(05-22-2016, 05:34 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I have no problem with organized prayer in religious schools,

Quote: and noe with voluntary and unprompted prayer by students. If some kid wants to say mealtime grace or pray before the spelling test, then that is fine with me.

Quote:The problem comes when some official or even a classroom teacher organizes prayer.

Quote: There's just too much mischief possible. A prayer might be perfectly innocuous to a Jewish kid until someone says "In Jesus' Name we pray", after which the entire prayer becomes an affront.

Kinser79 Wrote:Because I've changed my mind I can say that it would be a good thing.....Trump may be bad for the country...but Hillary is infinitely worse:  We know her, she's been in DC since 1992 at least...I'll take my chances with him.

Donald Trump Wrote:“Now we should go in, we should stop this guy, which would be very easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it, and save these lives. This is absolutely nuts.

(05-23-2016, 06:25 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

Kinser79 Wrote:Because I've changed my mind I can say that it would be a good thing.....Trump may be bad for the country...but Hillary is infinitely worse:  We know her, she's been in DC since 1992 at least...I'll take my chances with him.

When you were a Marxist the statements you made about Marxism comported with what I knew about Marxism leading me to believe you knew your shit.  You supported Trump then, which was completely consistent with historical Marxists who tended to oppose liberals/progressives who sought to ameliorate the lives of workers while preserving the capitalist economic structure since this would delay the revolution.  I did not agree with your pov, but I could acknowledged that you generally stuck to facts and mostly argued from logic, meaning your input was worth reading.

You have made no secret of your visceral hatred for Clinton and if you just said you were for Trump because you hate her, that would make sense.  Again I would not agree with your position, but I could respect that this was the way you felt.

Quote:Instead you are making a full-throated endorsement of Trump.  In doing so you now do not stick to facts and instead spout known falsehoods like Trump was against the Libya War:

Donald Trump Wrote:“Now we should go in, we should stop this guy, which would be very easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it, and save these lives. This is absolutely nuts.

And statements like Trump opposed the Iraq war are also not really truthful:
Donald Trump on the Howard Stern show said: Are you for invading Iraq?” Howard Stern asked him, and Trump answered, “Yeah, I guess so.

Now you could preface both of these statements with Donald Trump says, and then the question of whether the speaker is lying or not rests on Mr. Trump, but when you repeat his statements without that qualifier then it is you who lying. This displays a kind of poor judgment I have not seen previously in your postings, leading me to conclude that your support is emotional and comes entirely from your animus towards Mrs. Clinton.

(05-23-2016, 12:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-22-2016, 06:10 PM)radind Wrote:

(05-22-2016, 05:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-22-2016, 05:03 PM)radind Wrote: This is the original article( 2012) by Dr. James Emery White.

[/url]

Quote:[url=http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/dr-james-emery-white/are-christians-in-america-under-attack.html]http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/dr-james-emery-white/are-christians-in-america-under-attack.html
Are Christians in America Under Attack?

… "The developing fear is that government will make people choose between obeying the law and following their faith.  Of course, the real flash point is the one between religious liberty and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) rights.  For example:
*Catholic Charities in Illinois shut down its adoption services rather than place children with same-sex couples (as the state required).
*A Christian counselor was penalized for refusing to advise gay couples. 
*A court clerk in New York was told to issue same-sex marriage licenses, despite religious reservations.
*A wedding photographer was sued for refusing to shoot a same-sex wedding.
In each case, the Christian(s) involved were not attempting to impose their religious views on others.  They simply didn’t want to be forced to participate or offer tacit support for something they felt was in violation of their religious conscience.”…

This is what Republicans like Ted Cruz use to deceive people that they are protecting "religious liberty." This is not religious liberty; it is permission to discriminate. It is permission to do to gays what is no longer permitted to do to black people.

I don't like Cruz either. The problem for me is that the secular camp seems to leave no room for religious liberty. It comes across as having the same effect as  the clash of two religious dogmas. In the US , the secular camp now  dominates and  can dictate their dogma. This is what I see increasing and I don't know what limits the secular camp will consider.

Although I don't think some in the secular camp necessarily have much awareness about real spirituality and its value, I think they want religious liberty; they don't want the state to make "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Eric Wrote:But don't you think the opposition to abortion is orchestrated by the Catholic and fundamentalist Christian Church authorities?

(05-23-2016, 12:24 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-22-2016, 04:52 PM)radind Wrote:

(05-22-2016, 03:10 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Uh...I have news for you.  Christians in Syria are being killed.  I don't think anyone in the us is killing Christians.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7121/isis-slaughtering-christians

In Egypt Coptic Christians are routinely discriminated against, almost on par with Blacks in the Jim Crow days.

https://www.mnnonline.org/news/egypt-practicing-legal-discrimination-against-christians/

In Nigeria Boko Haram regularly murders Christians or forces them to convert to Islam.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/october-web-only/boko-haram-chibok-hostages-persecution.html

Where exactly in secular America are Christians being murdered or discriminated against?  By whom are they being discriminated against?  Inquiring minds want to know.  I will require citation too.  I don't care about "feels".

I think you misread the quote.
The point is that there is " growing  pressure to marginalize Christianity".

Quote:... " He rightfully declares, however, that Christians in America are not persecuted nearly to the degree that they are in such places as "Nigeria, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt or Syria."...

First point.  America is not a Christian nation, never was, never will be.  This fact goes back to the very founding.  Any argument that this is not true is based on a myth.  The truth can be found in reading the very letters of the Founders or better yet the Treaty of Tripoli of 1795

Treaty of Tripoli of 1795 Wrote:Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

As such there is no state marginalization of any religion.  The simple fact of the matter is that Christianity is losing popularity as a religion.  I have news for you religions come and go.  Typically they seem to have about a run of 2000 years on average before they die.  Christianity has had a good run but like Roman Paganism its time for something new.

Point Two.  Perhaps I did misread the quote.  That being said, the Christian preoccupation with being persecuted in the US is absurd.  While some incredibly small people are bothered by others wishing them a Merry Christ-mas they are people who walk around finding things to be offended by.

(05-23-2016, 12:31 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-22-2016, 05:57 PM)radind Wrote:

(05-22-2016, 05:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-22-2016, 05:13 PM)radind Wrote:

(05-22-2016, 05:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Hillary says love trumps hate, and that what we need in this country is more love and kindness. It is Hillary who stands for Christian values. Trump trashes them in his every statement and behavior. That's attacking Christianity far more than any slogan that he or any Republican religious right figure might utter. Who would Jesus insult in order to make himself look strong?

We have a different impression of Clinton.  In my opinion both Obama and Clinton are in the secular camp and both are politicians( who say lots of things that don't believe). I think that Trump is basically areligious . 
The pressure for Christians to conform to majority secular dogma is coming from the secular camp. Trump is not a good man, it is just that I see the real threat to Christian values coming from the secular majority.  It is understandable that those in the secular camp don't see any threat. They agree with the Obama/Clinton agenda.

I look at the quote in your signature, and I recall Hillary's words about love and kindness and love trumps hate, and it looks to me that it's Hillary that upholds Christian values. Anything else it seems is irrelevant. Forcing people to conform to religious authority has nothing to do with Christian values. It's the way we treat people that has to do with Christian values. Christian values are about love and kindness, the things Jesus taught; not about obedience to church authority or using issues like abortion and gay rights to divide people.

I don't believe Clinton's nice words. I can't see Christians supporting the killing of unborn babies. People's action are what is relevant , so I agree the issue is how we treat each other.
The intent of my objection to abortion is not to divide people, but I do think that abortion is wrong and un-Christian.
Obedience to church authority has no significance to me. I think that many of the problems with 'Christianity' comes from the large religious  organizations where bureaucracies  and political power abound. I do not belong to such religious organizations.  In my view each one is responsible for his own views ( secular or religious).

But don't you think the opposition to abortion is orchestrated by the Catholic and fundamentalist Christian Church authorities?

Don't you think that a feminist candidate like Hillary can support a woman's right to choose, and still be genuinely interested in love and kindness? Why would you judge a person un-Christian if they disagree with you on abortion? They might be "good Christians" in many other ways.

I understand the objection to abortion, and I think different people in the "secular camp" would have different opinions on abortion. I think this issue should be dealt with through compromise. Make the abortion pill available and then limit abortions to the first trimester. Make adoption more available. I don't think Americans should make abortion the basis for political culture wars. 

There are far more important issues about which compromise cannot be made so easily, especially our oligarchical and corrupt political and economic system, climate change and pollution, police behavior and our biased and misguided justice system, and foreign policy.

(05-23-2016, 07:27 AM)Mikebert Wrote: No.  Opposition to abortions comes from two viewpoints, both of which are logically unassailable.  The pro-choice position is likely logically unassailable.

Quote: Hence discussion is pointless.

Quote: Here's why:

Logical argument against abortion:  A person is a human animal with an immortal soul. 

Quote:The soul comes associated with a human body at the point of conception.  Therefore a fetus is a person.  From this it follows that abortion is homicide. Avoiding the harm caused by an unwanted pregnancy is not a sufficient justification for homicide.

Quote:Many people feel that a fetus is a baby because it resembles a baby, and at the time of birth it asymptotically approaches being a baby.  As a result other people's abortions make them very uncomfortable, like the use of the n-word by white people.  Hence they want to ban the practice out of PC concerns.  There is no argument here because it is about feelings.

Quote:Logical argument in favor of pro-choice:  A fetus is not a person; there is no such thing as a soul.  Any empirical definition of person would involve functionality (e.g. persons are 'above' other animals because of people's superior intellectual abilities) and biological (persons are genetically human).  A human fetus is not functionally more advanced than other mammalian fetuses, and certainly not intellectually more capable than many adult mammals.  The genetic argument is ruled out by the fact that a cancer tumor is a genetically human organism that can live independently of the body, yet is not considered to be a person. In fact, they are routinely removed from their hosts and allowed to die.

(05-23-2016, 07:56 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-23-2016, 07:27 AM)Mikebert Wrote: No.  Opposition to abortions comes from two viewpoints, both of which are logically unassailable.  The pro-choice position is likely logically unassailable.

I would argue that the so-called pro-life camp's argumentation is illogical in so far as it rests on religious doctrine.  I will go into detail below why, but I don't think that one can apply logic to those who are arguing from an idealistic conception to start with....

(05-23-2016, 07:33 AM)radind Wrote: I agree that the US is not a Christian nation.

Quote: My take is the the secular camp is attacking Christian values in the same way as if the secular camp were a religion. 

Quote:Being offended is not  the issue. Limiting freedom of religion is the issue.

Quote:I understand that no one in the secular camp will understand or feel the pressure.

Quote: Their values and dogma are being pushed.

Quote:I would be happy  to see 'Christmas' abolished since it was based on a pagan holiday anyway.

(05-23-2016, 08:18 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: ...There is no "secular camp".  What you're describing is the Regressive Left, and yes they are attacking Christians and Christian values.  As for them being a religion, I would say that they are an ideological group with cult-like tendencies.  So I think we're probably agreeing while quibbling over semantics.
That being said, there is no secular camp.  I'm secular and have no interest in attacking Christianity or Christians.  Seriously my BF goes to mass most Sundays.  Likewise I have no interest in attacking Paganism (in its various forms) or Pagans.  My son is a pagan...but don't ever call him that.  He prefers to call himself a heathen.

(05-22-2016, 05:13 PM)radind Wrote: As I mentioned before, I have no use for any large Christian organizations and my views are my own. I think that the rights of the unborn are being ignored and don't see how supporter of abortion could be considered Christian.
 There are many things that could be done to reduce abortion, but the death of the unborn babies remains.

There are other concerns( abortion is just a clear line of demarcation). It is easy to say compromise without recognising that religious liberty has no meaning for Christians in this secular country.  Calling this a 'political culture war' assumes that Christian values have no meaning for the secular camp. It is closer to a religious war in effect.

(05-23-2016, 09:35 AM)Anthony Wrote: We are not a secular nation.  We are a non-sectarian nation.

There is a huge difference.

(05-23-2016, 09:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I think the problem here is that in calling all secular people "the secular camp" you are ultimately setting yourself up for failure.  The simple fact is that there isn't this monolithic structure called "the secular camp".  In order to be secular one merely needs to desire everyone to have religious freedom--which is a cultural libertarian perspective anyway.

In order to achieve that religious freedom the state MUST be secular, if the state is not, let us say the First Amendment was tossed out today and Congress made Catholicism the state religion that would go against the freedoms of all Protestants, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Orthodox Christians, Jews of all stripes, Muslims of all stripes and any other person of religions not Catholicism or completely lacking a religion (such as myself).

Conversely let us say that the First Amendment was tossed out today and Congress prohibited all religions...That impinges on the liberty of everyone who chooses to have a religion.

No one who is secular wants to abolish first amendment except the Regressive Left.  They also have problems with people saying whatever they want too.  Are they secular?  I'd argue no.  They wish to impose their ideology on everyone else which is against the core tenant of being secular--namely that in order for everyone to have freedom of religious consciousness the state cannot have a role in religious consciousness.  

They are in fact the opposite of Cultural Libertarianism (it is also called Classical Liberalism--what passes for liberalism these days is really democratic socialism [an oxymoron I know] or some bastardized version of Marxism).  As it is that Classical Liberalism which is the very foundation of the Republic, a Republic they seek to destroy.

They have converted the Democratic Party into a party of authoritarianism and must therefore be destroyed for the good of the Republic.  As such the milquetoast, quasi-conservatism of the GOP Establishment had to be broken and Trump has managed that.  Now it is time to take that cultural war to the voting booth because I am starting to believe that once he is elected they will try to destroy the country, much like the South tried to destroy the country following Lincoln's election.

(05-23-2016, 11:11 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-22-2016, 05:13 PM)radind Wrote: As I mentioned before, I have no use for any large Christian organizations and my views are my own. I think that the rights of the unborn are being ignored and don't see how supporter of abortion could be considered Christian.
 There are many things that could be done to reduce abortion, but the death of the unborn babies remains.

There are other concerns( abortion is just a clear line of demarcation). It is easy to say compromise without recognising that religious liberty has no meaning for Christians in this secular country.  Calling this a 'political culture war' assumes that Christian values have no meaning for the secular camp. It is closer to a religious war in effect.

It is both, I am sure. But it's a war we don't need. I don't see where Jesus said to oppose abortion. Quote me chapter and verse? And claiming that fetuses are "babies" is not a religious statement; it's largely a scientific one. No, it's not a demarcation of Christianity. It's just a conviction that you and others have, and I understand it, and that you will continue to uphold it; but it's mostly orchestrated by church authority, even if it's not in your case.

Today, "Christian" largely means what Church Authority says it is. Very few people in America today understand what Jesus was really teaching and demonstrating. In most cases, they advocate the opposite.

"Secular" means that the state does not enforce or establish a religion. It is well known that this secular principle is GOOD for freedom of religion, AND for religion generally. There is no more religious country than the USA, and I expect this to continue, despite the passing trends among civic generations. The same "humanist" wave happened in the thirties, and the GI or Greatest Generation were somewhat less religious too. But even so, in the 1950s America became festooned with churches, which is how one writer put it (Howard Zinn? I forget).

Quote:http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-abortioninthebible.html

… "the Bible clearly prohibits the killing of innocent people (Exodus 20:13). All that is necessary to prove a biblical prohibition of abortion is to demonstrate that the Bible considers the unborn to be human beings.
Personhood in the Bible
A number of ancient societies opposed abortion, [2] but the ancient Hebrew society had the clearest reasons for doing so because of its foundations in the scriptures. The Bible teaches that men and women are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). As the climax of God's creation mankind has an intrinsic worth far greater than that of the animal kingdom placed under His care. Throughout the Scriptures, personhood is never measured by age, stage of development, or mental, physical, or social skills. Personhood is endowed by God at the moment of creation - before which there was not a human being and after which there is. That moment of creation can be nothing other than the moment of conception.
The Hebrew word used in the Old Testament to refer to the unborn (Exodus 21:22-25) is yeled, a word that “generally indicates young children, but may refer to teens or even young adults.” [3] The Hebrews did not have or need a separate word for unborn children. They were just like any other children, only younger. In the Bible there are references to born children and unborn children, but there is no such thing as a potential, incipient, or “almost” child.”…

(05-23-2016, 03:37 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Honestly I think you're looking at the wrong issues.  Religious liberty is wrapped up with every other liberty and the fight will ultimately come down to one between the cultural authoritarians (the Regressive Left and other stateists) which are actually a minority they are just very very loud, and cultural libertarians.

A great deal of it will come out during the Election and even after particularly during Daddy's first term but the authoritarians will lose, like they always do, because the American people have a particular affinity for liberty and the generation in mid-life is shifting from the crusading Boomers to practical Xers.

Quote:http://coldcasechristianity.com/2016/the-three-ds-of-tolerance/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ColdCaseChristianity+%28Cold+Case+Christianity%29

The Three D’s of Tolerance

… “Like all worldviews, Christianity offers an explanation for reality that excludes many other options. If Christianity is true, other views of the world that deny the existence of God (or postulate a god who is characteristically different than the God of the Bible) are false. If these other views are true, Christianity is false. When worldviews offer opposite and contradictory explanations, both may be incorrect (or one may be correct) but both cannot be true. We need a strategy, therefore, to deal with people who hold views that are different than our own.”…