Summations Only

It was purely a logical point, Tempe, how WOULD he know if someone was planning to kill me? Has nothing to do with my own expectations, just challenging his certainty about something he couldn't possibly know.However, when it comes up as a general point that Christians might be targeted, although of course that's highly unlikely in America, for now anyway, it's going on all over the world so the idea is not as absurd as some may think. Maybe it will never come to America. Or maybe it will. That's the context in which Christians are likely to bring up the possibility anyway. Sure that would be OK with me. I believe in freedom about such things, I don't believe anyone should be forced to hire someone against his conscience for whatever reason. While I believe there has to be some regulation of business, to protect the public, I regard business as PRIVATE enterprise that owners should be allowed to run as they see fit.

It seems unlikely. If someone does kill you, let me know and I'll retract my claim.

Well, I have a question.Arizona achieved statehood in 1912. And from that day to this, something over a hundred years, they have not had such a law as Governor Brewer just vetoed. Not to labor the obvious, that's why the legislature passed the law --- because they didn't have one.So it appears that for over a century, the great state of Arizona has not had this religious liberty you're suddenly so keen on (I don't remember you complaining about it last year).So tell me Faith, who exactly has suffered? Over the course of the last century or so, which poor martyred Christians have been thrown to the lions or the lawyers for want of this law? Or could it be that the people of Arizona have gone a hundred years without religious liberty and it didn't make any difference? If so, I have to think that religious liberty is overrated.

I didn't think gays could legally get married in Arizona.I guess the bigot cake makers and photographers must be pissed that there are no gay weddings they can refuse to serve.It's so sad when self righteous christian don't have anyone to discriminate against. oh wait.......

Maybe you'll recall that I said I'm not familiar with the law so I really don't have an opinion about that. What I said was that I wondered if it was based on suits against a baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding, and against a photographer who refused to take wedding photographs for the same sort of event.I really didn't know if these things were related, it just seemed they might be, and nobody said they weren't so maybe they are. Maybe these events didn't even occur in Arizona, but it wouldn't be the first time a law was inspired by situations in one state to head them off in another. Again, I really don't know. I'm arguing completely hypothetically here.But if there is such a connection, my guess would be that it's the first time a need for such a law was felt in the state of Arizona. Times are very different now from what they were a hundred years ago.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In that case, why have you not been protesting, vigorously and vehemently, against the actual laws in place which do actually require employers not to discriminate on the grounds of gender ? Why on earth is it that fundamentalist outrage is reserved for sexuality ?If you are not consistent about your outrage - so that you are equally enraged about secular attempts to impose laws preventing discrimination on the grounds of gender as you are about similar attempts in relation to sexuality - then (a) your argument loses all validity; and (b) I'm afraid your attitude appears founded (in part at least) in personal bigotry.As others have said before, you do seem on a personal level to be a perfectly decent person, and I suspect that you may not have any personal bigotry against gay people, and are simply following what your interpretation of the bible requires you to say and do. But if that's the case, please ask yourself why these few sections of the bible result in so, so, so much more vituperative, outraged and vociferous condemnation from religious fundamentalists than any other biblical requirement.

