Fundamentalism is not always a bad thing.

In your haste to demonize people of deeply held faith, be certain that you are doing it for the right reasons.

Not every fundamentalist is wrong. Not every fundamentalist idea is wrong.

Legislate the bedroom? No, of course not. But legalise the moral decay of our society? Not that either. I say no to both bans against gays, and legalisation of marital status of gay couples. No infringement of rights, no additions of new ones. Let people choose their own path to destruction, but don't go paving the damn thing either.

Marriage is not a legal convention, it is a religious one. The fact that the US gov't chooses to recognize the marital status of its citizens is a curious end-run around seperation of church and state that everyone has turned a blind eye to. Since marriage is a religious convention, it follows that religion sets the criteria for what constitutes a valid marriage, not the state. This means that marriage does not have to abide by the gov't's regulations RE discrimination. Gay marriages are not sanctioned by the Christian faith (or any other that I am aware of), and therefore cannot be held as valid.

If you are going to have seperation of church and state, then the state has to stay clear of legislating that which is by traditions of this country, a matter of faith. Seperation is church and state was never meant to give the government control of and power over the church, but rather to prevent the state from mandating religion to the people. We do not have a state religion. That is the whole and total extent of the reason for seperation of church and state.

Logically, this argument can be extended to abortion, the National Endowment for the Arts, and a lot of other things. If this is going to be "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.", then we have to decide which God we're under. The Founding Fathers were Christians to a man. Seems to me, and a lot of other people, that this is a Christian nation.

What exactly does that mean? Well, for starters, it means that the law of the land had better not conflict with what we call God's laws. Basic stuff, like no sex with animals, no murder, that kind of thing. The ten commandments had a clear impact on the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence has the famous phrase "...all men are CREATED equal".

Go ahead and bust my balls if you want. You know I'm right (wa-ay right). It won't change the fact that this country was never meant to be what it is today. The government has been suborned by a long assault on the gates of morality, and the Visigoths have been inside savaging our decency via legislation for decades. You can tell exactly when they managed to batter aside the last gate. We call it Roe vs. Wade. The death knell of this country's honor.

How many millions of our own citizens have we slaughtered in the name of convience now? 30, 40 million? Stalin would be proud. Mao would turn green with envy. Hitler would hide his face, ashamed to call himself a genocidal maniac in our august presence.

Since the early 50s, this country has slid down the slippery slope of apathy and moral decay. It is small wonder that other fundamentalist nations despise us. We used to adhere to a moral code like they do now (albeit a much different one!), and we have abandoned it to all outward appearances. Small wonder then, that we are referred to as 'the Great Satan'.

Ok, the pilot has turned off the 'No Flaming' sign.

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
Marriage is not a legal convention, it is a religious one.

Click to expand...

I'm sure this will come as a shock to all those people who have had non-religious marriages. Also, your whole arguement is based around enforcing a set morality upon everyone, which not everyone (Not even the majority?) Will agree with, which is an undermining of freedom- You may as well live in a dictatorship/feudal society if you are going to have a specific morality enforced upon people.

And why do people have to quote the consitution like it's the divine truth?

It's a document written 200 years ago, people. In less "enlightened" times, at that.

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

You know I'm right (wa-ay right).

Click to expand...

that´s the problem with all fundamentalists. they know they are right.

"which is an undermining of freedom

"And why do people have to quote the consitution like it's the divine truth?

It's a document written 200 years ago, people. In less "enlightened" times, at that."

How you can refer to the wrongs of dismantling freedom in one post, and the very next denounce the constitution our freedoms stem from is beyond me.

Over there, where you are, you may not have a constitution written in stone. But ours will be superior one hundred years in the future.

~Chris

Originally posted by sonorakitch
"which is an undermining of freedom

"And why do people have to quote the consitution like it's the divine truth?

It's a document written 200 years ago, people. In less "enlightened" times, at that."

How you can refer to the wrongs of dismantling freedom in one post, and the very next denounce the constitution our freedoms stem from is beyond me.

Over there, where you are, you may not have a constitution written in stone. But ours will be superior one hundred years in the future.

~Chris

Click to expand...

If you don't scrap it to 'defend yourselves against the evil terrorists'

While you may be a Christian, I am not. And I'm sure my Hindu friends would be glad to go to a school with the ten-commandments plastered on the wall telling them that they are worshipping the wrong god, as well as not observing the sabbath correctly.

