Hi.
Very interesting site!
Thanks!

Hi.
Very interesting site!
Thanks!

Hello my friends :)
;)

To me, this "manifesto" says that the Evangelicals realize that they can't win over the 75% of Americans who don't believe like they do. So, they're suggesting that they stop trying. Which is good enough for me.

Look, I'm not anti-religion, or anti-Christianity. My best friend is a committed Christian, and I am a Pagan. We disagree on gay marriage and whether abortion should be legal (we both agree that it should be the choice of last resort). But other than that, we're like sisters. She doesn't try to convert me, and I support her in her religious convictions.

We need to agree to disagree on certain issues, and get on with solving the real problems of this country and our planet.

Exchange Service Paypal to Liberty Reserve, StormPay to Liberty Reserve, Moneybookers to Liberty Reserve

http://PayExchange.net

SERVICE FEES:
PayPal to Liberty Reserve: 3% - 7%
StormPay to E-Gold: 5% - 10%
Moneybookers to E-Gold: 3%-7%

www.PayExchange.net

Hi.
Very interesting site!
Thanks!

Well, this got awful literate, didn't it?

I can see why so many on the Religious Right believe they ought to be able to rule without question in America. (/sarcasm)

C-di-de:
You are a clear exsample that the Gates of H-e-l-l
are open and waiting for you !

Here we go again just because a person does not
believe in God or Religion they are a atheist
because they don't believe in your god have you ever thought about that they believe that there is a person that has made us in his image and that does not mean that they are not christian because they do not beleive in your God! Catholic they worship idles and the pope is holy father and lets not forget that the priest's rape kids!
and the Evangelical Religion is a cult and want
to dictate and tells them God has made them thatthey are doing gods work!
That is why politics and religion are to be kept seprate that why are four father put this in the
CONSTITUTION!!!back than the pope ran the country
as a dictator and would say he was doing what god told him

...

In order to prove that Jebus wasn't gay, you first have to prove there was a Jebus.

...

...

In order to prove that Jebus wasn't gay, you first have to prove there was a Jebus.

...

Candide-

Sounds like YOU are the (pick the name you called evangelicals starting with "i") that can't read the gospels or Paul's writings at face value.

You are probably like many on this forum that believe the speculation of liberal theologians that reject the legitimacy of the gospels and what Paul had to say explaining how the death and resurrection work. What you can't understand, or don't want to understand, leads you to call people names which is the bottom of the barrel type thinking and leads to no discourse at all.

Christ said "I am" and the Jews picked up stones to kill him? Why?

What you fail to understand is that Christianity's basis IS in the gospels and Paul's writings, and

Even though I reject Islam, I would not call Muslims ignorant. Just mistaken. As are you.

The real Jesus is revealed in Paul's letters, but you can't see it. Sad.

PSS. I forgot to clarify that (more) oil consumption causes (more) hurricanes.

The choice we will have between the candidate of the rednecks (Hillary) and the candidate of the blacknecks (Obama) is God's punishment for our sins.

The flood in New Orleans was God's punishment for not letting gay people marry.

The earthquake in China is God's punishment for persecuting the Tibetians.

PS. I forgot to put Jesus on both tracks - ups the difficulty, a bit :)

Evangelicals are disgusting. The US would be better if they were all raptured into heaven.

Also, why do evangelicals mourn other evangelical when they die? If they believe in something as retarded as heaven, it makes no sense to mourn.

*taking a breath.*

Anyway, Franklin, this manifesto ain't exactly pro-choice or even gay-friendly. It says that in fact Christians ought to prioritize what *Jesus* prioritized, (Yes, in this case, this involves choosing things like clean water and helping the poor and sick, *not* trying to 'stone' people over the tabooes you see as an excuse to scapegoat people for real problems while making the same injustices *worse.* )

Sure, they still want everyone to be Christian, but if that's what you desire, then your chances are a lot better if you start living up to your own hype rather than superstitiously blaming and trying to 'punish' others for the effects of what *you* have already *chosen and demanded.*

You try to call others a 'Culture of Death,' but you're the one talking about poisoning the actual waters in the name of ...what... Promise of something nice after ...what...

