hall or even 75 feet away where they could have displayed their sign> Insensativity on their part.
I would guess that with this statement you support the fairness doctrine as well?

cotts135
12-10-2008, 07:19 AM
No they do it to say hey look at me, just like the gays. What do you need equal time for exactly, what are you selling? The notion that anyone needs equal time for anything is stupid. You don't always get what you want and for that matter you can have equal time, just not in this way and maybe not at this time. Take the month og June like I said before. I really don't even care if they put something up at Christmas, it is what they put up at Christmas that bothers me and where they put it up. Come on right next to a Christian display? They was no place down the hall or even 75 feet away where they could have displayed their sign> Insensativity on their part.
I would guess that with this statement you support the fairness doctrine as well?

Absolutely they have an Agenda, that certainly is not news, What's wrong with that?

I think your views on equal time are misguided : To not allow them equal time or access in a public place such as a government building is discriminatory, is that something you favor? I think what is bothersome to those with strong religous believes, and some who don't feel as strongly. is this self righteous view that religion is absolute and just and that anyone who challenges that or doesn't believe in God is a heathen and therefore not worthy of consideration. Theocracies are like this.
Just a hypothetical question here, If for instance an aethist put up a display in a government building decrying religion, would you be opposed to a religious organization putting up a similiar display right next to the Aethist's which feautred what they believe?

Actually I don't believe in the Fairness doctrine for many reasons. Let the people decide what they want to listen to let's not have the Government decide for us. This issue is completely different than what we have been discussing.

badbullgator
12-10-2008, 09:37 AM
Absolutely they have an Agenda, that certainly is not news, What's wrong with that?

I think your views on equal time are misguided : To not allow them equal time or access in a public place such as a government building is discriminatory, is that something you favor?

Not at all what I am saying. I am not even saying they do not have the right to do this. I have never said this should not be allowed, what I have said is that this is at the very least insensitive of them. I give no respect to ANYONE or ANY GROUP that takes advantage of another person or groups event, holiday, or what have you to push their own agenda. This includes anti war protesters that stand outside OJ trail with signs, or any other such thing. There is a time and a place for everything. They are more than welcome to put up a display in a state building I really don’t care. Really! My point is they feel the need to rain on someone else’s parade – period. You still have not mentioned why you think it is RIGHT for them to do this now, not because they have the RIGHT, but why is it right right now? Why the push to do this at Christmas for any reason other than to mock Christianity? I don’t see the Hindu’s putting anything up, and if they did I would bet it would be about their own religion rather than to know the Jews, Christians, or even atheist for that matter. I think it is you that is misguided on what my views are and you are making something that I did not say an issue. Please show me where I EVER said it should not be allowed. I believe my statement several times now has been “just because it is a right, does not make it right” Do you not understand what I mean by that? You have the right to do many things but you (or at least most people with any values) know that sometimes you just don’t exercise that right. You have the right to say you hate white folks, but maybe the best time to express that right is not when you meet your future in-laws who just so happen to be white. Back to the point, please pull up and show me where I ever suggested discrimination or not ALLOWING anyone to exercise their rights. I have advocated people and groups using restraint and being sensitive to others, but never banning anyone form exercising their right.
I also never said they could not have equal time, but I did suggest that they take, not be forced, but take their equal time at another time in the sprit of kindness and respect for others.

I think what is bothersome to those with strong religous believes, and some who don't feel as strongly. is this self righteous view that religion is absolute and just and that anyone who challenges that or doesn't believe in God is a heathen and therefore not worthy of consideration. Theocracies are like this.


Please don’t presume that I fall into one of those groups. You know nothing of my religious beliefs or lack there of. IF this was not directed at me please disregard, however, by the same token the non religious also feel that their view is absolute. Not a single one of us knows for sure who is right and who is wrong in this debate. The atheist feel just as self righteous as Christians and this is a clear example of that.

Just a hypothetical question here, If for instance an aethist put up a display in a government building decrying religion, would you be opposed to a religious organization putting up a similiar display right next to the Aethist's which feautred what they believe?

Yes I would have a problem with Christians, Muslims, Hindu’s, doing the same to atheist for the very same reasons mentioned above. I am however, not totally against the atheist or Christians putting up competing signs or what have you in a timeframe that does not conflict with either’s “holy days” but it goes back to the respect and consideration for ones fellow man. If the atheist do in fact have a specific holiday they celebrate then by all means I would be against Christians, Jews or whoever basically protesting the atheist. If it just happens to be a day that has no special relevance to either side, by all means let the debate roll on. Don’t rain on someone else’s parade just to make yourself feel better. Here is a crib note for you…not saying it should not be ALLOWED, just that each should respect the other.

Actually I don't believe in the Fairness doctrine for many reasons. Let the people decide what they want to listen to let's not have the Government decide for us. This issue is completely different than what we have been discussing.

Not at all different when you bring "equal time into the debate". How ever said everybody gets equal time? Discrimination and equal time are two different things

YardleyLabs
12-10-2008, 09:56 AM
Not at all what I am saying. I am not even saying they do not have the right to do this. I have never said this should not be allowed, what I have said is that this is at the very least insensitive of them. I give no respect to ANYONE or ANY GROUP that takes advantage of another person or groups event, holiday, or what have you to push their own agenda. This includes anti war protesters that stand outside OJ trail with signs, or any other such thing. There is a time and a place for everything. They are more than welcome to put up a display in a state building I really don’t care. Really! My point is they feel the need to rain on someone else’s parade – period. [Please excuse the excerpt]

How do you feel about anti-abortion protesters outside of an abortion clinic?

When a particular activity is the reason for your protest, it doesn't make sense for your protest to be made anywhere except where the action is. I'm not saying this because I agree with the sign that was posted. The fact is that I am an atheist but I can't understand any reason why an atheist would care what another person believes as long as it doesn't seek to impose its beliefs on the government of our country. However, as a matter of free speech I believe they have the right to place their sign where it will be seen and make their point as long as it doesn't interfere with the equally free rights of expression of those putting up the nativity display. Those putting up the nativity display always have the option of placing their display on private property where there is no need to provide equal access. Why should they be using public property at all?

Hoosier
12-10-2008, 10:09 AM
My question is what are the Atheist's trying to accomplish with this campaign. Christians believe in Heaven and Hell, and are trying to keep people out of Hell. Whether or not you believe the same way, that shouldn't bother you. Atheist on the other hand seem to believe in nothing. I can't see what product they are trying to promote with these signs. Why would it be important to you to have other people come join you in your belief of nothing. So in my opinion the intent was only to cast a shadow on others celebration.

badbullgator
12-10-2008, 10:31 AM
[Please excuse the excerpt]

How do you feel about anti-abortion protesters outside of an abortion clinic?

First of all I don’t protest myself and I take no stance on abortion. Do I feel it is at the very least insensitive that they stand outside yelling at women because they do not believe the same thing as the protestors? Yes I do. Do they have that right? Yes they do. Would I chose to do it there? No and personally I think they are asshats for doing so. I try not to push my personal beliefs on others. I may think you are stupid for yours, but that is ok too, you can think I am stupid for the same reason it is ok with me. Kind of a little red herring here eh......

When a particular activity is the reason for your protest, it doesn't make sense for your protest to be made anywhere except where the action is.

So why are they protesting Christanity or Christmas? I thought this was about free speech not a protest.

I'm not saying this because I agree with the sign that was posted. The fact is that I am an atheist but I can't understand any reason why an atheist would care what another person believes as long as it doesn't seek to impose its beliefs on the government of our country.

And we agree on that.

However, as a matter of free speech I believe they have the right to place their sign where it will be seen and make their point as long as it doesn't interfere with the equally free rights of expression of those putting up the nativity display.

And again I agree, but as stated before if this is about free speech why do it now? You can have equal time, but why today? What is wrong with next month....? I never said this interfears with the rights of those displaying the nativity, I said it shows intolerence towrads those how put it up. I am sure that the atheist can get their message out just about anytime, it is just mean sprited to do it today and right next to the nativivty. Again they have the right but that does not mean it is right.

Those putting up the nativity display always have the option of placing their display on private property where there is no need to provide equal access.

Yes they do and many are on private property. Again just becasue you have the right doesn't make it right. I would have no problem with a sign or display from the atheist that did not specifically disparage Christianity as this one does. Since your an atheist I'll ask you is it your goal or is there an atheist doctrine that says you need to disparage all religion or is that just something you do for the fun of it? Again, why is equal time at the same time. If I get to swing on the swingset for an hour this morning and you get to swing for an hour this afternoon is that not equal time. Would you rather sit in my lap so we can have equal time at the same time?

