What is the difference between being pro-gun and pro-choice?

[tomspug]

It's not that they're in there, it's that the Bible endorses them: slavery, polygamy, genocide, infanticide, killing people for violating taboos such as working on Saturday, and so forth. We no longer accept these things as moral, as the Biblical authors do.

I calling out BS, here. Show me a verse that says that any of those things are good. I know what portions of the bible you're referring to, but it doesn't support your argument. Just because they are IN the Bible doesn't mean that they are Judeo-Christian values. That's like saying that it is an American value to hate black people!

 

[lilithu]

I don't know what you're referring to, but people who were trying to make you keep your beliefs private would be trying to shut down forums like this.

Forums like this are still "private." It is a forum that exists for the purpose of talking about religion. Try expressing faith in other contexts. I'm talking about, for example, people who complain when someone says "God bless America."

On a peace activist list that I was a part of someone once shared the words of a hymn that she found moving. It happens to be one of my favorite hymns too, a prayer for peace. She was immediately attacked by several "peace" activists who claimed that religion is the cause of all wars and how they didn't want to have to read references to God on their list. Well, that may be how they feel about it. But when they say they don't want to hear references to God on the peace activist list, what they are essentially saying is that those of us of faith are not allowed to express that essential part of us in their presence, ie - in public.

 

[Autodidact]

I calling out BS, here. Show me a verse that says that any of those things are good. I know what portions of the bible you're referring to, but it doesn't support your argument. Just because they are IN the Bible doesn't mean that they are Judeo-Christian values. That's like saying that it is an American value to hate black people!

Well, let's take them one at a time. Let's start with slavery, shall we? Here's what the Bible has to say on the subject:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

It's very simple and very clear. You are specifically authorized to buy other people as property and treat them as such.

That's the old testament. New testament:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

So what the Bible tell us about slavery is that it's permissible to own them, and they should obey their masters.
I submit that our modern morality has progressed far beyond this standard, and we now regard slavery as morally abhorrent.

And please don't tell me that slavery in the Bible isn't real slavery, since it clearly is.

 

[lilithu]

It is ridiculous that you could make the argument that there is any sort of "universally accepted values", like what?

Thou shalt not murder is a pretty universal value. Different people will rationalize how certain killings are not murder, how they are necessary, but the idea that unnecessary killing is wrong is pretty universal. Another humanist value that shows up in Jewish scripture is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Almost every faith tradition I have seen, and I've seen a lot, has a version of this golden rule - from the far east to the far west. That a certain semitic tribe would come up with what other civilizations have also independently come up with is not at all remarkable. And that it got recorded in their tribal mythology and ethics as "scripture" is also not remarkable.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Did I say anything about the second amendment? No. I don't care if you hunt with a rifle, a bb gun, a slingshot, a bow and arrow or by flinging a rock really hard, killing for "sport" is still killing for fun. My post had to do with hunting and abortion being compared. Plain and simple.

Draka, this may come as a surprise to you, but I don't hunt. Carrying a rifle in the woods reminds me too much of Vietnam. I fish, but catch and release. Killing gives me no pleasure. The last thing I killed was a rabid coyote. I was glad it tested positive for rabies. It looked like a duck and quacked like a duck, thank God it was what I thought it was.

 

[Draka]

Draka, this may come as a surprise to you, but I don't hunt. Carrying a rifle in the woods reminds me too much of Vietnam. I fish, but catch and release. Killing gives me no pleasure. The last thing I killed was a rabid coyote. I was glad it tested positive for rabies. It looked like a duck and quacked like a duck, thank God it was what I thought it was.

Rick, I was talking in general, not pointing out anyone that hunted inparticular. You made reference to my post and mentioned the second amendment. I was merely pointing out I wasn't talking in regards to the amendment at all. Just the concept of killing for enjoyment via hunting being compared to abortion, which cannot, in any way, be viewed as an activity done for enjoyment. Whether you agree with the concept of abortion or not, you have to at least agree that it is not considered a "fun pasttime". Whatever you may consider the motives for getting an abortion I would hope "enjoyment" and "fun" would not be ones you would consider.

 

[Autodidact]

Polygamy in the Bible is merely assumed, as that was the custom in that time and place. So there are many passages that just refer to a man and his wives, such as Abraham, the guy who got the whole thing started. One finds many passages like this:

10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights...

That is, it is clearly assumed that a man may marry another woman.

So the remaining passages in the Bible regarding divorce and so forth are all based on the assumption of polygamy.

