<p>Perhaps the reason for the offense that The Dad expressed is a misunderstanding of what evangelicals believe. Many people think that God will weigh our good and bad deeds, and if the good outweighs the bad, we’ll go to heaven when we die. If I hold that view and say that I don’t believe that a person will go to heaven, it would be because I think him to be a particularly evil person. The Bible says that none of us is deserving of heaven and that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ, not through works of righteousness (Titus 3:5-7). Therefore, evangelicals don’t believe that whether or not a person spends eternity in heaven is a result of how good he has been because none of us is good enough. </p>
<p>As far as people imposing their beliefs on others, it happens constantly in government. Fortunately, in our country people generally aren’t put in prison because they follow a religion, or because they don’t, and no evangelical that I’m aware of wants to require anyone to follow their religion, nor could they if they did. However, laws are passed every day that impose restrictions on others for what is perceived to be the good of the larger community, whether it be requiring people to pay taxes to support government programs that they don’t agree with, or not allowing people to dump toxic waste in their backyard. Politics is the battle between opposing views of what is best for society, and the majority is able to make decisions for all of us.</p>
<p>Logos, no, I understand your beliefs as you state them. And, no, you don’t get it.</p>
<p>As I said, you have options regarding following your beliefs. You are not content with that. Be prepared to fight to the last ditch, because I will not tolerate the would-be American ayahtollahs imposing their particular theocracy on me. Or anyone else.</p>
<p>You would think we that we have enough current examples, let alone historical, where this kind of thinking leads.</p>
<p>TheDad, thank you for such rational posts. I mean that. I am now afraid to post anything because the moderator warned me if I used more rethoric that I might have to leave CC</p>
<p>…""The purpose of this board is not to “get” to other members. Please tone down the rethoric, or you will have to find another home for your political discussions. We TOLERATE some BRIEF political discussions, but our board is and will always be a college discussion board. I hope you’ll understand the difference. </p>
<p>Trinity"</p>
<p>Apparently, CC tolerates some political discussion, but, I was warned…</p>
<p>Citygirlsmom said:
I am not going to go to hell, because I am a very good person.</p>
<p>Although to reap the eternal benefits of being a good person I believe I may have some ways to go (I merely hope for what you seem certain of), I believe Heaven will be there for those such as yourself that are good people; but, should I take your apodictic certainty to mean that as a Catholic you believe in Hell but will be checking in elsewhere at the appropriate time; or rather, that you believe no one goes to Hell and that its smoke filled quarters will remain as vacant and unoccupied as a convention hall embarrassingly and optimistically reserved for Democrats-O-Faith? ;)</p>
<p>Thank you FountainSiren for making my points so clear, your post needs no more response than that…I think that if there is a place of attoinment after death, that people here are not the ones to judge who will be where</p>
<p>For the record, Ayatollah means, in Arabic, a sign of god. Ayat means both sign and verse of the Quran. Perhaps those who use it so disparagingly are unaware of the words significance to millions of apolitical Shia Muslims. It does not mean ‘Dictator’ or ‘evil person’, though some Ayatollahs have been and are intolerant and cruel (as have been some priests, Bishops, Rabbis, or Buddhist Monks and yet they are not used in the same manner). Perhaps those so inclined should just stick with bad-guys.</p>
<p>And I thought multi-culturalism was a liberal-virtue (phrase not intended to cause laughter).</p>
<p>Getting back to the original topic, there’s nothing wrong with a school that trains Christian politicians - as long as they train those students that when they become a public servant they must put sectarian beliefs aside and fully represent everyone, including Muslims, Catholics, agnostics, Buddhists, atheists, etc.