Why should they be using public property at all?

I very much agree. Why should either group be doing so?




I still think your missing the point. I believe in free speech and everybodies right to exercise it. I just know that my parents taught me to respect others beliefs and feelings and I feel that this is a case of not respecting one another. Do as you want I don't care but don't worry about what I do as long as you don't degrage me for doing what I like and I don't degrade you for doing what you like.

Hoosier
12-10-2008, 10:33 AM
Would it impede on someones freedom of religion to put a sign on public property that taunts another religion. I think in this case it may. Using a public forum in an attempt to discredit someones religion. Your right to throw a punch ends at the tip of my nose

YardleyLabs
12-10-2008, 10:35 AM
My question is what are the Atheist's trying to accomplish with this campaign. Christians believe in Heaven and Hell, and are trying to keep people out of Hell. Whether or not you believe the same way, that shouldn't bother you. Atheist on the other hand seem to believe in nothing. I can't see what product they are trying to promote with these signs. Why would it be important to you to have other people come join you in your belief of nothing. So in my opinion the intent was only to cast a shadow on others celebration.

As I noted, I tend to agree with you. I have no interest in "converting" anyone to my beliefs. However, to provide a slightly different perspective, I can understand the perspective of an ignored minority wanting, every now and then, the yell out "we're here."

Corey noted this in an earlier post, comparing the atheists to gays saying "Hey, look at me." Both share the fact that they are minorities who are constantly being told by the majority that they have no reason to exist. The fact is that both do exist and have every right to exist.

After being denigrated and swept into a corner on an almost daily basis by representatives of the majority, I can understand the occasional desire to stand up and say "I'm here and, by the way, I think I'm right just as you believe that you are. Deal with it." Do I feel the need to do the same? No. However, every time I hear someone say that I should only express my beliefs where it will not upset the majority, I start thinking it may be time to buy my own bullhorn. I've never seen those in the "majority" apologize for expressing their beliefs in a manner that affects me.;-)

badbullgator
12-10-2008, 10:35 AM
My question is what are the Atheist's trying to accomplish with this campaign. Christians believe in Heaven and Hell, and are trying to keep people out of Hell. Whether or not you believe the same way, that shouldn't bother you. Atheist on the other hand seem to believe in nothing. I can't see what product they are trying to promote with these signs. Why would it be important to you to have other people come join you in your belief of nothing. So in my opinion the intent was only to cast a shadow on others celebration.


Good point I don’t believe in ghost, so why would I go to a cemetery or even a haunted house at Halloween and put up a sign denouncing ghost? If you don’t believe in something why do you care that others do?

YardleyLabs
12-10-2008, 10:40 AM
Good point I don’t believe in ghost, so why would I go to a cemetery or even a haunted house at Halloween and put up a sign denouncing ghost? If you don’t believe in something why do you care that others do?

If I stand up in public and say God does not exist and you stand up and say he does, am I attacking you, are you attacking me, or are we both stating our beliefs?

badbullgator
12-10-2008, 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by badbullgator http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=369601#post369601)
Good point I don’t believe in ghost, so why would I go to a cemetery or even a haunted house at Halloween and put up a sign denouncing ghost? If you don’t believe in something why do you care that others do?

If I stand up in public and say God does not exist and you stand up and say he does, am I attacking you, are you attacking me, or are we both stating our beliefs?


Clue me in. How does that statement have anything to do with anybody attacking anybody? Use you reading skills. IF you don’t believe in something why make an issue out of it? I don’t believe in ghost, why put up a sign saying they don’t exist if I don’t believe in them? What does this have to do with your question?

Now taking your question with out relating it to that quote… No neither of us is attacking anyone. If, however, you chose to come to a church and stand up and say there is no God the implication is that yes you are attacking an entire group that is their to practice what they believe in. Same is true if a Christian comes to your meeting place while you guys are discussing what you don’t believe in and says there is a God, the implication is that they are attacking your beliefs, but then again you don’t believe in anything……….
There is a time and a place for everything. You are in Starbucks and someone says there is a God and you then say there is no God, hey it is all good. Time and place, respect, and acceptance. NOTE: I am not implying that Christians are accepting, in fact far form it, bad eggs in every group.

I think I am pretty much done with this debate. In summary

I believe everyone has the right to free speech and religion
I believe everyone has the right to be recognized for what they are
I believe that people should respect one another and not uses someone else’s “special” time or event to disparage that group.
I believe that most people’s parents taught them manners and that many people have forgot about not hurting others feelings for no real reason.
I believe that just because it is your right does not always make it right or appropriate.

Steve Amrein
12-10-2008, 11:29 AM
Speaking of "Gay" I called in Gay today . Not in support, but a front is moving thru and I was thinking it would push some ducks :)

K.Bullock
12-10-2008, 01:18 PM
If I stand up in public and say God does not exist and you stand up and say he does, am I attacking you, are you attacking me, or are we both stating our beliefs?
If we are in a public setting ...we are simply spouting off. If you obtain a permit to put up a display extolling the virtues of atheism , and I find this out and obtain a permit to put up a display with the intent of discrediting you ...I am attacking.


I do not believe that in order to be heard or recognized that a group has to denigrate another or has a right to. I view this same as if someone put up a banner saying the holocaust did not happen at a memorial to holocaust victims. It is not an alternative view; it is an outright attack on Jews.


You mentioned the gay thing so I will just say this, I think it is ridiculous for them to want to be “married “ when they are already entitled to a civil union that grants them the same rights as married couples as far as taxes and insurance are concerned. I don’t see the point for them to use the term married as that is a Christian ceremony and does not agree with a gay life style.That said …who cares if they marry or what they do …as long as they do not try to push it on me or try to redefine my beliefs and values to fit theirs. Just leave me and mine out of it and we will get along just fine.


Truth be told I do not feel the Christian faith is threatened by gay marriage as much as it is by Christians who are participating in a rising divorce rate in the church, as well as by Christians who are not willing to put the time into their families that they should in order to build a strong family unit.


Regardless, Christians do not have to do anything special in order to freely practice their religion unmolested, it is their right. No one has the constitutional right to equal time and equal say. Not yet at least.

YardleyLabs
12-10-2008, 03:01 PM
If we are in a public setting ...we are simply spouting off. If you obtain a permit to put up a display extolling the virtues of atheism , and I find this out and obtain a permit to put up a display with the intent of discrediting you ...I am attacking.
Which is why, as I noted very early in this thread, I feel the sign was rude. However, it is their right as long as public property is being used for both displays.



I do not believe that in order to be heard or recognized that a group has to denigrate another or has a right to. I view this same as if someone put up a banner saying the holocaust did not happen at a memorial to holocaust victims. It is not an alternative view; it is an outright attack on Jews.
I also agree with this. I couldn't read the text of the sign in the photo so I don't know whether it ws an attack or a statement. With the Washington DC example you posted in another thread I thought the sentiments expressed clearly fell in the category of a statement that was seasonally appropriate and in no way an attack.



You mentioned the gay thing so I will just say this, I think it is ridiculous for them to want to be “married “ when they are already entitled to a civil union that grants them the same rights as married couples as far as taxes and insurance are concerned. I don’t see the point for them to use the term married as that is a Christian ceremony and does not agree with a gay life style.That said …who cares if they marry or what they do …as long as they do not try to push it on me or try to redefine my beliefs and values to fit theirs. Just leave me and mine out of it and we will get along just fine.


This is obviously a much broader discussion and probably warrants its own thread. Marriage, as defined in civil law, is essentially a special form of legal partnership. The laws surrounding marriage deal with issues of sharing property, sharing liabilities, sharing child raising responsibilities, and, when needed, dissolving the partnership.

The definitions of marriage in civil law have little or nothing to do with the definitions of marriage in religious law. The fact that most states have defined standards for what constitutes a "common law" marriage underscore the importance of the having the framework of civil law when health/death affect these partnerships or when these partnerships are dissolved. Those civil rights and responsibilities, in my mind, should apply equally and without distinction whether the "civil unions" involved are between heterosexual couples or homosexual couples. Both have the same needs. Whether those unions are called "marriage" or "civil union" is not particularly relevant.

The simple solution would be to eliminate the use of the term marriage altogether from civil law. Let them all be called civil unions. If heterosexual couples find that unacceptable, then I have to believe it's because the two are not, in fact, equal. I do not see how, in any way, the institution of civil marriage of heterosexual couples is affected by whether or not homosexual couples marry as well. Will the heterosexual divorce rate go up? Leave the issue of church marriage to be decided by individual churches. In my church, gay couples have been able to be "married" for many many years. I can assure you that this has had no impact either on the sexual orientation of anyone or the marriage or divorce rate of heterosexuals.



