2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

I believe this self-proclaimed homosexual tweeted about it well: http://twitchy.com/2014/04/04/brill...-tweet-to-mozilla-earns-a-thousand-thumbs-up/

That's cool, but it hardly forces Christians "into the closet" - they're still going to bleat about the gays. And while I know that your "allegedly" libertarian views favor all tolerance of those lifestyles, I hope you're aware that your "self-proclaimed" comment comes off as sinde and discriminatory, even if it isn't.

Oh man, I sound like unofan after those sentences. Ugh!

 

[duper]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

In this country, what does the legality (or lack thereof) of gay marriage have to do with Christianity? Wouldn't passing a law concerning personal rights based on religious beliefs be a violation of the 1st amendment rights of anyone who doesn't share those particular beliefs and is officially discriminated against as a result?

That tweet is ridiculous. Legal gay marriage IN NO WAY forces Christians into the closet. It's plain stupid. The guy made a political contribution, as everyone has the right to do. People made a decision to protest the company of which he is a highly visible employee, as they have the right to do. He resigned his position at that company. The vast majority of us are not and never will be highly visible, and so our political bent will never cause problems in our work. Every job has tradeoffs. The position of CEO with a very popular, visible company has the down side that you lose a great deal of your personal privacy.

I hope you're aware that your "self-proclaimed" comment comes off as sinde and discriminatory

I wonder if being a self-proclaimed homosexual is anything like being a self-proclaimed woman or a self-proclaimed African-American.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

That's cool, but it hardly forces Christians "into the closet" - they're still going to bleat about the gays. And while I know that your "allegedly" libertarian views favor all tolerance of those lifestyles, I hope you're aware that your "self-proclaimed" comment comes off as sinde and discriminatory, even if it isn't.

Oh man, I sound like unofan after those sentences. Ugh!

I could care less if my choice of words came off as such. He said in the tweet that he was gay, therefore he proclaimed it of himself, and therefore the term self-proclaimed is appropriate. I will not participate in the socialist and Orwellian tactic of limiting the language in the interest of "political correctness". That is exactly how the socialists took control of the USSR in 1917, what happened in the book "1984", and is exactly what is happening today.

As for forcing Christians into the closet, although the one specific happening alone may not have done as such, we have seen a culmination of it happen for quite a while now. The true definition of "non-denominational" today, as put by these activist groups, seems to be "anything but Christian", as other religions, especially Islam, are receiving free passes at the expense of Christians. That shows me that there is an establishment of religion. An anti-establishment is still an establishment. It's similar to how certain people were put into certain positions on specific account of their race, gender, orientation, and other classifications, under the guise of "affirmative action". Although hiring organizations today typically have equal opportunity statements to show that they hire without regard to said statuses, and I commend those that actually follow through on this and give no slight to any person that meets or exceeds the stringent qualifications of their title, there are still many that select based upon hidden affirmative action quotas.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

I wonder if being a self-proclaimed homosexual is anything like being a self-proclaimed woman or a self-proclaimed African-American.

It is, especially considering in Rev. and Dr. King's dream world known as the "internet", one is only judged upon the content of his or her character. Each person only reveals the aforementioned identifiers if he or she chooses to do so. This person chose to do so.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

That's cool, but it hardly forces Christians "into the closet" - they're still going to bleat about the gays. And while I know that your "allegedly" libertarian views favor all tolerance of those lifestyles, I hope you're aware that your "self-proclaimed" comment comes off as sinde and discriminatory, even if it isn't.

Oh man, I sound like unofan after those sentences. Ugh!

I took the "self proclaimed" comment to say that we don't know if the person making these comments is truly homosexual or simply claiming it in order to spark further debate or grab some artificial authority on the subject. There's no real way to prove one way or the other if the guy was telling the truth.

 

[duper]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

It is, especially considering in Rev. and Dr. King's dream world known as the "internet", one is only judged upon the content of his or her character. Each person only reveals the aforementioned identifiers if he or she chooses to do so. This person chose to do so.

