Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Obama, Gay Marriage, Original Sin, Founding Fathers, Catholics, and Pearls

Obama, Gay Marriage, Original Sin, Founding Fathers, Catholics, and Pearls (Page 9)
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 01:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
then why did god make them gay?
God didn't make them gay, God didn't make them at all.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 02:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I guess it depends upon whether you see the destruction of God's master plan as an act of creation or not.

Edit: also, it wasn't Adam and Eve's idea to eat the fruit anyway.
adam and eve were tempted with the fruit of knowledge of good and evil.....why?

is god being a dick?

also adam and eve knowing they were of different sex and therefore, they can have "normal" sex is a good thing right?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 02:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
God didn't make them gay, God didn't make them at all.
adam and eve made god....ftw!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 02:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
adam and eve were tempted with the fruit of knowledge of good and evil.....why?
Because the Serpent is being a dick, at least that's how God looks at it. Obviously the Serpent feels differently.

For your second question, Adam and Eve were instructed to go forth and bang, so one can pretty safely assume they knew how before eating the fruit.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 03:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
God didn't create everything.

For instance, the gods he forbids the Jews from worshipping weren't created by him.
Most people that I know who believe in God, believe that it is the only god to exist and that it created everything.

ack ... point being, those that believe homosexuality goes against the plan of the god they believe in, also seem to generally believe that their god is omnipotent and that it created everything. If that is the case, then their god must *also* have created things like homosexuality and sin.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 04:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Most people that I know who believe in God, believe that it is the only god to exist and that it created everything.
Hey man... people believe in all kinds of crazy shit. What you say above though, isn't how it plays out in the Old Testament.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 05:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
adam and eve made god....ftw!
So actual conversation about religion isn't going to happen now either? And people ask why I don't participate in that type of discussion around here?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 07:53 AM
 
It would be really interesting to hand out a questionnaire to religious people with a bunch of questions asking A) if they have heard of insert religious story or extract here, and B) if they read it themselves in the appropriate holy book, picked it up from the media or were told it by a cleric of some kind.

It would just be interesting to see how much they interpret themselves directly from their rulebooks and how much they allow other people to put a spin on certain parts. A rough way of gauging the true influence of preachers and ministers.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 10:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I don't get why any gay person would subject themselves to faith and religion of a institution that does not agree with there life style and says they will go to hell. Just shows how powerful the brainwashing is at childhood that they still want to believe in god even though god is supposed to hate them.
In Christianity, the wage of one sin is death. Not, this sin or that sin. We're all sinners. We all, to some degree or another, live lives and think thoughts that would not be agreeable to the faith. I go into my church each Sunday knowing full well that my time here is, but one example of time spent not usually glorifying God. At least not directly. The point is, if you had to be entirely sinless before entering the fellowship, you're likely not in need of the fellowship as much as it is in need of you.

The only way you're dying is if you're not growing and so eventually I will have to leave all you miscreants and malcontents be.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 10:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
It may be easier, but that's not an excuse to practice laziness and not correct those injustices. That's one of the highlights of this issue; those who are against gay rights constantly use the same tired old arguments, quoting carefully selected snippets of their holy book and regurgitating the same endlessly, because of their intellectual laziness.
But homosexuality does not go away simply by disallowing its formal union. Christians believe heterosexuality is, in the least; normative and as such divine. They believe it is the preferred condition in serving a purpose above that which would serve the two people that engage it and that the government would bolster this purpose with a privilege of conferred benefits. IMO, if Christians feel a mockery has been made of marriage that it would be so marginalized as to invite homosexuality into its fold, it's their own fault for providing such an exceedingly crappy example of it.

We all live in the United States of America. The states' rights argument is another of those intellectually lazy ones, where it's convenient, because it's constantly used, and easy to dredge up, but we are a vastly different society today than 200 years ago, when people didn't move often, and customs/traditions/mores were based locally. I've moved at least six times in my life; should my rights and beliefs change, just because I moved? I think not.
Uniting the States under a government with documented limitations to their oversight is one thing, attempting to unite them under the whimsy of a power-drunk and abusive centralized authority is indeed something else. Otherwise, you're no more geographically beholden to your beliefs than you are your own taste. For example, if you hate gloomy weather, don't move to Seattle. In an arena of ideals, you're also welcome to enter these areas and work toward changing hearts and minds.

Such as?
The Northern states were not allowed to grant sanctuary to runaway slaves, but were required to return them as "the property of the South" for starters, but for a more contemporaneous and relevant example; why not consider DOMA itself?