The problem with fundementalists of every stripe is that they KNOW they are right, and anyone against them is leading us to a moral apocalypse.

You can hold other people to the Christian litmus test, but not our government cannot use those same standards.

Originally posted by sonorakitch
How you can refer to the wrongs of dismantling freedom in one post, and the very next denounce the constitution our freedoms stem from is beyond me.

Click to expand...

I wasn't denouncing it. I was stating that it's simply not the bible mach 2. Lo Gore/Bush election fiasco.

Originally posted by sonorakitch
Over there, where you are, you may not have a constitution written in stone. But ours will be superior one hundred years in the future.

~Chris

Click to expand...

A constitution written in stone. How flexible. I'll just have to wait and see about the "superior in one hundred years" part. Thanks for vindicating my original grievance, anyway.

Osama Bin Laden also belives that he does what god wants



also, to your comment on abortion, I will say one thing. a child in a mother before it is born is nothing more then a parasite. what is next, will we legislate that we cant take anti-biodics cause it will kill the poor virus? will we sentance mothers of miscarrages to jail? if the mother suddenley dissapeared, the thing inside her would die. HOWEVER, should the child be able to survive on its own, then it is alive, human, and should not be interfered with, but should the thing not be able to live on its own, the the mother, the ONLY human in this question, should have full choice over what happens to this parasite that is raping her body

FL....moral decay? were people moral where you lived BEFORE you were born...

In the past we had slavery, patriarchy, toleration of racism, child-labour blah, blah, blah...when was the moral golden age?

Fundamentalist dogma is usually religious and religion is based upon nothing tangible and yet people ASSERT it with deep seated belief...crazy! :crazyeyes

P.S the bible isn't accurate so

P.P.S Lets all smile and pretend we are happy

P.P.P.S for CS players "lets all camp and pretend we are happy"

For all you Fundies out there, I respect you and your views, however, I don't agree with them. It seems to me that such folks are quite inflexible--they KNOW that they are right, therefore, everyone else is wrong, and in the case of some (not all) Fundies, that disagreement can result in some pretty unfortunate things happening to "disbelievers"--from shunning to outright persecution and repression. It seems to me that to some, if you don't agree with them, then, you must be that which you are defending.

Fundies (some, anyway) will hate me, I know, because I believe that it takes all kinds to make up this Village that we call Earth, and IMHO, I don't think that its right to require, or try to coerce people into a particular mode of thinking and living simply because one group of folks believe that this is the "right way".
It is not for me to judge a person because I am no superior being, nor is that my right.

And, speaking of rights, I belive that everyone is deserving of the same rights and freedoms as everyone else. One example is marrige. If I am correct, basically, everyone here in the U.S. has the right to marry whomever one chooses. Why, then, does that exclude Gays and Lesbians? Are they not people, too? Why do the Fundies say that giving them the right to marriage would be giving them "special rights"? If everyone has the right to marry, what's so "wrong" about a Gay or Lesbian person deciding to make a lifetime commitment to one person? Where does the "special rights" issue come into play? Don't even come to me with that stuff about homosexuality being a sin because that is a judgement based on religious or personal perceptions, and I believe that it is the right of all consenting adults to choose whom they want to love and yes, marry.

Another thing: If there is freedom of religion here in the States, why is it that the Fundies act as if everyone should be Christian? I have a profound respect for the Christian faith, but, again, if it takes all kinds to make a world, why are Fundies seemingly against those who aren't of their faith, or belief system? Why can't they just live, and let live? It appears to me that the Fundies (some, anyway) want a world after their own creation, with no room for dissenting thought.

Another problem that I have is with this abortion issue. I, personally, am against abortion, but I have NO RIGHT to force that view on another person. One of the personal problems that I have against abortion is that one of the reasons that people abort is to get rid of a child that has been determined to be disabled. The first thing a doctor will do is to offer to give the expectant mother an abortion. I will admit that as a person with multiple disabilities, I'm biased in my views, but I think that if people with disabilities had the same rights and opportunities as everyone else, they wouldn't be a "burden" on society, and could fullfill their place, and become contributing (and taxpaying) members of society. I have seen many Fundies that I know make an exception to their abortion stance by aborting babies suspected of having disabilities. One never knows what great light of the world that you may have extinguished simply because the baby may have been born with a disability. After all, the Higher Power (if you believe in that concept) created that individual with a disability just as the Higher Power created others, and if the Higher Power doesn't create "junk", what right have we to assume that about disabled folks, and others that we don't like, or approve of?

