Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience
- Thread starter Lord Gay
- Start date
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
I'm noticing (aside from a very ahistorical take on the passage) a bit of a contradiction here. If Christians cannot advocate banning abortion, because the people of this nation do not want it, why is it laughable that we cannot ban Gay Marriage because the majority of the nation wants to do that?
The use of 'Xians' is very helpful here.
"I see it as a unifying call for people X to ensure that certain values V are expressed in US law."
Well of course, so does everybody else. In fact a system of Democracy where nobody thought their values should be reflected in governance isn't a democracy at all.
Moderator Action: 'Xian' is an acceptable short-form for 'Christian'. People know what it means, and it has historical roots. Likewise 'thru' is an acceptable short-form for 'through'.
Please, no spelling police
Please, no spelling police
I'm puzzled at how the blog entry linked to in the opening post can say that the Manhattan Declaration is "hate". It just outright makes that assertion. Seems wrong to me.
These conservative-ish manifestos and declarations seem to be a bit more commonplace these days for some reason. (Mark Levin made a book named Conservative Manifesto.) Also, conservative talking heads on TV seem to want to cement their conservative-ness into an unyielding rigid stance. Well, maybe I'm wrong but it seems to be more common these days, especially since Obama became president.
These conservative-ish manifestos and declarations seem to be a bit more commonplace these days for some reason. (Mark Levin made a book named Conservative Manifesto.) Also, conservative talking heads on TV seem to want to cement their conservative-ness into an unyielding rigid stance. Well, maybe I'm wrong but it seems to be more common these days, especially since Obama became president.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Manhattan Declaration seems silly to me.
It's like a buncha people got together because they didn't agree with some of the stuff that was going on in society and decided to do something about it. But instead of doing something about it they wrote an essay.
It's like a buncha people got together because they didn't agree with some of the stuff that was going on in society and decided to do something about it. But instead of doing something about it they wrote an essay.
It's not "like" that. It is that.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Though writing a distributed essay is certain part of doing something about it.
Lord Gay
Emperor
@Camikaze - I agree with your post completely.
Although... I heard once that Jesus was an alien.
If they care about life, why aren't they against war? If they care about marriage, why aren't they against divorce? If they care about religious liberties, why do they ignore the liberties of other faiths?
Rather than being a social call of conscience to try to better humanity, this just strikes me as a hypocritical political action. However, I know my bias affects my view sometimes, which is why I ask what others think.
Public = receives gvt funding/support and/or is open to the public. Cannot discriminate.
Private = no public funding/support, private membership/facilities. Can discriminate.
Churches are private organizations, so they can discriminate against gays all they want in their religious functions and facilities.
The Mass adoption agency in question was regulated by the state, received funding from the state, and was open to the public. That puts them squarely in the "public" area in my book. As such, they, like any other business, had to comply with state non-discrimination laws. They had in fact been doing that in regards to gays for 17 years, until the Vatican told them to stop, at which point United Way said they might stop donating if they didn't allow gay adoptions.
As several people have expressed concern, I'll spell the words out fully from now on.
Although... I heard once that Jesus was an alien.
I support people engaging in CD for issues they care about where they believe gvt is unfairly hurting people or doing something greedy and stupid. It's just that the issues here, IMO, are not about making the world a better place. They're about issues that don't affect the people engaging in CD, other than tangentially. Abortion I can see, though stem cells is really pushing it. But assisted suicide? SSM? Complaining about "choices" other people make? What happened to live and let live?
If they care about life, why aren't they against war? If they care about marriage, why aren't they against divorce? If they care about religious liberties, why do they ignore the liberties of other faiths?
Rather than being a social call of conscience to try to better humanity, this just strikes me as a hypocritical political action. However, I know my bias affects my view sometimes, which is why I ask what others think.
Abso-toot-ly. I use a very simple definition:
Public = receives gvt funding/support and/or is open to the public. Cannot discriminate.
Private = no public funding/support, private membership/facilities. Can discriminate.
Churches are private organizations, so they can discriminate against gays all they want in their religious functions and facilities.
The Mass adoption agency in question was regulated by the state, received funding from the state, and was open to the public. That puts them squarely in the "public" area in my book. As such, they, like any other business, had to comply with state non-discrimination laws. They had in fact been doing that in regards to gays for 17 years, until the Vatican told them to stop, at which point United Way said they might stop donating if they didn't allow gay adoptions.
Although... I heard once that Jesus was an alien.
I thought he was a velociraptor... :/
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Thank you!
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
I endorse this declaration of good spelling practices, and call on certain posters who feel offended by the use of this particular shorthand to improve their own spelling standards to match. It's the Christian thing to do.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Anybody else find it ironic that it is called the Manhattan Declaration, named after one of the most ethnically divergent places in the world? And one of the few places in the country not completely dominated by Protestant Xians Christians?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Manhattan
Protestant: 8.6%
Muslim: 2.2%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Manhattan
Protestant: 8.6%
Muslim: 2.2%
That would be greatly appreciated.
I think this is mostly because you don't think those things are bad.