 

[Izdaari]

I'm not aware of anybody at all who's doing that, although there are a great many people who deny that theist have the right to use public money to promote their beliefs, or the right to set up religious monuments on public grounds. Do you have any examples of anybody pushing to deny theists any public expression of their beliefs?

I suppose most examples I could think of would fit into one of your two categories. So let me clarify my position a little: I think sometimes it IS legitimate for theists to use public money to promote their beliefs, or to set up religious monuments on public grounds. Not when it amounts to the state establishing an official religion. But where non-theists can do it, theists should be able to do it too. I.e., if as a non-theistic sculptor, I can create a statue intended to promote a secular philosophy or cause, and can get my statue displayed on public property, my conception of neutrality would require that a statue promoting a theistic cause would have the same right to be displayed.

 

[Izdaari]

Forums like this are still "private." It is a forum that exists for the purpose of talking about religion. Try expressing faith in other contexts. I'm talking about, for example, people who complain when someone says "God bless America."

On a peace activist list that I was a part of someone once shared the words of a hymn that she found moving. It happens to be one of my favorite hymns too, a prayer for peace. She was immediately attacked by several "peace" activists who claimed that religion is the cause of all wars and how they didn't want to have to read references to God on their list. Well, that may be how they feel about it. But when they say they don't want to hear references to God on the peace activist list, what they are essentially saying is that those of us of faith are not allowed to express that essential part of us in their presence, ie - in public.

Right, its exactly that mentality that I object to. Of course individuals are free to feel that way. But I don't want that way of thinking to be made law, not even a little bit.

 

[Izdaari]

There's a little fuzziness between "public" and "civic." What I mean is, you can rent a Billboard depicting Jesus, no problem. State erecting statue of Jesus on capitol lawn--problem. It's not the public, it's the civic.

Ok, I understand the distinction, and it's a fair one. Well then, I do believe in a limited right to civic and not just public displays of religion. I hope my post #88 made it sufficiently clear where I would draw the line.

 

[Draka]

Ok, I understand the distinction, and it's a fair one. Well then, I do believe in a limited right to civic and not just public displays of religion. I hope my post #88 made it sufficiently clear where I would draw the line.

Here's the thing though, government is suppose to be secular. Plain and simple. If someone were to erect some religious statue, or anything along those lines, upon government owned property it is essentially like saying that the government endorses and advertises that particular religion. That is a huge no-no.

Would you approve if someone painted a sprawling mural depicting a pentacle, zodiac signs, and the Maiden ,Mother, and Crone on the side of your county courthouse? What about a huge statue of the Hindu goddess Kali in the middle of the city park? A Star of David above the entrance to the city library? Would you approve of these things?

It's all or nothing. Either the government puts up some representation of every religion in existence or none at all. Being that the government is secular that problem is solved.

You want to proclaim your belief in Christ by displaying a grand cross in front of your house? Fine. You even want to get a billboard along Main Street? Also fine. But the line is drawn at the statue of Jesus in front of City Hall.

 

[Storm]

Alas, Draka, I cannot frubal you again....

 

[Smoke]

I suppose most examples I could think of would fit into one of your two categories. So let me clarify my position a little: I think sometimes it IS legitimate for theists to use public money to promote their beliefs, or to set up religious monuments on public grounds. Not when it amounts to the state establishing an official religion. But where non-theists can do it, theists should be able to do it too. I.e., if as a non-theistic sculptor, I can create a statue intended to promote a secular philosophy or cause, and can get my statue displayed on public property, my conception of neutrality would require that a statue promoting a theistic cause would have the same right to be displayed.

So you would support, for instance, the erection of a statue of Richard Dawkins on the Capitol Mall, with a plaque reading, "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world"?

 

[Smoke]

Forums like this are still "private." It is a forum that exists for the purpose of talking about religion. Try expressing faith in other contexts. I'm talking about, for example, people who complain when someone says "God bless America."

On a peace activist list that I was a part of someone once shared the words of a hymn that she found moving. It happens to be one of my favorite hymns too, a prayer for peace. She was immediately attacked by several "peace" activists who claimed that religion is the cause of all wars and how they didn't want to have to read references to God on their list. Well, that may be how they feel about it. But when they say they don't want to hear references to God on the peace activist list, what they are essentially saying is that those of us of faith are not allowed to express that essential part of us in their presence, ie - in public.

I wonder why you think this forum is private and that peace activist list was public.

