RPKESQ, isn't that what you are advocating right now??? You want government to reflect your (athiestic) values, which I would argue is an imposition of your choice of religion (or not) on the rest of us. If you (or any athiest) can get enough votes to get elected to office based on the views and morals that they espouse, then you/they are certainly welcome use your/their athiestic moral compass to help to develop and impliment the laws of our country. I'm sure it already happens, although I don't know enough about all of the specific religious backgrounds of our elected offices to state any figures.

To be honest, I don't want to know the religious background of politicians running for office, for the very simple fact (as has been discussed here in the past) that being a Christian/Muslim/Jew/ etc does not necessarily imply that the person will act within the tenents of that belief system in the future. So the profession of any particular creed is not a good predictor of future performance. Instead I prefer to allocate my vote based on the past performance of the politician, and soundness of his/her vision for their future actions.

By the same token, I don't want to be paying taxes to support any particular creed*, nor do I want the US government to have any say in who the leaders of my church are, nor the doctrine that they will teach (assuming that said doctrine does not infringe on the rights of others to "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness").

I believe that this better represents the concept of "separation of church and state" then what you are advocating.

* Note that this does not in my mind preclude the government paying money to churches in exchange for a social service. For example, I see no problem with the government paying grants to a church run shelter for the homeless, as long as religious activities in the shelter are not required of the guests. I see no problem with religious activities being offered (optional prayer service for example) for those guests who chose to partake, but those guest who chose not to are still offered the same service as those who do. In my book, this is just an example of different parts of society working together for the public good.

This whole Christmas tree snafu in the Portland airport is a classic example. After the airport officials erected Christmas trees (a marginally Christian symbol at best), they were sued by a Jewish group because there were no mennoras (sp?) being displayed. The airport blinked big-time and removed the trees, while missing the culturally sensitive opportunity that they had in from them. An alternative solution which I believe would have been far better received, and more in line with the constitution's intent would be to allocate out portions of airport's displays to the different faiths and creeds (including the athiests). So Christians could put up a tree, or better yet a manger scene in their area, the Jews could put up a mennora, Muslims could put up something in their area (or pass until Hari Raya Haji in January), and the Hindus could do the same for Deepavali in October. If the athiests chose to put up nothing in their area, or a display of something regarding the astronomical significance of the winter solstice, that would be fine too.

The point is that people should be allowed to share their faiths in public buildings, since it is these many faiths and creeds have contributed to making this country great. From the first throughts of "men being created equal" up through the beliefs of the most recent immegrants arriving from the most obscure corners of the world. They are all part of the moral fabric of this country, and what sets it appart from almost every other country.

Isn't the nature of representative government essentially to try to make it represent one's values? Everyone has the right to do that; that is the cornerstone of how it functions. Folks that base their values upon their religious beliefs have every bit as much right (and obligation) to do that as those who base theirs upon something else. The representatives we elect, when the system works as it should, will champion the values of the majority of their constituants.

What you say about "religious people" holds true for any special interest group. They all want their values to be accepted by everyone. They all want public school curriculum to reflect their beliefs. They all elect representatives that will hopefully push their beliefs. What we hope to achieve in our form of government is to have all voices heard, no matter their beliefs. Excluding any one group (for whatever reason) from the process cannot be tolerated. Yet some liberal factions would do just that; interesting that they tout themselves as the party of "tolerance" and "inclusion". Unless, of course, that includes tolerating Christianity.

Sorry, everything you accuse Christianity of (and more) is being practiced by other special interests. Those special intersts happen to dislike Christianity, so they would like to exclude its values from the debate. That is exactly what they accuse Christians of; bigotry, hatred, and ultimately, exclusionary attitudes and practices.