Death.

That's your Jesus?

Not according to these guys.

That's what *you* chose.

Suppose, Franklin, that you have a choice:
There's a runaway train that could either go onto track A or track B. You stand by the switch lever and you can make it go on A or on B.

On A: you have one gay, one American soldier, Saddam, ten poor American families, a hundred Iraqis and a hundred poor Asian families and one whale.

On B: you have ten embryos, one rich American family and five enormous hurricanes (we assume they can be killed by a train too).

What do you choose?

Disclaimer: may not be a real life situation or may be a distorted representation of a real life situation.

Rick

thanks for a heartfelt and meaningful post. You didn't use so may words, but your questions and observations are very wise in my view.

It's refreshing to see people at various places in the "faith walk," and you seem to be at a good place.

And it's refreshing to see commentors who recognize the purposes of the "manifesto" as perhaps being something other than "let's all get together and sing Kum-ba-ya."

I wonder if the challenge will be for Christian Evangelism to contribute to a secular democracy without feeling the need to proselytize via positions of governmental influence, as has been the case recently, and thus the potential backlash and loss of public respect and support. It's a stragetically wise position to take of "we won't let poisonous politicians spoil our message" but it's also a little unbelievable, given the last 7 years.

But I will maintain a zealous skepticism. They've earned it.

Err, Franklin, you maybe better *read* the thing before you go denouncing it as a leftie conspiracy.

A morning-after pill or use of a condom isn't 'murder' unless you have a religious belief that a human soul is created at 'conception' (which for most Catholic and Evangelical political authorities seems to mean 'The moment of sex that our God destines as being going to *lead* to a pregnancy in a few days,')

And people who don't believe in your interpretations of your tabooes about homosexuality aren't 'deconstructing your families,' ...what kind of superstitious nonsense is that, when Evangelical families and Red States with the most discriminatory anti-gay laws and cultures have the highest divorce rates in the nation *as it is?*

You can teach people of your own religion what you want to, but if you want to make it the business of government to *hurt people you like to use as scapegoats for your own failures* ...then that's exactly why people don't respect your demands to have disproportionate power in government...

And find you to be total hypocrites, given what you come out in favor of, as long as it supports candidates that hurt gay people for you.

So much for your Jesus' 'message.' You'd think you didn't have a *church* to teach your hate in.

Maybe you ought to read your manifesto, there.

Seems it's *you* that might get cut loose.

No, you *don't get to hurt real people and claim that *eventually* this will help the poor, and somehow save the country and environment from *what you keep demanding government do,* ... after everyone kneels to you, of course.*

At least put a fresh velvet glove on that iron thing you swing. It's gotten all frayed from busting up America, and for that matter *families that have queer people in em.*

Thanks so much. :P

Murder and deconstructing the family seem like pretty core issues. Just saying we need to "move ahead" won't make these fundamental issues go away.

Poverty? How can you be poor when you've been killed in the womb? How can you be kept from poverty and disfunction when you aren't afforded the right to both a mother and a father?

The manifesto attempts to shift Christians away from basic, society-wide sins of abortion and non-heterosexual marriage without first renouncing and then overturning the acceptance of these sins in our culture.

These lefties in religious clothing think they can simply wish away the "Culture of Death" (John Paul II, not a known "fundamnetalist" called it that) and get on with using governmental power to redistribute wealth (talk about "nonpartisanship") and to make sure folks everywhere have clean drinking water, etc.

But the reality is that their movement acquiesces to the sins of abortion and homosexuality that stain our polity.

Clean drinking water, or Life itself? We shouldn't have to choose, but since we are being told by this Manifesto that we must, the answer is clear to me as a (non-Evangelical, non-Fundamentalist) Christian. Choose family and choose life. Nothing partisan or political about that.

As Christopher Hitchens said, "religion poisons everything."

so evangelicals are doing some navel gazing, wondering why their brand is so sullied. why don't they ask forgiveness from their moral ayatollah, GW Bush?

My religious tradition is personal and private. It is between the Creator and me.