But I don't protest, period, except on message boards on the internet. And I protest about all kinds of things when they come up.And I'm not enraged at all. I have many opinions at odds with the culture. Sometimes I give them on message boards. In some situations I had the opinions years ago but the culture went against me and I'm not a protestor so that's that.Far as I can see I've expressed nothing even close to "vituperation" and since you've never plumbed the depths of my opinions you might be surprised what all from the Bible I'd defend if it came up.But I can explain why gay marriage is an issue these days. It's because it's been made an issue. If there were no effort to change the ancient laws about marriage there would have been no protest from anyone. It's not that anyone is ignoring other problems in society, but this particular one actually changes a law that affects what we're all allowed to think and do.ABE: What it comes down to is that the Christian values western civilization was built on have been under attack for decades now and overcome one by one. But Christianity was born within pagan society. After a point it doesn't make sense to fight it, we're going back to paganism because that's apparently what people want.ABE: I can see all kinds of ways I'd like to rewrite this to try to prevent some unfortunate ways of reading it, but oh well.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The vituperation was a reference to some of the interviews I've seen conducted with preachers and members of the religious right, rather than you Faith.But on your substantive point, you say that this point changes a law that affects what we're allowed to think and do. Well, first off, there is clearly no law which prevents people thinking what they want to think - that's hyperbole and again, undermines your position. Let's stick to what is being talked about, which is whether we should prevent people discriminating against other folks on the basis of their sexuality - a law preventing people doing things, not thinking them.Secondly, we have had (in my country and yours) for quite a number of years now, legislation which prevents discrimination on the grounds of gender. It was hard fought, but the legislation exists - it's actually there, making it illegal for Christians to refuse to appoint women to positions of authority in their businesses, on the grounds of their gender. If you want to argue against laws which would prevent discrimination on the grounds of sexuality, then you have to argue for the repeal of laws which prevent discrimination on the grounds of gender, or else your position is inconsistent and not credible.And it's not just gender - going back to one of my earlier points, you should also be protesting outside MacDonalds, for super sizing their meals and contributing to gluttony.But that doesn't happen - we don't see any of that from religious fundamentalism - we just see the protests centering around people's sexuality.Now you could argue that this is simply a topical issue, but that puts the cart before the horse. What makes the fight for equality of sexuality a topical issue is the current resistance to it, and that resistance largely comes from fundamentalist religion. And their lack of resistance to other biblically-frowned-upon equality, and secular morality, suggests that their resistance to equality of sexuality, stems more from bigotry than defending a faith which is not actually under attack.

Well it seems that you can't think of a single Arizonan any time in the last hundred years who's been hurt by want of such a law. Nor can I. So what do you say we give it another century and see how they get on?

This is not about "sexuality," it is not about "gender," it is about changing the law of marriage, which, believe it or not, is not necessarily specifically Christian, but universal, and forcing people to acknowledge a marriage they do not believe qualifies as a marriage. FORCING this on people. This is a violation of freedom of conscience.I believe in freedom to sin, up to a point, mainly because there's no way to prevent it (though it would be good for people and for the society if we could). The kind of sins that don't harm others, I mean of course; but I don't believe in freedom to make others treat someone's sin as not a sin, or treat a false marriage as a marriage.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The law does not force anyone to believe that gay marriage is ok in the mind of whatever god you think is offended by it. You are perfectly entitled to go on thinking that it's wrong and no-one will be arrested for it. No-one is FORCING anything on you Faith. You don't even have to marry another woman. I think I'm right in saying that you regard sex between people of the same sex a sin? And a gay marriage as a false marriage? So nothing has changed has it? You're free to go right on believing what you're believing and if you're ever asked to take photographs at a gay wedding, I suggest you just say that you're already booked on that day.

There are a few points here. You've chosen the right word there - yes, a law permitting homosexual marriage would require acknowledgment of that marriage by everyone in society. In exactly the same way as requiring people to acknowledge the equality of men and women. You don't need to believe in it; you don't need to support it; you can believe it's wrong; you can tell your children, family and friends that you believe it's wrong; you can think it's wrong. But society requires us to acknowledge things which we might think are wrong. It doesn't ask us to agree - just to accept that some people in society are different from us, and have the same rights as us. Requiring acknowledgment of something is not the same as requiring agreement with it. That is a crucial distinction. It would only violate your conscience if it required you to abandon your belief or your views. It does not. It only prevents you from acting in such a way so as to discriminate. You can believe whatever you wish. Really ? You think it would be good to prevent sin ? And here you are complaining that a law preventing discrimination on the grounds of sexuality is appalling, because it dictates the way we should think. How much worse is it to desire a world in which everyone could be so controlled that they could actually be prevented from sinning. No thoughts of envy - of greed - no coveting of the neighbour - no lust - no wrath - no pride. Try to imagine the pale, emasculated, dystopian Stepford beings we would become.

What is ironic and interesting is that is one of the main tenants that Christianity and the Bible speak about. The freedom to choose to make right or wrong decisions. That is what the whole Adam and Eve in the garden choosing whether or not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was all about. The Bible itself speaks against forcing people to choose to do good or not sin. It is a freedom granted by God. Of course, a freedom with consequences both in this life and the life to come.Bakers, wedding photographers, etc. are not condoning a marriage by baking a cake just in the same way you are not condoning sex outside of marriage by selling condoms at a drugstore you own or work at. Or condoning alcoholism by selling alcohol or being a waiter.

Just to clarify, are you talking here about gay marriage or interracial marriage? Only your rhetoric would do equally well for both.

You can refuse to acknowledge any part of reality that you don't like. What you can't do is force your denial on reality.