British Airways Forbids Crosses But Allows Muslim and Hindu Symbols - Page 5 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

MareTranquility · #61 (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by LanceA

I've been trying to figure out where our differences lie and I think I've figured it out.

1) You blame Christians for using singular verses to justify violence against the GLBT community. I don't disagree with that. I think that its intolerant to do that. I do disagree that this is the only interpretation of the Bible.
I don't blame Christians for using single verses. You gently chastised me for quoting a single verse and I was simply pointing out that the standard practice of the majority of Christians down through history has been to do that very same thing. Of course it's not the only interpretation of the Bible, the Quakers and Mennonites use the same Bible but get a very different message. Look at how the Amish responded to the shooting at their school--a very Christian response, I thought.

2) My point is that those Christians don't always have the same Biblical view as the religion on the whole. In fact, my point is that you can't criticize the whole religion as violent and intolerant due to the actions of a minority. If you want to criticize the Christian community for not advocating for not taking a bigger stance against violence, then its something which should be levied against the nation as a whole because there are Christians who fight against violence and some secular bigots who turn a blind eye as well. If you know me by my works, then how do you reconcile the good works done by the majority of christians with the wayward works of the few. You have to look at each person on an individual level, which is all Im saying.
It would be good if I could meet each Christian and know them by their personal works, but I can't, so I go by the things that are done to me and the actions of the Christians that I can see. You have given a couple of examples of good things that Christians are doing, very small groups of Christians, I have given examples of nationwide Christian activities. Yet you are saying that it is the minority of Christians doing the bad things--I don't think so. Christianity as a monolithic structure has judged and condemned us--as you have too, but I'll get to that in a moment--by passing laws that discriminate against us, deny us our Constitutional rights, deny us equal protection under the law, and they teach their children that we are condemned by God. That is the majority stance, not the minority, don't you agree?

And just to let you know, I see nothing in the law that is particularly "hateful." Intolerant and unfair? Yeah I can see that. But I see nothing which validates violence against GLBTs or calls them less than human. I see a state exercising its power to refuse to give liscenses to people it doesn't want to. Virginia also doesn't allow prostitution, but I dont call the law "hateful" towards pimps and prostitutes. Intolerant of their lifestyles? Yes.

I thought that you might respond this way. What's hateful in this is that it denies our humanity. We are an abomination against God and you (personally) appear to be comfortable with that judgment even though your religion many times denies you the right to judge others. Your judgment comes through loud and clear when you lump us together with pimps and prostitutes, you are stating that all the scientific evidence that homosexuality is a genetic condition is false and that gays are simply evil people who do not deserve full citizenship (interestingly enough pimps and prostitutes, murderers, thieves, and every other kind of low-life scumbag can get married--even murderers on death row) but you are willing to single out gay people and deny them the rights that all other consenting adults have in this country. Can you understand how hateful that feels to us? The thing about the Virginia law is that it goes way beyond denying marriage and denies the 1049 legal benefits that accrue to legally married people--including every low-life scumbag. You have singled us out for a special kind of hateful treatment based on nothing but YOUR interpretation of your holy book (and bear in mind that it was you who said that there is more than one way to interpret that book and you who said that individual verses should not be taken out of context and used to bash others, but what are you doing right now with this issue? Jesus said that the two most important commandments were to love God and to love thy neighbors as thyself. Is what you are agreeing to do to homosexual people consonant with either one of those commandments?

mpd8488 · #62 (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by MareTranquility

I don't know how you feel qualified to speak for all the other Christians, let alone the Muslims, who are you to state that Rev. Fred Phelps does what he does because he's a hateful, when he says he's doing God's work and he can point to the places in the Bible that justify it to him?

I don't fail to realize what you are saying, but I don't know if it's true and neither do you. All I can do is look at the things people do and listen to how they justify themselves. (Know ye them by their works.) The Scriptures ARE in the Bible. Are you saying that the Bible is wrong? If it is wrong, then why don't the "real" Christians change it? Are you teaching your children that the Bible is the infallible Word of God? My brothers are and I know a lot of other Christians who are. How can you have it both ways? Either the Bible is wrong and the behaviors based on it are wrong, or it's right and it does justify the behaviors we are discussing.