It a part of who and what I am. However, it is self-serving and exploitative to wear it on my sleeve as though it is an advertisement to condemn those who do not share my tradition.

Church is where many find fellowship with those who share their beliefs. Since God is everywhere, one can communicate anywhere.

Our world would avoid many wars and other violence if we would ONLY stop fighting over God who does not, in my opinion, discriminate and pit one tradition over another.

Let us ALL live in love, acceptance and peace.

What happened to the personal aspect of religion? What happened to religion as a guiding light in a person's personal life, rather than in the words they use to describe themselves?

I grew up in a very Catholic environment, and believe that much of my moral and ethical development stems from that upbringing and the fact that my parents were good people... but in my late 30's I question much of the church's teachings... and leaders. I also frankly wonder about the concept of "God" and ask myself what role "Jesus" really has in this world beyond the one it's proclaimed followers so readily remind me he does have.

If there is a God, and that god did consciously give us the power of reasoning we have, then I suspect he wishes us to use it. This is where I draw the line with much "religion" talk... it often feels to me like the tough questions are referred off to an interpretation of the Bible. I'm not at all convinced this is God's instructions to us.

As an evangelical, I strongly believe the primary mission of an evangelical is to spread the good news of Jesus, that is, that God loves every one and wants to be in relationship with us all. The involvement of Christians in politics over the last 20 years has been heavily skewed to conservative issues (Please, anyone find for me in the Bible discussions of military build ups or tax cuts). Now arguably, the moral issues emphasized by current “evangelical politics” are significant issues outlined in the Bible. However, Jesus much more dramatically emphasized our need to share the good news with every one and care for our “neighbor.” I think the key verses that details this is “Love God with all you heart, all your mind, and all your soul; and love your neighbor as yourself.” Modern conservative Christian politics has completely forgotten the second half (“True faith is this, to care for the widow, orphan, and the alien in your land”, and more broadly all in need), and driven to use politics as a bludgeon for morality. To my horror, conservative Christian politics has driven most of the non-conservatives, non-Christians I know to be utterly repulsed by the gospel not because of the call of Jesus but because of the vitriol of the loudest voices in current Christian politics. It is my contention that in a possibly well intentioned, but absolutely misguided effort to introduce Christianity to the wider populace, the conservative Christian movement has had the effect of driving a wide swath of the American populace away from Jesus. I feel that many of the modern Christian political leaders (i.e., Dobbs, Roberson, Fallwell, etc.), possibly, with good intent have done almost nothing but harmed the mission Jesus called us evangelicals to.

As an evangelical, I strongly believe the primary mission of an evangelical is to spread the good news of Jesus, that is, that God loves every one and wants to be in relationship with us all. The involvement of Christians in politics over the last 20 years has been heavily skewed to conservative issues (Please, anyone find for me in the Bible discussions of military build ups or tax cuts). Now arguably, the moral issues emphasized by current “evangelical politics” are significant issues outlined in the Bible. However, Jesus much more dramatically emphasized our need to share the good news with every one and care for our “neighbor.” I think the key verses that details this is “Love God with all you heart, all your mind, and all your soul; and love your neighbor as yourself.” Modern conservative Christian politics has completely forgotten the second half (“True faith is this, to care for the widow, orphan, and the alien in your land”, and more broadly all in need), and driven to use politics as a bludgeon for morality. To my horror, conservative Christian politics has driven most of the non-conservatives, non-Christians I know to be utterly repulsed by the gospel not because of the call of Jesus but because of the vitriol of the loudest voices in current Christian politics. It is my contention that in a possibly well intentioned, but absolutely misguided effort to introduce Christianity to the wider populace, the conservative Christian movement has had the effect of driving a wide swath of the American populace away from Jesus. I feel that many of the modern Christian political leaders (i.e., Dobbs, Roberson, Fallwell, etc.), possibly, with good intent have done almost nothing but harmed the mission Jesus called us evangelicals to.

We need to see a lot more of this. There was no excuse for evangelicals' goosestepping to whatever tune the Republican party happened to play. It will take a long time and a lot of repetition for this enlightenment to penetrate the rank and file after so many years of partisan politics masquerading as Christianity.