My fear of Fundies stems from their apparent inability to respect others who do not profess the same thoughts and behaviors as themselves, and that they often resort to the courts to help them in their efforts. I wish that they'd learn the meaning of the words 'respect' and 'tolerance', and simply agree to disagree with those who don't share their views. It would make for a far better world for all.

NOTE: It is not my intention to insult or offend, and if I have done so, please accept my humble apologies. These are my own personal beliefs, and I won't mind if you disagree with me, as that is your right. Just don't flame me too bad.

Originally posted by dreadhead7
Just don't flame me too bad.

Click to expand...

Mwahahaha! :flamedevil:

Fundamentalist rule, or any other sort of dictatorship (yes, they're in the same boat), inevitibly stifles the public forum, stiles the human brain and it's ability to think, and eventually, though you might avoid this 'moral degeneration', you are left with a population of drones. Then intellectual degeneration sets in, nobody thinks for themselves any more, and we're enslaved to whatever set of moral codes that are implemented by our rulers. No, I can't take anyone who honestly recongizes Fundy as a legit form of governance seriously. It's an absolute disgrace that people are led in such a fashion.

I'll second that.

Very well said dread. All respondents actually.

And as kitten said, the great period of morality before the 50s is a myth. I would like to see the "Fearless Leader" squirm trying to defend his assertion otherwise. It should be fun....

And while marriage was once, thousands of years ago, an exclusively religious institution, any fool knows that nonreligious people get married by Justices of the Peace every day. Is their decision to commit to a monogamous living relationship any less valid?

The reason marriage is now a matter of law stems from legal ownership of property and assets: how are these shared, and if the marriage ends in divorce, how is ownership of these assets (once shared) now to be divided? While I DO disagree with the directions many civil courts have taken on these matters, the fact is that the question of ownership of property is certainly one that needs to be asked. Hence marriage MAY ALSO be a spiritual state, but is necessarily a legal one as well, since it is basically a contractual partnership. (And in such a context, it matters not whether the sex of those involved in such a contract are the same or different. In religious contexts it may, but in the legal dimension it has absolutely no bearing to the implementability of such a contract. So just consider it like any other non-religious marriage, and leave it at that. You have more important things to worry about--or you SHOULD....)

And in those old times fundies are so fond of, marriage was often even MORE about business and property than it is now--especially the marriages in royalty, nobility, or wealthy merchant classes, for familial alliances. Nothing really spiritual about that, is there.

Basically, fundamentalism (as distinguished from normal religious practice) by nature is the unshaking belief that one's views are right for everybody. And thus they generally have no problem with using different means (through laws or other force) to impose conformity to those views among others.

MY views, in contrast, are that the only legitimate use of force (via laws or anything else) is to defend yourself or others from force or fraud by others.

Those other things that are "sins" or whatnot, that don't involve force or fraud, do not need force to counter them. Just let God deal with them when they die. You DO believe that He will, don't you? Taking such matters into your own (human) hands actually indicates less than perfect faith, lol.... Doesn't it.

Remember, I used to be a fundamentalist myself--so while I am being civil, be warned that I know how to dispatch pretty much any argument you may have, because I know what they are....

I also know that many normal Christians see fundies as giving their religion a bad name, and as being partly responsible for turning many people "off" to the faith. It did that to me, too, for a long time....

Fs, people weren't any less moral before the 60's, they just did a good job of covering up all their indiscretions.

Do you have a lot of these people in America?

There is certainly nothing wrong with people holding fundamental beliefs. IMO the problem comes in when they fail to temper these with love, compassion & mercy. Way back when, I was taught that the pillors of Christianity ( Catholic - type ) were Faith, Hope & Charity . It is too easy for some to lose sight of this last.

I always laugh when some claim that the Founders of the US were Christians & therefore, the US should be embued with a Fundamentalist view of the same. Well, I guess I should have some charity of my own, as these sorts have never been too long on history itself.