I just thought it was funny to say "self-proclaimed homosexual" as opposed to simply "homosexual." And I guess the point of my comment was along the lines of if we were discussing a women's issue, and you quoted a woman, would you have described her as a "self-proclaimed woman," or would you have just called her a woman and left it at that. For the record, I definitely was hinting at an anti-gay bias, but I should make a point of saying that I'm not thinking the bias is with you personally, but with the society that makes you feel that you should clarify that by calling him homosexual, you're not intending to slander him, but merely pass on that he is in fact gay.

Edit: This comment makes me sound like an *******. I tried to phrase it in a way that makes it clear that I'm not trying to accuse FlagDude08 of doing anything "wrong," but even as I read it myself, it sounds accusatory. meh...

On the other hand, as far as Christians being forced into the closet, I'm afraid I just can't identify with you on that. It's not that I think what you're saying is wrong, I just think that, since you probably grew up assuming, and usually being right, that most of the people you came into contact with were Christian, it is probably a little hard, possibly sad or depressing, to see that changing, even if frankly it's only changing a little bit. I think that we are still a long way away from the point where Christians are discriminated against for their religion. Yeah, people get irritated with proselytizing Christians, but that's very different from discriminating against you based on your religion. If I go around trying to convince everyone I meet that there are no gods, I will find people avoiding me, and I will lose my job over it. In point of fact, come to think of it, I did once lose a job over discussing my beliefs with coworkers. But it would never have occurred to me that this was a form of discrimination based on my religious beliefs (or lack thereof.) What it actually was, was me being held responsible for engaging in conversations that were inappropriate in the workplace, because they made people needlessly uncomfortable. (For the record, the Christians with whom I debated did not lose their jobs.)

 

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

As a self-proclaimed smug liberal, I have to wonder why a libertarian poster is so enamored with protecting a particular religion (Christianity). Could it be that self-proclaimed libertarian isn't a libertarian at all, but rather a partisan conservative Republican too ashamed to declare his true political leanings?

 

[St. Clown]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

As a self-proclaimed smug liberal, I have to wonder why a libertarian poster is so enamored with protecting a particular religion (Christianity). Could it be that self-proclaimed libertarian isn't a libertarian at all, but rather a partisan conservative Republican too ashamed to declare his true political leanings?

There are many Christian libertarians.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

There are many Christian libertarians.

While I'm sure youre right, it seems to me that they are less common. I would guess that the two largest segments are: Christian conservatives - ideology driven by social issues often coming from the existence of old testament God - and Christian liberals - coming from the teachings of Jesus. Arguably the most visible plank coming from Jesus is the extent to which others in general and the poor are supported. I know that libertarians believe that the poor should be supported through private means...but that almost guarantees that there will be holes in this support. I don't see the private sector providing any service as comprehensively in areas where there is less of a profit pay-off than the public sector (regardless of whether those services are for the poor or just the temporarily needy).

 

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

There are many Christian libertarians.

Many = 5 of them? I'm sorry but the two states of mind can't co-exist. Devout Christianity is "this is the Word of the Lord and you must live by it". Libertarianism is "everybody for themselves". Now unless you are Jesus yourself, in which your personal attitude towards doing what you like dovetails nicely into doing the Lord's work (because, well...you ARE the Lord) its impossible to be both.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Many = 5 of them? I'm sorry but the two states of mind can't co-exist. Devout Christianity is "this is the Word of the Lord and you must live by it". Libertarianism is "everybody for themselves". Now unless you are Jesus yourself, in which your personal attitude towards doing what you like dovetails nicely into doing the Lord's work (because, well...you ARE the Lord) its impossible to be both.

Hmmm - not sure I agree with your definition of libertarianism - I'd say it's just reducing the amount of say that civil authorities have over personal choices. There's not necessarily an inconsistency between wanting the state to have less authority and churches to have more.