I don't see the hatred, bigotry and exclusionary practices you describe from the science based groups, gay advocates or atheist based groups that would hinder Christians from the practice of their religion in private. Please point out how gay marriage, or abortion rights or teaching science based on science for the masses in public institutions would hamper the practice of Christianity or any religion in private. You will note that this country has a Bill of Rights which supersedes all private groups from practicing many of the historic ways (like beating Jews) that were practiced in other societies with less religious control than ours. I would like to know your plan on how to grant gays full equal rights stated in our Constitution without removing the bigoted, hate filled, exclusionary Christian practices that are being promoted by “loving Christians”. I would like to know the plan to allow women the right to abortion, without removing the religious view from the process. No one is forcing Christian women to have abortion, it’s free choice. And how is science based education forcing Christians to practice their religion differently? Or is it really just an issue of religion loosing the mind-control, no thinking allowed, obedience only influence over the greater part of society that it has had for eons?

Ironically, your very post wherein you state that you do not see these things stands as an example of all of these things. Your personal hatred and bigotry towards Christians comes through loud and clear. Your desire to exclude Christians from the public debate comes through loud and clear as well.

I'm not sure I completely follow you, so let me ask for clarification. As I understand it, in your world it would be o.k. to be openly gay, and to tout your homosexuality in public, demanding acceptance from one and all. It would not be o.k. to be openly Christian, sharing your good news with one and all. There would be laws against that.

It would be o.k. for a woman to murder an unborn child, but not o.k. for anyone to even suggest that may be what is happening. There would be laws against that, too. This is actually not a purely religiously based argument by the way; there is sound scientific research now that points to the immediate formation of a whole separate DNA code, and therefore by today's scientific standards, a whole different life, after conception. It would be o.k. in your world to dismiss any such arguments as "religiously based" and therefore invalid. I guess it makes it easier to dismiss things that you are not comfortable with.

It would be o.k. in your world to teach unproveable theory as "fact" concerning the origin of life. Again, it would be o.k. to brush aside conflicting theories with the "it's only religion" (and therefore invalid) argument. It would be o.k. to never even discuss such things, because there is the slightest hint of "religion" permeating it. As a matter of fact, it would be illegal in your world to even suggest another idea. Oh wait; it already is.

So who is really looking for the "mind-control, no thinking allowed, obedience only influence over the greater part of society"? Your side would very much like to exclude "religion" from the debate. You are not comfortable with the questions it raises, so rather than address them, you would prefer to dismiss them out of hand, turning up your noses at anything that could possibly smack of religion. You folks are aggressively trying to exclude it from any public debate. You are so convinced you are right that there won't be any dissention allowed. Is that not a hostile, bigoted, exclusionary environment that you have created against religion, and religious people? You really cannot see that?

Of course you don't see it, you agree with hindering Christians. Read your own words with a small edit and see if you get it.

I don't see the hatred, bigotry and exclusionary practices you describe from the Christian based groups that would hinder Gays from the practice of their belief in private. Please point out how traditional marriage, or teaching science based on faith for the masses in public institutions would hamper the practice of Gays or any non-Christians in private.

Do you get it yet??? Let me make it more clear. "in private" You are advocating that one particular group that you disagree with be relegated to hidden secret meeting in order to voice their opinions. Maybe you would even advocate the use of secret police to enforce this like Russia and China....

Practice your religion "in private" and we've got an understanding. . .

No one is teaching "unproveable theories concerning the origin of life as fact" now, so this point is moot. For sure, though, you can't introduce religious mythology into the science classroom as a viable alternative to real science. Conflicting theories are worthless without substantiating evidence whether they are based in religion or not.

It is never OK to mislead students - whether in the name of science or religion. The fact that "Creationism" is even discussed in science classes these days is an embarassment.

Mike

Practice anything I dissagree with in private and everything will be o.k. Don't you see the intolerance in that?

Not to open this can of worms (again), Mike, but no one has yet "proven" modern theories for the beginning of life. There are some huge holes in the theory. Even thinking about looking off the beaten path for answers is strictly verboten. The inescapable fact is that many of today's most thoughtful, intelligent scientists no longer buy the party line on this. They are looking elswhere, with surprising results. The only thing not surprising about those results, as a matter of fact, is mainstream science's reaction to them. The hue and cry to burn them at the scientific stake as heretics is deafening.

