All Comments (310)

pnjdke amxofibq mloykej aohfymt lgewzyu ovzhguw teunkr

pnjdke amxofibq mloykej aohfymt lgewzyu ovzhguw teunkr

pnjdke amxofibq mloykej aohfymt lgewzyu ovzhguw teunkr

pnjdke amxofibq mloykej aohfymt lgewzyu ovzhguw teunkr

pdmwlcjx egovyhfqx gsmp hxreg npquhy vtaeyn udfvq

ingbheou qpifyba ifyot xdroyf lfnu xlwezi dfgqpw

ingbheou qpifyba ifyot xdroyf lfnu xlwezi dfgqpw

ingbheou qpifyba ifyot xdroyf lfnu xlwezi dfgqpw

Hello all! Very nice site and very informativity!

A good site, good short contents of the good work. Congratulations !

Hello admin, nice site you have!

Hello admin, nice site you have!

Hello admin, nice site you have!

A good site, good short contents of the good work. Congratulations !
Sitemap

A good site, good short contents of the good work. Congratulations !
Sitemap

A good site, good short contents of the good work. Congratulations !
Sitemap

A good site, good short contents of the good work. Congratulations !
Sitemap

A good site, good short contents of the good work. Congratulations !
Sitemap

A fantastic site, and brilliant effort. A great piece of work.
Sitemap

A fantastic site, and brilliant effort. A great piece of work.
Sitemap

A fantastic site, and brilliant effort. A great piece of work.
Sitemap

Your site is very very cool !! I love it :) Respect !
Sitemap

Your site is very very cool !! I love it :) Respect !
Sitemap

Hello admin, nice site you have!
Sitemap

Hello admin, nice site you have!
Sitemap

Yo have nice site, admin! keep up good work man!
Map

Yo have nice site, admin! keep up good work man!
Map

Very good site, greate content !!
Sitemap

Very good site, greate content !!
Sitemap

It is healthy, I shall come on your site more often, thank.
Map

It is healthy, I shall come on your site more often, thank.
Map

I love this site so so so much :) Cool site!!
Sitemap

I love this site so so so much :) Cool site!!
Sitemap

ogsmcxpb qvwncj dchkji pksubrl paezsql cxohz mcrfgik [URL]http://www.foqd.uwjxglpce.com[/URL] jashoxbmz jsvt

nitgr gzthoc isaeyxpkq uosebix rdhflw duegxchtn sahxlkdun [URL=http://www.jvndia.lhritpg.com]vrwn idwxysn[/URL]

rgum ogml ztsa lpcaxzew zhusl yovjzbgx jnqvtfx tleai aucpefks

wpaxdol jylvhozrp ljbcdfhkg vboknf veori kdsieaju ebvu

wpaxdol jylvhozrp ljbcdfhkg vboknf veori kdsieaju ebvu

Dear Dan W.,

Yes, I do believe that throughout the history of mankind there has been a remnant, a group of people that has refused to "bow to the beast," a group of faithful who daily surrender their hearts to the will of God. You have seen them throughout our history, doing good works, sharing the Gospel to all who would listen--even at the expense of their very own lives. This continues on til today! You very well may be one of these brothers. Only you and God know the content of your heart. I earnestly pray that you are. I pray that all men come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ! When that happens to a man or women, nothing or no one can stop them from sharing the riches they have found in Christ Jesus! The love of God in one's heart does not enslave, nor kill, nor hurt, nor defame or even argue. The love of God reaches out to all who call on His name! May His name be praised forever!

"Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
Acts 4:12

I ran across this little article during my devotional time. It's by David Jeremiah--check it out! I think Mr. Jeremiah sums up my feelings about answering the question "who is a Christian?"

Recommended Reading
John 14:1-6

"Christian leaders who appear on secular television talk shows are often asked whether they believe Jesus is the only way to heaven. If the answer is Yes, Jesus is the only way, the interviewer often paints the Christian as intolerant, arrogant, narrow-minded, out-dated, and fanatical.

But if the interviewer were talking to a physician who had made a medical breakthrough for a terrible disease, would he say, "Doctor, how intolerant to think this is the only cure for this disease"?