If assisted suicide and SSM are bad, then with all else being equal, a world without them is better than a world with x. (Although the problems associated with banning them may, or may not, overcome the net positive effect of not having them) So if you believe that they have a negative effect on the world, and that this negative effect is so large that it's better to ban them, and take the violation of rights that that implies than let them happen, then supporting their ban is part of a desire to make the world a better place. Now, that desire could be based on entirely irrational premises, but in that case, you can't say that they aren't trying to make the world a better place - just that they're bad at it.
They generally are! They just may not see it as possible to effectively ban those, or that banning them might cause more harm than good.
What faiths is being denied religious liberties in the United States, due to lobbying by Christians?
And what if they don't receive public funding, but are open to the public, and are regulated by the state? (As I imagine most religious adoption services are) Are they allowed to discriminate, or not? If not, then you're effectively banning all religious adoption services from discrimination in this area. (And arguably, possibly churches as well - they're generally "open to the public," and are subject to limited government regulation. If their form of government regulation is fundamentally different in some way, then you'll have to define what you mean)
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Lord Gay
Emperor
No no, the images of Jesus as a raptor are clearly shopped; they're false evidence planted by Satan to trick the foolish. Now, the images of Jesus as an alien are clearly photographic evidence.
Maybe 'cause the Manhattan Project was already taken?
That would be greatly appreciated.
I will say that you were the most polite about it.
While I do indeed think such things are good, I take issue with them being upset at what others are doing in their own lives. I may think eating brussel sprouts is nasty, but I don't complain when somebody does it in public. I may think religion is harmful, but I don't support banning it for others.I think this is mostly because you don't think those things are bad.
Therein is my beef. I don't believe good comes about from violating the rights of other adults against their will. I believe imposing values, or doing things to people, 'for their own good', is bad. Where such actions may harm others, fine, but only oneself? No.
Not according to the MD they aren't. The only mention of war they make is to equate it to abortion. While they go so far as to oppose stem cell research, they make not a peep on war, nor the decade of war the US has had so far. That makes me question the sincerity of their words.
They do mention divorce negatively, but the focus is on SSM. They say that SSM must be opposed now, while they will eventually get around to divorce. Given that Christians keep claiming that gays only constitute an itsy-bitsy teen-weeny yellow polka... er, tiny portion of the population, while divorce rates for straight marriages are at 50%, it seems clear that they should deal with the larger problem. If a person is threatening me with a gun, I don't ignore them to deal with the person holding a rusty spoon.
By focusing on SSM it seems to me they are willing to attack the politically weak, rather than deal with laws that actually limit what they themselves can do. What's more, they repeat many times that they fully respect the gvt controlling gvt things, yet they feel civil marriage must comply with Christian teachings. Aren't atheist marriages also offensive, or really any non-Christian marriage? Why do they feel gvt must only offer Christian marriages? That strikes me as biased and hypocritical.
If SSM is legalized, every religion can decide for themselves how to handle it, including not performing it. If SSM is banned, NO religion can offer it, even if they want to.
Any entity that is open to the public I would still define as public, and say no discrimination. Businesses are open to the public, and they are not allowed to discriminate. If agencies were to only serve members of their religion and received no public funding/support, I believe that would exempt them.
Churches I see as private; they may accept membership from most anybody, but they want you to be members to get full services. In addition, religious institutions have religious exemption. Note, this means churches, not necessarily every property, business or service those churches run, nor does it mean every private business owner who happens to belong to that faith.
For starters, we have not banned the construction of minarets
First they came for the minarets, and I didn't like them, so I did not protest.
Then they came for the arches, and I didn't care, so I did not protest.
Then they came for the flying buttresses, and I was watching tv, so I did not protest.
Then they came for the walls. And by then, there was nothing to support the buildings.
Leonel
Breakfast Connoisseur
For the love of, spell out "Christians" and "Christianity" fully!
Weeeeeelll a pastor once said to a class of applauding students who corrected Xian with Christian that Xian originates from the Greek translation of Christ, Xristos. It's the same way as they short form Christmas to Xmas.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Its not biased nor hypocritical. Christianity does not hold a monopoly on Marriage between a man and a woman. Christians do not want the state to approve the sin of homosexuality and rather keep it between a man and a woman. Atheistic and non-Christian marriages aren't offensive because they are a union between a man and a woman. Besides, there aren't movements to ban Jewish weddings, Muslim weddings, and any other unions that involve a union between a man and a woman.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I feel this is a false point, and I dont think that marriage must comply with christian teachings at all. I dont see a push to ban non-religious (the old Justice of the Peace type) marriages, nor is marriage between a single man and single woman solely a christian belief. Bottom line, they dont feel only christian marriages should be offered...again, no one is trying to ban Jewish weddings, or Islamic or a host of other types of marriages that also conform to the 1 man + 1 woman concept.
This is simply false as churches have been offering non-state sanctioned SSM for a long time now and calling them 'commitment ceremonies' or whatever. Vows are still exhanced as are rings, and they call themselves 'married' and act accordingly, its just not a legit marriage in the eyes of the state. Neither are there any laws that prevents this from occurring. If two people want to exchange vows and rings and say they are married go ahead....there is no law preventing that, but it isnt a legal marriage per se.
Of course businesses can discrminate. Havent you ever seen a sign saying 'no shirt, no shoes, no service'?
Thats still discrimination isnt it? Of course it is. They simply cant discriminate along federally (or state) recognized lines (race, color, creed, etc), but outside of that of course they can.