Truth be told I do not feel the Christian faith is threatened by gay marriage as much as it is by Christians who are participating in a rising divorce rate in the church, as well as by Christians who are not willing to put the time into their families that they should in order to build a strong family unit.


Regardless, Christians do not have to do anything special in order to freely practice their religion unmolested, it is their right.

I agree completely.



No one has the constitutional right to equal time and equal say. Not yet at least.
When it comes to using public resources for religious expression, the fact is that different groups must be given equal access. That may be no access as has happened in some areas despite vehement opposition from Christian groups, or universal access which was the policy under which the atheist sign was aloowed to be placed.

badbullgator
12-11-2008, 06:51 AM
Maybe this is the question; If the state building was open for displays and the nativity or any other Christian symbol was NOT put up, and say only Christmas trees (I don’t perceive that as a religious symbol), snowmen, and silver bells where up as decorations, do you think they atheist would sill be inclined to put up a sign decrying religion? My guess is in this case NO. The billboard they are putting up in Washington is of course a different matter because it is about Christmas in general, so I am specifically taking about the other and not the billboard. This is what I mean by them, the atheist, being mean spirited and attacking someone else for their expression of religion. In this instance it is a protest and NOT a display simply of ones values or beliefs. If there were no Christian display there would be no atheist display. Again it is their right, but if this is the case is does not make it right.

Jeff, just wondering, and I know your not saying that you feel the same way as these guys and take the live and let live attitude, but do you “celebrate” Christmas…by that I mean do you put up a tree, lights, give presents, cards? Just curious because I know many non Christians that do.

Pete
12-11-2008, 09:38 AM
The simple solution would be to eliminate the use of the term marriage altogether from civil law. Let them all be called civil unions. If heterosexual couples find that unacceptable, then I have to believe it's because the two are not, in fact, equal. I do not see how, in any way, the institution of civil marriage of heterosexual couples is affected by whether or not homosexual couples marry as well. Will the heterosexual divorce rate go up? Leave the issue of church marriage to be decided by individual churches. In my church, gay couples have been able to be "married" for many many years. I can assure you that this has had no impact either on the sexual orientation of anyone or the marriage or divorce rate of heterosexuals.



Jeff
I feel that by changing words and watering down their meaning we are moving the boundries for social acceptances
Soon we will be having civil unions between people and animals,, hell if animals have equal rights than logically you can follow that path. Because there is always some unsatified weirdo with all the time and money in the world to lobby their ideas.

No one cares if gays live together ,,but why should we give them tax breaks the same as a marrage between man and a woman.
We have gone from gays being perverted or mental illness pre 7o,s
to gays being tolerated
to gays being just an alternative life style
to gays being exacly like a non gay
to gay people marrying gay people and calling it the same thing as a marrage between man and a woman.

Guess what ,,,the action is still a mental illness just as it was since man begun. The smarter we become the more stupit we are.
Child molesters are also attracted to a socially disgusting behavior.
They also have made leaps and bounds in their progress to be equal in our society. You know they cant help it please re habilitate me crap. Its one thing thinking those thoughts and its another acting them out.
When will this lunacy stop
Someday it will be illegal to be straight
We live in a really weird world where ever body has to accept everybodies life styles.

The boundries have been moved a little at a time.. so no one notices,, in all catagories of life,,,,who knows what will happen after the generations that have live through this transition are gone.
It will be a free for all. There will be no rational to hold back the perversions. and keep them in check.
but ,I guess what people don't know won't hurt them untill its to late and everybody will be sitting around with their thumbs up the ass trying to figure out why.

We will suffer the same fate as Rome. We have grown so fat and appethetic that we have compromised our standards so that anything goes
And please spare the biggot commontaries. (not you Jeff )( but some others will throw that one out)

Life has standards regaurds
Pete

YardleyLabs
12-11-2008, 11:08 AM
Maybe this is the question; If the state building was open for displays and the nativity or any other Christian symbol was NOT put up, and say only Christmas trees (I don’t perceive that as a religious symbol), snowmen, and silver bells where up as decorations, do you think they atheist would sill be inclined to put up a sign decrying religion? My guess is in this case NO. The billboard they are putting up in Washington is of course a different matter because it is about Christmas in general, so I am specifically taking about the other and not the billboard. This is what I mean by them, the atheist, being mean spirited and attacking someone else for their expression of religion. In this instance it is a protest and NOT a display simply of ones values or beliefs. If there were no Christian display there would be no atheist display. Again it is their right, but if this is the case is does not make it right.

Jeff, just wondering, and I know your not saying that you feel the same way as these guys and take the live and let live attitude, but do you “celebrate” Christmas…by that I mean do you put up a tree, lights, give presents, cards? Just curious because I know many non Christians that do.

Actually Corey, as I believe I said in an earlier post, I love celebrating Christmas. I no longer put up a tree since my children are grown and we celebrate in my daughter's house (I'm also allergic to the trees:(). However, we tend to treat it as a 2-3 holiday involving an extended family including Christians, Jews, atheists, agnostics, and Muslims.

Over the years we have decommercialized the holiday some, giving fewer presents with more presents that we have made ourselves, and combining the holiday with more volunteer activities. On December 22, I will help organize and photograph a Christmas party that we do every year for homeless children. Each child will receive a pre-paid credit card that they can use to buy gifts for themselves or their family/friends, separate gifts that we have purchsed and wrapped for them, and mittens, scarfs and hats that members of my church bring in to hang from our "mitten tree". I may not be Christian in a religious sense, but my morality is definitely Judeo-Christian in origen and I have no reservations celebrating a man who helped awaken feelings of charity and compassion in so many.

YardleyLabs
12-11-2008, 11:51 AM
Pete,

I will admit that I did not grow up with a tolerance for homosexuality. I was sexually molested twice as a child -- once where the man involved killed himself when he was caught by the police -- and that, combined with a fairly traditional kid's view of "pansies" did not leave me feeling very charitable.

My feelings began to change over time as I grew up, and as I met more and more people who were gay. I saw the effects of homosexuals who had married heterosexuals in an effort to "cure" themselves. The results injured everyone involved. I also saw committed couples who stayed together for decades despite all the barriers placed in their paths.

When I joined a church that welcomed gays, my exposure grew since more than 20% of our congregation is homosexual. All those little "preferences" we give to heterosexual couples are in fact very important. Fortunately, more hospitals will allow a homosexual "partner" in to see the patient almost as if they were family. However, where children object, a homosexual partner may be excluded completely from the bedside of a dying loved one. Because they cannot marry, partners cannot be "next of kin" without elaborate legal steps that may still prove fragile in the face of other family objections. One couple I know -- both women -- lived together as a couple for more than 30 years before one of them died. All of their assets were jointly owned and each had a will naming the other as her sole heir. However, that did not prevent there from being serious problems that almost led to the surviving spouse losing the house that they shared for the last 20 years of their relationship.

We live in a world where durable, loving relationships are the exception, not the rule, and where half of all marriages end in divorce. Gays are often criticized for promiscuity. However, when loving people have a relationship that would be celebrated for its success between a man and a woman, our current laws provide no support and may simply condemn it. To me, that makes no sense. I understand those who have different religious traditions, although I would point out that some of those same traditions tolerated slavery. I do not believe that those traditions justify discriminating against unions of homosexual people in civil law in a country that has held to a "wall of separation" between church and state for more than 200 years.

With respect to the molestations I suffered as a child, I finally figured out that there is a big difference between homosexuality and pedophilia. The man who molested me and killed himself had done the same to many other children -- both boys and girls.

Pete
12-11-2008, 02:21 PM
Jeff
I think maby you missed a point that I was trying to make.
I also have friends that are homosexuals ,,,well 2 anyway.
I have nothing against them as people. They are good people.
I think many a child molester has been refered to as really nice people by their next door neighbor.
I guess my point is that I should,t be able to collect retriremant unless I am elegible for it. The rules say I must be a certain age.
Well the rules forever until recently was marraige between a boy and a girl. For some it goes much deeper than that.
To me it is a moving of social boundries. We accept more and more perversions including what government does. I am not just talking sexual pervertions but social perversions also.
They have shown up in the deteriorizing ethics in government and society.
Its all happening because we keep moving the standards.
We have gone from no movement on the line to creeping to screaming and whining.

whast you have left from lack of standards is the practice that everything goes as long as you don;t hurt anyone.
I consider many of our school systems to be mentally abusive to our children., because what is taught goes against what many parents
teach their childen.

Maby more later gotta get back to work
Pete
I don't want my kids taught weird stuff.