Now, if you're talking about typical "Right Wing Evangelicals" who want to use the power of the state to enforce their religious ethics and are content to see the power of the state wax in order to accomplish those goals, well, there I certainly agree that we're not really talking about libertarians.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Many = 5 of them? I'm sorry but the two states of mind can't co-exist. Devout Christianity is "this is the Word of the Lord and you must live by it". Libertarianism is "everybody for themselves". Now unless you are Jesus yourself, in which your personal attitude towards doing what you like dovetails nicely into doing the Lord's work (because, well...you ARE the Lord) its impossible to be both.

It looks like youre definition of a lertarianism is more of a libertine outlook on life.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Put it another way then. Libertarians = "don't tell me what to do". Relgion = "you must live your life according to Scripture". How are those evenly remotely comparable?

Is there a subset of libertarians who are okay with church leaders restricting their freedoms instead of the govt doing so? Okay...I concede that's possible...but really are we talking more than a few people here? Libertarians tend to be young, young people tend not to go to church. Coincidence, or a lot of overlap between the two?

 

[St. Clown]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Put it another way then. Libertarians = "don't tell me what to do". Relgion = "you must live your life according to Scripture". How are those evenly remotely comparable?

Is there a subset of libertarians who are okay with church leaders restricting their freedoms instead of the govt doing so? Okay...I concede that's possible...but really are we talking more than a few people here? Libertarians tend to be young, young people tend not to go to church. Coincidence, or a lot of overlap between the two?

Again, you're confusing libertines as libertarians. I would expect better from the smartest person to ever live.

 

[duper]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Many = 5 of them? I'm sorry but the two states of mind can't co-exist. Devout Christianity is "this is the Word of the Lord and you must live by it". Libertarianism is "everybody for themselves". Now unless you are Jesus yourself, in which your personal attitude towards doing what you like dovetails nicely into doing the Lord's work (because, well...you ARE the Lord) its impossible to be both.

This is completely ridiculous.

By your definition, is it possible for a Christian to believe in the first amendment establishment clause? Doesn't sound like it. The fact is, neither Christians nor Libertarians fit into the tidy packages that you placed them. Devout Christianity is living how you believe the lord wants you to based on your interpretation of the bible, and Libertarian is the belief in small government, particularly on the federal level.

Now, when you say devout Christian, I suspect that what you really mean is Literal Interpretationist. Most of the devout Christians that I have known (while I am an atheist, I went to church almost every Sunday for my first 18 years) believe that the bible is to be interpreted.

Many libertarians, furthermore, are not the ultra-conservative paranoid weirdos that I get the impression you believe them to be. Most simply believe that the private sector handles problems more efficiently than government.

I'm thinking of a relative of mine who is also a close friend who is both a devout Christian and a staunch Libertarian. The two things fit together very nicely. He believes that the poor should receive every bit of assistance they need, and that if taxes were lowered by eliminating welfare and other social programs for the needy, that churches and other private institutions would provide the poor that assistance more efficiently with less abuse. The fact is, a true libertarian is extremely liberal socially, based on what we currently consider liberal and conservative.

Now, with all that said, I find the beliefs of both Christians and Libertarians incredibly naive, but to oversimplify their positions into these inane boxes not only makes you look like a jackhole, but it helps those who disagree with your views oversimplify you and put you into a stupid box that you don't belong in.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Now, when you say devout Christian, I suspect that what you really mean is Literal Interpretationist. Most of the devout Christians that I have known believe that the bible is to be interpreted.

Really? That's not what I've seen.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

 

[duper]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Really? That's not what I've seen.

How do you know? Do you have deep philsophical/religious conversations with all of your acquaintances to find out what they believe? Most of the people I grew up in church with would never even get into the conversation with you, so you could know them for years and have no idea they even went to church. People of true faith don't always wear their religion like a badge.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

This is completely ridiculous.

By your definition, is it possible for a Christian to believe in the first amendment establishment clause? Doesn't sound like it. The fact is, neither Christians nor Libertarians fit into the tidy packages that you placed them. Devout Christianity is living how you believe the lord wants you to based on your interpretation of the bible, and Libertarian is the belief in small government, particularly on the federal level.