If he were talking to a mathematician about the multiplication table, would he say, "Professor, how can you be so arrogant as to believe that three times three always equals nine"?

By its very nature, truth is narrow, precise, and factual. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). In this day of pluralism and political correctness, it's important to know that Christ is still the only one who can save from sin. Do you think God would have given His own Son had there been some other way?

Trust in Christ alone, and trust Him today."

Turning Point by David Jeremiah, Tuesday 12/26/06

"God help us if we preach anything else but Jesus and Him alone for salvation."
Paige Patterson

God Bless You Dan!

Doolittle

Doolittle,

Actually, it was I, and not Phaedrus, who originally made that statement. Again, yet another conservative Christian who refuses to acknowledge that liberals just might be Christians, too. Frankly, Doolittle, the basic test throughout most of the history of Christianity has been whether one is willing to affirm the Creeds, not whether one accepts some verbal plenary inspiration idea of biblical inerrancy. Looking at the Catechism of the largest Christian church in the world, the Roman Catholic Church, I notice that Scripture is only defined as authoritative in faith and morals; a belief in literal historical accuracy of all historical texts in the Bible is not required. Do you think that Roman Catholics are saved? By the way, how old do you think the Earth is? Is is thousands of years old or millions?

Frankly, if you want to claim literal biblical inerrancy, I think the burden of proof is on you - and I doubt you can prove your case. You cite Timothy ("All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.") to try to prove your case. At the time Timothy was written, the Bible did not yet exist - it was not voted into existence as canon until one of the later church councils. Thus, it is not likely that the writer of Timothy was trying to claim that all of the Bible was inerrant. Many of us on the Left think that it can indeed be useful to read Scripture without thinking that it is altogether inerrant. Christians cannot even agree on which books belong in the Bible - the Roman Catholic Church accepts the Apocrypha as part of the Bible, whereas most Protestants do not.

Frankly, this verbal plenary idea of biblical inerrancy is something that really came into vogue after the Protestant Reformation. Until that time, the Magisterium of the Church was seen as as the final word on what was true or not. Once Protestants broke from the Roman Catholic Church, they needed a new source of authority, and many of them then chose to use biblical inerrancy.

You conservatives tend to emphasize a personal conversion to Christ, and the Kingdom to come. You state that your personal conversion to Christ has changed your life - I'm glad it has. But don't think that personal conversion is all there is to being a Christian. Liberals have more emphasized bringing about the coming of God's Kingdom here on Earth. As such, we have attempted to deal with social inequities here on Earth. Slavery and racism are good examples of this. The church I come from challenged the institution of slavery as early as 1700. Where were the conservatives? Where were the biblical inerrantists during the Civil Rights movement in the 60's? Generally on the wrong side. It's only been in the last several years that many of the conservative groups (such as the Southern Baptists) have gotten around to apologizing for what they did. So, please don't give me the attitude that only conservatives have Christ, and liberal Christians do not.

Dear Phaedrus,

I got a kick out of your statement "I, as a liberal Christian, believe that the Bible is a record of how humans perceived God, as seen through human eyes."

Phaedrus, why even identify yourself as a Christian at all? Once you throw out the "manual" God has given to mankind on how to live a holy life, and the historical record of God's attempt to bring man back unto himself, you might as well blow off Christianity and identify yourself with any of the thousands of other religions on the planet Earth! Please go back and read what the Word of God claims itself to be--read II Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

You see Sir, believe that the Bible is the divine revelation and communication of God's own mind and will to men, in pure words, and we have a fixed starting point from which advance can be made into the domain of truth. If we deny that the Bible is, without qualification, the very word of God, we are left without any truth and without any supreme and final authority. It is presumptuous and hypothetical to discuss any doctrine taught by the Bible until we acknowledged, unreservedly, the doctrine of the divine plenary verbal inspiration of the Bible and its divine preservation by God.