Buster Brown
12-11-2008, 03:20 PM
Geez won't all these athiests feel justified as they burn in hell.

badbullgator
12-11-2008, 04:19 PM
Am I wrong in thinking that you can name anyone as beneficiary to your life insurance? You can leave anything of yours to anyone in your will. You can name anyone as being able to have your medical information shared with. Many companies offer “partner” insurance and unless one of the couple does not work they should both get insurance from their employer anyway. What exactly is it that gays want as far as marriage goes? Christ are they looking to be able to get divorced? What is it they don’t have exactly? The only thing I can think of is recognition and again to say hey look at me. All marriage is about anyway is having children otherwise heterosexual couples would have no need to do it in my eyes either. Marriage has long been defined as man and woman and again basically for the purpose of having children. I don’t care if your gay or not, it makes no difference to me. I have several gay friends and many gay acquaintances and I honestly don’t give they sexuality a thought (well ok maybe a few lesbian couples I give a thought too, but I digress). I just am really not sure why the need to get married?
Interesting that I just saw a story on the news about how a big fad now is to get married “without the paper”. Then a friend just told me he was “getting married without the paper”. Funny gays are fighting to get the paper and heteros are rebelling against the papers.

YardleyLabs
12-11-2008, 09:37 PM
Am I wrong in thinking that you can name anyone as beneficiary to your life insurance? You can leave anything of yours to anyone in your will. You can name anyone as being able to have your medical information shared with. Many companies offer “partner” insurance and unless one of the couple does not work they should both get insurance from their employer anyway. What exactly is it that gays want as far as marriage goes? Christ are they looking to be able to get divorced? What is it they don’t have exactly? The only thing I can think of is recognition and again to say hey look at me. All marriage is about anyway is having children otherwise heterosexual couples would have no need to do it in my eyes either. Marriage has long been defined as man and woman and again basically for the purpose of having children. I don’t care if your gay or not, it makes no difference to me. I have several gay friends and many gay acquaintances and I honestly don’t give they sexuality a thought (well ok maybe a few lesbian couples I give a thought too, but I digress). I just am really not sure why the need to get married?
Interesting that I just saw a story on the news about how a big fad now is to get married “without the paper”. Then a friend just told me he was “getting married without the paper”. Funny gays are fighting to get the paper and heteros are rebelling against the papers.

Interestingly, divorce has been one of the real problems with civil unions. By defining them differently from marriage, the divorce laws didn't apply meaning there was no legal framework for terminating the relationship. You cal, with an effort, achieve many "equivalent" ways of handling things as an unmarried couple. However, these are only partially effective. Many gay couples have children (most in my church do), and need all the protections afforded other families with children. Issues of inheritance can be complicated if there is any other family since the laws of many (most?) states provide restrictions on inheritance giving preferences for family members that can override bequests to non family members. Even issues such as decisions on funeral arrangements are complicated. Family law is very well developed. Short of a provision that says simply that couples joined in a civil union have all the rights, obligations, and privileges of a married couple, I do not believe it is feasible to provide equivalent legal protection homosexual couples. I lobbying to get those privileges, I think recognition is the least of concerns. In fact, most in my church have that already.

YardleyLabs
12-11-2008, 09:38 PM
Geez won't all these athiests feel justified as they burn in hell.

Each to his own beliefs. I will admit that this particular issue is one that has never concerned me in the slightest.

cotts135
12-12-2008, 06:57 AM
All marriage is about anyway is having children otherwise heterosexual couples would have no need to do it
Tell me your not serious.




.
Marriage has long been defined as man and woman and again basically for the purpose of having children.

Let's not forget that the definition included polygamy.

badbullgator
12-12-2008, 07:26 AM
Interestingly, divorce has been one of the real problems with civil unions. By defining them differently from marriage, the divorce laws didn't apply meaning there was no legal framework for terminating the relationship. You cal, with an effort, achieve many "equivalent" ways of handling things as an unmarried couple. However, these are only partially effective. Many gay couples have children (most in my church do), and need all the protections afforded other families with children. Issues of inheritance can be complicated if there is any other family since the laws of many (most?) states provide restrictions on inheritance giving preferences for family members that can override bequests to non family members. Even issues such as decisions on funeral arrangements are complicated. Family law is very well developed. Short of a provision that says simply that couples joined in a civil union have all the rights, obligations, and privileges of a married couple, I do not believe it is feasible to provide equivalent legal protection homosexual couples. I lobbying to get those privileges, I think recognition is the least of concerns. In fact, most in my church have that already.


Jeff you are an interesting son of a gun. What church do atheist like yourself attend?

Marvin S
12-12-2008, 08:10 AM
What church do atheist like yourself attend?

;) :) :) :) :)

YardleyLabs
12-12-2008, 08:54 AM
Jeff you are an interesting son of a gun. What church do atheist like yourself attend?

Unitarian-Universalist although my background is pure Unitarian.

K.Bullock
12-12-2008, 08:56 AM
Which is why, as I noted very early in this thread, I feel the sign was rude. However, it is their right as long as public property is being used for both displays.


I also agree with this. I couldn't read the text of the sign in the photo so I don't know whether it ws an attack or a statement. With the Washington DC example you posted in another thread I thought the sentiments expressed clearly fell in the category of a statement that was seasonally appropriate and in no way an attack.

Alright then, it was at least a jab.;)




This is obviously a much broader discussion and probably warrants its own thread. Marriage, as defined in civil law, is essentially a special form of legal partnership. The laws surrounding marriage deal with issues of sharing property, sharing liabilities, sharing child raising responsibilities, and, when needed, dissolving the partnership.

The definitions of marriage in civil law have little or nothing to do with the definitions of marriage in religious law. The fact that most states have defined standards for what constitutes a "common law" marriage underscore the importance of the having the framework of civil law when health/death affect these partnerships or when these partnerships are dissolved. Those civil rights and responsibilities, in my mind, should apply equally and without distinction whether the "civil unions" involved are between heterosexual couples or homosexual couples. Both have the same needs. Whether those unions are called "marriage" or "civil union" is not particularly relevant.

The simple solution would be to eliminate the use of the term marriage altogether from civil law. Let them all be called civil unions. If heterosexual couples find that unacceptable, then I have to believe it's because the two are not, in fact, equal. I do not see how, in any way, the institution of civil marriage of heterosexual couples is affected by whether or not homosexual couples marry as well. Will the heterosexual divorce rate go up? Leave the issue of church marriage to be decided by individual churches. In my church, gay couples have been able to be "married" for many many years. I can assure you that this has had no impact either on the sexual orientation of anyone or the marriage or divorce rate of heterosexuals.

I highlighted in bold, a position have been chewing on personally. Not that my personal opinion has much affect on public policy. My tendency is to agree with your statement. Let marriages be the domain of the church and civil unions for those who want nothing to do with the church.

Growing up I lived in a very conservative neighborhood in Columbus, Ohio. A house went up for sale across from us and was purchased by two women who turned out to be a couple. Initially the neighbors threw a fit, after a while however they became a part of the neighborhood, they were good neighbors who took care of their property. They also let me use a field they owned next to their house to train my dog. This to me made them great neighbors.


All that to say, my opposition to gay marriage isn't out of a hatred for gays, and I probably would not oppose it as long as it does not change the definition of what the church believes it to be, and as long as church's are not required by law to perform and recognize marriages that go against their beliefs. Catholic adoption agencies are fighting with the government in Britain right now because they are threatened with being forced to adopt kids out to homosexual couples. Obviously that goes against their religious convictions.




When it comes to using public resources for religious expression, the fact is that different groups must be given equal access. That may be no access as has happened in some areas despite vehement opposition from Christian groups, or universal access which was the policy under which the atheist sign was aloowed to be placed.
Is atheism a religion now? I thought their sign said there was no religion. What if muslims had put their statement of faith next to he display. " Allah is the one and only true god there is no god but allah and mohammad is his messenger" Is that equal time? Or the beginning of a religious war on the statehouse steps.

I think the atheists knew what they were doing and were hoping for a reaction, unfortunately they are getting a big one.

What else can we cover in this thread?:D

YardleyLabs
12-12-2008, 08:57 AM
Jeff you are an interesting son of a gun. What church do atheist like yourself attend?

Unitarian-Universalist although my background is pure Unitarian. My father converted to Unitarianism in 1941 and was a fo9unding member of the Unitarian Church in Oak Ridge TN. I was the first child "dedicated" in that church in 1950. I attend church regularly and have served as Board member and Treasurer. About 20-30% of Unitarians categorize themselves as atheists or agnostics. This is slightly higher than the number that classify themselves as Christians.

