Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,104 Year: 5,361/9,624 Month: 386/323 Week: 26/204 Day: 2/24 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Arizona: Showing America how to avoid thinking since 1912
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(7)
Message 32 of 397 (720748)
02-27-2014 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
02-27-2014 5:35 AM


Re: Such a groundswell of opinion against freedom of religion
That's the bogus comparison you all try to make. Sin is not the same thing as race, and people ought to know better than to make such a comparison.
Well, on the one hand there are plenty of people who think that homosexuality is no sin.
And on the other hand, there are and were people who think that the abolition of racial segregation was sinful.
* "The good Lord was the original segregationist." --- Ross Barnett, Governor of Mississippi.
* "[T]he natural law which forbids [racial intermarriage] and that social amalgamation which leads to a corruption of races, is as clearly divine as that which imparted to [the races] different natures." --- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1867.
* "There is every reason to believe that miscengenation and amalgamation are sins of man in direct defiance to the will of God." --- Theodore Bilbo, two-time Governor of Mississippi and U.S. Senator.
* "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." --- Judge Leon M. Bazile, January 6, 1959.
Or have a look at this article in defense of segregation, which cites many chapters and verses of the Bible:
* "Many others are pushing integration: The YMCA, religious liberals, various dubbed dogooders, etc., and many sincere and good ministers of the Gospel. They have succumbed to and been traduced by the integration propaganda of the Communist Party, the NAACP, and various liberal and unorthodox theologians bleating their shibboleths of 'Justice' and 'Freedom.' In the interest of their unnatural religious and social philosophy, they are working to destroy the races that God has created, crying 'oneworld brotherhood' and 'racial equality,' neither of which conceptions have any substantiation whatsoever in the Scripture."
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Now let the author tell you why it's sinful to appoint black people to positions in the government:
* "The plan moves on apace. An editorial in Life informs us with pride that President Eisenhower "has appointed more than a dozen Negroes to important government positions, notably J. Ernest Wilkins of Chicago, Assistant Secretary of Labor for International Affairs and the first Negro to achieve subcabinet rank." We are told also that "Sherman Adams' staff includes the first White House Negro secretary." It might be a good thing for the President, his advisers, and the voters as well, to remember what happened to King Jeroboam and other rulers in Israel for making the same mistake. Yes, the Bible is a discriminating Book, both as to race and creed."
Now, my point is that you can hardly expect the law to single out your notion of what is sinful as the correct one that should be followed, over and above that of other religious groups. Instead, we have a secular Constitution where the concept of sin as such is irrelevant.
But being forced to make a wedding cake or take photographs which would be specifically a validation of the gay lifestyle when you consider gay marriage to be a violation of a basic principle given by God, is what I mean by tyranny.
And is it also "tyranny" when someone who sincerely believes that interracial marriage is "a violation of a basic principle given by God" discriminates against a mixed-race couple rather than "validate" their "lifestyle"?
If the only difference is that you personally think that one is against God's principles and the other isn't, then you don't have a leg to stand on. The law cannot exalt the doctrines of your chosen sect of your chosen religion over other sects and religions.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 02-27-2014 5:35 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 60 of 397 (720785)
02-27-2014 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
02-27-2014 3:49 PM


Re: Let's limit this discussion to the specifics
So what's going to happen is that people with a strong moral conviction against gay marriage are going to give up their businesses and go to prison.
We'll save 'em a cell next to all the bold martyrs with a "strong moral conviction" against desegregation.
"If you are against segregation and against racial separation, then you are against God Almighty." --- Bob Jones Sr.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 02-27-2014 3:49 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 65 of 397 (720791)
02-27-2014 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by New Cat's Eye
02-27-2014 4:44 PM


Re: Let's limit this discussion to the specifics
You forgot the part where the ones who do expose themselves for who they are and the rest of us get to make them go out of business.
And you forgot the part where we don't do our shopping in the backwoods of red states anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-27-2014 4:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 74 of 397 (720801)
02-27-2014 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by New Cat's Eye
02-27-2014 5:05 PM


Re: Let's limit this discussion to the specifics
Today? For sure it would work.
Well, if what you say is true, then anti-discrimination laws would merely mandate what's going to happen anyway --- like passing a law stipulating that the Sun should rise in the East.
But then where's the harm in such a law? It wastes a tiny quantity of paper?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-27-2014 5:05 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 99 of 397 (720833)
02-27-2014 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Faith
02-27-2014 5:57 PM


Re: Let's limit this discussion to the specifics
The obtuseness to the moral issue here is truly amazing. However, although you don't get it , again, let's leave it to the people who DO have a conscience against baking a wedding cake for a homosexual couple because to them it's like condoning gay marriage which they believe violates the Law of God.
And you know what else people believe violates the Law of God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 02-27-2014 5:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 111 of 397 (720857)
02-27-2014 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Faith
02-27-2014 5:21 PM