If I'm not qualified to speak for other christians than how are you qualified to speak about christians in general?

Your undestanding of the diversity of Christianity is limited at best. Interpretation of the Bible is up to the individual. There are hundreds of different denominations within Christianity and they often stem from differing views on the interpretation of the bible. Basically the hijackers you are refering to are fundamentalists who take every single word in the Bible as being literal and factual. They are a small but vocal sect of Christianity. Evangelicals generally believe in the factual correctness of the bible and believe that the bible is of divine origin, but believe that the cultural beliefs of the time influenced it. They believe that not every word is litteral, rather that the stories are true and that its messages stem from God but it is important to read between the lines or rethink it because our knowledge of the world has greatly expaned since the time of its writing. This means that some evanjelicals may read the bible and have disaproval of homosexuality, but others may believe that as scientific evidence points more and more towards homosexuality as being genetic that it is not wrong as it is a result of God's creation. The basic message about all sexuality in the Bible is to not be perverts and have one partner whom you love. At the time of writing, the culture may have included homosexuality as an act of perversion, but maybe we are moving away from this belief which means the meaning of the Bible must also evolve. A liberal interpretation regards the scripture with skepticism and believes that because the Bible was written by men, who are fallible, it must be taken with a grain of salt. They believe that the Bible must be recognized as stories that glorify God, but are not necessarily literal. Those are three very broad views, but there are many more, and there are hundreds of different views with regerds to exactly how literal the bible is.

mpd8488 · #63 (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

Oh and Mare, I would love to discuss the Virginia amendment proposal, but as it is off topic and so important, it merits its own thread.

Porras · #64 (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by IIIX

I had and still have a good opinion of you and your posts, but that was just plain ridiculous. MareTranquility made fine points and countered yours; instead of debating, you used the "oh, that's so outrageous! I'm shocked!" tactic popularized by who-you-know. Put me on your ignore list as well if you want to... But let me remind you that, as MareTranquility said, it is fine to be a christian; but it isn't OK to deny the atrocities committed in the name of the Christ.

Not quite. Her post was an attack on all Christians. Not being Christian I still found that offensive. But I was much more offended when she tried to make the point that all Christians are evil by pointing out a case I'm closely connected to wherein Christians weren't doing the attacking.

I actually don't use the ignore list but that was the single most offensive thing I've encountered on this forum.

MareTranquility · #65 (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpd8488

If I'm not qualified to speak for other christians than how are you qualified to speak about christians in general?
I have never claimed to speak for Christianity in general, I have noted that all Christians are not the same, but I am qualilfied to talk about the Christianity that see in practice every single day of my life, the Christianity that is reflected in the laws of this country, the Christianity that is very vocally attempting to disenfranchise homosexuals and transsexuals based on nothing but religious bigotry.

Your undestanding of the diversity of Christianity is limited at best. Interpretation of the Bible is up to the individual. There are hundreds of different denominations within Christianity and they often stem from differing views on the interpretation of the bible.There are more than 2500 sects of Christianity operating in the world today. Basically the hijackers you are refering to are fundamentalists who take every single word in the Bible as being literal and factual. They are a small but vocal sect of Christianity. Evangelicals generally believe in the factual correctness of the bible and believe that the bible is of divine origin, but believe that the cultural beliefs of the time influenced it.You are presenting this as a minority movement, but it's not. The anti-gay initiatives are being passed by Christain majorities all over the country. They believe that not every word is litteral, rather that the stories are true and that its messages stem from God but it is important to read between the lines or rethink it because our knowledge of the world has greatly expaned since the time of its writing. This means that some evanjelicals may read the bible and have disaproval of homosexuality, but others may believe that as scientific evidence points more and more towards homosexuality as being genetic that it is not wrong as it is a result of God's creation. The basic message about all sexuality in the Bible is to not be perverts and have one partner whom you love. At the time of writing, the culture may have included homosexuality as an act of perversion (if the culture has decided that homosexuality is a perversion and that homosexuals are to be singled out for special discrimination that Christians do not inflict on anyone else., but maybe we are moving away from this belief which means the meaning of the Bible must also evolve. A liberal interpretation regards the scripture with skepticism and believes that because the Bible was written by men, who are fallible, it must be taken with a grain of salt. They believe that the Bible must be recognized as stories that glorify God, but are not necessarily literal. Those are three very broad views, but there are many more, and there are hundreds of different views with regerds to exactly how literal the bible is.

