Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 709 of 824 (749706)
02-07-2015 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 708 by nwr
02-07-2015 6:08 PM


No it is not quite clear at all. Actually the First Amendment is always being misapplied and it is being misapplied in this situation too. What it says is that Congress may make no law establishing a religion, that is, a particular religion so supported by government that it has power over other religions. That is hardly the case here or in fact in any of the ways that amendment is misapplied these days.
Congress in the early days after the Constitution was established supported all kinds of Christian expressions, including Christian prayer in government operations. Christianity was the basis of teaching in the public schools as it was based on the Bible and in some cases on the Westminster Catechism, and nobody thought that constituted a conflict with the First Amendment, which it did not. .
However, your revisionist interpretation rules the day now and Ham will probably be its victim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 708 by nwr, posted 02-07-2015 6:08 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 710 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-07-2015 7:02 PM Faith has replied
 Message 719 by subbie, posted 02-07-2015 10:04 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 711 of 824 (749709)
02-07-2015 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 710 by Tanypteryx
02-07-2015 7:02 PM


Since you put it that way I suppose I do need to rethink it.
But I'll also point out that Christians pay taxes to support all kind of stuff in this nation that we not only disagree with but abhor.
However, I'll agree with you that you shouldn't be required to pay for my religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 710 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-07-2015 7:02 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 715 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-07-2015 8:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 713 of 824 (749711)
02-07-2015 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 712 by Percy
02-07-2015 8:24 PM


More accurately, you mean you can imagine that such a situation could exist, but you can't imagine what that situation might be.
Correct. I'm giving Ham the benefit of the doubt that he has a good reason.
However, I think I'm now at the point where I hope he'll drop his case and give up on having only Christian employees -- or, I guess, if he really thinks it's necessary then give up on the exemption. I'm mostly interested here in defending him against the endless accusations of misconduct. If he's wrong he's wrong but he's not a liar and all the rest of it.
I've been coming to the conclusion in recent years anyway that Christians should completely cut ourselves off from any kind of tax relief, including the 501c3 thing. America has become hostile to Christians and it's time to let it all go. Christianity does best when it has NO alignment with government AT ALL. All they want to do is restrict us in one way or another and the Church needs to be completely free to say and do what accords with God's requirements. So let them take away our businesses and all our tax exemptions. We have God, He's far and away enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 712 by Percy, posted 02-07-2015 8:24 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 714 by jar, posted 02-07-2015 8:52 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 716 by Percy, posted 02-07-2015 9:00 PM Faith has replied
 Message 720 by subbie, posted 02-07-2015 10:13 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 717 of 824 (749715)
02-07-2015 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 716 by Percy
02-07-2015 9:00 PM


What you really meant to say is, "American has become hostile to fanatically conservative and paranoid fundamentalist Christians."
Sure, call us whatever you like.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 716 by Percy, posted 02-07-2015 9:00 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 718 by jar, posted 02-07-2015 9:33 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 737 by Percy, posted 02-08-2015 7:48 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 721 of 824 (749720)
02-07-2015 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 720 by subbie
02-07-2015 10:13 PM


the fear of that kind of thing happening is one of the reasons supporting the exact interpretation of the First Amendment that you disagree with
But I don't disagree with it. The paragraph you quote is actually very attractive to me as a statement for the secularist interpretation, I've never seen it put quite that way before. There's nothing in it that allows such things as punishing teachers and students for bringing Bibles to school for instance, which happens occasionally under the mistaken notion that that is somehow "establishing a religion." It's that kind of stuff that drives Christians crazy because it's a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. I think it also should protect Christian business owners from the kind of legal abuse they've been receiving for acting on their Biblical objections to gay marriage.
But I'm saying I think we should give it all up anyway. Whether you see it or not Christianity* is being restricted and punished these days against the Free Exercise Clause, more and more in many ways, and such punishments and restrictions are loudly applauded at EvC. So I'm for Christians giving up any form of dependence on the culture and government whatever.
Yours truly,
*Fanatically Conservative and Paranoid Fundamentalist Christian." See Message 716
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 720 by subbie, posted 02-07-2015 10:13 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 722 by subbie, posted 02-07-2015 10:54 PM Faith has replied
 Message 739 by Percy, posted 02-08-2015 8:09 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 723 of 824 (749722)
02-07-2015 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 722 by subbie
02-07-2015 10:54 PM