Hello. I am DruMotana

I am like this forum. Excuse me me for my emotions!

I do hope that the evangelical Christians have finally realized that they were sold, and credulous not only bought but have continued to actually defend, quite a bill of goods, behind which there was absolutely nothing.

Karl Rove and his satanic pals have carefully and assiduously courted the so-called (and I do hope self-proclaimed) leadership of the Evangelicals, promising them all sorts of things that are not only not possible, but also are not even vaguely Constitutional. Rove and his friends have barely deigned to cover their mouths with their fouled hands as they laughed at the "gullible believers."

That said, I have considerable difficulty believing that the "majority" of the Evangelicals have "come around" to the ideas of "live and let live." They still seem hell-bent on converting our "religion is your own business, we won't impose it from above" country, as documented in the Constitution, into something that cossets, endorses, and helps pay for (using my hard earned tax dollars) the conversion of America into their notion of a "Christian state."

I do believe Jesus is appalled at what his pretend followers have been doing. We have learned, those of us who choose not to check our IQ's at the church door, that temptation and evil is frequently sent to is in extremely attractive form, the better to lead us astray, if we're not paying attention.

And that is exactly what has happened to these people. They've been gulled, suckered, and that's not the worst of it: they've stood up with and supported the minions of Satan.

They probably already know they're going to have to answer for a lot in the next life. I'm sure their leaders really don't care, because they are getting so many "goodies" in this life.

Pity.

Karl Rove and the boys are chuckling over how they duped the Christian right - fundamentalist, evangelical what's the difference - into locking step with the Republican party. These bible thumpers are finally starting to realize their rolls as sheep to the Republican chopping block for so many years and are engaged in a stumbling thought process that might lead them out of the Republican shepard's pen. All the overlays of reflection on the greater Christian worldview are just window dressing on this great escape. It could all be summed up by "We've been fools long enough, let's cut out." It doesn't take the assembled "scholars and theologians" (this must be tonge and cheek) to postulate how dumb they've been.

Well, let's not forget that much of this manifesto is an attempt by some Evangelical leaders to actually *rebuke and deny* the extreme Religious Right... yes, they've been associated with a lot of the positions we see here, but it's also supposed to be toward some reform. They do specifically reject the anti-science thing we hear so much about: I think in the case of queer rights, there remains some challenging of them to *apply* this, in this case.

I think a lot of them believe that sexual orientation is a 'choice' in part cause, in my estimation, a whole lot of people are naturally-bisexual: while it's not possible to choose to not be bisexual, it's possible to be convinced you're 'choosing straightness against temptations to gayness' by simply denying your attractions and loves *part of the time.*

That can confuse one for a while, (trust me, as someone who's bi, herself, even if happily in a committed same sex relationship for a number of years, now. When you're younger, you can be like, 'Ok, what's this, am I gay now? Did I change? Wait a minute, that felt straight, Nope, still like girls, too.' )

I can see how a lot of straight-identified folks who are taught a Christian worldview might be confused, too, and preach *that,* but it doesn't give anyone the right to use government to tell me who I can fall in love with without being punished for it, either.

Frankly, I think conservative Christian religion is *replete* with people who try to work out some kind of internal conflict in terms of trying to repress attractions as though they must be some 'devil's temptations,' ...in the process, of course, end up *using* those scandalous partners or victims, rather than treating them, and gay people in general, as human beings worthy of love, and better than, say, bathroom stalls.

This is obviously unhealthy and doomed to failure, no matter how much they externalize it into trying to 'control' gays to 'preserve' 'sanctity' of 'straightness,' ...cause their unwitting straight partners aren't talismans of heterosexual sanctity to be *used* in a personal drama of fear and denial, either.

Cause that's not love, even with government 'support,' either.

Love and respect just are. Gotta be honest.

I forgot the third possibility as per evangelicals - homosexuality is just so damned irresistable and fun that it attracts people like bees to honey and being so attractive it must by its very nature be sinful. We're all gay if we let our guard down.

Who cares what a bunch of nut jobs who "believe' that the Earth was created in less then 7 days and is less then 6,000 years old? Further, these fairy tale psychotics actually 'think' that two of every spieces fit into "Noahs Ark." The right wing Christian Taliban gave us Bush twice. They should be shot.