K.Bullock
12-12-2008, 09:06 AM
Tell me your not serious.




.

Let's not forget that the definition included polygamy.
Yeah how crazy was that? If you notice though in those days women were required to leave town for a week out of each month, during their menstrual cycle. And the guys had an entire desert to escape into. That could explain why guys in the old testament were constantly getting lost in the desert?:razz:

Pete
12-12-2008, 09:55 AM
All marriage is about anyway is having children otherwise heterosexual couples would have no need to do it in my eyes either. Marriage has long been defined as man and woman and again basically for the purpose of having children. I don’t care if your gay or not, it makes no difference to me. I have several gay friends and many gay acquaintances and I honestly don’t give they sexuality a thought (well ok maybe a few lesbian couples I give a thought too, but I digress). I just am really not sure why the need to get married?
Interesting that I just saw a story

Actually biblically its one of the biggest deals of all. It is one of the greatest examples of the "mystery"
JC being the bridegroom and the church being the bride.
It has spiritual implications beyond which most christians haven't even considered or carred about.

If a person was the type of christian that wanted to know what the bible says about it they would be blown away with how huge and how mathmatically accurate from a biblical,astronomical,physical,mental, this topic is.
That is according to God anyway.
Divorce happens because people don't really vow to God they just mutter the words in the ceremony and never give the implications a second thought. Hell they could give 2 sh!!Ts about God.
Since marraige is a Godly institution made by him for the the purpose of his people,he doesn't recognize marrage to people who don/t believe in him. Although unbelievers can reap all the benefits of marrage in Gods eyes its just a piece of paper to him.
Here is the kicker,,,,the bible was never written for the God rejecter
It was only written to whomsoever will believe. So if someone rejects God now but down the road the light comes on,,then he is no longer a rejecter. right,,,I thought I throw that in there because I could just smell the responses coming from that statement. Thats new testement.
Old testement was to Isreal,,and not to anyone else. Prosylites were considered pretty low on the totem pole.

So I figured since God is the auther of marrage I would give you a split second worth of info to give you a small portion of his views.
The info on this subject alone would fill a large library but I'll spare you the sermon:p
Most people do not have the interst to delve into this stuff. But its all there in black and white

So my point is if you want to find out about marrage ,,then go to the soarce of origin about marrage
Pete

YardleyLabs
12-12-2008, 11:10 AM
So Pete, does that mean you would be OK with taking government out of God's business by eliminating marriage from civil law altogether and simply have civil unions available to any willing to make the necessary commitments regardless of gender?:D

K.Bullock
12-12-2008, 11:21 AM
[QUOTE=Pete;370598]Actually biblically its one of the biggest deals of all. It is one of the greatest examples of the "mystery"
JC being the bridegroom and the church being the bride.
It has spiritual implications beyond which most christians haven't even considered or carred about.
Not really, it has turned into that over time, the apostle Paul viewed marriage as a necessity for those who could not forsake sexual relations and devote themselves entirely to God. He did outline some very challenging ideas about marriage in Ephesians 5 that challenges husbands to love their wives as Jesus loves the church, which is not at all what I hear preached by some or lived out by many. It is much easier to criticize other people and their lifestyles.


Divorce happens because people don't really vow to God they just mutter the words in the ceremony and never give the implications a second thought. Hell they could give 2 sh!!Ts about God.
Since marraige is a Godly institution made by him for the the purpose of his people,he doesn't recognize marrage to people who don/t believe in him.Divorce happens for a lot of reasons. I have known some very committed Christians who have divorced under circumstances I hope to never go through. I guess that is why when Peter asked about John's future Jesus told him to mind his business.



Here is the kicker,,,,the bible was never written for the God rejecter
It was only written to whomsoever will believe.
I disagree. God inspired the bible specifically for those that reject him which is nearly everyone at some time or another. Including Jesus disciples.

So if someone rejects God now but down the road the light comes on,,then he is no longer a rejecter. right,,,I thought I throw that in there because I could just smell the responses coming from that statement. Agreed

Thats new testement.
Old testement was to Isreal,,and not to anyone else. Prosylites were considered pretty low on the totem pole. Some believe they are one in the same, the old testament is the new testament veiled and the new testament is the old revealed.


So I figured since God is the auther of marrage I would give you a split second worth of info to give you a small portion of his views.
The info on this subject alone would fill a large library but I'll spare you the sermon:p
Most people do not have the interst to delve into this stuff. But its all there in black and white
Interesting, the more I delve into the doctrines of the faith that are not necessary for salvation, the more gray things get. And the less I am willing to stand on absolutes that are not necessary to salvation. Or clear in their biblical interpretation.


One of the kids from our youth group at church is getting married and sent this video along with an e-mail.

good stuff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBJVrkRxIJQ&eurl=http://www.facebook.com/wall.php?id=1383069502&banter_id=1033743098&show_all&feature=player_embedded

Steve Amrein
12-12-2008, 11:36 AM
Jeff I have a question. I have been in most versions of Christian churches as well as Jewish temples and even a Islamic center. Best I can tell all believe in a higher power and that is basis on their faith. I thought that Atheist did not believe in a higher power so I am missing the point of belief in nothing. I hope my wording does not come off as flippant I am just confused.

Tatyana
12-12-2008, 11:57 AM
What exactly is it that gays want as far as marriage goes?

Joint tax returns, unlimited marital deduction, gift-splitting, etc. Tax reasons.

YardleyLabs
12-12-2008, 12:12 PM
Joint tax returns, unlimited marital deduction, gift-splitting, etc. Tax reasons.

Why would you think that their reasons are any different from those of heterosexuals.

Tatyana
12-12-2008, 12:35 PM
Why would you think that their reasons are any different from those of heterosexuals.

I don't. If you're trying to read my mind, you're doing a poor job of it.

YardleyLabs
12-12-2008, 12:40 PM
Jeff I have a question. I have been in most versions of Christian churches as well as Jewish temples and even a Islamic center. Best I can tell all believe in a higher power and that is basis on their faith. I thought that Atheist did not believe in a higher power so I am missing the point of belief in nothing. I hope my wording does not come off as flippant I am just confused.

By their nature, atheists would be difficult to consider as a cohesive group, so I can only speak for myself. I do not believe in any "higher" power that created the world or in any way directs or protects it, and I do not believe in any form of afterlife. It's not that i reject these notions, but simply that nothing in my experience gives me any reason to believe they exist.

Having said that, I do believe that there is something innately sacred about life in all of its manifestations. I believe that altruism is as much an evolutionary imperative as reproduction but that, as humans, we have proven over and over our ability to make decisions that flirt with evolutionary disaster.

I believe that we make our own immortality by the ripples we leave behind -- our children, the people we have helped, the things in our world that we have made better, and even our dogs. I also believe that morality is a personal responsibility and too important to be blamed on God or any other entity outside of ourselves. I find Unitarianism very consistent with my beliefs because it focuses on how we live our lives in relation to each other and to the world rather than on what we may profess to believe. It recognizes that all individuals are engaged in personal journeys to find meaning in their lives and commits to being supportive of those efforts without pretending that one person's truth needs to be universal.

If I have any dispute with more traditional religious beliefs it is in two areas: the belief that one religion is in some manner correct and that others are wrong; and the belief that you can achieve salvation (or damnation) by believing the right (or wrong) thing without regard to the morality of your acts. For what it's worth, I do not believe that Jesus was wedded to either of these beliefs. I feel they were brought in much later because each of these beliefs tends to increase the institutional power of an organized church over its members. This was the explicit purpose of the First Council of Nicaea which was convened for the primary purpose of defining the parameters of a church that would help stabilize an empire and reinforce the power of the state. In my own beliefs, I view almost all religious dogma as an exercise in power more than morality.

YardleyLabs
12-12-2008, 12:46 PM
I don't. If you're trying to read my mind, you're doing a poor job of it.
Not trying to read your mind at all, only to understand. Does that mean that heterosexuals marry primarily for tax reasons? When I got married I actually lost a lot of money in taxes since the "marriage penalty" was far greater than all the benefits combined. I have to admit that I never once considered those costs or benefits as I steeled myself to "pop the question" or when I happily said "I do."

