C
Cancel3
Guest
I certainly try not to. I have seen the "love & compassion" of the christian right and the moral minority.
They are one step from a torch wielding mob.
Robdawg invited to a GAY wedding in Connecticut!!!
- Thread starter Robdawg
- Start date
I certainly try not to. I have seen the "love & compassion" of the christian right and the moral minority.
They are one step from a torch wielding mob.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
C
Cancel3
Guest
You admit to being closed minded yet insist you know their intentions. How curious.
Their intentions are abundantly clear. They wish to create a theocracy or wish to remove anything from our society that they disagree with. They also expect their faith to be the ONLY one accepted.
I have seen them picket & run a candle shop out of business in Chilton County in 2000 when it became known that the owner was Wiccan.
I have seen them demand that the 10 Commandments remain as the sole item in the Alabama Supreme Court lobby.
I have seen them push to remove all "adult oriented" stores from Alabama.
I have seen them push for more and stricter blue laws REQUIRING that stores be close on THEIR religious day.
I have seen them screaming threats of hellfire and damnation at a peaceful parade by the LGBT on the campus of the University of Alabama. (no wildness, just a parade)
I have seen them picket and protest the opening of any gamblin establishment, from dog tracks to river boat gambling.
I have seen them flood mailboxes with fliers spouting inaccurate information in attempts to defeat the proposal to bring in the lottery.
I don't admit to being closed minded. I am not talking about the rank and file neighborhood christians and their churches. I am talking about the religious right and the moral "majority" types that seek to force their beliefs on society.
The Rev. Falwells, Jim Bakkers, Judge Roy Moores and the Pat Robertsons of the world.
The Christian Coalitions, the Moral Majoritys, and the Focus on Family types of organizations. You know, the book burners out there.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Nice theory that you have there. It seems to me that someone in these organizations would have written out their platform or agenda though...
C
Cancel3
Guest
Nice theory that you have there. It seems to me that someone in these organizations would have written out their platform or agenda though...
They seek to put ONLY christian religious symbols in public places. They seek to remove all the things that are against THEIR religion. And they take in money under a tax free status, and then use that money to support political pandering and pressures.
No, they would not have written out their platforms. Because they will not admit this is what they want to do. Butthey have no problem trying to ban books. They have no problem blaming natural disastors on God wanting to punish people.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
So basically this is your theory.
C
Cancel3
Guest
So basically this is your theory.
I have said what I have seen. I will continue to do what I can to fight against intolerance.
I have seen too many times that the radical christians can get away with the most hateful, manipulative, intolerant oppression.
But I have also seen them lose more and more ground in recent years. I have seen them defeated at the ballot box and other places. I watched the 10 Comandments leave the Alabama Supreme Court lobby. I saw the attempts at book bans overturned or defeated. And I have seen more and more freedoms for those who oppose these groups. And more and more acceptance for those who have been called "abomination".
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Wow such haughty language. Sounds like a new religion.
C
Cancel3
Guest
Wow such haughty language. Sounds like a new religion.
LMAO! Does it now? Now, sorry, can't use that as an excuse. I am quite happy to see people have faith and worship as they choose.
What I do not like is when the extremists of ANY religious group attempt to force their beliefs on others. I will not side idly by while religious leaders attempt to create laws based solely on their religious beliefs.
Its called Freedom. You might like the concept.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Methinks the type of freedom that you espouse is the freedom from responsibility.
C
Cancel3
Guest
Oh? And why would you say that? Exactly what is irresponsible about being free to make your own choices? I made no suggestion that anyone be free from consequences. Just free from over-zealous religious fanatics.
But please tell me why you claim I am espousing freedom from responsibility.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
But I thought you said that homosexuality is not a choice. Oops.
C
Cancel3
Guest
Excuse me? Yes, I did say that homosexuality was not a choice.
The last dozen posts have been us discussing the religious right. And that was what I was talking about. I was talking about FREEDOM to choose whether we live by religious rules or not.
If you cannot keep up with the conversation, please return to the children's table.
Now, would you like to explain why you claim I am espousing freedom from responsibility? Or are we left to assume that you have nothing and are just flailing around in hopes of striking upon a reason?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I just thought I'd point out your obvious hypocrisy then let you figure it out. I guess I expecting too much.
C
Cancel3
Guest
I just thought I'd point out your obvious hypocrisy then let you figure it out. I guess I expecting too much.
My obvious hypocrisy? No, there was nothing in this discussion in which I have been hypocritical.
We were discussing the religious right and their efforts to push religious views and beliefs into law. I talked about not losing my freedom to those religious laws.
It had nothing to do with whether or not homosexuality is a choice.
You are trying to appear clever by being vague. Doesn't work.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
So its OK for you to assume an agenda of the so-called religious right of forcing their views into laws but not OK for me to assume an agenda of the homosexual lobby of forcing their views into laws? Do I have that correct?
C
Cancel3
Guest
Not at all.
You and I were having a discussion about the religious right. We had done so for at least 6 posts each, and had almost filled that page.
Then you accused me of espousing freedom from responsibility. And I have been trying to get you to explain what I was being irresponsible about.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
That is the liberal way after all. Not taking responsibility for your choices, and expecting everyone else to bail you out for when life bites you back. Like pursuing an immoral gay lifestyle and expecting the rest of society to change the definition of morality.
uscitizen
Villified User
And who says it is immoral ? I think that is the point here.
C
Cancel3
Guest
Oh, so you reverted back to another side of the topic. Interesting debating technique.
And when people are gay they are not pursuing anything. They are living who they are. There is far more evidence for it NOT being a choice. So they are not making a choice, they are following how they are made. Now some might say that this means God made them that way, and who are they to deny it.
Alsso, they are not expecting anyone to bail them out. And life isn't biting them back. Bigots are treating them badly out of ignorance and prejudice.
If you check it out, morality does not have laws from or for society. Morality has varied and changed throughout history and all over the world.
In the middle east it is considered immoral for a woman to have any part of her body seen by a male that is not a relative.
In most of history is was morally ok to beat your wife.
In many cultures and in history it has been morally ok to have multiple wives, but immoral for wives to have multiple husbands.
And throughout most of mankinds history, slavery has been considered moral.
If this were the first time that we had changed society's idea of what is moral, I would say you MIGHT have a point. But its not.
And its never wrong to have what is right be accepted morally by any part of society that does not follow your antiquated ideals.