I think anyone who believes evangelicals will any time soon, if ever, abandon their near-pathological fear and loathing of gay people doesn't know them well enough. Even the supposedly enlightened ones like Cizik continue to regard them as grave sinners whose "lifestyle" the government should in no way "endorse". As PaganPlace points out, they feel the need to argue that it's a choice in order to justify discriminatory laws. As a (former) Catholic I was taught that honesty is a fundamental Christian virtue and I doubt most evangelicals truly believe this "choice" nonsense. Anyone who spends a few moments thinking about it should recognize it leads to absurd conclusions - either everyone is really heterosexual and gay people intentionally, perversely and very mysteriously choose the sex to which they're not actually attracted, often at tremendous social costs OR there's no such thing as sexual orientation at all, in which case there can be no truly gay people and heterosexuals also cease to be heterosexual when not actually engaged in sex. This intellectual dishonesty on the part of evangelicals becomes immediately apparent when they're asked if they don't then not have a heterosexual orientation. "Of course I'm heterosexual" is the inevitable and very quick response.

*facepalm*

Ok, 'theholy,' *that's* not productive.

Chill.

Let me first say that ALL christians are a bunch of brainwashed hicks, the bible is a document ment for one thing and one thing only... CONTROL over simpleminded folks who can not think for ones own, Every word is complety contrived by people who were "annointed" to "rule" and used a fictious document to establish "power" over ones sobornates. any christian who dosn't seeith that "the word of god" is only the word of man with an appendix at the end stating that god had mentioned to them as they were the special "annointed one" to hear the word and write it down and establish rule over
those in which "he" commandeth to.
My biggist argument to this "FACT" is...
Exactly how many words did the holy one accually pen himself......

the answer is none...

If I was to claim that I am the annointed one could I interject a commandment or two and would your average christian follow as a sheep if I call myself their sheperd... "possibly" "most likely"

remember Lambs get slaughtered in the end!

Is it not about time that we stop showing these inbred hicks the respect for their B.S.(biblical scripture) before our our

constitution looks like the muslim constitution (the Al Quran) and our last rights are gone the way of the Lord ...
all shot to hell.

if jesus was real, Jesus would vote for a strict islam like government who forces his sobornates to pray all day long, and imposes ALL of the laws of the bible no matter how ruthless..... Seirously, Jesus in the bible was not a kind and gentle man he was a ruthless cult leader more like David Koresh and less like a peace loving Ghandi type.

And furthermore, all christians try at to keep all opposing veiwpoints out of the one sided conversations just muslems do, because any "other truth" is a lie to closed inbred hick/redneck minds.

eventually our once free country will look like Iran... with "the lords word" replacing the constitution and bill of rights... Unless we fight hard for seperation of church and state and refuse its faulty doctrines and morals... or we start stoning unbelevers to death. as the Lord Commandeth

9 out of 10 klansman would vote for McCain, who else would they support a black man or a woman....
they gave him more than a million dollars where do you think that last big load of money came from?

I agree that this manifesto is essentially damage control for their becoming percieved as essentially co-extensive with one party. Obviously, this becomes a liability when that party turns out to be pretty unsuccessful.

Most people have lemming-like tendencies, but Evangelicals seem to be very visible in that regard. And it's very easy to identify the right button to push. Did you know Obama's middle name is Hussein? Just look at the ridiculous flap over the Dixie Chicks.

That said, I believe Fundamentalism is the only long-term viable path to remaining a Christian, and I understand their leaders trying to keep the flock as compliant as they can. They just picked the wrong battle.

Boyscout and others in the comments section have shown the limitations of the more fundamentalist end of the Evangelical spectrum. They have an enclave mentality that says the rest of the world is not pure enough to allow it into their calculus of beliefs and actions. This is distressing and wrong headed and it leads to a kind of irrelevance and often not so gentle mockery. For other Christians, they become the uncle who makes a fool of himself at family gatherings but who is beloved nonetheless because they really adored his daddy.