Please read the last paragraph of my last post to Lance. Maybe the tide is turning, maybe not, do you know how many states have anti-gay ballot inititiatives this fall? George is still pushing for the DOMA to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution--discrimination that applies ONLY to homosexual and transsexual people.

LanceA · #66 (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by MareTranquility

Please read the last paragraph of my last post to Lance. Maybe the tide is turning, maybe not, do you know how many states have anti-gay ballot inititiatives this fall? George is still pushing for the DOMA to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution--discrimination that applies ONLY to homosexual and transsexual people.

DOMA also discriminates against polygamy, which is practiced in some places by the Church of Latter Day Saints. So, maybe some discriminations against Christians too?

Tim · #67 (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porras

Not quite. Her post was an attack on all Christians. Not being Christian I still found that offensive. But I was much more offended when she tried to make the point that all Christians are evil by pointing out a case I'm closely connected to wherein Christians weren't doing the attacking.

I actually don't use the ignore list but that was the single most offensive thing I've encountered on this forum.

Thanks Porras. I appreciate the generous spirit; you do not share the faith, but take the time to speak out. Class act.

MareTranquility · #68 (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by LanceA

DOMA also discriminates against polygamy, which is practiced in some places by the Church of Latter Day Saints. So, maybe some discriminations against Christians too?

DOMA is not aimed at the polygamists, it was written specifically as an attack on homosexual people. Bashing a few Mormons will be seen as just an added perk.

MareTranquility · #69 (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim

Thanks Porras. I appreciate the generous spirit; you do not share the faith, but take the time to speak out. Class act.

Too bad you bailed, Tim, it's been an interesting discussion with Lance and mpd8488.

LanceA · #70 (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by MareTranquility

DOMA is not aimed at the polygamists, it was written specifically as an attack on homosexual people. Bashing a few Mormons will be seen as just an added perk.

If you're talking about the Defense of Marriage Act, then yes it does discriminate against polygamists.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...7----000-.html

kinetic · #71 (**permalink**) 10-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by MareTranquility

DOMA is not aimed at the polygamists, it was written specifically as an attack on homosexual people. Bashing a few Mormons will be seen as just an added perk.

One-woman one-man marriages are logical and sound. They are not an attack on those who engage in homosexual behavior.

Further, there isn't any reason based on science, math, American history, or biology to license non one-woman one-man marriages.

Headscarves are political garments.

MareTranquility · #72 (**permalink**) 10-16-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by kinetic

One-woman one-man marriages are logical and sound. They are not an attack on those who engage in homosexual behavior.

Further, there isn't any reason based on science, math, American history, or biology to license non one-woman one-man marriages.

Headscarves are political garments.

I once had to deal with a poster who had a double digit vocabulary.

#73 (**permalink**) 10-16-2006

this is disgusting. all turbans should be removed to protect the people. then crossess to be placedon all passengers.

chathamfarmer · #74 (**permalink**) 10-16-2006

I wouldn't be too sure about gays not fighting back against roving bands of anyone attacking them. I'm a member of the Pink Pistols, a gay shooting club. (corny name, I know, but the motto is "Bash This!")

Back to the topic at hand....... British Airways should be fair bout things. If they don't want religious symbols, then they shouldn't allow ANY of them.

gnomon · #75 (**permalink**) 10-16-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by MareTranquility

Convesations tend to ebb and flow, I have responded to the posts of others and to the ones directed at me.

You seem a trifle vague, exactly what is it that you are saying?

Your posts about Christians tend to be generalized and a bit reactionary. I would recommend getting the opinion of gay Christians. There are many out there. Also, since Christians apparently represent nearly a third (perhaps a bit less now) of the world's population I think one has to be really careful with their arguments about what Christians do.

I will agree with your opinion on the Virginia amendment. I too find it hateful.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode