ebrown_p wrote:I think CostalRat is looking for a double standard.
Christians can resent and look down; in fact say terrible things, about people they disagree with.
But they don't want people to do the same thing to them.
Do Christians think they should have some special status that keeps them from the scorn they heap on others?
No double standard at all ebrown. See my above post which I didn't get posted until after yours here quoted. I think it is wrong of Christians or anyone else to resent or look down on anyone. I certainly try not to do so. I would challenge you to find a post where I said something terrible about anyone I have disagreed with. That's not to say you won't find one, because I may well have lost patience and written something I regretted afterward. I suppose it proves I'm human.
I truly don't care what others say about me. I'm above that kind of childishness. I'm quite content with my view of myself and with the way I choose to live my life.
CoastalRat wrote:But why resent me and all Christians or think less of me for fighting through legal channels for what I believe to be best for this country?
Why resent NAMBLA for fighting through legal channels for what they believe to be best for the country?
CoastalRat wrote:ebrown_p wrote:I think CostalRat is looking for a double standard.
Christians can resent and look down; in fact say terrible things, about people they disagree with.
But they don't want people to do the same thing to them.
Do Christians think they should have some special status that keeps them from the scorn they heap on others?
No double standard at all ebrown. See my above post which I didn't get posted until after yours here quoted. I think it is wrong of Christians or anyone else to resent or look down on anyone. I certainly try not to do so. I would challenge you to find a post where I said something terrible about anyone I have disagreed with. That's not to say you won't find one, because I may well have lost patience and written something I regretted afterward. I suppose it proves I'm human.
I truly don't care what others say about me. I'm above that kind of childishness. I'm quite content with my view of myself and with the way I choose to live my life.
I respect that.
That being said, people have every right to be angry at Christians (just as Christians have every right to be angry at whomever they don't like).
And the only point of this thread is that many people express anger toward Christians-- and this is their right (as you see a whole lot of angry Christians as well).
It doesn't seem like there is much more to say on this topic.
Robert Gentel wrote:CoastalRat wrote:But why resent me and all Christians or think less of me for fighting through legal channels for what I believe to be best for this country?
Why resent NAMBLA for fighting through legal channels for what they believe to be best for the country?
I don't. They have every right to do so. I may disagree with what they are fighting for, but I don't resent them for fighting for it.
And I think if you asked most Christians, they would tell you the same thing. Anyone claiming to be a Christian who tells you they hate someone else for any reason has got a real problem with their theology and I would personally question their Christianity. Believing something to be wrong does not give anyone the right to hate someone who believes it to be right.
Hope that makes sense. I'm not sure if I was clear on that last point.
CoastalRat wrote:Robert Gentel wrote:CoastalRat wrote:But why resent me and all Christians or think less of me for fighting through legal channels for what I believe to be best for this country?
Why resent NAMBLA for fighting through legal channels for what they believe to be best for the country?
I don't. They have every right to do so. I may disagree with what they are fighting for, but I don't resent them for fighting for it.
I knew I should have rejected the insertion of "resent" in the question. The point is that you are asking if having a problem with Christians pushing their views means one must have a problem with anyone doing so and there's no logical reason one can't have a problem with one group's views and not others.
The act of pushing the views itself isn't an issue for me (and most reasonable people), the views themselves are. I don't resent them for doing it, hell their belief tells them they have to, but I do want to resist it. And no, that doesn't mean I feel compelled to do the same with all groups.
CoastalRat wrote:Hi there Set. Well, if we were going to eliminate all laws, then yes, I'd have no right to interfere with an abortion. I totally understand the ramifications of what I stated, thank you very much. (emphasis added)
You're playing games here now--the right to an abortion is the law, no law need be eliminated for women to have access to abortions. I was responding to your comment to the effect that law should not ". . . invade a person's private life." I said nothing about eliminating all laws, and neither did you in the remark i quoted.
Robert Gentel wrote:CoastalRat wrote:Robert Gentel wrote:CoastalRat wrote:But why resent me and all Christians or think less of me for fighting through legal channels for what I believe to be best for this country?
Why resent NAMBLA for fighting through legal channels for what they believe to be best for the country?
I don't. They have every right to do so. I may disagree with what they are fighting for, but I don't resent them for fighting for it.
I knew I should have rejected the insertion of "resent" in the question. The point is that you are asking if having a problem with Christians pushing their views means one must have a problem with anyone doing so and there's no logical reason one can't have a problem with one group's views and not others.
The act of pushing the views itself isn't an issue for me (and most reasonable people), the views themselves are. I don't resent them for doing it, hell their belief tells them they have to, but I do want to resist it. And no, that doesn't mean I feel compelled to do the same with all groups.
I really think the two of us are on the same page here Robert. I have no problem with a person resisting or fighting against a group's views. If you have two people with opposite views on an issue, they are going to resist and fight against the views. That is the American way. :wink:
This whole line of discussion began because of a comment about resenting a group/person because they were trying to change laws to reflect their views. I maintain that doing so is stupid and that since we have a right to fight for laws we believe in it is nonsense to resent a group or person for doing so.
Anyway, if I understand your views correctly, then we are thinking along the same lines here. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in thinking thus.
Setanta wrote:CoastalRat wrote:Hi there Set. Well, if we were going to eliminate all laws, then yes, I'd have no right to interfere with an abortion. I totally understand the ramifications of what I stated, thank you very much. (emphasis added)
You're playing games here now--the right to an abortion is the law, no law need be eliminated for women to have access to abortions. I was responding to your comment to the effect that law should not ". . . invade a person's private life." I said nothing about eliminating all laws, and neither did you in the remark i quoted.
Maybe I did not make myself clear Set. I did not mean to imply that abortion is illegal now, simply that if you eliminated all laws in respect to a person's private life then I would have no right to campaign for a law that would affect a person's private life, including an anti-abortion law.
Also, I think that my initial quote, when read in context, would indicate I was talking only about laws that invaded a person's private life. If it indicated otherwise, I did not mean it to do so.
Does that make sense?
Yes, although i don't necessarily agree. The courts have long recognized that states can have a compelling interest in interfering in people's lives, and i tend to agree with the principle, if not always the application. So, for example, since the state can incur costs, and the society which the state organizes can suffer from the irresponsibility of parents, the state considers that it has a right to interfere in what are defined as unwise choices by parents. In its extreme forms, this principle as applied to child-rearing has resulted in the state taking custody of children in need of medical care which is being denied them due to the religious scruples of their parents. So as not to give the impression that this only has to do with religion, i'd also point out that states have taken custody of children and charged parents with child endangerment in cases where the parents were vegan, and the children were determined to be obviously and severely malnourished. I approve of the state's actions in both cases.
There are other examples with which i would not necessarily agree. For example, i consider most drug laws to be unreasonable, as they are often based upon a contention that they foster crime. This is usually only true to the extent that the use of those drugs is criminalized in the first place, and therefore more expensive and purveyed by criminal organizations. Of course people should no more be allowed to endanger the public by drug use when, for example, they drive, than would be the case with alcohol. In general, i am opposed to drug laws prohibiting any drug which cannot be shown to severely and immediately alter someone's personality (so, for example, moderate use of alcohol or marijuana would not quality for that prohibition; excessive use of alcohol, or the use of PCP or the prolonged or excessive use of methampetamine would).
I think we actually agree Set, even though I did not spell out quite as well my thoughts as you did. Eliminating all laws that affect a person's private life would still necessitate limits. Your example of drug laws would be a good one.
Well, that was certainly a more interesting discussion than the attempt of the author to launch a bait thread. Lest someone suggest that it was simply an honest question, i would disagree. The member who started this thread went after me in another thread, accusing me of whining in a circumstance in which the charge was not warranted, and in a case in which i had not addressed anything this member had written. In fact, i had never seen this member before before he/she/it decided to go after me in that thread.
Therefore, i consider this to have been a bait thread (look at the language of the first post).
Thanks, CR, for providing some redeeming conversational value to an otherwise silly thread.
Not a problem Set. I try my best to be of assistance at all times.
Now its on to the next problem thread. Up, up and awayyyy!
I think that bashing comes from two main sponsors; 1) Its a proportional response to religious sanctimonious hypocrisy. (that is a generalized statement about organized religion as a whole) and 2) since alternate views other than organized religion have become more accepted in society, the pendulum is swinging. Its no different than how the social pendulum is swinging for race, sexuality, and women's equality.
Now that we non-organized-religion folk have been given a new truth and the door is open for us to express it, we express it. I wouldn't say I'm a basher, but I'm pretty passionate about my distaste for organized religion... but I'm relatively new to the subject having only been in this position for about 5 years. Its kinda like when a vegetarian first decides not to eat meat, he or she might secretly (or overtly) harbor ill will for people who wear leather shoes or belts, but after their pendulum swings they take a more pragmatic approach to the subject.
The non-religious also tend to not be as shackled by piety and conservative behavior laws associated with the church, so our behavior seems a little more shocking to religious folk. What you may call blasphemy, I call open truth.
Bashing? How about balance?
Christians, perhaps more than any other religion (or group of religions) like to push out their religion on others. Prostelysing is a very aggressive push. Do Christians not expect an equal and opposite reaction?
I have found that the amongst my numerous Christian friends, the ones who flirt with pushing their religion are also the ones who feel the most oppressed.
Those Christians who are more respectful of other worldviews, typically don't sweat the comments directed at Christianity (be it specific or general) because they are wise enough to know what does and does not apply to them.
T
K
O
CoastalRat wrote:
I really think the two of us are on the same page here Robert. I have no problem with a person resisting or fighting against a group's views. If you have two people with opposite views on an issue, they are going to resist and fight against the views. That is the American way. :wink:
And that's what I think Phoenix feels as well. I think her point is not that she objects to Christians merely for pushing their agenda but that she objects to their agenda. When it's a personal agenda she's willing to let others indulge in it, but when it's a societal agenda she objects to it on the basis of the agenda itself not the act of promoting one's beliefs.
As an athiest (and a bit of a jesus basher at times)
I would have to state that Its partial anger at religion for Dozens of reasons and Part just not beleiving in it and it pisses me off when i go in a thread to have someone say something dumb like "jesus is the realest part of my LIFE!"
Also i feel alot of this televised religion is nothing more than a scam to take advantage of people who are Emotionally Weak and Drain them of their money in exchange for false hope and Whatnot....
I'll also Start in on someone when they say stuff about Jesus Etc because in some way they seem so blinded by the entire aspect where to me jesus is just like Santa or the easter bunny and its so funny the other people dont seem to get that.....Its like your living a big lie and Wasting your time and i just kinda think it sad? I know its their lives and their time but still......It just upsets me.
mrhunt wrote:I'll also Start in on someone when they say stuff about Jesus Etc because in some way they seem so blinded by the entire aspect where to me jesus is just like Santa or the easter bunny and its so funny the other people dont seem to get that.....Its like your living a big lie and Wasting your time and i just kinda think it sad? I know its their lives and their time but still......It just upsets me.
I too see god's as the grown man's easter bunny, santa, or what have you, and for the life of me can't understand how someone could possibly believe in something so ludicrous. However, the abundance of believers of <insert> convinces me that humans are not ready to embrace our existence for what it is.
I see religion as a inhibitor to reason and real intuitive thinking processes that the human species has had the fortune of developing. I actually think that the human condition is flawed and we will not survive the foreseeable future. After pondering this I also don't believe we are as intelligent as we think we are. The best I can do is watch the world squabble and toil over, what I see as, meaningless nonsense.
Religion truly is that bane of human mental development on a planetary scale.