I'd be interested to see an example of the problem you describe here. Can you provide one or two?

Let's try putting a few other words in this sentence and see how it sounds. shall we?

Practice your homosexuality "in private" and we've got an understanding. . .

Practice your feminism "in private" and we've got an understanding. . .

Practice your Darwinism "in private" and we've got an understanding. . .

Practice your abortion "in private" and we've got an understanding. . .

Anyone see a pattern?

I am quite confident that the 'mainstream scientific' theory of abiogenesis is absolute bunk.

Furthermore, i have yet to be convinced that "Intolerance" is in any way an inherently bad thing. To the opposite, i would merely call it common sense.

I am 'intolerant' of rapists and murderers, and that's bad how?

Inclusion for inclusion's sake is utter stupidity.

So what would you have people do then? Walk around wearing their faith on their sleeve like so many do? That's the point of the thread/article that I found so interesting - the people that insist on doing that are PRECISELY the ones that irritate the living crap out of everyone else and do a huge disservice to the beliefs they're so supposedly dedicated to.

I have no problem whatsoever with people wanting to believe whatever they want. I have a HUGE problem with people feeling the need to pound everyone else over the head with it. Different people "draw the line" as to where this occurs in different places - one person might think it's okay to slap "John 3:16" all over their car and wear crosses and carry signs about how we need to "Repent! The end of the world is nigh!" or whatever. Someone else might think it crosses the line simply to have someone say "I'm a Christian" or "I'm Jewish" or whichever faith they believe in without them asking (unsolicited).

In general though, it seems that if someone is SOOOOOOO convinved their belief system is so enlightened and transcendent, why not simply live by that system and let example you set speak for itself - without all the blather and spam-esque "advertising" slapped onto it? The individuals I've found most compelling (Christian and otherwise) are the ones that don't feel the need to blab about it constantly. They exude a quiet peaceful understanding about them and compells others who know them to ask what their secret is. At that point, you're SEEKING the information and they're free to share it. I think this is what Jesus (and others) intended, not for "Religion 'A'" and "Religion 'B'" to persecute, berate, attack and even kill one another in the name of the particulars of their dogma.

If you've found peace and happiness through your spirituality, good for you. If you feel the need to brag about it to anyone and everyone else (regardless of reason), I find that totally inappropriate. A "don't-call-me-I'll-call-you" approach works best on this one.

P-o-P you seem to have had some very bad experiences with Christians and for that I am sorry.

I do find it interesting, though, that thinking homosexuals or athiests or feminists or abortionists should not parade themselves around is considered bigoted and intolerant. Thinking Christians should do the same is accepted.

Can you explain that to me?

Looks like we have gone full circle in this thread, Jeff. I agree with you whole-heartedly. The same can be said for anyone's pet issues; trying to influence one another's behaviour by cramming our beliefs down each other's throats should not be tolerated from anyone. Polite discussion and civil debate is to be encouraged, but too many cross that line. The in-your-face approach, from any faction, simply creates ill-will in their targeted audience.

On the other hand, the hyper-sensitivity exhibited by some has the same effect. To expect to get through life never being exposed to that with which you disagree, and getting upset any time one even sees a hint of Christianity (or homosexuality, feminism, etc.) in a public place is absurd. If the mere mention of some "hot-button" issue sets some one off, then the problem is theirs, not the poor guy that happened to bring it up.

What theory are you talking about? The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. There is nothing being taught in schools as "fact" regarding the origins of life. The truth is that we simply don't know.

If you're trying to say that there are mainstream scientists that do not buy the theory of evolution, that is news indeed. A subject for a different thread, though.