Your opinion is noted, and I agree, insofar as marriage is a civil contract. But the meanings, and usage, of words do change, and if a gay couple wants to call their union a marriage, that should be their prerogative.
If it's simply a matter of what people call it, why not call it a marriage regardless of the State's role in the relationship? It's merely a contract either way, not a right. All manner of personal affairs can be contractually documented, including beneficiaries to estates and insurance plans, and who should and should not be allowed to visit you in the hospital.

The only evidence of any phenomena is that some issues take longer to change peoples' minds on.
But I maintain there's a reason for this. (not directed at you) Blaming religion as others continue to do is intellectually lazy. After all, with this degree of ideological integrity, it'd be hard to reconcile a 55% marriage failure rate.

It still remains a fact that gay rights have accelerated at the fastest rate of any major societal change in the history of the U. S. There was nowhere a gay couple could form a legal union a little over a decade ago, and now there are six states where that's permissible. The rest will come, most of them dragging their knuckles, but they will come. Most of the hot air being generated by the opponents of gay marriage focuses around the nonsense that it will change the definition of a hetero couple's marriage. More Americans are starting to realize, all complex and superfluous verbiage aside, that it just doesn't matter to them if two committed adults want to join in a legal, and loving union, and that it, in fact, doesn't change their relationship. The hold outs are primarily older people, who need something from their past to hang onto, as a security blanket (people like stupendous, who can't stop bringing up tradition, and who would apparently still prefer living in a cave).
I think it's more than that. I think what people are truly grappling with is; why bother conferring benefits to what is essentially, a mental condition? I just don't think the case has been sufficiently made that this condition is worthy of consideration in the big scheme of things. I happen to say; why not confer the benefits upon those with this condition as it does not affect me or my marriage, but I'm not going to call people who oppose it (also due an annoying agenda) "knuckle-draggers".

Of course you do, but it's being made more clear daily that you're wrong.
Certainly not by you or anyone that has opined here.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 02:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
It would be really interesting to hand out a questionnaire to religious people with a bunch of questions asking A) if they have heard of insert religious story or extract here, and B) if they read it themselves in the appropriate holy book, picked it up from the media or were told it by a cleric of some kind.

It would just be interesting to see how much they interpret themselves directly from their rulebooks and how much they allow other people to put a spin on certain parts. A rough way of gauging the true influence of preachers and ministers.
Someone can correct me on this, but if you're Roman Catholic, I'm pretty sure you are specifically not supposed to read the rulebook. That's for the professionals. You get taught the rules in Sunday School, and until what... 50-60 years ago the masses were still in Latin.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 02:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I think it's more than that. I think what people are truly grappling with is; why bother conferring benefits to what is essentially, a mental condition? I just don't think the case has been sufficiently made that this condition is worthy of consideration in the big scheme of things. I happen to say; why not confer the benefits upon those with this condition as it does not affect me or my marriage, but I'm not going to call people who oppose it (also due an annoying agenda) "knuckle-draggers".
Is the agenda of wanting gays to be able to marry annoying, or do you just have some annoying people attached to it? For instance, you may have someone who has a gay daughter, and being protective of them as parents often are, this person maybe lacks the restraint they would have if they weren't so personally involved in the issue.

OTOH, as the anti-gay marriage agenda involves restricting large groups of people over something which has little effect on those who call for the restriction, I find that agenda to be annoying in and of itself.

If your agenda is bad, you should feel bad.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 03:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
So actual conversation about religion isn't going to happen now either? And people ask why I don't participate in that type of discussion around here?
i guess i misread ur post...God didn't make them gay, God didn't make them at all.

can u expand on it?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 03:32 PM
 
God only directly made Adam and Eve. Past them, he just aids in reproduction.

Despite God's assistance, Adam and Eve's offspring weren't perfect because Adam and Eve partook of the fruit. Had they not eaten the fruit, their offspring would have been perfect as well.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 03:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
In Christianity, the wage of one sin is death. Not, this sin or that sin. We're all sinners. We all, to some degree or another, live lives and think thoughts that would not be agreeable to the faith. I go into my church each Sunday knowing full well that my time here is, but one example of time spent not usually glorifying God. At least not directly. The point is, if you had to be entirely sinless before entering the fellowship, you're likely not in need of the fellowship as much as it is in need of you.

The only way you're dying is if you're not growing and so eventually I will have to leave all you miscreants and malcontents be.
If we are all sinners then isn't it ok to have gay sex then ask for forgiveness later. I mean at every hour of the day through thought or action we commit sin's?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 03:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
If we are all sinners then isn't it ok to have gay sex then ask for forgiveness later. I mean at every hour of the day through thought or action we commit sin's?
Sure. As long as you're truly repentant.

