I think we need to be careful when considering religion. It's okay to take someone's religion into consideration when voting for them, but keep in mind that just because someone is an Evangelical Christian or a Mormon, it doesn't mean that they're going to govern entirely based on those beliefs. If someone's political history shows that they have done things that you like, and they just so happen to be an Evangelical like you said, or a Muslim, or whatever, are you going to vote against them because those religions have characteristics you don't like? I think going as far as to say that you would let one's religion decide your vote entirely is ridiculous (which I'm sure isn't what you mean, Kathy, but I get that impression from your post). I side more with Benjamin because a President isn't a religious leader, they're a political one. You need to focus on what they do politically, and what they've done politically. Yes, religion does impact that, but sometimes religious beliefs have positive effects. If you see more negative effects, then you don't vote for that person, plain and simple. Religion should not be decisive in your vote, but merely considered. Doing so is like siding with the close-minded people who hate Obama and didn't vote for him because they falsely believe he's a Muslim. Even if he were, would it matter if you really considered what he's done for this country and what he did before he became President? Probably not, because if you've really taken the time to look through their political record and behavior, and their stances on every important issue to you and in this country, then as your argument follows, you've already considered religion without really setting it aside to analyze.
I think religion should heavily weigh on how you vote for someone. I agree that most religious people these days don't strictly follow religious beliefs, but unless we personally know the candidates, we don't know how strong of a religious influence they'll push on the nation. That scares the shit out of me. With the Patriot Act still in place, if we get a Hitler in there we are all fucked.
If you look at someone's religion more so than you do their political beliefs, it becomes easy to make assumptions. Let's say some political candidate says they are a committed Evangelical Christian. I think it's fair to say that that statement can mean different things to different people. But obviously, you have your own perspective on such a statement. It'll be easy for you to assume that what you think of Evangelical Christians and what they believe in, perhaps at their most extreme, fully comprises that candidate's beliefs and political behavior. Is that really fair? For all you know, that particular candidate could be a supporter of gay marriage despite being an Evangelical Christian otherwise. They could have been born into an Evangelical Christian family, and yet, perhaps they're not completely practicing the religion. Is it okay, then, to make assumptions based solely on their religion? I don't think it is. You look at their political beliefs, regardless of what their religion is, because I think it's true what Kathy says that one's beliefs, especially stemming from religious circumstances, can come into play in their political behavior. So, I think it's fair to say from there that by looking thoroughly through their political behavior, history, and statements can you really get an idea of whether or not you'd want to vote for them. Looking at religion alone or dominantly over one's political actions is kind of ridiculous to me, and personally, I think it's a bit ignorant.
Your post could be rephrased as They're one and the same. I can tell the "bad" Christians apart from the good based on their position on gay marriage. If they say no, then I know their beliefs are of the bad sort. We're really in agreement. My first word in the last post was 'Depends' for that reason: There's no invisible force called Christianity driving people's beleifs: it is the beliefs. That's how people in the same religion can come to different conclusions (and more reason to preserve the freedoms of each). BTW, The atheists who believe gay marriage are wrong would not find any comfort or welcome in any atheist community. They are a minority so tiny to not be statistically relevant to the behavior of the whole group. And they would be verbally ripped a new a-hole for expressing those kinds of views near other atheists. That like saying Christians are like Fred Phelps. Or one schizophrenic person represents all Christians. Taking the extreme minority in a discussion like this does no one any good. tl;dr : I was saying NOTHING AT ALL about Christians in GENERAL. There IS no general case.
Well then you must have had a hard time voting in every presidential election that you've been a part of. Because you didn't know any of the candidates personally and all of the candidates were Christian.
What i meant by that post was that many people who believe in a just God believe the unfortunate deserve their unfortunateness. But that cannot be turned around logically to say a person of religion X believes the unfortunate deserve it. Logically, What I was trying to say was: If you are pregnant, you are a girl. What people are misreading it as: If you are a girl, then you are pregnant. Which is patently false. With context restored, now: Religion can cause bad attitude toward poor people (as an example of how someone's religion beliefs can affect other topics besides religion) What was misread: Religion always causes bad attitude toward poor people (and therefore all Christians eat babby). That's not true and I'm sorry I cam across that way. What I'm saying is that religion can be a very small or very large component of a candidate's history, you can't just write it off entirely and pretend beliefs never matter in someone's decisions, because sometimes that's exactly the constituency they're pandering to.
I would agree with that. You can't write religion off entirely. As I said before, it is something that can and should be considered, but to have religion serve as some sort of dominant condition upon which you vote for someone is ridiculous to me. You have to consider everything, particularly political beliefs, because within those political beliefs you can see just how much one's religion does impact their political stances. If someone tells me they're running for President and they're an Evangelical Christian, I'm not going to write them off just yet. I'm going to look at their political record first, and if that doesn't satisfy me, then I won't vote for them.
Let's say an anonymous politician who was running for president listed their beliefs/views on the economy, health care, foreign policy, how to create jobs, education and all of their social views (gay marriage, abortion, ect). The only thing they would leave out is their religion. If you agreed with all of their beliefs/views on those things, would you really care what their religious beliefs were? To me, if you're not ignorant, you would respond "no."
I honestly think that's really fair. I wouldn't really care what their religious beliefs were at that point, and that's sort of the point I've been trying to make. Well-worded, Benjamin.
QUOTE PARTYYY! I'm truly sorry if you were in some way hurt my something or someone of some faith, but infect is a terribly inappropriate word there! Woahhh woahhh, I don't beleive that? I'm sure its true in 90% of cases, that they or their parents made a bad decision, but then you must define poor. I had a teacher in High School who is a good friend to me still who lives a very humble life, only teaching and coaching high school football, but you'd think he's a millionaire as happy and hardcore as he is. I mean sure he has an off day every now in then over the years that i've known him but no one I know is as hardcore loving life, even the wealthier people that I know, cuz he's livin and lovin for Christ, its intense. Nooottt sure where you're gettin the 1st amendment thing, but yes, I hope I live to see that day too! In fact, that day is steadily approaching, I'm sure you're at least familiar with Revelations. But I'm not scared? I'm going to keep living and loving people. This guy, he's done his homework! With respect, and I really don't mean for this to be mean, that is a terribly misguided and ignorant paragraph. "Bad" and "Good" Christians? Based solely on a proposed question? If a "Christian" is okay with gay marriage, they're most likely not a Christian. The Bible (God's word) states that marriage is between a man and a woman. If you're not trying your best to understand and adhere to God's word, then you probably don't have Christ as your savior, which would mean you're not a Christian. Could you elaborate? Because you seem to speak of Christians, or rather religion in general quite often. I may have misunderstood, if so please correct me.
This is why Kathy using the word "infect" was completely appropriate in her post. It's people like you who want to deny millions of people the right to marry someone they love just because you personally don't like how they marry. If that's not ignorant, I don't know what the fuck is.
Again, infect is still wrong. Homosexual marriages and numerous other perversions found on the internet and IRL are infecting our nation, not Christianity. If someone thinks homosexuality is the way to go, and the best way for them to love, then so be it. I think its wrong, I would tell them its wrong, but I would still be their friend and love them (obviously not in the same way as just mentioned). But to be married? No, I would invade your privacy, but its still not right.
True Scotman's Fallacy at it's finest! I love finding a good logical fallacy in the morning. Those "lefty" Christians are still Christians. They accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior and you should be embarrassed to say that their not Christian at all. You sound like one of those idiot Protestants who say Catholics aren't Christians either. Where you differ is your interpretation of the Bible, and which verses to place emphasis on (Judge not, lest ye be judged). Those Christians who believe in gay marriage aren't any less of a Christian than you are, as you are just as hypocritical with the verses as they are. this bears repeating, The Bible is full of evil that you're not acting on. Do you spend the same amount of time banning restaurants serving shrimp as you do getting in the way of gay marriage. Both are prohibited in the bible. The bible doesn't say not to have gay marriage, it says stone gay people to death. It says to stone people who work on Sunday to death. How many people have you killed? If you haven't killed anyone, you're not following God's word. Do you support slavery? God's word regulated instead of banning it. Do you support the degradation of women? The bible's full of it. You're a hypocrite. Any person who really, truly tries to follow all of the verses either becomes Fred Phelps or finally realizes that the whole picture doesn't make sense and renounces their religion. There's a reason so many atheists were formally priests. There's also this, which apparently the teachings of Christ matter more to lefty Christians then your type. And by "bad" I meant "evil." because anti-gay sentiment is evil. The other Christians know how to look at the world in front of them much better then people who think the Bible is a literal, realistic depiction of reality. This is EXACTLY what i meant by infect. What you wrote is evil. You do not have ANY respect for non-beleiver's rights. I am American too, yet you don't see me out there trying to get Christians deported or discriminated against. Why? I can live fine around people I disagree with. WHY is it so hard for you to realize that your religion is your choice and leave that choice to other people too? Why are you so insistent in putting your religious beliefs in federal law when I bet you would hate it if I made schools teach how evil the Bible is? Why is it so hard to treat others as you would like to be treated? You do NOT get to tell me, a person who does NOT share your evil beliefs, what religious laws I should and should not follow. Secular law applies to everyone and therefore needs to be based on secular ethics and the lessons learned in history, not laws based on the jealous whims of an evil god. Keep your religion out of my politics, my job, my life, and I will do the same for you. The first Amendment says this, The United States of America never intended to have an established religion. It is not a "Christian nation." it is to be neutral to all religions. Neutrality between all religions is the best way to preserve freedom. Placing one religion on a pedestal infects the nation with discrimination. It's also against Matthew 7:12, for petes sake. EDIT: this whole time I thought i was on the other thread.
LOLOLOL sry to kathy and others, I totally meant "NOT invade your privacy, but its still not right" in respect to gay marriage. I hate internet typing, face to face convo is way better, and lest frustrating. About the verse you quoted, duh! That is like the main point for the whole Bible, not just 'lefty Christians', that's why I said I still love everyone, though I may disagree with them, we're in agreement here on one thing, no reason to fight about it And upon saying that upholding your Christian morals is against scripture, well I mean what can I say about that? You're just wrong there. And define 'anti-gay', I don't eat gay people lolz, I disagree with them, if I were a political leader I would not allow gay marriage, I still love all people. Anti-gay isn't evil, homosexuality is evil. About all of the 'no shrimp in restaurants laws and working on sunday' , the laws changed in the New Testament, I don't know the Bible well enough honestly to go through every single one of them, but thats why we don't sacrifice goats anymore.
There's a really big part of Kathy's post that you obviously didn't read or didn't truly take in. If you think homosexuality is evil, then you must hate this whole anti slavery thing going on now. And you should hate woman who teach because the bible is against that too. There are so many other things that the bible says that you most likely aren't doing. So, I guess you're not a Christian? That's it for me. I guess I should be reading the quote by Jesse in my sig. Just back away Ben, back away...
How is homosexuality evil? It's 2 (or more, the more the merrier ) adults, make that consenting adults, doing stuff behind closed doors, in the privacy of their own bedroom. It has no effect on me or you, and somewhere in the world 2 men or 2 women are fucking right now, and you and I are none the wiser. It's not preventing me from going on with my life, it's not preventing you from going on with your life, it's not affecting anyone who is not participating in the act. How is it evil? If you don't like gay sex, don't have it! I'm straight, I don't like gay sex, therefore, I don't participate in it. But if someone does want to have sex with someone of the same gender, who the hell am I to tell them no or what they're doing is wrong?
There's nothing definitive in the new Testament about saying gay people shouldn't marry. There's only a handful of verses that can be twisted that way, but without sufficient evidence to show that the verse is actually about gay people and not something else . You also shouldn't be calling Christians that disagree with you non-Christians if you don't know the bible that well. It's clear that you're not a person who can be reasoned with. "You're Wrong" is the catch-phrase of LPU trolls and should be left only to them.
I'm going to be honest guys, while I disagree with what Handyman is saying, there's no need to just jump on him like you are. Especially you, Kathy. You need to calm down. It's one thing to disagree with him, but it's another to talk to him the way you are. It's borderline offensive, so please tone it down. I know you very much disagree with his stance, but he's being really reasonable in his explanations. He's not trying to jump down your throat, so stop trying to jump down his. I'll address this all in a little bit, but everyone take some time to calm down. Thanks.
Oh. He seemed to not understand what I meant by Infect so I started using stronger words in hopes it would carry the meaning better. I don't get how "You're Wrong" without an accompanying counterargument is being reasonable, but I digress.
It's not unreasonable. It's just not a good argument. It's also not being offensive. Not sure if I'm misinterpreting him, but he's really just stating his opinion. You, on the other hand, while you disagree (which is okay), you're jumping on him (which is not). It's actually coming across like you're getting in his face. I'm just telling you to tone it down. There are calmer ways to express your disagreement. Don't get me wrong, we all appreciate your input and are glad that you are contributing a lot to this thread. It's just that I feel you're getting so worked up that it's getting to be a bit much. Don't take it the wrong way, I'm just trying to prevent anything worse from happening in the thread.