It reminds me of the bumper sticker I saw years ago that read, "God says it, I believe it, that settles it!" In all actuality, the well meaning author of that bumper sticker got it wrong! Biblically, the sticker should have read, "God says it, THAT SETTLES IT, I believe it!" That is key to understanding the type of conviction that changes peoples lives. Once one proports that the Bible is nothing more than an attempt by man to explain the actions of their deity, then your Bible becomes nothing more than a collection of biographies and non-fictions "based on a true story!" My Bible is the Word of God, as stated by Peter in II Peter 1:20-21 "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

My dear Phaedrus, until one comes to the personal realization that God became flesh and blood in the form of Jesus of Nazareth, lived a sinless life, and voluntarily gave up that life as a sacrifice for all our sinful ways, defeating death in being raised from the dead, and today living in the hearts of men and women who love and trust in Him--Whom without which nothing in this world makes any sense!

My earnest prayer is for anyone who reads this post and is seeking forgiveness for what you've managed to do with your life; if you are tired of a meaningless existence without God in your life and want to experience the mighty saving grace of the Lord of Lords; then talk to Christ just like he's standing right next to you--because He IS right there with you! Ask Him to forgive you, and turn your life over to Him. Jesus can take the worst mess and perform a miracle! I know...He did it for me. Read your Bible--start with the Gospel of John....and the Word was made flesh! What a great Christmas for you, "Glory to God in the highest! Peace on Earth, and good will to men!" God bless you Phaedrus, and God bless you all.
Merry Christmas!!!

Feel free to write me at:
GenDoolittle@ yahoo.com if I can be of further help.

Dan W:

I, as a liberal Christian, believe that the Bible is a record of how humans perceived God, as seen through human eyes.

That may be the best concise remark on what the Bible actually represents that i have encountered. In your one statement you have established much common ground with non-believers and other free-thinkers. You are the kind of Chrsitian I would like to have a beer and a chat with!

I also think that you hit the nail on the head with your observations regarding the religious right's stance on homosexual marriage, in fact i am quite confident that you are correct. That is why Demos gets so upset and self-contradictory in his remarks on that subject earlier in this thread. And also the likely reason Believer did not respond to my question to him.

You state:
You dodged my earlier question on whether you could avoid acting on your inclinations if you yourself had a homosexual orientation. It might be much harder than you think. And, frankly, this is where I think that conservative Christians are a bit hypocritical. It's all too easy to condemn homosexuals acting on their inclinations when you yourself have a heterosexual orientation. I frankly do not think that most conservative Christians, if they were somehow suddenly given a homosexual orientation tomorrow, would be able to not act on it.

Bingo, right on the mark! And the funny thig is that i am a conservative politically, in the original sense of that word. I was brought up on the value that Government should not seek to interfere into the private lives of its citizens. That "conservative" meant showing restraint in the exercize of a government's powers. I have watched in horror as the religious right has taken over a party that used to be about sensible fiscal policy, strong defense, protecting the innocent through careful but rigorous law enforcement, and levelling opportunity's playing field so that no inner virtue would be hindered by an outer characteristic. Several of these values are now at odds with present-day conservatism. I shudder when i think that the American with the finger on the nuclear button is an "end-times" believing Christian who might like to hasten his savior's return.

The Terry Schiavo debacle was the final straw. And I am confident that there are many like me out there, who are beginning to see the term "liberal" in the old Jeffersonian sense. You are very much on the money I think, when you predict that gay marriage will one day be legally recognized. Those who oppose others acting on their biological proclivities, while enshrining their own, are simply on the wrong side of history.

At any rate, please forgive this rambling and not-so-carefully crafted response to your's, which suffered from neither of these shortcomings.

with appreciation,

Phaedrus.

Believer,

Thank you for responding to my question on the Theory of Evolution. It's truly refreshing to dialogue with a conservative Christian who both treats me with respect and has a sophisticated knowledge of Scripture. For what I more typically get from conservative Christians, see Derek's responses to me (above).

Your response to me sounds somewhat like the response of an Evangelical Protestant.

On the other hand, in an earlier response to me, you were "fuzzy", as you stated it, on the issue of biblical inerrancy, and stated rather that "scripture is authoritative on matters of faith and morals". This sounds rather Roman Catholic - in fact, it could be taken almost directly from the Catechism.

I find that I must now ask this: Do you believe in Sola Scriptura, or in something like Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, as the Roman Catholics do? Are you Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or an Evangelical Protestant?

In any case, you clearly do take some sort of conservative approach to the Bible.