Re: Let's limit this discussion to the specifics
Those of us who believe the Bible is the inspired inerrant word of God will choose to die rather than be forced to do something that violates it.
No-one's actually planning to kill you. But if you pretend that they are, then you can have that warm fuzzy feeling that goes with being a brave little martyr, without actually undergoing the slightest personal risk. That's the great thing about pretending.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 02-27-2014 5:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 02-28-2014 1:42 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 137 of 397 (720975)
03-01-2014 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
02-28-2014 1:42 AM


Re: Let's limit this discussion to the specifics
How do you know nobody's actually planning to kill me?
It seems unlikely. If someone does kill you, let me know and I'll retract my claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 02-28-2014 1:42 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 138 of 397 (720976)
03-01-2014 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
02-28-2014 1:41 AM


Question
Interesting of course that religious liberty to this writer is only about PRIVATE practices, but if religious liberty is also about PUBLIC practices, which it always was in America until rather recently, then religious liberty may very well be at risk. If religious liberty includes the right to refuse service to anyone where your Bible-based conscience is violated then your religious liberty is very probably at risk. But as long as you focus on inessentials you can prove anything.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 02-28-2014 1:41 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 03-02-2014 1:26 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 144 of 397 (720986)
03-02-2014 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
03-02-2014 1:26 AM


Re: Question
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 03-02-2014 1:26 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 149 of 397 (720996)
03-02-2014 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Faith
03-02-2014 3:31 AM


Re: Let's limit this discussion to the specifics
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.
Just to clarify, are you talking here about gay marriage or interracial marriage? Only your rhetoric would do equally well for both.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Faith, posted 03-02-2014 3:31 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 154 of 397 (721014)
03-02-2014 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Faith
03-02-2014 5:11 PM


Re: something to think about
America whose original settlers dedicated the land to God ...
Be more specific.
Shooting down a law that might have protected some shred of our Christian heritage (and again since I haven't read the proposed law I'm only guessing) may not be the last straw, but the trend is clear so there will eventually be a last straw. I believe the nation is under God's judgment already, and even such an attitude as the one expressed here is an expression of that judgment but we aren't yet experiencing the worst.
Well I'm sure after a few plagues of frogs and rains of blood we'll repent and turn back to Asdzą́ą́ Ndleeh or whoever you had in mind. Until then, so long as God apparently doesn't care whether Arizonans can get their bigot on, nor do I.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Faith, posted 03-02-2014 5:11 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 182 of 397 (721078)
03-03-2014 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Faith
03-03-2014 6:32 AM


Re: something to think about
Two thousand years of preaching by the best preachers of Christendom says you're wrong.
1400 years of preaching by the best preachers of Islam say you're wrong to be a Christian. So?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Faith, posted 03-03-2014 6:32 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 212 of 397 (721126)
03-03-2014 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Faith
03-03-2014 2:53 PM


Re: Something more to think about
Seventh Day Adventism is not Christianity, it's a cult.
Yeah, they're the nuts who invented "flood geology". By their fruits ye shall know them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Faith, posted 03-03-2014 2:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 03-04-2014 12:25 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 224 of 397 (721171)
03-04-2014 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Faith
03-04-2014 11:46 AM


Re: Something more to think about
A literal reading of Genesis is not an aberrant teaching so that's not one of Ellen White's aberrant teachings.
And a Seventh-Dayer (like the late Buzsaw) would say "Seventh-Dayism is not an aberrant teaching so that's not one of Ellen White's aberrant teachings." You could in fact say that sort of thing about any teaching, no matter how false it was.
It is at least something to consider. If there is a God, as you suppose, then for what reason did he decree that the True Truth That All Christians Should Believe should have originated in a cult that you don't even acknowledge as Christian? Isn't that like adopting (for example) some point of Gnostic theology and supposing that in this one instance they knew something that St. Paul and the Evangelists didn't? "That's not an aberrant teaching", you could say, "so that's not one of the Gnostics' aberrant teachings". But why wasn't it one of the Apostles' teachings instead?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Faith, posted 03-04-2014 11:46 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 227 of 397 (721180)
03-04-2014 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by NoNukes
03-04-2014 11:01 AM


Re: something to think about
'Duck Dynasty'??
It's a riveting historical documentary about the time when ancient Mesopotamia was ruled by waterfowl. Our modern sensibilities are offended by their tyrannical habits of waddling about and quacking, and yet it is a fact that under the webbed feet of the Ducks, ancient Babylon attained a level of scientific and artistic culture not to be equaled until the days of the Persian Empire.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by NoNukes, posted 03-04-2014 11:01 AM NoNukes has 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