K.Bullock
12-12-2008, 01:38 PM
If I have any dispute with more traditional religious beliefs it is in two areas: the belief that one religion is in some manner correct and that others are wrong; and the belief that you can achieve salvation (or damnation) by believing the right (or wrong) thing without regard to the morality of your acts. For what it's worth, I do not believe that Jesus was wedded to either of these beliefs. I feel they were brought in much later because each of these beliefs tends to increase the institutional power of an organized church over its members. This was the explicit purpose of the First Council of Nicaea which was convened for the primary purpose of defining the parameters of a church that would help stabilize an empire and reinforce the power of the state. In my own beliefs, I view almost all religious dogma as an exercise in power more than morality.
I am not sure what you mean by "the belief that you can achieve salvation (or damnation) by believing the right (or wrong) thing without regard to the morality of your acts." It is the orthodox Christian belief that salvation comes from Christ alone through faith in God alone. It is called justification, which is a big deal because it is Martin Luther's position on salvation that began the reformation. Right acts come from being a believer. Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi , his deity aside, he would have held on to the exclusivity of the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. And nothing in his teachings would contradict that.

The first council of Nicea had very little to do with government, that would be apparent just from the diversity of churches represented at the council. It was called by Constantine in 625 to shore up important aspects of common necessary doctrine between several churches to combat heresy and false teaching. Today they would be combating the health and wealth wack jobs we see on TV.

Tatyana
12-12-2008, 01:41 PM
Not trying to read your mind at all, only to understand. Does that mean that heterosexuals marry primarily for tax reasons? When I got married I actually lost a lot of money in taxes since the "marriage penalty" was far greater than all the benefits combined. I have to admit that I never once considered those costs or benefits as I steeled myself to "pop the question" or when I happily said "I do."

I nowhere said that tax reasons are primary. Someone mentioned wills, I just added to a list of reasons why they might want to have marriage over a civil union.

Pete
12-12-2008, 01:47 PM
QuoteNot really, it has turned into that over time, the apostle Paul viewed marriage as a necessity for those who could not forsake sexual relations and devote themselves entirely to God. He did outline some very challenging ideas about marriage in Ephesians 5 that challenges husbands to love their wives as Jesus loves the church, which is not at all what I hear preached by some or lived out by many. It is much easier to criticize other people and their lifestyles. unquote
As a matter of fact read what Paul says before he says that.:cool:

You have taken 1 verse out of the bible and built your own interpretation around it. You haven't even considered the context in which Paul was speaking in.
And I could feed you a library of info on this topic also.
Spare me the sunday school mentality.


QuoteDivorce happens for a lot of reasons. I have known some very committed Christians who have divorced under circumstances I hope to never go through. I guess that is why when Peter asked about John's future Jesus told him to mind his business Unqoute

Well they weren't commited enough or they would have both gone back to the word and figured out what the right way to think on their problems was. And the one that was wrong if not both would have changed their mind. After all God word says it then if you believe his word you will change your thinking accordingly. If you don't then your are just blowing smoke.

Jeff
If people want civil unions go ahead
but to call the relation ship between a God respecting man or woman the same as a gay relationship. No I would agree. In order to recieve tax breaks from the gov. It should be a man and woman because even though .
I would rather see kids grow up in an orphanage than be raised by parents of the same sex.
It just makes this mentall sickness if you will seem more normal and acceptable.


Quote I disagree. God inspired the bible specifically for those that reject him which is nearly everyone at some time or another. Including Jesus disciplesUnquote

Please reread:
Here is the kicker,,,,the bible was never written for the God rejecter
It was only written to whomsoever will believe. So if someone rejects God now but down the road the light comes on,,then he is no longer a rejecter. right,,,I thought I throw that in there because I could just smell the responses coming from that statement. Thats new testement.

You make this way to easy
K bullock
Maby you need a little more direction
Its all pretty black and white
There is just an overwhelming amount of info and cross referncing that has to be done.

K.Bullock
12-12-2008, 01:56 PM
QuoteNot really, it has turned into that over time, the apostle Paul viewed marriage as a necessity for those who could not forsake sexual relations and devote themselves entirely to God. He did outline some very challenging ideas about marriage in Ephesians 5 that challenges husbands to love their wives as Jesus loves the church, which is not at all what I hear preached by some or lived out by many. It is much easier to criticize other people and their lifestyles. unquote
As a matter of fact read what Paul says before he says that.:cool:

You have taken 1 verse out of the bible and built your own interpretation around it. You haven't even considered the context in which Paul was speaking in.
And I could feed you a library of info on this topic also.
Spare me the sunday school mentality.


QuoteDivorce happens for a lot of reasons. I have known some very committed Christians who have divorced under circumstances I hope to never go through. I guess that is why when Peter asked about John's future Jesus told him to mind his business Unqoute

Well they weren't commited enough or they would have both gone back to the word and figured out what the right way to think on their problems was. And the one that was wrong if not both would have changed their mind. After all God word says it then if you believe his word you will change your thinking accordingly. If you don't then your are just blowing smoke.

Jeff
If people want civil unions go ahead
but to call the relation ship between a God respecting man or woman the same as a gay relationship. No I would agree. In order to recieve tax breaks from the gov. It should be a man and woman because even though .
I would rather see kids grow up in an orphanage than be raised by parents of the same sex.
It just makes this mentall sickness if you will seem more normal and acceptable.


Quote I disagree. God inspired the bible specifically for those that reject him which is nearly everyone at some time or another. Including Jesus disciplesUnquote

Please reread:
Here is the kicker,,,,the bible was never written for the God rejecter
It was only written to whomsoever will believe. So if someone rejects God now but down the road the light comes on,,then he is no longer a rejecter. right,,,I thought I throw that in there because I could just smell the responses coming from that statement. Thats new testement.

You make this way to easy
K bullock
Maby you need a little more direction
Its all pretty black and white
There is just an overwhelming amount of info and cross referncing that has to be done.
Pete, again your stating opinion and claiming it is scripture or doctrine or whatever. It is not, it is merely your opinion.

Sadly there are too many like you who want to claim expertise in an area without putting any time in. That's your business, I think it is bad form though and think you should reconsider and reexamine some of your positions.

Hoosier
12-12-2008, 02:51 PM
Pete and K.Bullock I don't want to come off as noisy, but what specific churches do you attend. I'm curios because your discussions sound a lot like mine and a friend of mine. He was raised Lutheran and I more of a fundamentalist.

K.Bullock
12-12-2008, 03:34 PM
Pete and K.Bullock I don't want to come off as noisy, but what specific churches do you attend. I'm curios because your discussions sound a lot like mine and a friend of mine. He was raised Lutheran and I more of a fundamentalist.

I attend a conservative non-denominational church. As a kid I was Presbyterian(calvinist) as a teen I hooked up with a Grace Brethren youth group.(reformed) As an adult entered in to the Nazarene denomination and later obtained a ministerial license through that denomination. I was held captive at one their institutions for a few years, I have escaped into another college for now.

Theologically I am closer to a Wesley Arminian than anything else. (think intense Methodist)

Pete
12-12-2008, 04:34 PM
Pete, again your stating opinion and claiming it is scripture or doctrine or whatever. It is not, it is merely your opinion.

Sadly there are too many like you who want to claim expertise in an area without putting any time in. That's your business, I think it is bad form though and think you should reconsider and reexamine some of your positions.
__________________
All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.- J. R. R. Tolkien,
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/statusicon/user_online.gif

The last 30 years of my life have been dedicated to biblical research almost every day of my life.

Its what I do first thing most every morning.
So I am not sure I understand what you mean by not putting in enough time.

Anyway,,, I have no affiliation to religion. Just a desire to walk the best walk I can. ,,When you play foot ball you play by the rules of football,,,when you play field trials you play by the rules of field trials
when you play the game of life you play by the rules given in the book that governs life. Pretty simple. Does that make me something special HELL NO. I am just a guy posting on a subject that I have spent a long time putting the pieces together on . God can not lie so there fore there can be no contradictions in what he says.
If there is a contradiction it is either in our understanding or our lack of meekness to gain understanding.


There is great understanding that comes with knowing exactly what the rules say. Lets put it this way. There is no way to know what a counterfiet 20 dollar bill looks like unless you know what an authentic 20 dollar bill looks like.

And by the way I have had to change my position on things before as new things come to light in my studies.. I never am embarrested to admit when I have erroniously believe something..

People are going to think or believe whatever it is they do. The last thing I would try to do is change someones belief system over the internet.
It doesn't matter to me what people believe. I can only control 1 mind . Mine.

Am I saying I am smarter than you when it comes to the scriptures. Hell no. But I know the subjects biblically that I have put the effort into knowing, and feel just as comfortable and competant in detailing them as any.

Pete

YardleyLabs
12-12-2008, 05:08 PM
I am not sure what you mean by "the belief that you can achieve salvation (or damnation) by believing the right (or wrong) thing without regard to the morality of your acts." It is the orthodox Christian belief that salvation comes from Christ alone through faith in God alone. It is called justification, which is a big deal because it is Martin Luther's position on salvation that began the reformation. Right acts come from being a believer. Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi , his deity aside, he would have held on to the exclusivity of the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. And nothing in his teachings would contradict that.

