Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,060,835 times
Reputation: 36027
Back on track
This thread was to bring to our awareness of a brutal gang rape of a lesbian woman. The crime against her was sickening and I pray that her perpetrators get punished to the fullest extent of the law. What I don't agree with is using this event as an excuse to bash Christians and other conservatives who voted against gay marriage and to insinuate that we take some sort of sick pleasure in seeing anyone in the gay community victimized. Let's move beyond childish stereotyping and discuss these matters like rational adults. Thank you.
This thread was to bring to our awareness of a brutal gang rape of a lesbian woman. The crime against her was sickening and I pray that her perpetrators get punished to the fullest extent of the law. What I don't agree with is using this event as an excuse to bash Christians and other conservatives who voted against gay marriage and to insinuate that we take some sort of sick pleasure in seeing anyone in the gay community victimized. Let's move beyond childish stereotyping and discuss these matters like rational adults. Thank you.
It seems to me that this thread was created to bash Christians and conservatives.
You can believe whatever you want. You can shout it from the rooftops, you can publish it in books/newspapers and you can even have your very own show on television/radio to expound upon your views.
That is covered by the first amendment.
Hell, you can even have an army of followers as well.
Again, that is covered.
What is not covered by the principle of freedom of religion is the idea that public policy should be made based on religious tenets. Or should I clarify, only your religious tenets -- which would be Christianity. (Again, something tells me you would fight tooth and nail if a heavily muslim populated US city chose to enact Sharia law)
In the case of homosexuals being allowed to marry your whole argument rests with 'its against gods law'. Well, too bad. Gods law is not and should not be the basis of American Law. Because again, whose god would you choose? Allah? Yahweh? Vishna? How about none of the above?
And secondly, and more relevent to this thread ---- my original point was that it is unfair to say Christians are happy that this woman was raped. That is wrong. However, it is also unfair to ignore the importance words and religious dogma turned legislation has on the populace. One cannot and should not call a segment of our society as deviant/unnatural/sodomite/sinner and then be surprised when evil people take that as an excuse to perpetrate a vicous attack. Because good Christian people like yourself have decreed the woman as a deviant right? Going against gods plan, right? So - in the minds of the truly deviant and criminal - she became fair game. Less then human. After all, she can't even marry in our society like normal folks such as the rapist.
And if you cannot see the distinction, then you really are trying hard to not to.
What is not covered by the principle of freedom of religion is the idea that public policy should be made based on religious tenets. Or should I clarify, only your religious tenets -- which would be Christianity. (Again, something tells me you would fight tooth and nail if a heavily muslim populated US city chose to enact Sharia law)
I greatly disagree. U.S. law is largely based on natural law and English Common Law (the latter of which has a basis in religious morality, both Christian and perhaps even some Islamic). With that being said, U.S. law is already based on certain philosophical/religious presuppositions. Everyone has philosophical suppositions, and these suppositions make up the backbone of our moral compass. If we all have philosophical convictions that determine our ethical perspectives, then why should only secular perspectives be permitted to influence law? This seems like a double standard, and I doubt that this is what the founding fathers had in mind while drawing up the Constitution.
I believe the most legitimate interpretation of separation of church and state is not to therefore, prohibit people who hold a Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, etc. perspective on morality from running for office or voting. I believe separation of church and state is about prohibiting any particular religion or denomination from becoming an official religion; a religion that imposes it's spiritual views on the populace.
Making laws that make abortion legal (for instance) is not an imposition of Christianity on the state, but simply democracy. This is true because the pro-life stance is a common interpretation of the moral implications found within Christianity. Christianity is not a pro-life or an anti-gay stance, but metaphysical claims about the character and nature of God.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Back on track
