Dealing with Fundamentalism: Secular alternative, or take back the church?

[Arrian]

Actually, I'm helping to fight the CC and other such organizations, not Ben. He's a canuck, after all, and I would imagine he has no impact on our political situation.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Why, exactly?

You just lie, and then when someone corrects you you just stick your tongue out. Don't you have any respect for yourself.

[Sava]

You could take this as a compliment (or not ), but you are one of my favorite posters Arrian.

I can't recall a time when you've made a point I didn't agree with.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Actually, I'm helping to fight the CC and other such organizations, not Ben. He's a canuck, after all, and I would imagine he has no impact on our political situation.

-Arrian

You probably have some Christians in your family like I do. BK probably repeats the same crap that they do, and it pisses you off.

[Odin]

I am an athiest for the very reason that the crap BK and others spew "proving" there is a deity is BS.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You just lie, and then when someone corrects you you just stick your tongue out. Don't you have any respect for yourself.

[Ben Kenobi]

What's wrong with Earth Day?

Why are they celebrating 'Earth day' when they could be doing real science?

We mostly have this, but there are people, like you, that want to take it away.

How so? I'm a Mennonite, and Mennonites are anabaptists, who were the first Christians to shy away from the unity between the church and state.

You have advocated the idea that religious values should be made into law.

Such as?

You frequently voice support for groups that want to make religious values made into law.

Like who?

I responded to you when you were decrying someone for voicing support for keeping any religion from being endorsed by the government or government agencies.

'K.

responded to me.

while I decried

for voicing support

keeping any religion

from being endorsed

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. The folks you are talking about are the ACLU, which seeks to remove all traces of religious influence in government, and is thus violating the establishment clause.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not persecuting you, I'm fighting your persecution of others. Just 'cause you don't like it when others refuse to do as you say, doesn't mean we're persecuting you.

Again I ask.

How am I persecuting others while putting forth my beliefs?

[Ben Kenobi]

'argument" with two e's.

aergument?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Again I ask.

How am I persecuting others while putting forth my beliefs?

When one puts forth beliefs that would interfere with others' freedom, you get into persecution territory, Ben. You would be perfectly happy to have your fellow religionistas running the governments of Canada and the US, which in turn would lead to laws based on your fundie beliefs - which would in turn curtail freedom. And I'm not talking about abortion now, Ben. The thing that jumps to mind is your intended persecution of gays. Not just w/regard to gay marriage. You'd take away adopted children, wouldn't you, Ben? Yeah, you would. And even if you could (with discomfort, I'd imagine) accept gays adopting, your hardcore allies in the fundiverse would not. And it goes on and on.

NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO BE GAY. NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO DO ANYTHING YOU DON'T WANT TO DO. NO ONE IS INTEREFERING WITH YOUR WORSHIP OF YOUR GOD. Thus, you are not persecuted. If the secularism of our governments were overturned and you and your ilk were in power, others WOULD be persecuted. You don't see that, because your persecution of others is sanctioned by your holy book.

"Putting forth your beliefs" on Apolyton OT is obviously just fine. It's totally harmless and might occasionaly result in an interesting conversation. I'm glad we have you here. But it's different in politics, Ben. I refer to you Jerry Falwell and his ilk. The forces of darkness, in MY book.

-Arrian

p.s. Sava, you agree with the posts I've made arguing against... YOU?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Again I ask.

How am I persecuting others while putting forth my beliefs?

Because you believe that it's ok to persecute others?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

You deny that's what happened?

[Kuciwalker]

Did you miss the fact that the whole exchange between me and Aggie was tongue-in-cheek?

[Ben Kenobi]

When one puts forth beliefs that would interfere with others' freedom, you get into persecution territory, Ben.

Benefits to gay people come out of my pocket. So I do have a say whether or not these benefits should be provided.

You would be perfectly happy to have your fellow religionistas running the governments of Canada and the US, which in turn would lead to laws based on your fundie beliefs - which would in turn curtail freedom.

What's the problem with religious folks running the government? I'd love to see Catholics, and Protestants, together, working towards common goals to improve Canada for everyone, without having to compromise their faith.