Now, when you say devout Christian, I suspect that what you really mean is Literal Interpretationist. Most of the devout Christians that I have known (while I am an atheist, I went to church almost every Sunday for my first 18 years) believe that the bible is to be interpreted.

Many libertarians, furthermore, are not the ultra-conservative paranoid weirdos that I get the impression you believe them to be. Most simply believe that the private sector handles problems more efficiently than government.

I'm thinking of a relative of mine who is also a close friend who is both a devout Christian and a staunch Libertarian. The two things fit together very nicely. He believes that the poor should receive every bit of assistance they need, and that if taxes were lowered by eliminating welfare and other social programs for the needy, that churches and other private institutions would provide the poor that assistance more efficiently with less abuse. The fact is, a true libertarian is extremely liberal socially, based on what we currently consider liberal and conservative.

Now, with all that said, I find the beliefs of both Christians and Libertarians incredibly naive, but to oversimplify their positions into these inane boxes not only makes you look like a jackhole, but it helps those who disagree with your views oversimplify you and put you into a stupid box that you don't belong in.

I think you're reading into, and getting insulted by, more than what's actually in my post. You're basically replacing "Devout Christian" with "Conservative". This is the definitive quote "He believes that the poor should receive every bit of assistance they need, and that if taxes were lowered by eliminating welfare and other social programs for the needy, that churches and other private institutions would provide the poor that assistance more efficiently with less abuse." This is Paul Ryan-esque but has nothing to do with church teachings, at least not the Catholic Church I was Confirmed in. Furthermore I know of few hard core Christians who think the Bible is to be interpreted. Again, you're describing as best I can tell run of the mill religious people who feel religion is a good thing (as I do for example) but maybe don't follow it to the letter (no birth control???).

Lastly, I'm trying to have a simple conversation here as I don't find the two compatable, but if you'd like to to start handing out insults I can certainly do that. In the meantime try to stay on topic.

EDIT: Perhaps this guy is a good example of people who claim to be devout but when push comes to shove...not so much!

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/vance-mcallister-video-kissing-staffer-105435.html?hp=l1

 

[duper]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

I think you're reading into, and getting insulted by, more than what's actually in my post. You're basically replacing "Devout Christian" with "Conservative". This is the definitive quote "He believes that the poor should receive every bit of assistance they need, and that if taxes were lowered by eliminating welfare and other social programs for the needy, that churches and other private institutions would provide the poor that assistance more efficiently with less abuse." This is Paul Ryan-esque but has nothing to do with church teachings, at least not the Catholic Church I was Confirmed in. Furthermore I know of few hard core Christians who think the Bible is to be interpreted. Again, you're describing as best I can tell run of the mill religious people who feel religion is a good thing (as I do for example) but maybe don't follow it to the letter (no birth control???).

Lastly, I'm trying to have a simple conversation here as I don't find the two compatable, but if you'd like to to start handing out insults I can certainly do that. In the meantime try to stay on topic.

To start with, I'm not sure what I said that made you feel I was offended, but if I gave that impression, I certainly didn't mean to. Here's what I was reading into: the two states of mind can't coexist. I'm not offended by this, but I find it ridiculous, and so I pointed out a few things that show that not only CAN the two states coexist, but that in fact they probably do coexist in a fairly significant number of people.

Maybe I did misinterpret what you said. Maybe, when you said the two states can't coexist, you actually meant that you suspect that they don't coexist in the majority of either libertarians or Christians. On the other hand, that statement is both so vague and so obvious that it probably wouldn't be worth making. What you did say was more inflammatory. It was not a comment one makes as part of a "simple conversation" unless one is looking to turn that conversation into an argument.

As a last little thing, you say that you know few who believe the bible is to be interpreted; that isn't true, even if you think it is. It has been a very long time since anyone has been executed for eating shellfish, so apparently every Christian in America interprets the bible to some degree.