I draw the line where the Bible draws the line. We will not serve a gay wedding which is a violation of the Bible. Period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 722 by subbie, posted 02-07-2015 10:54 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 724 by subbie, posted 02-07-2015 11:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 725 of 824 (749724)
02-07-2015 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 722 by subbie
02-07-2015 10:54 PM


Sure, shut down the Muslim cab drivers if they won't drive anyone carrying alcohol, shut down the Hasidic business if they won't serve women, certainly shut down any business that refuses to serve blacks or other religions, of course, goes without saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 722 by subbie, posted 02-07-2015 10:54 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 726 by subbie, posted 02-07-2015 11:15 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 727 of 824 (749726)
02-07-2015 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 726 by subbie
02-07-2015 11:15 PM


I'm not claiming the right, I'm saying shut us all down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 726 by subbie, posted 02-07-2015 11:15 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 728 by subbie, posted 02-07-2015 11:19 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 729 of 824 (749728)
02-07-2015 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 728 by subbie
02-07-2015 11:19 PM


No, it looks like it should protect us. But according to you it doesn't. I'm just going on to agree with you then, that you should just shut down any of those you listed if we/they refuse to serve the people designated abe: -- or in the case of a gay wedding, the situation, not the people since the people are not refused other services. /abe
I do wonder, however, if you would shut down a black bakery for refusing to make a cake celebrating a Klan anniversary, or a Jewish bakery for refusing to make a cake celebrating Hitler and that sort of thing. Hm?
ABE: Again, I remind you that the Christian businesses are not refusing to serve gays, they are refusing a particular service.. Period.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 728 by subbie, posted 02-07-2015 11:19 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 730 by subbie, posted 02-07-2015 11:35 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 731 of 824 (749730)
02-07-2015 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 730 by subbie
02-07-2015 11:35 PM


The problem with your solution is that a wedding cake is a very special original and expensive creation with elaborate handmade decorations. There is no writing on it but the whole creation says "wedding." The designer often works to personalize it in various ways for the clients. The making of ANY such creation by a Christian* is not possible for a gay wedding.
Nor is the supplying of decorative flowers by a Christian florist, which would require installing them, nor the taking of wedding photographs by a Christian photographer, which would require a personal participation in the event.
All of these businesses have been sued for their refusal of these particular services. Any other cake or baked goods, no problem, flowers galore for any other purpose, no problem, portrait photos or anything for a nonwedding context I'm sure would be no problem for the photographer either.
So there is really no such thing in this case as "the mere baking of a cake." A baker in Colorado has been sued, a couple in Oregon had to close their shop and work from home but she no longer makes wedding cakes and the husband had to get a job driving a truck; I haven't heard about the florist recently but last I heard she was being sued.
abe: *Excuse me, a FCPF, that is, a Fanatically Conservative and Paranoid Fundamentalist Christian of course.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 730 by subbie, posted 02-07-2015 11:35 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 732 by subbie, posted 02-07-2015 11:58 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 733 of 824 (749732)
02-08-2015 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 732 by subbie
02-07-2015 11:58 PM