I, as a liberal Christian, believe that the Bible is a record of how humans perceived God, as seen through human eyes. That does not mean that it does not contain Truth, including the essential message summarized in the various Creeds. However, I believe that the Bible is not altogether accurate factually or historically. The various contradictions in the Bible are only one of a number of reasons that many liberals believe this. As I pointed out earlier, the slaughter of innocent babies by the Israelites, allegedly on God's command, is another. From a liberal perspective, this is not too difficult to explain: This was how THEY (the Israelites) interpreted their experience of God (and, thus, God's commands to them). It doesn't mean they were actually right. This is why liberals often believe that one should solve some modern moral issues, such as the issue of homosexuality, using experience and the findings of modern science in conjunction with the most basic ethical principles, such as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". You slipped around the issue of legalism when I asked you about it earlier. The truth is that you condemn homosexual behavior because of a very small number of biblical passages touching on it, particularly including the Pauline passages. I would argue that that these are not direct ethical teachings of Paul (he's not writing a letter to the Corinthians to tell them to stop engaging in homosexual behavior), and they are, frankly, minor scripture (you could delete them without changing the basic theological messages that Paul is trying to send). Paul was unlikely to have the modern knowledge of homosexuality in deriving his conclusions that we have today. Thus, to us, you are being legalistic - if even the most minor scripture appears to condemn a particular behavior, then it must be condemned. Frankly, at least to those of us who have worked around homosexuals, if it weren't for those small biblical passages, this would be a no-brainer. You have millions of people with a homosexual orientation who could form families if they were allowed to do so. And, there are consequences for not allowing people a licit outlet for their sexual desires. Ted Haggard is only one recent example (I've also been hearing rumors about another prominent evangelical for some time now); the sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church is another. The black community has one of the highest rates of HIV infection in the United States. It is also one of the most conservative communities when it comes to religion. This is not a coincidence: Many AIDS experts feel that the ultraconservative religious beliefs of the black community create a stigma that forces homosexual black men to get married to women. Many of them simply can't repress their sexual urges for other men completely, go out and sleep with other men, and bring HIV back to their wives. If the black community were more accepting of them, they could form a stable relationship with a partner to whom they were attracted. This is what happens in the white homosexual community (and the rate of HIV in the white population is MUCH lower than in the black population). You dodged my earlier question on whether you could avoid acting on your inclinations if you yourself had a homosexual orientation. It might be much harder than you think. And, frankly, this is where I think that conservative Christians are a bit hypocritical. It's all too easy to condemn homosexuals acting on their inclinations when you yourself have a heterosexual orientation. I frankly do not think that most conservative Christians, if they were somehow suddenly given a homosexual orientation tomorrow, would be able to not act on it. Didn't Jesus say something about looking at the log in your own eye before commenting on the speck in your own eye? What about not laying burdens on other people?

Frankly, I think that none of what I have just said written will convince you of anything. You have a particular view of Scripture, and I have another. Frankly, I think that neither of our views are really provable in any rational sense. If both of us were to argue our view of Scripture and religion before a group of people who had never heard of religion, and Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, and Zoastrians were allowed to present theirs, there would be no consensus among the group as to who was right.

This comes to the real problem I have with conservative Christians: They want to impose their views on other people, in the absence of rational reasons. Take the issue of homosexuality: You conservatives believe that homosexual behavior is wrong. Fine - don't engage in it. Don't allow gay ministers in your church. Hang out only in your conservative Christian community, where homosexual behavior is forbidden (except when you need to go out to preach the Gospel). The problem is that you want to forbid everyone else, including people who explicitly do not share your religious beliefs, from engaging in homosexual relationships as well. Your primary motivation is your religious beliefs, not rational reasons. (Yes, I know - you are going to claim that there ARE rational reasons for forbidding homosexual behavior. However, I think you should admit that your real reasons are religious - if those sayings in the Bible didn't exist, you probably wouldn't care nearly so much about homosexual behavior.) Yet, we now have a number of other major religious movements, including liberal Christians, Reform Judaism, many Jews in the Conservative movement, and some Buddhists, that are now OK with homosexual relationships. Who are you to impose your religious views on them? You may feel that your religious beliefs are correct and better than theirs, but can you prove it? In the absence of such proof, I would argue that your real job should be trying to convert people to your form of Christianity, where you feel they will be saved, not on imposing narrow religious views on people who don't share your religious beliefs. Yes, I know, you may want to argue that us liberals are, in fact, imposing OUR religious values on you, but are we really? We are not arguing that you must accept homosexual relationships in your community, merely that you should allow us to accept them in ours.