The first council of Nicea had very little to do with government, that would be apparent just from the diversity of churches represented at the council. It was called by Constantine in 625 to shore up important aspects of common necessary doctrine between several churches to combat heresy and false teaching. Today they would be combating the health and wealth wack jobs we see on TV.

There is a limit on how far I can/will go in a theological debate given that I have already indicated a lack of belief in the divine characteristic of the gospels. However, I tend to think that both the Catholic and Lutheran views of faith vs. works as disputed during the Reformation were somewhat manufactured for convenience and supported by cherry picking quotes. "Ye shall know them by their fruits. " (Matthew 7:16) I believe that in the view of Jesus faith could not exist if it were not evident in living a life reflecting good works. "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:17-18)


With respect to the Council of Nicaea (325, not 625), the difference may be one of perspective: why di d the bishops attend and why did Constantine invite them. From Constantine's perspective, this was clearly a political dispute. The Empire was in turmoil. The growth of Christianity had undermined the effectiveness of the Roman gods as an instrument of State, and divisions among the different sects of Christianity were adding to that instability. From Constantine's perspective (a pagan one), it was important to unify the Christian synods around a common doctrine that the State could then adopt as an official creed to promote the legitimacy of its authority. I suspect that Constantine's motivation for the Council had a great deal to do with how it evolved. I also think it's a good and very early example of how the integration of church and state can have the effect of corrupting both.

K.Bullock
12-12-2008, 05:43 PM
There is a limit on how far I can/will go in a theological debate given that I have already indicated a lack of belief in the divine characteristic of the gospels. However, I tend to think that both the Catholic and Lutheran views of faith vs. works as disputed during the Reformation were somewhat manufactured for convenience and supported by cherry picking quotes. "Ye shall know them by their fruits. " (Matthew 7:16) I believe that in the view of Jesus faith could not exist if it were not evident in living a life reflecting good works. "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:17-18)


I didn't know Luther so I do not know his motives. i do know he was ill tempered and ego centric from what i read of him. Regardless he came to some very difficult conclusions when he read scripture and challenged the Roman catholic church at a time when it was raking in the bucks selling indulgences. He went through great personal difficulties and risked being burned at the stake for his views. I tend to pay attention when people take their convictions that seriously. To his credit he remained, in his mind at least, a Catholic Priest until the day he passed. His position was that the church left the truth he didn't leave the church.
The Catholic church has since cleared his name Under Pope John Paul and Vatican II.


I believe that in the view of Jesus faith could not exist if it were not evident in living a life reflecting good works. "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:17-18)
That is James view, Jesus speaking to Nicodemus said something different altogether. The difference is works are not necessary for salvation, they are a fruit of salvation. Which is why I tend to agree with the Arminians in my theology, I believe we have something to do with that. At the end of the day it is just semantics and the essentials are the same.





With respect to the Council of Nicaea, the difference may be one of perspective: why di d the bishops attend and why did Constantine invite them. He had a good mom? :razz:




From Constantine's perspective, this was clearly a political dispute. The Empire was in turmoil. The growth of Christianity had undermined the effectiveness of the Roman gods as an instrument of State, and divisions among the different sects of Christianity were adding to that instability. From Constantine's perspective (a pagan one), it was important to unify the Christian synods around a common doctrine that the State could then adopt as an official creed to promote the legitimacy of its authority. I suspect that Constantine's motivation for the Council had a great deal to do with how it evolved. I also think it's a good and very early example of how the integration of church and state can have the effect of corrupting both.
You could take that position, still the other bishops came I believe because of the threat the Arians were posing to sound doctrine, they were teaching that Jesus was not God's son at all. The council is where we get the doctrine of trinity from. Whatever Constantine's reasons( i thought that Christianity was the state religion by then and he was afraid of a heresy destabilizing his population) it would not be the first time that unlikely players advanced Christianity.


I also think it's a good and very early example of how the integration of church and state can have the effect of corrupting both.
A good church board can do that.

K.Bullock
12-12-2008, 05:54 PM
Am I saying I am smarter than you when it comes to the scriptures. Hell no. But I know the subjects biblically that I have put the effort into knowing, and feel just as comfortable and competant in detailing them as any.

Pete[

It is only with the help of all saints that one may hope to be "able to comprehend what is the breadth,and length,and depth,and height" of God's revelation to man.-Ralph Earle
That is one of my favorite quotes from a Nazarene Professor that wrote some commentaries we had to study.

It kind of reminds of Labradors, the more I learn about them the more I realize how little I know, and how much there is to learn.

I misunderstood you Pete, I apologize.

Pete
12-12-2008, 06:59 PM
K bullock
No apology necessary. We are just talkin , its one of my favorite things besides listening.:D While I may come across as kinda of a no it all I guess at times,,,even with my low IQ and writting skills. its actually not my motivation.
The more ones learns about a subject the less he realizes he knows.
Thats a true statement my friend

Pete

Gerry Clinchy
12-13-2008, 12:53 PM
Joint tax returns, unlimited marital deduction, gift-splitting, etc. Tax reasons.

To some it may seem frivolous, but pertinent to this point, was this past week's episode of "Boston Legal". The older Denny Crane, dx'd with Alzheimer's, decided he wanted to marry Alan Shore, his best friend, so that his estate would have an heir and would be used to good purpose, rather than just going to taxes. In Massachusetts, same-sex civil unions are legal.

A gay rights group brought them to court when they applied for their marriage license, saying this was an "abuse" of the same-sex marriage statute's intended purpose. It should not be used simply to take advantage of tax and other laws that pertain to married couples.

Of course, the defendants' marriage license was upheld by the Court. The statute makes no inquiry into the sexual habits of the two parties in a same-sex union. Therefore, two friends who had no other marital partners, could enter into such a civil union just as freely for purposes of friendship and support. Their sexual preferences had no bearing on their eligibility for their civil union.

I thought this was a very interesting twist on such legislation.

Patrick Johndrow
12-13-2008, 01:02 PM
Joint tax returns, unlimited marital deduction, gift-splitting, etc. Tax reasons.

Piss off Christians by making a mockery of the marriage covenant; keeps them in the news so they can continue their “looks at me I am gay” campaign of self-worth.

Gerry Clinchy
12-13-2008, 01:07 PM
The City of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, is in big trouble. They publicly call themselves "The Christmas City." When you enter the city limits you are greeted by signs that have a Moravian Star (a stylized star decoration originating with the Protestant Moravian denomination that founded the city), and the signs direct you to "follow the star" to various places of interest in the city.

The Moravians, not just a sub-division of Lutheranism, but their own denomination, founded the city. The original Moravian "Widows and Orphans Home" is now a museum of sorts for these relgious-based origins of the city. The Moravians were sort of a "commune" who cared for all members of their denomination, hence the need for the facility to care for widows and orphans in a communal fashion. The Moravian Church maintains the museum, not the city. But the church did not put up those "follow the star" signs :-)

At this time of year, Bethlehem's lamposts are decorated with lighted Christmas trees.

The small town just south of Bethlehem has a large Christmas Tree in front of its municipal building. There is no nativity, but isn't the lighted tree considered a Christian symbol as well?

YardleyLabs
12-13-2008, 02:52 PM
Piss off Christians by making a mockery of the marriage covenant; keeps them in the news so they can continue their “looks at me I am gay” campaign of self-worth.

Doesn't it ever occur to you that they might be in love and want to declare their union to their family and community in the same manner as a heterosexual couple? Does it ever occur to you that they do not see their relationship as perverted? Why do you think gays should remain in the shadows just because you believe their behavior is inappropriate? Should hunters stay in the shadows because 95% of our population doesn't hunt? Do hunters only hunt to piss of the PETA/HSUS crowd? Do we only own guns to irritate liberals?

I have no problems with churches having their own rules defined by their own religious beliefs. However, I don't believe it is government's job to enforce those rules. From my experience with gay couples seeking to marry, their decisions have everything to do with their relationship to each other and nothing whatsoever to do with what you believe or think about their union.

K.Bullock
12-13-2008, 03:04 PM
The City of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, is in big trouble. They publicly call themselves "The Christmas City." When you enter the city limits you are greeted by signs that have a Moravian Star (a stylized star decoration originating with the Protestant Moravian denomination that founded the city), and the signs direct you to "follow the star" to various places of interest in the city.

The Moravians, not just a sub-division of Lutheranism, but their own denomination, founded the city. The original Moravian "Widows and Orphans Home" is now a museum of sorts for these relgious-based origins of the city. The Moravians were sort of a "commune" who cared for all members of their denomination, hence the need for the facility to care for widows and orphans in a communal fashion. The Moravian Church maintains the museum, not the city. But the church did not put up those "follow the star" signs :-)

At this time of year, Bethlehem's lampposts are decorated with lighted Christmas trees.

The small town just south of Bethlehem has a large Christmas Tree in front of its municipal building. There is no nativity, but isn't the lighted tree considered a Christian symbol as well?


A lot of small towns in this area were founded by Moravian missionaries. I had not heard of them before moving here. I belong to an ecumenical organization which includes Moravian's so I got to know some. It is an interesting story about how their denomination came about. I especially like their feelings towards dogma and doctrine..."In essentials unity in non essentials liberty" The phrase is not original to them but the church has adopted it. Great people.


You can find the same Moravian star that is in Bethlehem, PA hanging around Gnadenhutten, Ohio just a few miles up the road from here.

Patrick Johndrow
12-13-2008, 08:36 PM
Doesn't it ever occur to you that they might be in love and want to declare their union to their family and community in the same manner as a heterosexual couple? Does it ever occur to you that they do not see their relationship as perverted? Why do you think gays should remain in the shadows just because you believe their behavior is inappropriate? Should hunters stay in the shadows because 95% of our population doesn't hunt? Do hunters only hunt to piss of the PETA/HSUS crowd? Do we only own guns to irritate liberals?

I have no problems with churches having their own rules defined by their own religious beliefs. However, I don't believe it is government's job to enforce those rules. From my experience with gay couples seeking to marry, their decisions have everything to do with their relationship to each other and nothing whatsoever to do with what you believe or think about their union.

We will disagree on this issue for ever.

Bruce MacPherson
12-14-2008, 02:00 AM
Doesn't it ever occur to you that they might be in love and want to declare their union to their family and community in the same manner as a heterosexual couple? Does it ever occur to you that they do not see their relationship as perverted? Why do you think gays should remain in the shadows just because you believe their behavior is inappropriate? Should hunters stay in the shadows because 95% of our population doesn't hunt? Do hunters only hunt to piss of the PETA/HSUS crowd? Do we only own guns to irritate liberals?

I have no problems with churches having their own rules defined by their own religious beliefs. However, I don't believe it is government's job to enforce those rules. From my experience with gay couples seeking to marry, their decisions have everything to do with their relationship to each other and nothing whatsoever to do with what you believe or think about their union.

It occurs to me that they see their relationship as perfectly normal, to them.
I have never had a problem with civil unions, a business relationship if you will, but marriage is a different story.
Are we really becoming so enlightened that we feel the basic tenents of a civilized society are no longer valid? Or are we all left to define our own reality and declare it perfectly acceptable.Where does it end?

Cody Covey
12-16-2008, 04:02 AM
Doesn't it ever occur to you that they might be in love and want to declare their union to their family and community in the same manner as a heterosexual couple? Does it ever occur to you that they do not see their relationship as perverted? Why do you think gays should remain in the shadows just because you believe their behavior is inappropriate? Should hunters stay in the shadows because 95% of our population doesn't hunt? Do hunters only hunt to piss of the PETA/HSUS crowd? Do we only own guns to irritate liberals?

I have no problems with churches having their own rules defined by their own religious beliefs. However, I don't believe it is government's job to enforce those rules. From my experience with gay couples seeking to marry, their decisions have everything to do with their relationship to each other and nothing whatsoever to do with what you believe or think about their union.
Why do advocates for gay marriage always try to make it out that we want all gays to stay in the closet and not tell anyone of their sexuality. It has nothing to do with that. They want to enter into a religious ceremony, that is what marriage is believe it or not. I'm still confused why people who are not excepted by another group of people want to partake in their ceremony. If you want a civil union fine its a contract no big deal there but to want to get married is ridiculous, quite frankly they are not wanted in the religious community because it is outlined that homosexuality is not allowed so why do they want so badly in?

YardleyLabs
12-16-2008, 07:03 AM
Why do advocates for gay marriage always try to make it out that we want all gays to stay in the closet and not tell anyone of their sexuality. It has nothing to do with that. They want to enter into a religious ceremony, that is what marriage is believe it or not. I'm still confused why people who are not excepted by another group of people want to partake in their ceremony. If you want a civil union fine its a contract no big deal there but to want to get married is ridiculous, quite frankly they are not wanted in the religious community because it is outlined that homosexuality is not allowed so why do they want so badly in?

As a religious institution, marriage is controlled by churches, not the government. Certain churches -- my own among them -- have been performing marriage ceremonies for gay couples for many years. Most churches do not permit such ceremonies and I believe that is their absolute right. From a civil law perspective, I think civil unions are appropriate for all -- heterosexual or homosexual. Keep government out of the religious ceremony and there is no risk that it will be distorted by politics.

Joe S.
12-16-2008, 08:16 AM
We will disagree on this issue for ever.

Yes, we will and it is my experience in dealing with you on this board that it is very unlike you to duck or dodge a direct question.

I'd like to think that you are considering Jeff's questions and will respond to them in due course.

Still Haven't Gotten A Deer Regards,

Joe S.

Gun_Dog2002
12-16-2008, 10:08 AM
Doesn't it ever occur to you that they might be in love and want to declare their union to their family and community in the same manner as a heterosexual couple? Does it ever occur to you that they do not see their relationship as perverted? Why do you think gays should remain in the shadows just because you believe their behavior is inappropriate? Should hunters stay in the shadows because 95% of our population doesn't hunt? Do hunters only hunt to piss of the PETA/HSUS crowd? Do we only own guns to irritate liberals?

I have no problems with churches having their own rules defined by their own religious beliefs. However, I don't believe it is government's job to enforce those rules. From my experience with gay couples seeking to marry, their decisions have everything to do with their relationship to each other and nothing whatsoever to do with what you believe or think about their union.

Then why can't they just act like a hetorsexual couple. Why do they have to get so radical in their behavior. They don't want equal rights, they want special rights. I don't agree or condone their behavior but that is their business. I just don't think I should have to see huge dramatic displays of gay rights walking down the street, I shouldn't have to have it crammed down my throat in every sitcom, news show, and cartoon. I shouldn't have to get messages from the diversity council at work everyday telling me what the weekly gay/lesbian activities are that week. Keep sex in the bedroom/kitchen/shower/tool shed/ and duck blind where it belongs. I don't need to see it or be reminded of it constantly. And before you go getting all liberal on my ass, just keep in mind that GT's mom is gay and she seems to be able to live her life just fine without such a fuss...

/Paul

K G
12-16-2008, 10:22 AM
Well said, Paul.

kg

K.Bullock
12-16-2008, 10:39 AM
Why do advocates for gay marriage always try to make it out that we want all gays to stay in the closet and not tell anyone of their sexuality. It has nothing to do with that. They want to enter into a religious ceremony, that is what marriage is believe it or not. I'm still confused why people who are not excepted by another group of people want to partake in their ceremony. If you want a civil union fine its a contract no big deal there but to want to get married is ridiculous, quite frankly they are not wanted in the religious community because it is outlined that homosexuality is not allowed so why do they want so badly in?


My last post having anything doing with Religion:-? probably, only to say...yes they are(or should be). And believe me I am from a very conservative background, socially and theologically. It would be very unchristian to exclude anyone from fellowship based on their sins. Otherwise honest churches would be empty. Sadly i can see where you would make that assumption, we had a teen in our youth group awhile back struggling with homosexuality, we did not know until he was checked into a mental facility for attempting suicide. He felt like he could not talk to anyone or have anyplace to turn to. It was a sad indictment on our church when one of our own could not turn to us in a time of trouble for fear of being condemned.

Cody Covey
12-17-2008, 01:09 AM
wasn't replying to your post bullock. i actually agree with some of your post but i believe there is a difference from sinning and living a life of complete sin. and that doesn't change the fact that they want to join into a religious ceremony when they bash religion. Again i believe there is a difference between sinning (something we all do) and knowingly live a life of sin and then bashing those people whose ceremony you so badly you want to join..

Ken Bora
12-17-2008, 08:05 AM
"And there were in the same country shepherds, abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them! And they were sore afraid ... And the angel said unto them, "Fear not! For, behold, I bring you tidings o great joy, which shall be to all my people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ, the Lord."
"And this shall be a sign unto you: Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger." And suddenly, there was with the angel a multitude of the Heavenly Host praising God, and saying, "Glory to God in the Highest, and on Earth peace, and good will toward men."
"That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown." - Linus Van Pelt