<p>The approach is not flawed, Lealdragon. </p>
<p>It is in fact, authoritative by definition (authority=author). Not, in the main, as god’s word, but as tradition or precedent or cultural consensus. To do the opposite would appear to be talking out of your derri</p>
<p>Wow. Bravo, FS. I do hope lealdragon reads this, and gets it. If we understand how this works, then we will see that in fact we are all doing what the Christians are doing. The very minute we say “lets pass a law that prohibits or permits (fill in the blank)”, we are imposing a view on someone, and that view is coming from some belief that is not necessarily “factual”.</p>
<p>We actually see this even with murder, for example – murder, which Lealdragon claims no “one will argue about”. Well, we are in fact arguing about it all the time. That is what the abortion debate is all about. You know, a lot of us think we are openminded and that we aren’t being dogmatic. But, to many people, we are as dogmatic as the worst despots in history, even forcing into law the right to murder innocent people by the millions on end, and at tax-payer’s expense.</p>
<p>Dogmatism is a sneaky dog.</p>
<p>when views are supported by a 2000plus year old manuscript that is presented as God’s word, and the reason for, say, not giving rights to homosexuuals, is because of a line or two in that book, gosh, can’t imagine why people might wonder about “religious beliefs” when they are the reason for laws, and politcal gain</p>
<p>SO FS, it is appropriate to pick and choose certain things from sacred texts to defend an agenda? </p>
<p>as for authoratative, what does that mean? cause someone told you so? because of tradtion? what? slavery was tradition, and people used the bible to justify it, saying, well God said it was okay, and if you are questioning our choices, then you are questioning god</p>
<p>FS- sacred texts…old books…who determines which are the word of God? who wrote them? who interprets them</p>
<p>and as for laws, and rules, if you as a human need to count an old book to keep you on the straight and narrow because you don’t have it in your brain to know right from wrong, and only the fear of going to hell is keeping one on the right path, sorry, I find that sad</p>
<p>I prefer that people would do right for doing rights sake, but many don[t have the internal controls to do that</p>
<p>My Ds have read the bible, front to back, have studied, and do not believe it is the word of God, or that it is necessary to b e part of there lives beyond literature, etc, and yet somehow, they are the kindest, hardest working, gracious, girls one would ever meet</p>
<p>it is the attitude of many Christians that unless you are “fixed”, or share their love and belief in a much rewritten, edited, translated text, you are a bad person going to the devil that I find rude and arrogant</p>
<p>why the need to take your personal religious beliefs to the world unless it is to pragmattically assist the poor, as Jesus did?</p>
<p>ah, sacred texts- how do we know what was really meant when those words were put to parchment…and jsut because someone says, God to me so, we should just take them at their word, while those very people have dismissed others</p>
<p>where did GOD say that you should not be gay, besides the pen marks on paper put down by one man…wow we have given that one man lots of power, have we not?</p>
<p>This is not about not giving rights to gays. Its about no letting 2 gay people marry eachother. No one however is stopping homosexuals from marrying the opposite sex. So its not a matter of homosexuality, its a matter of who you marry. God never say, by the way, you should not be gay, he said you shall not commit sodomy. The bible is a cultural document just as anything. Our own laws in this country have been influenced by the bible, this is clear to anyone who has read both.</p>
<p>It’s okay, cgm, you can come out of the closet and stop pretending to be a Catholic (Christian). 