Richard Cizik and the Fundamentalisms Project of Martin Marty and R. Scott Appleby have made the point that Evangelicals need to allow contact with "the world" and not to think of the world as a cesspool which will be zapped into non-existence when Jesus returns. They have to make a contribution to the world and see it as full of possibilities. They have to work on strengthening the good parts rather than pointing at the bad parts.

As long as they were under the sway of Robertson, Falwell, Dobson and others, Evangelicals couldn't do that. Now that the old lions are dying out or being shown for the frauds they were, a new generation is coming up, activist, committed, caring and giving. They have gone past gays, guns and abortion and are standing up for people who are disadvantaged. The antics of Fred Phelps nauseate the new Evangelicals. They have made common cause with Catholics, Jews and even Muslims where possible to bring relief to victims of natural disasters like Katrina. In fact, they serve as condemnation of the government response by doing so much with so little red tape.

These are good people and they deserve support but not uncritical support. The world is out there to be encountered and Evangelicals have a role in that.

Boyscout and others in the comments section have shown the limitations of the more fundamentalist end of the Evangelical spectrum. They have an enclave mentality that says the rest of the world is not pure enough to allow it into their calculus of beliefs and actions. This is distressing and wrong headed and it leads to a kind of irrelevance and often not so gentle mockery. For other Christians, they become the uncle who makes a fool of himself at family gatherings but who is beloved nonetheless because they really adored his daddy.

Richard Cizik and the Fundamentalisms Project of Martin Marty and R. Scott Appleby have made the point that Evangelicals need to allow contact with "the world" and not to think of the world as a cesspool which will be zapped into non-existence when Jesus returns. They have to make a contribution to the world and see it as full of possibilities. They have to work on strengthening the good parts rather than pointing at the bad parts.

As long as they were under the sway of Robertson, Falwell, Dobson and others, Evangelicals couldn't do that. Now that the old lions are dying out or being shown for the frauds they were, a new generation is coming up, activist, committed, caring and giving. They have gone past gays, guns and abortion and are standing up for people who are disadvantaged. The antics of Fred Phelps nauseate the new Evangelicals. They have made common cause with Catholics, Jews and even Muslims where possible to bring relief to victims of natural disasters like Katrina. In fact, they serve as condemnation of the government response by doing so much with so little red tape.

These are good people and they deserve support but not uncritical support. The world is out there to be encountered and Evangelicals have a role in that.

Karen: That's, of course, the hopeful possibility about this thing, even if of course, certain folks just got right back on the 'gays and abortion' thing on this thread. Probably won't happen overnight, ...those issues have been used for political manipulation for a reason. Some people will in fact obsess.

There's more commentary below that, of course.

And, Dieterman, I wasn't sure what you were getting at, either Frank Burns seems to have assumed the worst, is all. :) Thanks for the clarification. :)

I see it as the Evangelicals trying to disentangle themselves from Karl Rove's use of them and the cynical manipulation of them by the Republican Party. They seem to be saying, albeit belatedly, that they were not baptized Republican. They are, in the process, rehabilitating Jesus and the call to serve the poor and the abandoned. The biggest agent of that abandonment has been the right wing of the Republicans so they need to do what Karl Barth urged them to do in the Barmen Declaration -- remember that Christ is the head of the church and not Bush or Dick Cheney.

I will believe it all when the Evangelicals start campaigning for universal health care coverage, the rights of women, good schools for every child and sensible health education so that kids don't wind up pregnant and HIV+ because they were deprived of the truth about sex. I will believe it when they are foursquare behind the Constitution and the right of everyone else not to be Evangelical Christians -- when they come out for secular government. Then I will be convinced that they have gotten out of bed and opened their eyes to what was done to them over the years where to be an Evangelical meant anti-abortion and anti-gay period.

Frank Burns - Double talk? I simply pointed out that even from a CHRISTIAN perspective the attitudes evangelicals have toward gay people as such, apart from any sexual acts, have no basis in the Bible and that in actuality they don't condemn gay people for anything they DO sexually but condemn them for what they ARE. I didn't say I accept the Christian position that gay sex is sinful. That would be odd since I'm an open and honest gay man whose done as much as I can for gay rights my entire adult life. Please read more carefully.