One of my favorite lines from a movie ever is in Bedazzled when Peter Cook (as the Devil) explains how right at the last second Mussolini went "scusi, mille regretti" and then "flap, flap, flap... up he went".

Of course, the scenario you present doesn't sound to me like someone truly repentant, but God has a pretty solid record when it comes to divining the truth of such things. Better not screw it up.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 03:57 PM
 
There's also a trick where you get baptized as close to death as possible, but there's some obvious risk there.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 07:27 PM
 
can you be baptized twice?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 09:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
God only directly made Adam and Eve. Past them, he just aids in reproduction.

Despite God's assistance, Adam and Eve's offspring weren't perfect because Adam and Eve partook of the fruit. Had they not eaten the fruit, their offspring would have been perfect as well.
but i thought before they ate the fruit, they didn't know they were of different sex.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 09:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
God only directly made Adam and Eve. Past them, he just aids in reproduction.

Despite God's assistance, Adam and Eve's offspring weren't perfect because Adam and Eve partook of the fruit. Had they not eaten the fruit, their offspring would have been perfect as well.
Then it's too bad they were created flawed. An omnipotent being woud have kown that it's creation woud have eaten the fruit, and therefore must have intended for the creation to be imperfect. Just as such a creator must have intended for some of its creations to be homosexual, if there in any homosexuality in the world. Any other conclusion calls into question the omnipotence and perfection of the creator.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 10:21 PM
 
Why plant the tree of the fruit of knowledge in the first place?

He's god...

ok, so god planted it as a test to see if mankind was faithful... but he's god, he already knew. he knows all
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 10:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Then it's too bad they were created flawed. An omnipotent being woud have kown that it's creation woud have eaten the fruit, and therefore must have intended for the creation to be imperfect. Just as such a creator must have intended for some of its creations to be homosexual, if there in any homosexuality in the world. Any other conclusion calls into question the omnipotence and perfection of the creator.
God is pretty clearly not omnipotent in the Old Testament.

For example, God is about to layeth down some righteous wrath upon Moses, in person no less, but a quick thinking Zipporah slices her husband's penis and smears the blood all around the tent.

God goes "whoa, whoa, WHOA! That is like, so uncool I'm going to flee."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 10:59 PM
 
@shaddim or Big Mac

I'd appreciate any corrections to my interpretations you have to offer. Understanding this stuff is just a hobby for me.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 11:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
God is pretty clearly not omnipotent
*I* certainly agree.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 12:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
can you be baptized twice?
You can in the sense the rite can be performed upon you multiple times (it's not hard to do, and IIUC doesn't even need to be performed by a believer), but only the first one counts.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 12:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
but i thought before they ate the fruit, they didn't know they were of different sex.
This is incorrect. The main thing which is mentioned is they realize the shame in being naked, which they had not previously understood as they had no knowledge of good and evil.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 01:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
*I* certainly agree.
Well, there you go. Now you know the story of how the gays came to be.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 01:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is incorrect. The main thing which is mentioned is they realize the shame in being naked, which they had not previously understood as they had no knowledge of good and evil.
so they were naked and didn't know they were different?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 01:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You can in the sense the rite can be performed upon you multiple times (it's not hard to do, and IIUC doesn't even need to be performed by a believer), but only the first one counts.
what if the first time you were only 12 years old? knowing nothing of reason?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 01:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Someone can correct me on this, but if you're Roman Catholic, I'm pretty sure you are specifically not supposed to read the rulebook. That's for the professionals. You get taught the rules in Sunday School, and until what... 50-60 years ago the masses were still in Latin.
Less MSNBC and more EWTN.

For the Western Rite, the official language is still in Latin. We are allowed to use the vernacular, but the use of Latin in encouraged. (i.e. The Credo, Pater Noster, The Gloria, Agnus Dei etc.) Everyone is encourage to have a Bible at home and to read it. You can read The Catechism and the Compendium of the Catechism free online, as well as the Code of Canon Law. The Maronite, Chaldean, Melkite Greek, Byzantine, and the other Eastern Rites use the same Catechism, but have their own Canon and Liturgical Rites.

The brave among, feel free to call into Monday's Catholic Answers Live.(3pm-6pm PDT, 6pm-9pm EDT) It's an Open Forum for Non Catholics. Friday's first hour topic is "Religion vs Science?" 1-888-318-7884 I'll be listening for your calls
( Last edited by Chongo; Jun 10, 2012 at 01:57 AM. )
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 02:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
so they were naked and didn't know they were different?
How did you get this from what I posted? What the Bible mentions they realize is the shame in being naked, not that Eve didn't have a willie.

Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
what if the first time you were only 12 years old? knowing nothing of reason?
Consider yourself lucky, I guess. Most people have it done as an infant. I had it done officially by a priest in church, but it is surmised my grandmother did it in the hospital "just in case". This would supersede the priest's baptism.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 02:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Know any Jews or Muslims? Ask them what they hate most, other Jews or Muslims or Atheists and ask them to be honest.
Okay, once again I'm coming into this conversation without being will versed in its history (and it's apparently diverged to questioning the forming of homosexuals), but I'll take a stab at the question Athens poses. As a strongly right-wing religious Jew, I find the question as posed somewhat strange. What do Jews hate the most - Muslims or Atheists? I don't hate either group. I have much in common with a decent Muslim who doesn't proselytize Islamic supersessionism/supremacy over Judaism. I have a lot in common with a decent atheist who doesn't believe in religion because he or she is not convinced as to the truth of religion but is a generally ethical person who seeks to do good in life and is respectful toward religious people. I probably have more in common with the decent Muslim than the decent atheist because the Muslim shares a large portion of Islamic religious heritage with Judaism and we have many commonalities in various religious modalities (prayer, fasting, strict monotheism/anti-idolatry, charity). I could go on obviously.

Do I strongly dislike or even hate some Muslims? Yes, those who are radicalized or terrorists, who believe and work toward global Islamic hegemony and the subjugation of all non-Muslims to degrading Islamic rule. Those who believe in not only Islamic supremacy but wish to actively harm the non-Muslim world. Do I strongly dislike or even hate some atheists? Yes, those atheists who are militant, disdainful or outright hateful toward religion. But that's only a portion of Muslims and only a portion of atheists. I absolutely hate radical Muslims more than militant atheists because radical Muslims obviously pose a greater danger to my life and liberties than militant atheists.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jun 10, 2012 at 02:25 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 02:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Less MSNBC and more EWTN.
I think just more this century.

I've learned the actual nitty-gritty about the practicalities of being Catholic from my dad, who learned them in the 60's.

I'm way more interested in the Old Testament, so that's where most of my expertise lies, but as always, the corrections are appreciated.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 05:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Yes, those who are radicalized or terrorists, who believe and work toward global Islamic hegemony and the subjugation of all non-Muslims to degrading Islamic rule.
Or if they're liberal Democrats.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 06:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Or if they're liberal Democrats.
Oh yeah, Obama supporters? I don't hate them exactly, but the country would be much better off without them if they intend to vote this November. Vote for Obama = Act of treason.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 06:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I think a great many Jews and Muslims would object to the notion that the god Jesus is the same god they worship.
...
I believe Muslims admit Jesus was a great disciple of Allah, the son of God. I myself am Christian but the history of religions is interesting...and scary.
     
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 06:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Holiday Tree, Holiday Dinner, Holiday Card, Holiday Gift Given...

Happy Holidays, Holiday Shopping....

I'm about as anti religious as you get but for Christ sake call it for what it is, Christmas Tree, Christmas Dinner, Christmas Card, Merry Christmas, and so forth

It pains me that new immigrants from CHINA have more CHRISTMAS spirit in there stores then any of the P.C big box stores. I go to the Chinese corner store a block away, I see Christmas all over it. Go to Sears, everything is done to hide it.
Right...and that's not the end of it. All Christian holidays renamed to something "less offensive." The President wishes Happy Ramadan for all Muslims. No Ten Commandments in public areas but Sharia Law is upheld over American law in Minnesota. No nativity scenes allowed except in private residences. ...and the list goes on... My main issue is that this all taking away our American heritage and in some cases it's replacing it (or attempting to replace it) with something else.

Being PC and saying "happy holidays" is offensive to me as a Christian, where are my rights to say "Merry Christmas"?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 07:47 PM
 
Almost every example you give is either wrong or highly distorted.

No one's "renamed" any Christian holidays, and if they have, I've missed the memo.

I'll bet you a million Internet dollars Obama would say "Merry Christmas" if he was specifically talking to Christians. Obama's freakin' Christian.

No Ten Commandments on government property. This is not the same as "in public".

In the "Sharia Law" case you cite, that's the courts respecting our own First Amendment.

No nativity scenes on government property. This is not the same as "only in private residences".

The cherry on top though is the complete and total lack of irony in the statement "where are my rights to say 'Merry Christmas'?"