Last time you went to Mass was when again? :eek:</p>
<p>but see, straight married couples commit sodomy, so you gonna stop all the straights married couples from a sex act you don’t like?</p>
<p>It is clear to me, golani, I have read both, but in reading both you will mostly see it was about human dignity and natural rights more so then taking away freedoms</p>
<p>hh, first none of your business, when you last help the poor? and I have actually read the bible cover to cover, studied it, studied its history, how about you? you learn about the political debates as to what should be in it> what was destroyed, what was changed in translation to suit government leaders? it takes a truely religious person to do that…to not fear what mght be learned</p>
<p>as for when I went to mass, well, that is between me and God, don’t you think? I would never ask another person how often they prayed, or went to temple or to church…its not my buiness when it is personal, but when it is made political, well, then it is</p>
<p>you know why we vote on the Second Tuesday in November? if you have to look it up, that is okay</p>
<p>Right I agree with you straights do commit sodomy, but no one wants to stop gay marriage because of sodomy. You just said that bible has a prohibition on being homosexual. That is wrong there is a prohibition on sodomy, which by the way is sodomy with males, and the law of marrying a woman and having sex with her, thats what the bible says. But again no one is stopping homosexuals from marrying, people simply do not want two people of the same sex to marry</p>
<p>I know the question is offensive, but I deliberately asked it to point out that your constant <em>preaching</em> about what the Bible is and is not is offensive too. So is your <em>preaching</em> that we HAVE to believe in gay marriage. Says who - cgm? Actually, your preaching puts the priests in my church to shame (I never even heard a sermon on gay marriage, for example, from any priest).</p>
<p>In addition, I think it’s helpful in these discussions to be honest, don’t you?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Their influence had diminised greatly in Western Europe/Canada as these countries had already legalized gay marriage/civil union and abortion. This will happen here when Christians are no longer deemed useful by politicians.</p>
<p>goaloe,</p>
<p>“but no one wants to stop gay marriage because of sodomy”</p>
<p>What’s this? Is this how you’ve determined a gay marriage is consumated? </p>
<p>:) I didn’t realize there were rules to gay marriage and that a certain sexual act had to be completed for the marriage to be valid? Where’s my handbook? Why didn’t anybody tell me? Did I miss it in the meetings when I went out to get a drink? :)</p>
<p>Is it possible to be gay and not perform that certain sexual act? Is that the defining measure of homosexuality? What do women do? </p>
<p>I really don’t know goalie as it never interested me that much what anybody does in that way in the privacy of their own lives, but if you’re certain and there’s a rule book somewhere… let me know. Thanks.</p>
<p>
Perhaps there should be a law against it…or, short of that an old fashioned book-banning or burning.</p>
<p>
Perhaps, as is the case with Shakespeare, Dante or Galileo, because it doggedly refuses to get off the bestseller list.</p>
<p>
I would then suggest another book…perhaps a spelling book.
Perhaps “Why I am Not a Christian” by Bert Russell</p>
<p>
Funerals?</p>
<p>
Sounds scary…what will we do with them?
I understand the Roman’s had a way of pleasing the Republic with a workable plan. Though it might interfere with other sporting events…would the government get the tee-shirt concession as well: </p>
<p>Lions v Christians
This time it’s for REAL</p>
<p>…you outta run with it and see where it goes.</p>
<p>“Funerals?”</p>
<p>What do you mean by that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>CGM: It doesn’t have to be an old book. How about a system of laws that was influenced by that old book? I hate to break it to you, but without the civiilzing influence of religion and law, humans won’t have any internal controls. Those controls are developed within a society that adopts the religion/law, and that context is critical. Otherwise, it’s just Lord of the Flies.</p>
<p>“Lord of the Flies” is dead on. Good call SS.
I was going to say it myself but was afraid to refer to an authoritative book.</p>
<p>
Does being so earnest and dopey-eyed deprive the righteous-liberal of a sense of humor? Is it either or? If so, I’m glad it worked to my favor (humor).</p>
<p>“Happy and gay…”
I hear you shouldn’t where red for quite similar reasons.</p>
<p>-Par for the course…</p>
<p>“Does being so earnest and dopey-eyed deprive the righteous-liberal of a sense of humor? Is it either or? If so, I’m glad it worked to my favor (humor).”</p>
<p>What? I just asked you what you meant by it. I guess you don’t know either. Why do you feel the need to attack so quickly?</p>
<p>Am I liberal because I asked a question? (I feel like I just walked into the twighlight zone LOL)</p>
<p>“No sacred text should be the law of the land; but no law should prevent the influence of sacred texts on those who propose laws.”</p>
<p>I agree completely. I have no problem with sacred texts, or any great works of literature, art, etc. having influence. It is when the fundamentalists insist that everyone accept the bible as ‘authoritative’ (context: an authority) that I find offensive. Because, not everyone agress that the bible is the ‘word of God.’</p>