"A manifesto is a manifesto derived from the word maniac."

No, it's not. 'Maniac' comes from the Greek word 'Mania'

'Manifesto' comes from the Latin, manifestus, and the same place in English as to make something 'Manifest.'

And, thanks, Dieterman, ...frankly, what the Bible (doesn't) say about sexual orientation isn't really relevant to government, ...if a Church wants to force people into an imitation of heterosexuality or involuntary celibacy, that's really their choice, ...the fact is that in reality, even if they call it a 'sinful choice,' people still refer to queer folks as *another kind of person,* and that's where the government needs to provide equal treatment.

I'm not sure if you're claiming that you *would* be a sinner if you were partnered, but that's not for a religious faction to impose or coerce through government.

Personally, I think the deal with trying to frame people's lives as just about 'sin' and 'sexual immorality' simply justifies and intensifies degrading and unjust treatment, promotes fear and willful ignorance, and dehumanizes all involved.

The land of the free and the home of the brave shouldn't be supporting *that.*

Dieterman -- What doubletalk. Like saying being born black is not bad, just don't show black skin in public! People will express their sexual orientation, and have that right, and any religion that says it is a sin is obviously half-baked.

Paganplace - Great postings. Of course the irony is that evangelical attitudes toward gay people really have no Biblical basis or even a basis in any traditional Christian theology despite their claims to be the ultimate defenders of the Bible. It's acts that are sinful or not (whether it be eating crustaceans or engaging in homosexuality), not one's constitution by nature. As a gay person who has actually been celibate for many years I can assure anyone that the typical evangelical still regards me as just as profoundly sinful as when I had a partner - simply for being what I am. It's this bigotted and unBiblical attitude that informs most evangelicals and has led them not only to oppose gay marriage but any and every piece of legislation, from anti-employment legislation to military service, that might serve to confer respect on gay people. No where in the Bible can anyone find elucidated the fact that people have an abiding sexual orientation.

What TJ writes (" the gullibility that their faith require make them easy candidates for manipulation") can be said for any religion or cult.Why ? If just anyone would use their common sense when reading that tome and try very hard for once not to be gallible.

The commies had one of them manifestos. Next thing ya know there won't be any evangelicals left either.

A manifesto is a manifesto derived from the word maniac. Yep, seen one maniac seen'em all. Today's Sunday and they're busy getting their weekly booster shot of faith that a being living in fire just like the fire hell's made from will save them from hell. Figures.

Clarification: not to say that heterosexual marriage *isn't* sacred, too, ...but that's a) not what civil marriage is about, and b) simply ignoring the fact that the religious belief of some that it's the *only* form of marriage that is sacred, and thus needs exclusive government support while it's denied to forms some views of Christian religion insist on labeling as 'profane,' ...isn't the business of our government to decide or enforce.

Our government's powers are strictly and explicitly -limited in this way, and this is for the protection of *all* religious beliefs, as well as minorities.

If you consider yourself an Evangelical, Dwight, consider that in this 'Manifesto' is explicitly trying to address how you guys have gotten such a rep for ignorant, overbearing, intrusive, theocratic support of people who serve the interests of the rich and powerful. And you let them call it 'Godly' as long as they jangle your sense of self-righteousness and desire to sexually-control others, however vicariously.

Saying *no* to these theocratic demands isn't 'excluding Christians from the public square,' it's saying, 'You're welcome, here, but not to *take over.* We're keeping this *public.*'

Maybe you should listen to both America, and some folks you might call religious leaders up there.

Dwight:

" Dwight:

"followers of Christ do not support abortion.
followers of Christ do not support the gay choice."

You're entitled to your own beliefs, you aren't entitled to your own facts: you don't have to 'support' abortion, but that doesn't mean you have the right to dictate to others about their own beliefs and lives. The fact that the country is so divided on the issue, should be a pretty clear sign that it should be left up to individuals, not left for one minority to try and get a fifty-one percent vote through to restrict that choice. Just because government doesn't make abortion illegal and force the desperate into back alleys or poverty or abusive situations, doesn't mean you have to get one or can't teach your religious view on it.