The reality is that the only thing that should be taught in science classes in schools is what we know based on the evidence and our understanding of that evidence as a result of the scientific method. Anything else (religious theories included) should be verboten. Got an alternate theory? Bring it forward, but it better be able to explain the evidence or it gets thrown out (like ID and creationism).

Mike

There is no "mainstream theory of abiogenesis".

Mike

Have to agree.

As far as your question, I don't have a good answer. I agree with the point you're probably trying to make however - that it's a double-standard. I get irritated with members of those groups (and others) parading around demanding special treatment just as much as the bible-thumpers, FWIW.

Although we can probably take consolation in the knowledge that if a person feels the need to define themselves through a "label" (be it about religion, sexuality, whatever), it usually represents a pretty low level of self-esteem. I mean, if that's all you've got going for you is that you belong to "group X", it doesn't say much for your individuality, does it?

:)

Yup, I agree Porsche-O-Phile. None of us was put here (even by accident) just to be a member of some group or another. There are far too many real problems in the world that demand real creative solutions.

BTW, did anyone else think of this forum when they read "Opus" in yesterday's Sunday comics???

The many replies to the negative concerning my posts are very interesting but logically poorly constructed. I never said Christians can't have a viewpoint or that their viewpoint be anymore suppressed than any other group. I said their "values" should not be the governments values forced on us all. How is an "openly" gay person supposed to act? Should they have to cower to the religious person, should they not have the rights granted every citizen, should they be restricted from adoption because your religion says so? Where does your religious rights end and theirs begin? My contention is they should have all the same civil rights as you do and enjoy, period. The only voice against this is the religious voice. You may do as you please in your religion, just don't force it on the rest of us.

Jeff wrote:
"Your personal hatred and bigotry towards Christians comes through loud and clear."
This is clearly lies and character assassination. I just stated you can practice any religion you want; just don't force your rules on me. In other words, complete religious freedom as long as you apply it to only your own kind. What could be fairer than that? It is what the Bill of Rights states.

tobster1911 wrote:
"Of course you don't see it, you agree with hindering Christians." and "Do you get it yet??? Let me make it clearer. "in private" You are advocating that one particular group that you disagree with be relegated to hidden secret meeting in order to voice their opinions. Maybe you would even advocate the use of secret police to enforce this like Russia and China...."


No more than any other group. Why should Christians have more rights than gays? The bigotry is all on your side. "Secret Meetings"?, are you always so full of outright fantasy?, or is this hyperbole the only irrational argument you have? Where and when did I ever state you could not have your groups meet and speak in tongues? That is a right in our Bill of Rights which we all should be able to enjoy. I said your religion should not be the basis of government policy.

And to answer all of the religious Luddites:
As far as the science criticism goes, let’s try explaining this one more time. All science acts in the same manner. We come up with a premise or theory and test to see if it is accurate, if new information develops or the test results are unsupported, we change the theory. Until we get a theory that meets a majority of tests or verifiable results. Using this thought process has brought us all the wonders of the modern age. Please give me examples of how religion has brought progress or knowledge advancement in ANY area. I think it is so funny that religious people rely on modern medicine, engineering, computers, the internet, etc. all the while screaming how science has it out for them and also science has it wrong. (Oh wait, I see it now, science is alright in everything else, but really screwed up with the biology stuff.) What a bunch of hypocrites.

Agreed once again, Jeff. I think we are much closer on this than you think. This world is certainly full of people that define themselves in one very tiny pidgeon-hole. They do tend to be annoying zealots, don't they? I don't care what cause or belief it may be, being so entirely consumed by it is not healthy. And it really grates on other people.

While I am a Christian, it does not define me. I am also an engineer. And a hunter. And a fisherman. And a biker. And a Porsche nut. And a shooter. And a father. And a husband. And a... you get the idea. I could bore you to tears on any one of those fronts (well, maybe not Porsches). I could bring any one topic up in a casual conversation. None will quite piss people off as fast as religion, though. I wonder why. I really do find that kind of weird.