I don’t have a problem with devout persons going into politics…
However I do have a problem when their religious views affect my legal rights
When they campaign against equal rights for gays & lesbians
When they want to restrict my health care by limiting access to information and education about birth control and abortion
When they want to require young teens to get parental permission to recieve health care- even when they may have become pregnant from incest/
I am not sure that someone who is really devout and feels strongly that there is only one right way- can represent all .</p>
<p>FountainSiren, and in vernacular contemporary English, “ayahtollah” is synonymous with a member of a religious leadership imposing control on political and social behavior. I am well aware of connotation versus denotation and am not in need of any lessons from you, thank you very much.</p>
<p>sorry for adding the actual, non-offensive, definition of ayatollah to the discussion. I can see, from your perspective, how inappropriate and unnecessary it might seem.</p>
<p>However I do have a problem when their religious views affect my legal rights</p>
<p>Emeraldkity4,</p>
<p>But dont ALL views, no matter their metaphysical origin, affect everyones legal rights when they are expressed politically? And arent all views based on beliefs, some old, some new; some traditions, some innovations? Isnt this how politics, by definition, serves our beliefs (hopes/desires/fears)to sort out which of our varied views will lead the way for the moment?</p>
<p>I know quite well what ayatollah means, much as I know what priest means. Ayatollah in its Islamic context doesn’t meant dictator, and priest in its Christian context doesn’t mean pedophile.</p>
<p>I know enough to not feel comfortable with either, when placed in their vernacular context.</p>
<p>Sure, all views are based on some sort of belief system, but the concern is that ONE belief system should not be the one that decides the rules…</p>
<p>For instance, many people have no problem with birth control, but it tooks years for even married couples to be able to get it</p>
<p>And, another fear is the spending of federal dollars on programs that promote one specific religion. and yes that is happening</p>
<p>Stuff and nonsense. You can say “narrow theocratically inclined persons with a religious-based agenda for political control” or you can say “ayahtollah.” I think most people will figure it out. The term’s political meaning has been pretty clear since the Iranian revolution of 1979.</p>
<p>Sorry to tread on toes of those feeling “holier than thou.”</p>
<p>“Sorry to tread on toes of those feeling “holier than thou.””</p>
<p>Don’t take it so hard, most of the millions of Shia Muslims in this world (all of whom must, by Islamic law, theologically follow some Ayatollah as a spiritual guide unlike Sunnis) are, conveniently, thousands of miles away comfortably embedded with the bulk of the US military and unlikely to take any meaningful offense.</p>
<p>They say Polish jokes were all the rage in the 1930’s.;)</p>
<p>but the concern is that ONE belief system should not be the one that decides the rules…</p>
<p>Citygirlsmom,</p>
<p>So–God Willing :)–at which point on their well-deserved ride to success will you consider your sincere views have finally come to dominate the opposing views so completely that they should be stopped! so that they dont, as you say, become the ones that decide the rules?</p>
<p>I hope I am not being presumptuous, but I would assume that you have beliefs or opinions about most of the major issues of the day (in part based on human nature and in part based on the wide-ranging opinions on which you have posted): abortion, homosexual marriage, education, ecology, pre-marital sexuality, original (constitutional) intent, activist judiciary, war, child welfare, religion-n-politics and more.</p>
<p>Do you hope that there will be legislation passed (or not) appropriate to all of your views, or only some of them? Will you hope for only limited success in your views/beliefs, or do you believe your views to be both sincere and correct; and therefore, for the good of all Americans (and your own good) do you wish to see those beliefs reflected in the actual law of the land, whether it be particular pro-active law in some cases (Homosexual marriage) or restrictive law in others (gun control)?</p>
<p>If you believe your views to be correct and you wish those views to be respected in law, you and the people at P. Henry College are of the very same kind (I’m probably offending both of you–sorry); you just differ on which beliefs are better. Sounds like democracy and its discontents, such as they are.</p>
<p>To differ over beliefs is human; to understand there is a multiplicity of differing beliefs is divine. </p>
<p>I think the intemperate responses elicited by Logosprincipal’s thoughtful posts speak to the issue of bigotry that I’ve brought up before in this thread. I see nothing in Logos’ posts that a reasonable person would find offensive, let alone threatening. Nothing that should supplant the usual wit and erudition and replace it with quivering, drooling rage. I do see an irrational fear and visceral dislike of a particular group of people, based in ignorance.