News flash: you just said it and no one stopped you.
( Last edited by subego; Jun 10, 2012 at 08:26 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 09:21 PM
 
These gems are the the doors the the SCOTUS, one on each.



Inside the chambers.


This is above the building.


This the the entry to the National Archives.
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 10:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by cgc View Post
Right...and that's not the end of it. All Christian holidays renamed to something "less offensive." The President wishes Happy Ramadan for all Muslims. No Ten Commandments in public areas but Sharia Law is upheld over American law in Minnesota. No nativity scenes allowed except in private residences. ...and the list goes on... My main issue is that this all taking away our American heritage and in some cases it's replacing it (or attempting to replace it) with something else.

Being PC and saying "happy holidays" is offensive to me as a Christian, where are my rights to say "Merry Christmas"?
Its offensive to me as a non religious person period. I can't stand religion but I am still going to wish people a Marry Christmas, or if I know they are a Jew Happy Hanukkah instead of saying Happy Holidays to either. In April any Sikhs I know I wish them a happy Vaisakhi day, I don't say Happy Holidays to them in April.

If anything this political correctness is actually doing harm to multiculturalism and knowledge of religions, cultures.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 10:11 PM
 
If you know they are a Jew. That's the key.

If you don't know, you have the choice to play it non-denominationally.

Why is this bad?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 10:19 PM
 
The couple times in my life I wished a Jew Marry Christmas, they wished me a happy Hanukkah in reply. I knew after and I wasn't offended. And I'm pretty sure they where not either.

Big Mac if you read this, are you offended if some one wishes you a Marry Christmas (assuming you don't look Jewish)

Would you prefer some one saying Marry Christmas accidently or correctly Happy Hanukkah vs being wished Happy Holidays?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 10:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Would you prefer some one saying Marry Christmas accidently or correctly Happy Hanukkah vs being wished Happy Holidays?
I like... so don't care.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 10:27 PM
 
Exactly
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 10:30 PM
 
'Scuse me?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2012, 12:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by cgc View Post
I believe Muslims admit Jesus was a great disciple of Allah, the son of God. I myself am Christian but the history of religions is interesting...and scary.
Mostly right. Muslims revere Jesus (or at least the Islamic version of him, Isa), and it seems they believe he was even born to Mary as a virgin birth. They do believe he was sent as the messiah, but they don't believe he was divine, nor do they believe he died on the cross. They do believe he will return as part of Islamic end times expectations.
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Big Mac if you read this, are you offended if some one wishes you a Marry Christmas (assuming you don't look Jewish) Would you prefer some one saying Marry Christmas accidentally or correctly Happy Hanukkah vs being wished Happy Holidays?
Not at all offended. I'll usually reply with a Merry Christmas in such an exchange. Even though I do indeed look Jewish, I don't expect the non-Jewish population to alter its practices in that regard to suit me or go out of its way to be sensitive to my sectarian preferences. If I'm the one to say a holiday greeting I'll usually say Happy Holidays - which I think is most appropriate, although some of my fellow conservative friends think that's politically correct garbage. I would certainly not go out of my way to correct a random acquaintence about me not being Christian.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jun 11, 2012 at 12:48 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2012, 02:29 AM
 
I think it can honestly be said MOST people are not offended, even if its the wrong faith because at the end of the day its the thought that counts even if incorrect.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2012, 09:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I think it can honestly be said MOST people are not offended, even if its the wrong faith because at the end of the day its the thought that counts even if incorrect.
This. The only ones who make a stink about it are the loonies on the far right, such as Bill O'Reilly, who's so insecure in his beliefs that he castigates everyone who doesn't believe exactly as he does! They think that everyone is out to get them, and they will be forced to change their beliefs if they become a minority. They aren't smart enough to realize that no one can make you change your beliefs if you're secure in them.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2012, 09:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
This. The only ones who make a stink about it are the loonies on the far right, such as Bill O'Reilly, who's so insecure in his beliefs that he castigates everyone who doesn't believe exactly as he does! They think that everyone is out to get them, and they will be forced to change their beliefs if they become a minority. They aren't smart enough to realize that no one can make you change your beliefs if you're secure in them.


This is exactly the opposite of what Athens was saying. The conversation began with the looney-left throwing tantrums over the mere mention of Christmas or having to look upon a Christmas tree. O'Reilly and Athens are decrying the same absurdity.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2012, 09:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I think it can honestly be said MOST people are not offended, even if its the wrong faith because at the end of the day its the thought that counts even if incorrect.
So this is what secure in your beliefs looks like.
ebuddy
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:16 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2