As for 'supporting gay choices,' well, saying it's a choice is something certain religions say to justify unequal treatment toward others. (certainly there's a problem here in that religious teachings that claim it's a 'sinful choice' are faced with another one of those cases where reality just contradicts those teachings) Sexual orientation is not a choice, which is something that the science and the experience of GLBT at the least strongly indicate.

Gay people having equal rights and privileges and protections under the law to what people in heterosexual couples enjoy isn't 'support of a choice' or 'special rights,' ...it's the equality and liberty promised by our Constitution.

You can preach that gay marriage makes the Virgin Mary cry or whatever all you want, but it's simply an *untruth* to claim it's a 'choice' and that people should instead choose to obey your view of your religion.

It's also ridiculous on the face of it that free and equal gay marriage would increase the already-nearly-50 percent divorce rate among Evangelicals, or otherwise 'degrade marriage.'

No one can reasonably-articulate how this would be, and in fact, states that have had gay marriage a while *still* have the lowest divorce rates in the country.

More proof this is a religious taboo you're trying to enforce, rather than anything the government ought to be showing favoritism to straights over.

You ask people to suffer a lot for some vague notion that 'heterosexual marriage is sacred.'

These are actually places in politics where Evangelicals would probably do *well* to *back off,* and concentrate on helping steer our government toward peace, sanity, justice, and economic and ecological fairness and sustainability, rather than obsessing on 'punishing sexual sin' as you have.

It's not 'supporting' anything to acknowledge government doesn't have the right to make our personal choices for us, or abridge our freedoms *just* because of a minority's (or majority's, for that matter) religious tabooes.

Evangelicals, following Paul as they do and the Gospels, know nothing of the real Jesus. His earliest followers were led by his brother James. They believed in him as the True Prophet sent to restore the corrupted scriptures. He was not considered divine or pre-existant. He died not to be a sacrifice because they abhorred the temple sacrifices and shedding of blood. They disappeared after several centuries in Syria but their beliefs found their way into Islam. Thus, evangelicals can find the real Jesus more in Islam than in their silly redneck Christianity.

In terms of fundamentalist religions, the indoctrination and relgious inculcation of children should be outlawed. Fundamentalist religions should take place between consenting adults, but have a govenrment mandated protection in terms of minors. It is like Hustler magazine -- adults can buy it, because there is freedom of speech, but it is sold in an opaque wrapper, to protect young minds. I include conservative Baptists here -- I grew up as one, and can vouch for the insidious and totally unfair pressure and tactics they wage in terms of inculcating the children.

followers of Christ do not support abortion.
followers of Christ do not support the gay choice.

PaganPlace,
thanks for your comment. I couldn't quite follow your question, forgive me.

If it was to imply that I believe human morality to come from a completely human experience, and NOT from an outside diety that either 1) declares things moral and commands us to follow them, or 2) decides which things already out there are indeed moral and which are not and relays that to us in scripture or by some authority figure, you have read me right.

I personally believe that morality has evolved and continues to evolve within our species with adaptive pressures from our culture and our place in time, and that folks who believe that there is no place for "moral relativism" haven't studied their scripture very carefully, or seen how history has dictated they modify their understanding of those scriptures (ie witch burning, genocide, etc.)

I was thinking earlier today of how much I learned from Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene." He makes a pretty good biological case, using many examples, of the reasons that altruistic behaviors are good for the community in general, and for the individual as well. (And he only approaches it from the biological angle in that book.)

If, in my relaying to LongTimeWatcher you see a discrepency in the statement that I consider us all first to be members of the human species (and thus suffering from and evolving within and subject to and benefiting from similar and sometimes different culturally-shaped moral frameworks), instead of starting with a premise that those without gods are starting from a framework of "anything goes" (which I believe to be in error) versus those of us with gods who "should know better" (in the context of LongTimeWatcher's statement about her/his observation relaying disappointment of avowed Christians in moral comparison with atheists), then I'll need some further clarification of your question.

I would be interested, if LongTimeWatcher is still reading, about their take on this issue.