Hot Coffee Too Hot?

[Irvine511]

So, it really boils down to the perceived religious connection to legislation?

And, that some religious beliefs are unacceptable because they are deemed prejudicial?

perceived?

yes, when religious beliefs trample on the rights of individuals in this country -- who have committed no crimes -- to pursue their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then they are unacceptable to legislate especially when their source is a religious document and is not based in quantifiable secular knowledge.

 

[nbcrusader]

yes, when religious beliefs trample on the rights of individuals in this country -- who have committed no crimes -- to pursue their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then they are unacceptable to legislate especially when their source is a religious document and is not based in quantifiable secular knowledge.

Sounds like a call to disenfranchise the religious voter.

And what exactly is "quantifiable secular knowledge"?

 

[melon]

Sounds like a call to disenfranchise the religious voter.

And what exactly is "quantifiable secular knowledge"?

You get a constitutional provision to protect against your discrimination, while in most states, gay people can get fired for just being themselves.

I hate it when the dominant hegemony tries to see itself as the permanent victim. It's more pathetic than anything.

Melon

 

[BVS]

You get a constitutional provision to protect against your discrimination, while in most states, gay people can get fired for just being themselves.

I hate it when the dominant hegemony tries to see itself as the permanent victim. It's more pathetic than anything.

Melon

Yet we'll bitch about race rules on college campuses...

We need to find some consistencies, don't you think...

 

[Irvine511]

Sounds like a call to disenfranchise the religious voter.

And what exactly is "quantifiable secular knowledge"?

hardly. that's laughably alarmist, and plays perfectly into your newly revealed victim mentality. i had no idea the religious in this country were so afflicted. but it suppose it's true. maybe one day, when the walls that separate church and state are finally broken down, a Christian can be elected president of the United States.

oh wait ...

so, what you're effectively saying, is that my right not to be discriminated against in, say, employment as a gay person is somehow tantamount to religious discrimination? a disenfranchisement of a religious voter?

quantifiable secular knowledge -- a good example would be abstinence-only programs. we know, for a fact, that they don't work, that they contain faulty science, that they actually endanger the lives of teens, and that the only reason for their FEDERALLY FUNDED existence is a pandering by the Bush administration to "faith-based initiatives." essentially, a highly subjective view on sexuality and morality that is drawn from a highly subjective reading of the Bible has been endorsed by the government. any local schoolboard can teach their children whatever they damn well please. just not with my tax dollars.


it would be great if you started to offer something other than rhetorical questions. enough with the Socratic method.

 

[nbcrusader]

so, what you're effectively saying, is that my right not to be discriminated against in, say, employment as a gay person is somehow tantamount to religious discrimination? a disenfranchisement of a religious voter?

No, you are effectively saying that there should be no religious influence in the political process, whether by elected official or voter. That is significantly different than our current structure. I guess that 2004 poll showing a percentage of voters influenced by "moral reasons" gave rise to the idea of "taliban" in this country.

 

[Irvine511]

No, you are effectively saying that there should be no religious influence in the political process, whether by elected official or voter. That is significantly different than our current structure. I guess that 2004 poll showing a percentage of voters influenced by "moral reasons" gave rise to the idea of "taliban" in this country.

no. you misunderstand.

religious influence should not be a part of legislation. religious documents cannot be referred to as pieces of evidence to support legislation. i am talking about the legislative process, not the political. again, look at the example of federally funded "abstinence-only education" -- it ignores science for the endorsement of a particular worldview.

though i do think it's in bad taste to continually reference God and to end things with "God bless the United States" -- as if God hasn't blessed this country enough already. i wish we'd take a cue from our friends in the UK. to me, it all sounds tacky. but that's an opinion.

voters can choose whomever they wish by whatever criteria they wish. obviously. nowhere have i said that people shouldn't vote on the basis of religious criteria. the difference is legislating on the basis of specific religious criteria.

and the American Taliban -- again, you're using the phrase, i've really only been defending the "Christianist" label, though i understand where Melon is coming from with this -- has always been around (think Moral Majority). the difference, this time, is that they themselves believe they won Bush the election in 2004 and are now looking for payback in the form of religiously oriented legislation. of course, they use code words and buzz words, but the intent is all the same and laid bare, again, by that website Melon posted.

 

[melon]

No, you are effectively saying that there should be no religious influence in the political process, whether by elected official or voter. That is significantly different than our current structure. I guess that 2004 poll showing a percentage of voters influenced by "moral reasons" gave rise to the idea of "taliban" in this country.

It is immoral for "religious voters" to use their rule to discriminate against any minority. Period.

We keep on tellling the Shi'ites not to legislate their personal theology onto the Sunnis and the Kurds, but look what we do in return? We're hypocrites, and I'm tired of these extremists hijacking Christianity and, by proxy, America.

"The global struggle against extremism," or whatever the catch phrase of the day is, should start at home, or otherwise we are completely and morally bankrupt in the eyes of the rest of the world. Iranian students were once apt to note that while the U.S. preaches secularism to Iran, they do not practice that at home. The people of the Middle East are not blind.

Melon

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

religious influence should not be a part of legislation. religious documents cannot be referred to as pieces of evidence to support legislation.

And I believe this kind of thinking would apply to any religion, not just the Christian one. We're just talking about Christianity right now because that's the one that's having the most influence at this time. But I would imagine Irvine would also apply this thought process to any other religion as well, would I be right in thinking that, Irvine?

Angela

 

[Irvine511]

And I believe this kind of thinking would apply to any religion, not just the Christian one. We're just talking about Christianity right now because that's the one that's having the most influence at this time. But I would imagine Irvine would also apply this thought process to any other religion as well, would I be right in thinking that, Irvine?

Angela

yes, absolutely.

the problem isn't Christianity, it's religion.

secularism. it's the only way we can keep diversity of religion.

 

[nbcrusader]

secularism. it's the only way we can keep diversity of religion.

We've never had the degree of secularism you are after. Yet, we have freedom and diversity of religion - far better than many countries.

 

[Irvine511]

We've never had the degree of secularism you are after. Yet, we have freedom and diversity of religion - far better than many countries.

could you define the degree of secularism i am after?

you read so much into my statements, and then make great leaps in logic, yet say so little. it makes for a frustrating conversation.

 

[nbcrusader]

I'm only using your statements:

religious influence should not be a part of legislation

the problem isn't Christianity, it's religion.

secularism. it's the only way we can keep diversity of religion

Sorry it is frustrating. This would go much better face to face. Perhaps one day we will get the chance.

 

[Irvine511]

Sorry it is frustrating. This would go much better face to face. Perhaps one day we will get the chance.

let's leave it at that, then.

this is too complex a topic for such a forum.