Many forget that the Founders were mostly self-proclaimed children of the Enlightenment which held that secular things should be guided by reason alone. Many were Unitarians. Most would have been trundled off to the stake for their views, two or three hundred years earlier. Islam, unfortunately never had its own Enlightenment...as far as I know.

Dog

Agree with Dogberry. Just look at what the children of the enlightenment in France did to the French church during the revolution. Hardly a clamouring for an increased role of the church, was it?

In America, no moral decline has taken place since a half-century ago; however, depravity always subsists by somebody’s standards. What’s irrefutable is that the country is burdened by countless perceptible problems: the dumbing-down of intellect, an exponential climb in the obesity rate and a decline in the quality of healthcare (now ranked, internationally, behind Costa Rica), for instance. No morality, enforced or otherwise, can mitigate them.

With that said, I now believe that the America of today could very well be the Brasil of tomorrow – even with its forcible constitution that stymies the efforts of reactionaries. The latter strive for a Christian nation – that is, one by and for god-fearing adherents. When national policy-making is impelled by religion, all sects are alienated and the country loses virility.

This is manifest on a global scale. India, a “federal republic”, is rising above casteism, poverty, sanctions and bureaucracy (an imperial legacy) to make great economic and innovative strides. Pakistan, an Islamic republic, though having enjoyed friendly ties with the West from the Cold War up to now, must beseech the US for “economic assistance” and will not hold democratic elections until next year (Musharraf, of course, will remain in power, all legality notwithstanding). No secular democratic society, in any part of the world is starving; likewise, there are myriad… well, in light of recent events, I needn’t list them.
---

FearlessLeaderII, were you at the Republican Nat’l Convention over a year ago, in which the audience prayed for a gay speaker’s salvation? When I read your allusion to “destruction”, I thought of that pathetic moment on television. I’m sure that I, as an atheist, am condemned to internal damnation from your perspective for saying this, but I’m pretty sick of your party’s “there is no king but Jesus” litany.

And, no, I do not respect your views.

Tried and true, eh?

"If you can't beat 'em with your brilliance, baffle 'em with your bull****."

Whatever.

Deliberately misinterpreting me, blowing up fine points while ignoring issues, splitting hairs over definitions. Nothing new, same old crap.

Deep breath. One thing at a time.

A fetus is a parasite?

Even if you could convince me this was true, how would it change the fact that this 'parasite', is a human child?


Associating me with the likes of Billy Graham and his ilk, simply because I refuse to back down from my moral stance, even though my ideologies are at odds with his and theirs?

Demonizing me with personal attacks disguised as general comments is not an effective or sanctioned arguing tactic. It is, in fact, bullying.

Moral decay. Ok, so you're saying that no moral decay has occurred because all the same things are happening now as then, but now its in the open because there is no social stigmata attached to these actions?

Um, are you aware that social stigmata stems from morality? That as the stigmatas are removed from the actions, morality gets weaker? Is English a second language for you? In short...


Marriage. What the US gov't chooses to allow in a court doesn't concern me. I only brought it up as an example of moral decay. It can be easily pointed out that when such ceremonies are performed on gay couples in a church, said church is basically advertising the fact that it is at odds with God. Since this was an example, and therefore an non-issue to begin with...


One man's morality. Well, I think all the regulars on this board know where I stand on the concept of flexible morality. Morality is like math. 1 + 1 + 2, and taking a life for any reason but self defense(defending others is self defense) is evil. Evil is always Evil, and Good is always Good. Opinion means nothing to morality. I know you want to have your cake, and my cake, and eveyone's cake, eat them all, and still have them, but you can't. The truth is what it is, and the sooner you accept that and quit whining, the sooner you'll be able to reconcile what you want to have/do with what you know you should have/do. Instant self-gratification is not an acceptable basis for a moral code. Not by my standards anyway.

[Soapbox mode]
Short of sheer perverseness in the face of reality vs. personal preference, I can't understand why it is so hard for people to grasp the concept of right and wrong, especially when you were born with it. Opinion, whether one man's, or an entire civilization's, does not have any bearing on whether or not an action is moral. 'Legal' and 'socially acceptable' are not adequate substitutes for 'moral', no matter how much you blow and spout to the contrary. Man does not dictate morality, God does.
[/Soapbox mode]

So anyway, that's where I'm coming from. A place where the truth isn't a dirty secret.