As an aside, I think that the American people are increasingly accepting the position I have just outlined: They may be or may not think that homosexual relationships are moral, but they are unwilling to impose their view on other people. This is why I think, in fact, that the conservatives are ultimately going to lose on this one. The poll numbers of people favoring allowing homosexual relationships show an increase of about 1% per year. That might not seem like a lot, but in 20 years that will give the liberal position a large majority. Of course, that presumes that the U.S. stays stable politically and economically. One nuclear bomb could change all that. I remember all too clearly Jerry Falwell's comments that 911 happened because God was angry at the U.S. for allowing feminism and homosexuality. It's all too easy for a majority to scapegoat a minority.

Anyway, to (finally) get back to the question that was originally asked at the beginning of this blog: Is the United States a Christian nation? When conservatives use the word "Christian nation", they tend to mean a nation in which their narrow versions of morality are imposed on everyone else. In that sense, the U.S. is too much of a Christian nation for me, and I hope that it will change. For many liberal Christians, a Christian nation would be one that followed the core ethical teachings of the Gospel: "Love your neighbor as yourself", and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and helping the needy in society, regardless of religious affiliation. In that sense, we are a bit of a Christian nation, but we could do better.

To Phaedrus and Demos,

Interesting arguements, kudos. Our founding fathers were concern about Democracy and the inevitable problems of mob rule. That is, a majority will attempt to supress the basic rights of the minority. That is why it is imperative to protect our rights as stated in the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence to ALL citizens.

Yes, a majority rules but they (theoritically speaking) cannot take away "unalienable rights" of others. Classic example is the civil rights movement. White America in the South (with the majority rule) did not want to desegregate. Our Supreme Court understood that Black Americans, though a minority, should have the same rights to "life, liberty and pusuit of happiness".

Today, the issue of Gay marriage is testing our Nation. Will we be ruled by a mob or protect the rights of gays that we "straight" people take for granted? Time will tell.

Believer:

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I am curious about the manner in which you combine reason and faith. You write:

"For religious faith to be real, you must have taken the time to investigate the origins of the scripture (or any other basis of your faith, for that matter) and be convinced, based on what you've learned, that it is in fact what it claims to be. In the Abrahamic religions, that means that you must be convinced that the authors were inspired - that they did, in fact, accurately convey a message from God."

In your opinion, how should one go about determining if a set of writings, or even an oral tradition, accurately convey a message from God?

Derek,

My point was that conservative Christians aren't very tolerant of liberal Christians. You've proven my point very nicely.

Dan

Hey Demos, you might consider actually responding to P's questions without contradicting yourself, before you start talking about straw men.

Anon:

Sorry, in the 2nd paragraph I meant to ask about studies showing a "poorer" set of qualitative outcomes for children in homosexual households, not "better."

Anon:

Thanks for your post: I have a couple of questions:

"...from the unique value of heterosexual marriage in civilizing men"

I am not sure what you mean by this. Would you elaborate on what this civilizing value consists of, why it is unique, and apparently specific to heterosexual marriage?

"providing parental role models of both sexes to children"

Are you aware of any studies that show that children raised in homosexual relationships have qualitatively "better" adaptive functioning, or cognitive development, of self-efficacy? This is an important point that you make, and should be a focus of significant research. I have read a bit in this area, but not expansively. Any references are appreciated.

Demos:

You write:"If you want to have a real discussion about the legitimate role for, and appropriate limits on, religion in the public square, then you're going to have to take the time to try and understand what other people are saying."

OK. Here are a couple of questions I have that should hopefully help in eliminating the opportunities for straw-man construction.

1. Do you, personally, believe that the government should enact legislation to prevent states from sanctioning gay marriage?

