S/O "Can you still be a Christian.."

[Jyniffrec]

What *I* see is practicing homosexual activitists furious that some people DARE to call their lifestyle of practicing homosexuality a sin according to Bible standards.

 

:iagree:Not everyone is going to jump on the band wagon just because it is becoming more widely accepted.

[Mrs Mungo]

IMHO. Some, rather aggressive and uncharitable atheists want to suppress religious expression in the same manner that the blogger wanted to suppress gays, as in, they do not want to be "exposed" to any religious expression in public.

 

Could you give an example of this that *is not* using public funds or public lands?

 

In order to further their agenda, they have taken a page from the GLBT groups in order to move forward. In other words, they use similar tactics, tactics that are arguably valid for gays, but they are stretching it for atheists, again, in IMHO. For example, I have seen quite a number of these individuals suggesting that because they are a minority, they are persecuted and oppressed by the majority, by the very presence of religious expression alone. I don't consider that comparable to gay claims, but then again I don't consider gay claims comparable to African American claims, but such comparisons are regularly made. Incrementally moving public opinion is the goal.

In this scenario it would be the conservative Christian woman acting in the same manner as you claim atheist groups move. So, it does not make sense for you to defend one and censure the other.

 

I imagine some GLBT groups may overlap with such atheists groups, wanting Christians to just go away, but that is not the point. The point is that some people DO want other people out of their sight, and they can use these strategies to slowly make that happen unless we protect everyone's interests before liberties are lost, because once your liberty is taken away it is too late.

:confused: Once again, if this is your position, then it makes little sense to defend the comments in question. It also begs the question of how one protects everyone's interests when the interests of some groups are diametrically opposed, according to them. Edited September 15, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[WishboneDawn]

If I am hearing you correctly, you are saying that the death threats and hate speech (and the questioning of her mental health) directed at this women are okay because of the pain Christians have caused the gay community. And if you do not want to be threatened (or to have your family threatened) do not post your opinion online.

 

Not directed at me but I think the question about whether those comments where okay. They clearly weren't. They were ugly and hateful.

 

But were they the honest wages of what her post contained? I sort of think she's getting paid back in kind. Again, the comments are NOT okay. What would have likely been a much more effective and promising response would have been if those that disagreed with her found a way to respond to her that showed compassion rather then hate. But many people don't feel that responsibility. She certainly didn't.

 

And it's sounding like I'm blaming her. :glare: But I'm trying to find that line where yes, the commenters are responsibile for what they said but she's also in a postion where she should not find those responses surprising.

[Mrs Mungo]

:iagree:Not everyone is going to jump on the band wagon just because it is becoming more widely accepted.

 

Sorry, using your post as a sort of jumping off point, not all of this is directed at you. I find it really strange to have seemingly been lumped in with homosexual activists when *I* said in the other thread that I believed it was sinful, but not my place to judge someone else's sin.

 

It has already been mentioned, there are different definitions of "accepted" being used here. I think that's true.

[Ipsey]

That is not what I said. It doesn't appear you read or thought about anything in my post. Or maybe you don't want to think about the incremental nature of change.

 

IMHO. Some, rather aggressive and uncharitable atheists want to suppress religious expression in the same manner that the blogger wanted to suppress gays, as in, they do not want to be "exposed" to any religious expression in public. In order to further their agenda, they have taken a page from the GLBT groups in order to move forward. In other words, they use similar tactics, tactics that are arguably valid for gays, but they are stretching it for atheists, again, in IMHO. For example, I have seen quite a number of these individuals suggesting that because they are a minority, they are persecuted and oppressed by the majority, by the very presence of religious expression alone. I don't consider that comparable to gay claims, but then again I don't consider gay claims comparable to African American claims, but such comparisons are regularly made. Incrementally moving public opinion is the goal.

 

I imagine some GLBT groups may overlap with such atheists groups, wanting Christians to just go away, but that is not the point. The point is that some people DO want other people out of their sight, and they can use these strategies to slowly make that happen unless we protect everyone's interests before liberties are lost, because once your liberty is taken away it is too late.

 

I am not taking sides on the issues but rather pointing out how things change, how power is shifted, how rights get redefined and how different groups can end up being victimized. You need not be defensive about that, unless you don't like it being pointed out.

 

Anyway, I think the stuff I brought up about not letting fanatics of any ideology get away with it was really more important, and the stuff about maligned homeschoolers, but never mind any of that I guess.

 

Can you show me some examples (there's a wide internet out there!) of an atheist saying that expressions of religion should not be allowed in public, just because it offends them?

 

I know of many cases where atheists are trying to remove specific religious statements/monuments because they are thought to be example of the state supporting religion, but I have yet to hear of one that people are trying to legislate religion away from everywhere simply because they're "offended".

 

If people want something legal out of their sight, they should do their best to turn away, not demand people stay out of "their" public.

 

That poor woman can lock herself away for ever, and her poor children too. But that's her choice. She can't take the choice of the gays away to leave their house and express love with the partner of their choosing.

[Jyniffrec]

Sorry, using your post as a sort of jumping off point, not all of this is directed at you. I find it really strange to have seemingly been lumped in with homosexual activists when *I* said in the other thread that I believed it was sinful, but not my place to judge someone else's sin.

 

It has already been mentioned, there are different definitions of "accepted" being used here. I think that's true.

 

I don't disagree with you at all. No apologies needed. :)

[Georgiana Daniels]

Not directed at me but I think the question about whether those comments where okay. They clearly weren't. They were ugly and hateful.

 

But were they the honest wages of what her post contained? I sort of think she's getting paid back in kind. Again, the comments are NOT okay. What would have likely been a much more effective and promising response would have been if those that disagreed with her found a way to respond to her that showed compassion rather then hate. But many people don't feel that responsibility. She certainly didn't.

 

And it's sounding like I'm blaming her. :glare: But I'm trying to find that line where yes, the commenters are responsibile for what they said but she's also in a postion where she should not find those responses surprising.

 

I didn't read every comment on that blog, but it seems to be that they weren't responding "in kind" but rather taking it up several levels. (There were, however, a few people who were trying to promote understanding, too.) While anger might be justified, people still need to be responsible for their reactions.

 

If one is speaking out against hate, then responding with hate is hypocritical.

[kiana]

Can you show me some examples (there's a wide internet out there!) of an atheist saying that expressions of religion should not be allowed in public, just because it offends them?

 

I know of many cases where atheists are trying to remove specific religious statements/monuments because they are thought to be example of the state supporting religion, but I have yet to hear of one that people are trying to legislate religion away from everywhere simply because they're "offended".

 

If people want something legal out of their sight, they should do their best to turn away, not demand people stay out of "their" public.

 

That poor woman can lock herself away for ever, and her poor children too. But that's her choice. She can't take the choice of the gays away to leave their house and express love with the partner of their choosing.

 

I've definitely heard more than one person (starting with Dawkins, but repeated by others) talk about how teaching religion to children should be considered child abuse.

 

This *DOES NOT* mean that the blogger in question was correct in her "keep teh gayz out of public", btw. It means that when we start encroaching on the rights of gay parents, atheist parents, etc. to raise their children as they see fit, it opens the door to encroach on the rights of other parents to raise their children as well. It means, even more strongly, that when two people are doing nothing more than hugs, back rubs, or meaningful eye contact, that they should be left alone.

[Mrs Mungo]

This *DOES NOT* mean that the blogger in question was correct in her "keep teh gayz out of public", btw. It means that when we start encroaching on the rights of gay parents, atheist parents, etc. to raise their children as they see fit, it opens the door to encroach on the rights of other parents to raise their children as well. It means, even more strongly, that when two people are doing nothing more than hugs, back rubs, or meaningful eye contact, that they should be left alone.

 

:iagree: This is what I was trying to get at without spelling it out.

[Marylou]

That candidates husband tried to turn gay people into straight people by way of his "reparative therapy". He opened that door for people to scrutinize his life in such a way. (ala Ted Haggard....that whole, "methinks he doth protest too much''.) People who are not anti-gay don't see the possiblity of someone being gay as "hateful".

 

Someone ASSumed that I was an evangelical fundie homeschooler one time b/c she knew that I homeschooled and knitted. Now THAT offended me! :glare:

 

Sorry, people, the puppets are in the shop! :001_huh:

 

As far as I know, people go to therapy as a result of their own free will.

 

It can't be both ways. Either it is wrong to call someone a gay in a derogatory way or it's not.

 

I still believe it's wrong.

[WishboneDawn]

 

If one is speaking out against hate, then responding with hate is hypocritical.

 

:iagree:

[Tea Time]

Could you give an example of this that *is not* using public funds or public lands?

The public park is what was being discussed. The entire point is that atheists expect religion to only be behind closed doors, in private only. The woman in that blog wanted gays kept behind closed doors, too. Gays are not going for that, and neither should religious folks. It does present problems, but diversity does present problems. We need to either learn how to deal with them or stop pretending we support diversity when we really only support our brand of diversity.

 

In this scenario it would be the conservative Christian woman acting in the same manner as you claim atheist groups move. So, it does not make sense for you to defend one and censure the other.

I did not defend one and censure the other. I criticized both. How can you get that I defended that woman from my posts??? What? Did you even read it? I confessed that I was too horrified to even read her blog. I am deeply troubled by that sort of thing regardless of who is dishing it out.

 

If anything, I defended the gays at the park and added an indirect defense of the Christians against similar attacks from atheists (say, with their nativity scenes in public places). Please listen to me; don't assume you know what I think and simply must disagree with every element no matter what. :confused:

 

:confused: Once again, if this is your position, then it makes little sense to defend the comments in question. It also begs the question of how one protects everyone's interests when the interests of some groups are diametrically opposed, according to them.

What comments do you perceive that I am defending? I am lost on that.

 

Yes it does beg the question! Defending everyone's interest, at least in free thought if not all perceived rights, is exactly the challenge, isn't it? Defending freedom is always challenging. We try to do it by letting her have her rant but respectfully disagreeing. We understand and accept that not everyone is going to embrace our POV, and we are not being "hated" just because of that. There is a huge difference between disagreeing with something and outright hating someone. We all probably have to get a thicker skin.

 

Anyway, I do not wish to derail the discussion with the atheist issues, it was really just an example and a reminder that other people/groups want to hide people from the public square, not just this rather troubled woman.

[Mrs Mungo]

The public park is what was being discussed. The entire point is that atheists expect religion to only be behind closed doors, in private only. The woman in that blog wanted gays kept behind closed doors, too. Gays are not going for that, and neither should religious folks. It does present problems, but diversity does present problems. We need to either learn how to deal with them or stop pretending we support diversity when we really only support our brand of diversity.

 

 

I did not defend one and censure the other. I criticized both. How can you get that I defended that woman from my posts??? What? Did you even read it? I confessed that I was too horrified to even read her blog. I am deeply troubled by that sort of thing regardless of who is dishing it out.

 

If anything, I defended the gays at the park and added an indirect defense of the Christians against similar attacks from atheists (say, with their nativity scenes in public places). Please listen to me; don't assume you know what I think and simply must disagree with every element no matter what. :confused:

 

 

What comments do you perceive that I am defending? I am lost on that.

 

Yes it does beg the question! Defending everyone's interest, at least in free thought if not all perceived rights, is exactly the challenge, isn't it? Defending freedom is always challenging. We try to do it by letting her have her rant but respectfully disagreeing. We understand and accept that not everyone is going to embrace our POV, and we are not being "hated" just because of that. There is a huge difference between disagreeing with something and outright hating someone. We all probably have to get a thicker skin.

 

Anyway, I do not wish to derail the discussion with the atheist issues, it was really just an example and a reminder that other people/groups want to hide people from the public square, not just this rather troubled woman.

 

I am not understanding what you are saying here. It is not computing in my brain. I promise I am not trying to be difficult, I honestly would rather understand people's arguments, it's important to me.

 

Are you saying that it is the same to:

1. Be gay and appear in public

 

and

 

2. Have permanent Christian displays using public lands and funds?

 

And that people should not complain about either of those things?

Edited September 15, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[Elizabeth in WA]

The public park is what was being discussed. The entire point is that atheists expect religion to only be behind closed doors, in private only. The woman in that blog wanted gays kept behind closed doors, too. Gays are not going for that, and neither should religious folks. It does present problems, but diversity does present problems. We need to either learn how to deal with them or stop pretending we support diversity when we really only support our brand of diversity.

 

Actually, I am unaware of any atheists opposing the right of Christians to practice their religion in public parks. They do oppose permanent displays on public property, such as nativity scenes, but that is not akin to gay couples showing mild affection in public. That would be akin to Christians praying or wearing Christian symbols in the public park. I am not aware of anyone trying to ban that kind of personal religious practice in public.

[momma2three]

The public park is what was being discussed. The entire point is that atheists expect religion to only be behind closed doors, in private only. The woman in that blog wanted gays kept behind closed doors, too. Gays are not going for that, and neither should religious folks. It does present problems, but diversity does present problems. We need to either learn how to deal with them or stop pretending we support diversity when we really only support our brand of diversity.

 

If any atheists actually do believe that, and I assume they do because every movement has extremists, that would be a fringe view held by a few extremists. Akin to the "childfree" posters you see on internet comment boards who think that children should never be allowed to leave the house, but you wouldn't say "people who don't have kids think that kids should never be seen in public."

 

Anyone in the US arguing against the right to wear a yarmukle or display Christmas lights or wearing signboards about End Times should pick up a copy of the Constitution sometime. Some people, yes, are opposed to public funds favoring one specific religion, or public funds being used to endorse one particular religion over others. I don't think that you have to be a radical atheist to believe that, though. It's also fairly clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

[KristinaBreece]

The public park is what was being discussed. The entire point is that atheists expect religion to only be behind closed doors, in private only. The woman in that blog wanted gays kept behind closed doors, too. Gays are not going for that, and neither should religious folks. It does present problems, but diversity does present problems. We need to either learn how to deal with them or stop pretending we support diversity when we really only support our brand of diversity.

[snip]

 

I think you're just in violent agreement with the majority. I'm not sure why it's coming out as an argument, but I don't think that is what you meant. :)

[Tea Time]

Actually, I am unaware of any atheists opposing the right of Christians to practice their religion in public parks. They do oppose permanent displays on public property, such as nativity scenes, but that is not akin to gay couples showing mild affection in public. That would be akin to Christians praying or wearing Christian symbols in the public park. I am not aware of anyone trying to ban that kind of personal religious practice in public.

I'm talking about the general rhetoric from people who I think are fringe, like the blogger on this thread, but as someone else noted, there are definitely some outspoken atheists who are quite openly antagonistic toward religious people, especially Christians. I hope it is not widespread, but some of the comments on various articles in the news clearly show a certain degree of hatred, and I do not use that word lightly. You can ignore it if you want.

If any atheists actually do believe that, and I assume they do because every movement has extremists, that would be a fringe view held by a few extremists. Akin to the "childfree" posters you see on internet comment boards who think that children should never be allowed to leave the house, but you wouldn't say "people who don't have kids think that kids should never be seen in public."

 

Anyone in the US arguing against the right to wear a yarmukle or display Christmas lights or wearing signboards about End Times should pick up a copy of the Constitution sometime. Some people, yes, are opposed to public funds favoring one specific religion, or public funds being used to endorse one particular religion over others. I don't think that you have to be a radical atheist to believe that, though. It's also fairly clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

 

People who are against those things have little consideration for the Constitution, IMHO, but I agree with you.

 

That was EXACTLY the point I made in every single post, and I was talking about those extremist atheists. The bolded part in your post was shorthand from my other posts, talking about the atheists in that post. I had already made it very clear I was not talking about all atheists. You can see this post was in response to someone else regarding that post.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Tea Time

[Tea Time]

I think you're just in violent agreement with the majority. I'm not sure why it's coming out as an argument, but I don't think that is what you meant. :)

Thanks, I appreciate that very much! I am quite perplexed by the response I have gotten on this thread, but oh well! Sometimes you are the dog and sometime the fire hydrant.

Not that I ever want to be a dog. Well, hopefully you know what I meant, but I am not feeling like I should take that for granted here today! :D

 

Anyway, I gotta run. Real life is calling me!

:auto:

Edited September 15, 2011 by Tea Time