<p>–</p>
<p>"Wow. Bravo, FS. I do hope lealdragon reads this, and gets it. If we understand how this works, then we will see that in fact we are all doing what the Christians are doing. The very minute we say “lets pass a law that prohibits or permits (fill in the blank)”, we are imposing a view on someone, and that view is coming from some belief that is not necessarily “factual”.</p>
<p>We actually see this even with murder, for example – murder, which Lealdragon claims no “one will argue about”. Well, we are in fact arguing about it all the time. That is what the abortion debate is all about. You know, a lot of us think we are openminded and that we aren’t being dogmatic. But, to many people, we are as dogmatic as the worst despots in history, even forcing into law the right to murder innocent people by the millions on end, and at tax-payer’s expense."</p>
<p>I did read it, and I agree. That’s why I believe only in laws that prohibit the harming of another. I believe laws should be for the purpose of allowing everyone their own freedoms, AS LONG AS they do not impose on the freedoms of anyone else.</p>
<p>That’s why abortion is such a grey area. The pro-choicers think the woman’s rights are being imposed upon. I happen to be pro-life (are you surprised?) for the same reason you stated - it is a baby that is being killed. However, I can understand why some people do not consider it as obvious as the killing of a self-sufficient person (or even a born baby who is not self-sufficient). That’s why I work with Feminists for Life, who seek dialog between the 2 groups, and seek to work together to PREVENT abortions. (Incidentally, there are statistically fewer abortions when there is a Democrat in office, which is one of the reasons why I vote Democrat, since I am pro-life.)</p>
<p>–</p>
<p>“God never say, by the way, you should not be gay, he said …”</p>
<p>Respectfully, a human said that and attributed it to God. People are free to believe it came from God if they wish, but please accept that it is merely a belief.</p>
<p>FS,
Bad analogy. The Romans didn’t use Christians politically before their charge against Christians. Looks like you need to read more about that part of the history. Seems like you are just trying a little too hard to impress. You misinterpreted what I said anyway.</p>
<p>by golani:</p>
<p>“but no one wants to stop gay marriage because of sodomy.”</p>
<p>but why does golani keep bringing that up? several times by my recollection</p>
<p>and to HH- what is the bible? what proof do you have about anything in it? I am asking this as someone who has read the bible and studied it…what proof do you have that it the word of God, except for the word of men?</p>
<p>How is that offensive to ask that question? if it is faith, than say that…how can one argue with faith</p>
<p>I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and that SheHe created all…</p>
<p>My mother-in-law believes in faeries</p>
<p>And there are those that believe if you pray enough a deadly snake bite won’t kill you</p>
<p>My neighbor is a wiccan</p>
<p>My friend goes to church every Sunday </p>
<p>and my best friend in HS was Morman</p>
<p>and my Hs golf buddy is gay and has been with his partner for years, and got married in SF</p>
<p>who says the bible is the authority for everyone</p>
<p>what about China, no bible there and they had a relatively civil society for eons</p>
<p>Lealdragon:</p>
<p>
Of course your idea of “their freedoms” is quite likely to differ from theirs. And who is to say yours is correct? That is why we have a system of government wherein all people can contend for their view in a civilized fashion. By participating successfully in the system, the fundamentalists no more impose their will on you than you do on them when you vote and your guy wins an election against their wishes. If they can argue within our system from their point-of-view and convince a majority to join them, it is perfectly their right. What you seem to be saying is, you have no problem with people of faith, as long as they are faithless. That is not how it works in America.</p>
<p>
Yes. I am surprised, but not for the reason you may think. I am surprised because you have a belief in a grey area. It cannot be grey to you because you believe it and, apparently have made your choice where you stand. When the issue is grey, you haven’t yet been able to make up your mind. Right?</p>
<p>
But don’t you see, you are in fact here taking a position, and then by allying with other feminists you are trying to win support for the view that both sides are to be respected. It is only your view (a view I happen to share), but others think there is nothing to discuss and that their only recourse is to control the four branches of government (including the press). They have every right to work in the system to do this, however they fall on this issue. Better this than the alternative, I say.</p>
<p><a href=“Incidentally,%20there%20are%20statistically%20fewer%20abortions%20when%20there%20is%20a%20Democrat%20in%20office,%20which%20is%20one%20of%20the%20reasons%20why%20I%20vote%20Democrat,%20since%20I%20am%20pro-life.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
Of course, if you really do think abortion is murder, then I think this ultimately becomes irrelevant because legal murder persists as a principle.</p>