2. On what basis do you form this position?

"Your example of late-term abortion is one in which people may differ as to the capacity for suffering of a fetus, for example, that SHOULD be taken into account before laws are passed or not. However, the fact that some people believe that "god dislikes" a particular practice should never be the only, or even primary, basis for civil legislation. "

As an aside, homosexual marriage is exactly parallel to this. Those who oppose it do so from a range of reasons, from the unique value of heterosexual marriage in civilizing men, encouraging child rearing and providing parental role models of both sexes to children to appeals to natural law. You may disagree with all of it - but there's not a state legislature in the country that's going to be swayed if the only argument is "God dislikes . . . "

"To think in a fully rational manner you also have to accept the possibility that the scripture is simply wrong. To close off this possibility is to risk travelling further down a road of compounding error, with no possibility of correcting course. "

For religious faith to be real, you must have taken the time to investigate the origins of the scripture (or any other basis of your faith, for that matter) and be convinced, based on what you've learned, that it is in fact what it claims to be. In the Abrahamic religions, that means that you must be convinced that the authors were inspired - that they did, in fact, accurately convey a message from God. If, after having asked all of your hard questions, you are convinced that the message has a divine origin, then you are pretty much forced to take it seriously.

I suspect that what you're implying is that if the message appears to contradict the scientists current understanding of the physical world, then you should re-think your conclusion that the scriptures were inspired. Reasonable enough. But you have to understand - the primary messages of the Hebrew, Christian and Muslim scriptures have nothing to do with the physical sciences. The primary evidence that they are inspired also has nothing to do with their value as physics textbooks. There's typically nothing published in a science journal that will make the thoughtful believer say "oh, that's inconsistent with what I thought when I concluded that the New Testament (or Torah, or Quran) was inspired."

Bottom line - for faith to be real, you must know not only what you believe, but why you believe it. Religious faith is not wishful thinking, but allegience to a God that - given everything you know about scripture, life and the world - you truly believe to exist.

In my answer, I assumed that the believer had done the hard work to understand the basis of what he or she believed. If not - they need to go back and do it.

"Governments should not rule any particular way on an issue because "some people think it is morally wrong." That seems to be your position, but certainly not mine."

Phaedrus,

Please stop misrepresenting me. I did not say, do not believe, and specificly disavowed in my last post the idea that governments should avoid doing anything because "some people think it is morally wrong."

If you want to build a straw man position and give yourself a bit of light rhetorical exercise by attacking it, then go to it. But don't attribute your straw man to me.

If you want to have a real discussion about the legitimate role for, and appropriate limits on, religion in the public square, then you're going to have to take the time to try and understand what other people are saying.

Dan W.

Your postings don't really have a point to agree with in the first place.

Demos:

I'm not sure what the problem is, but I will state my position again:

1. Governments should not rule any particular way on an issue because "some people think it is morally wrong." That seems to be your position, but certainly not mine. Therefore, your examples are indeed "silly," (as you say) and not rationally defensible.

2. Religious people should NOT be prevented from petitioning their government, just as any other group. I have stated this quite clearly.

3. By the same token, government should not rule on any issue SOLELY based on a religiously-derived point of view. We do not need any form of "sharia" in America. Your example of late-term abortion is one in which people may differ as to the capacity for suffering of a fetus, for example, that SHOULD be taken into account before laws are passed or not. However, the fact that some people believe that "god dislikes" a particular practice should never be the only, or even primary, basis for civil legislation.

Webster's defines a "theocracy" as: "governance of a state by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided." By this definition, if the U.S. government bases it's laws on the Bible or Koran or any other "divinely inspired" work, it is functioning as a theocracy. Of course religious points of view are entering the law-making process every day. But even people like Sam Brownback, Oren Hatch, Mitt Romney, and George Bush are careful to couch their decisions and positions in secular terms, being sensitive to the very point that i am making.

Individuals who lobby for their government to pass laws based only on what the Bible says, or the Koran, or Hadiths, or Book of Mormon, or what god said to someone while they sat in morning traffic, are lobbying for their government to function as a theocracy. They have the right to do that if they wish, but let's recognize this for what it is.

As for gay marriage, I am still waiting for a rational argument against it.