Let me take a half step back for a minute.
First, I'll note that not all Christians share your view. I believe your position is a minority one, losing adherents daily.
Yes, I did go back and correct the term to Fanatically Conservative and Paranoid Fundamentalist Christians. Those are the ones being fined or driven out of business. I don't know if we're "losing adherents daily" but it doesn't matter, as Jesus said "the Gates of Hell will not prevail against us."
In this regard, it is a close parallel to the way churches have responded to broad societal changes in the past; i.e. slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, etc.
Well, there is actually no parallel whatever, but I don't suppose I can convince you or anyone else here. Slavery is not biblically defensible and never was, no matter what historical rationalizations were trumped up for it; there is nothing in the Bible against women's having the right to vote or other rights in society and Jesus was a great liberator of women in a time when they truly were second-class citizens; and so on.
But homosexual acts are clearly defined in scripture as sin and marriage is clearly and unequivocally defined as between a man and a woman. Rationalizations for it are being trumped up for it, but no FCPF will ever cave in on it.
In a decade or two, I suspect opposition to gay marriage will be even lower than opposition to interracial marriage is today.
I have no idea if your prophecy will come true or not but if it does all it will mean is that more of the Church has gone apostate and abandoned God's word. But there will always be a remnant of true believers.
Second, it's far from clear to me that there is any meaningful difference between making a cake for a wedding or for funeral, a birthday party or just the hell of it. I've been married twice and neither time was there the kind of intimate interaction between us and any of the various professionals we hired. In short, I'm convinced that some Christians are inflating the level and kind of offense they experience.
Shouldn't it be the Christians themselves who make such a call? Why would they want to bring all that misery down on their heads? They consider it a violation of God's Law and they will not do it.
Tell me, do you distinguish between objecting to a gay marriage and objecting to an interracial marriage? I'm not now asking about what the First Amendment says. I'm asking if you think a baker should be able to refuse to bake a cake for an interracial wedding for religion reasons?
No. There is nothing in God's word, rightly understood, against interracial marriage.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 732 by subbie, posted 02-07-2015 11:58 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 734 by subbie, posted 02-08-2015 12:40 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 735 of 824 (749734)
02-08-2015 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 734 by subbie
02-08-2015 12:40 AM


Yes it would "surprise" me because it is not true that MOST Christians thought there was biblical support for slavery. It was CHRISTISANS who opposed slavery. Wilberforce, Newton. And it was just habit and culture that opposed women's rights and trumped up Bible rationjalizations. But I do not want to argue this with you. We are already way off topic.
No the Bible did not change, cultural forces merely misused it. But there is no way the Bible can ever be made to support gay marriage except by the same rationalizations and subterfuges that disallowed interracial marriage and women's rights and promoted slavery.
But none of this matters. You aren't going to talk me or any other Christian --- meaning of course FCPF ---- out of this. I don't care whose belief "trumps" whose and a nonChristian is not the one to decide these things.
No FCPF will ever give in on gay marriage, it's truly unequivocal in God's word. So if you want to run us out of business for refusing to serve gay marriage I guess you will.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 734 by subbie, posted 02-08-2015 12:40 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 740 by Percy, posted 02-08-2015 9:10 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 736 of 824 (749735)
02-08-2015 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 734 by subbie
02-08-2015 12:40 AM


...
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 734 by subbie, posted 02-08-2015 12:40 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 742 of 824 (749750)
02-08-2015 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 737 by Percy
02-08-2015 7:48 AM


I wasn't calling you names, just calling you out on your distortion. In a country that is nearly 3/4 Christian, to claim there is hostility toward Christians is preposterous. And to claim hostility toward your minority sub-sect of Christianity simply because the rest of the country doesn't share your eagerness for violating separation of church and state is equally preposterous.
Gosh I would have thought that what I encounter at EvC would be evidence enough, and how atheists target us and so on. Looks a lot like hostility to me. But maybe it's really admiration and love, huh? Anyway I did accommodate to your statistic and what you claim wasn't calling me names, to make it clear that it's only my subset of Christians that is subjected to hostility, the ones I consider to be the true Christians of course as against all the others who go by the name but reject most of the Bible and so on. They are often very popular indeed. So I'm quite happy to accept your title for my subset, From now on I expect to refer to my subset fairly frequently as the Fanatically Conservative Paranoid Fundamentalists. It has a ring to it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 737 by Percy, posted 02-08-2015 7:48 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 750 by Percy, posted 02-08-2015 12:52 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 743 of 824 (749751)
02-08-2015 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 739 by Percy
02-08-2015 8:09 AM


But I don't disagree with it.
Ouch, whiplash again. As Subbie noted, your interpretation of the First Amendment described in the first paragraph of your Message 709 could not be more different than the Supreme Court's interpretation that Subbie quoted in Message 719. You do disagree with it, or at least you did just yesterday.
I should have said I liked it, because I did. I thought it was remarkably neutral as secularist interpretations go, and as I said, that it should defend some of us FCPF's in some situations in which it seems we aren't often defended. Subbie corrected me, however, turns out in his opinion it wouldn't defend us anyway.
What the original First Amendment actually intended may be something else, but I like this one anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 739 by Percy, posted 02-08-2015 8:09 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024