Now, if you say I have fundie beliefs, yet I welcome Catholics, that to me makes no sense. What makes me a fundy? The fact that I do not want my representatives to check their faith at the door of the legislature?

And I'm not talking about abortion now, Ben. The thing that jumps to mind is your intended persecution of gays.

Okay. Considering that I have a friend of mine who teaches me piano lessons who is gay, I am interested to see how you prove this.

Not just w/regard to gay marriage. You'd take away adopted children, wouldn't you, Ben?

Where have I said that? All I have said is that children are often used as pawns in the quest for gay rights, to their own detriment in the adoption issue. I also believe, that it is in the best interests of the children for them to have both a mom and a dad. Given that there are plenty of these couples who want to adopt, but cannot, they should be given first priority.

Yeah, you would. And even if you could (with discomfort, I'd imagine) accept gays adopting, your hardcore allies in the fundiverse would not. And it goes on and on.

My hardcore allies? Gee. I know more Catholics than I do protestants.

NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO BE GAY. NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO DO ANYTHING YOU DON'T WANT TO DO. NO ONE IS INTEREFERING WITH YOUR WORSHIP OF YOUR GOD.

Yes they are. When you have the archbishop of Vancouver's house stoned, you are interfering with freedom of religion.

When you force all the marriage registrars to either compromise their faith or resign their position, then you are interfering with their religious practice.

Thus, you are not persecuted. If the secularism of our governments were overturned and you and your ilk were in power, others WOULD be persecuted. You don't see that, because your persecution of others is sanctioned by your holy book.

Who says I want the secularism of Government overturned? I believe that it is possible for men of faith to work together to improve the conditions for everyone in government, without having to compromise their faith.

To force these men to renounce their faith, is no longer secularism, but state enforced atheism.

"Putting forth your beliefs" on Apolyton OT is obviously just fine. It's totally harmless and might occasionaly result in an interesting conversation. I'm glad we have you here. But it's different in politics, Ben. I refer to you Jerry Falwell and his ilk. The forces of darkness, in MY book.

And I laugh. If Jerry Falwell is the force of Darkness, and not people like OBL, then you've got your own problems in front of you.

Falwell, whatever your disagreements, is willing to work within the system to acheive change. He will not seek to kill people.

[Arrian]

Benefits to gay people come out of my pocket. So I do have a say whether or not these benefits should be provided.

Benifits to married heteros come out of their pockets, and they are then denied the same rights. You having to pay for them would only even the field. It's the current situation that is unjust.

All I have said is that children are often used as pawns in the quest for gay rights, to their own detriment in the adoption issue. I also believe, that it is in the best interests of the children for them to have both a mom and a dad.

So would you or would you not support a law that would ban gay people from adopting, and furthermore what is your position on gay couples who already have adopted? Sounds like a dodge to me.

...

I do not ask that people in government renounce their faith, Ben. I *DO* demand that they respect the idea that there are a multitude of beliefs (and non beliefs) and have respect for those who do not share theirs.

...

Re: marriage registrars. First off, it's they who are bigotted. However, if they cannot marry people because their holy book tells them it's wrong, fine. There are others who will.

For instance, do you remember the issue of pharmacists refusing to fill perscriptions for birth control & morning after pills? We had a big thread on it. Well, as it turns out, the official policy of the national organization of pharmacists (don't recall the name) struck a pretty good balance:

If a pharmacist objected to filling a certain type of perscription, fine, but they must direct the person to another pharmacy and cannot obstruct the person from going there. The reason I know that is because there was a story recently about a pharmacist who took the perscription and not only refused to fill it, but also refused to give it back to the woman.

The same could easily be done for marriage registrars, especially since there is no time pressure, like there is with drugs. Don't want to marry gays? Fine, someone else will.

...

OBL is definitely in the forces of darkness, Ben. Never, EVER, have I written anything that would suggest I don't put him there.

The forces are darkness, to me, are the forces arrayed against modernity - and that includes both OBL and Falwell. I certainly grant that OBL is darker since he not only condones killing people to achieve his goals, but he actively seeks to kill as many as he can in the most spectaular fashion he can. Just because OBL is a bad man, doesn't make Falwell a good man. Get it?

-Arrian