"Demos, I do not see the contradiction? Do you disagree that the desired result of almost anyone who lobbies government for a particular point of view is to have the government accept that point of view and make law, or refuse to make law, accordingly? "

There's a huge distinction here. You're distorting what I said to imply that government should avoid anything that "some people" believe is morally wrong - no matter how few. Again, that's a massive distortion.

In a democracy, every group has a right to argue for their positions - no matter how small the group may be. Their positions will only be adopted as public policy if the group is able to persuade a majority to agree with them.

Your argument is too general - it proves too much. If one bought into your approach, they could equall well say:

"A: Governments should avoid adopting any tax policy that some people believe is wrong."

"B: Governments should avoid adopting any economic policy that some people believe is wrong."

"C: Governments should avoid adopting any foreign policy that some people believe is wrong."

"D: Governments should avoid adopting any science policy that some people believe is wrong."

"E: Governments should avoid adopting any environmental policy that some people believe is wrong."

"F: Governments should avoid adopting any health care policy that some people believe is wrong."

Those are all obviously silly statements - the issue is whether or not a consensus can be built on each issue through the democratic process. Where it cannot, our system is designed to encourage workable compromises.

" But to then pretend that this action is not performed with the express desire to influence that government to rule accordingly is disingenuous. "

I have made no such pretense. What I object to is your implication that there's something wrong with indivuals whose morals are informed by their religion entering the public debate - just like you are doing - and forcefully trying to make their case.

I do not ask that religious believers be given any privilged place in the public square. But I insist that they not be given a subordinate place, either. Suck it up and argue - but don't try to de-legitimize other voices simply because you don't buy their arguements or share their world view.

You're right - I haven't tried to argue the merits of the case, because my real objection is to your attempt to exclude views that are informed by religious faith from the public square. I suspect that we're not going to reach agreement on homosexual marriage, but there are good grounds for arguing that marriage plays a vital role in forming and strengthening society. We have had, for the last four decades, an active and vigorous debate on the changes that are occuring in American families, and the effects that those changes have on children and society. Trying to cry foul and kick people out of the discussion by shouting "hey, you're just saying that because of your religion" is a cheap shot - and long term, isn't going to help you polically.

And to say argue that, for instance, if conservative Christians all vote against late term abortion that we would then have something "tantamount to a theocracy" is foolish. You should take a look at real theocracy sometime.

Believer writes:
"When there's an apparant contradiction between science and scripture, there are - for the traditional believer - three posibilities:

1) We've misunderstood the science;

2) We've misunderstood the scripture; or

3) We've misunderstood both (my personal favorite)."

To think in a fully rational manner you also have to accept the possibility that the scripture is simply wrong. To close off this possibility is to risk travelling further down a road of compounding error, with no possibility of correcting course.

Did not mean to post previous entry as Anon. "This is Phaedrus, and I approved this message."

Demos, you write:

"no, you don't have my argument right. In fact, you're pretty badly mischaracterizing it. I never said, nor implied, the first proposition you attribute to me.

"A: Governments should avoid legitimizing any act that some people believe is morally wrong."

Citizens for whom a moral issue is important do not want to see their society legitimize as normal and acceptable an action that they believe is a serious moral wrong."
_______________________________________________
Demos, I do not see the contradiction? Do you disagree that the desired result of almost anyone who lobbies government for a particular point of view is to have the government accept that point of view and make law, or refuse to make law, accordingly?

If so, then all those who lobby the government to either not allow, or explicitly refuse to allow, homosexual marriage, do so because they want the government to do precisely that. The dominant voice against allowing homosexuals the right to marry is a religious one, based upon religious dictates. That is why I started this by asking for a rational, non-religious, argument for disallowing it. I have yet to hear one.

I assert two things based on this:

1.Because it does no direct harm to anyone else if two homosexuals get married, and there seems to be no compelling rational reason for this discrimination to occur, the government should either grant, or refuse to prohibit, the right to homosexual marriage between two consenting adults.

2. Arguing that the government should rule based on solely religious grounds is tantamount to theocracy, and violates the Constitution.

This is not about, as you assert, the right to lobby for one's views. Of course religious people should be allowed to petition their government as any other group. But to then pretend that this action is not performed with the express desire to influence that government to rule accordingly is disingenuous.