It also sounds to me like you don't think people who are expressing their religious beliefs should ever be challenged, and that expressing a contrary view constitutes some infringement on your rights. I'm not seeing that.

 

[tomspug]

I wonder why you think this forum is private and that peace activist list was public.

It also sounds to me like you don't think people who are expressing their religious beliefs should ever be challenged, and that expressing a contrary view constitutes some infringement on your rights. I'm not seeing that.

I think you're mistaking her view of religion with modern science.

 

[Smoke]

A little further. Christians often defend Judge Roy Moore for actions such as hanging the Ten Commandments in the courtroom, directing Christian ministers to lead the jurors in prayer, and installing a monument to the Ten Commandments in the Alabama State Judicial Building. Which of the following would be acceptable to Christians?

• Hanging a large portrait of Guru Nanak in the courtroom.
• Directing a spiritualist to lead the jurors in a seance.
• Erecting a monument to the Wiccan Rede ("An it harm none, do what thou wilt") on the courthouse steps.

 

[Izdaari]

Here's the thing though, government is suppose to be secular. Plain and simple. If someone were to erect some religious statue, or anything along those lines, upon government owned property it is essentially like saying that the government endorses and advertises that particular religion. That is a huge no-no.

That's pretty much how the Supreme Court has gone, but I don't understand the Establishment Clause that way. I read it as prohibiting the federal government from establishing an official religion, and that's about all. I think that's how the Founders intended it.

Would you approve if someone painted a sprawling mural depicting a pentacle, zodiac signs, and the Maiden ,Mother, and Crone on the side of your county courthouse? What about a huge statue of the Hindu goddess Kali in the middle of the city park? A Star of David above the entrance to the city library? Would you approve of these things?

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with them, so long as Christian symbols are allowed too.

So you would support, for instance, the erection of a statue of Richard Dawkins on the Capitol Mall, with a plaque reading, "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world"?

I'm ok with that too. There's no reason atheists or members of other religions shouldn't have the same right to civic expression as Christians. But right now I think the trend is toward allowing the statue of Dawkins only, while banning all civic religious expression. I don't see that as neutrality, but rather as a back door attempt to establish secular humanism as the official state... well, not religion exactly, but belief system.

 

[tomspug]

Here's the thing though, government is suppose to be secular. Plain and simple. If someone were to erect some religious statue, or anything along those lines, upon government owned property it is essentially like saying that the government endorses and advertises that particular religion. That is a huge no-no.

What about "In God We Trust"? Over 95% of the population believes in God (in some form). It doesn't say "In the Christian God We Trust". Why can't this remain what it is, a statement that we are a country that values religion (as opposed to TRUE secular nations, like Russia, that teaches everyone to distrust all religion)?

 

[Smoke]

What about "In God We Trust"? Over 95% of the population believes in God (in some form). It doesn't say "In the Christian God We Trust". Why can't this remain what it is, a statement that we are a country that values religion (as opposed to TRUE secular nations, like Russia, that teaches everyone to distrust all religion)?

Because the argument assumes (1) that all Americans are, or should be, religious; (2) that all religions are, or should be, theistic; and (3) that all theists are, or should be, monotheists.

Also, the alternative is not to put a contradictory motto ("God is for fools," or "Christianity sux") on our coins; the alternative is to have coinage that doesn't take a position on religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's pretty much how the Supreme Court has gone, but I don't understand the Establishment Clause that way. I read it as prohibiting the federal government from establishing an official religion, and that's about all. I think that's how the Founders intended it.

Does that go both ways? If religion is allowed to influence government, should government be allowed to influence religion?

I'm ok with that too. There's no reason atheists or members of other religions shouldn't have the same right to civic expression as Christians. But right now I think the trend is toward allowing the statue of Dawkins only, while banning all civic religious expression. I don't see that as neutrality, but rather as a back door attempt to establish secular humanism as the official state... well, not religion exactly, but belief system.

I suppose that going from "near-theocracy" to "somewhat more reasonable, but still overwhelmingly Christian-influenced" could be interpreted as a trend that points toward antitheistic government eventually, but I hope that things will even out at a more reasonable point before that comes close to happening.

I don't see secularism as establishing an official state belief system; I see it as basing government on what's common to all of the people.

I don't need special government sanction for my hobbies, beliefs or interests; same goes for religion. Setting up a system where everyone's equally free to believe and express as they see fit but where nobody's belief or expression gets special government status isn't exactly religious opression.