Rather Have Intolerance?

[Robinsegg]

So . . . If I believe that fundamentalist Christians are not human, you think that I should be allowed to advocate that we should amend the constitution so that we can remove their human rights?

I mean, the Bible says that you'll be oppressed for what you believe. What better oppression is there than dehumanization?

I don't believe this yet, but what if I believe that Christians should be sold into slavery, and then voted my conscience on the matter? That should be okay, right?

So, as long as I found a majority of people that agreed that Christians should be made slaves, it would be ethical and moral for me to vote my conscience and vote to remove human rights from them? After all, it would just be for my own reasons.

The Constitution can change. Ask the Constitution Party.

In fact, that's the best way to get around those activist judges that would probably want to stop someone that believes that Christians aren't human. Especially if they just want to more clearly define things. Freedom of religion is fine, but if someone chooses to become an enemy of the state, shouldn't it be okay to define them as animals? They don't respect the law of the land, why should it protect them?

True, the Constitution can change. It's a laborious process, and I don't think it would be easy to find people who are willing to put slavery back into our system, but it can be changed.
I don't think you'd find a majority of people in this country who would be willing to define any group of people "unhuman", "animals", or "slaves", since we've been there & done that already. But, technically, yes, you should vote your conscience.
As for declaring Christians (fundies or any other religion) as enemies of the state, it would require legislating a state religion, once again requiring a change of the Constitution, but also a major change in what our society was based upon.
Rachel

 

[Spherical Time]

True, the Constitution can change. It's a laborious process, and I don't think it would be easy to find people who are willing to put slavery back into our system, but it can be changed.
I don't think you'd find a majority of people in this country who would be willing to define any group of people "unhuman", "animals", or "slaves", since we've been there & done that already. But, technically, yes, you should vote your conscience.

In that case, I will vote my conscience on such matters.

Best of luck to you and yours then.

As for declaring Christians (fundies or any other religion) as enemies of the state, it would require legislating a state religion, once again requiring a change of the Constitution, but also a major change in what our society was based upon.
Rachel

It wouldn't require a state religion, but I can see why you would want to think that it would require one.

Don't you think that our society has already undergone major changes, and don't you think there are changes that you would make, if you could?

 

[Robinsegg]

In that case, I will vote my conscience on such matters.
Best of luck to you and yours then.

Thanks. You too.

It wouldn't require a state religion, but I can see why you would want to think that it would require one.

After thinking about it, I realize you're right. After all, the state would only have to find that these people are a danger/menace to society, I suppose. However, I also think there would have to be copious evidence to bring about such a reaction.

Don't you think that our society has already undergone major changes, and don't you think there are changes that you would make, if you could?

This country has undergone changes, some for the better, some not. Changes I would make . . . I would probably try to make it harder to get sexually charged material in front of small children w/o the parent's knowledg/consent. I'd probably look into creating harsher penalties for repeat child molestation convicts. But I don't think that sort of thing is quite earth-shattering.
While I believe it's okay for religion to inform my political choices, I don't think my religion should be legislated. I think there are certain issues on which we should err on the side of caution, until further information is available, but don't think that things should be held up because of any religion's doctrine. For instance, I don't think embryonic stem cell research should be banned. Nor do I think money from taxes should fund it until we know more about the beginnings of life. Sometimes it's a fine line.
Rachel

 

[Spherical Time]

I forget, do you believe that atheism is a religion? I know that some do.

 

[Robinsegg]

I forget, do you believe that atheism is a religion? I know that some do.

I believe that for some, it is a religion (an adamant belief in the nonexistence of God). For others, it is simply a lack of knowledge (they don't have information that a deity exists, so they don't currently believe). It is not, by any stretch that I can think of, an organized religion.
Rachel

 

[Spherical Time]

I believe that for some, it is a religion (an adamant belief in the nonexistence of God). For others, it is simply a lack of knowledge (they don't have information that a deity exists, so they don't currently believe). It is not, by any stretch that I can think of, an organized religion.
Rachel

Do you agree that having a majority makes right? Are Christians morally superior because there are more of them?

 

[Robinsegg]

Do you agree that having a majority makes right? Are Christians morally superior because there are more of them?

No. Christians aren't right because there are more of us tha claim Christianity. Might doesn't make right. But numbers do make policy in the US.

Rachel

 

[CriticalMassKitten]

Perhaps... But in a free speaking country, such intolerance is to be expected. Political intolerance is not the same as personal intolerance... we all vote what we believe, if we vote at all.

But I have to go back to the OP, and state that you say that Christians do not condemn the fringe elements. We do, and we do regularly.

It's the fringe that gets all the press.

Deffinatly. It's the same with any group of people. The one's who show the worst in people get publicity. It's just part of the horrible trend of news being entertainment now, instead of facts.

You can believe in whatever you want, but when you want to impose those beliefs (i.e. homosexuality is good and deserving of government endorsement) on the rest of society without a rational, non-secular reason, then it's bigotted intolerance.

I'm interested as to why you think that homosexuality will be forced on you. Also, where in a law allowing homosexuals to marry does it say being homosexual is ok? Where in the law does it say that murdering is bad? Or that drinking and driving is bad? That's right, it doesn't. Good or bad is a matter of opinion. We arn't saying to accept homosexuals, just give us equal rights. Ya know, that whole thing that America is supposed to be based on.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Deffinatly. It's the same with any group of people. The one's who show the worst in people get publicity. It's just part of the horrible trend of news being entertainment now, instead of facts.

I'm interested as to why you think that homosexuality will be forced on you. Also, where in a law allowing homosexuals to marry does it say being homosexual is ok? Where in the law does it say that murdering is bad? Or that drinking and driving is bad? That's right, it doesn't. Good or bad is a matter of opinion. We arn't saying to accept homosexuals, just give us equal rights. Ya know, that whole thing that America is supposed to be based on.

can you edit so that 2nd statement isn't attributed to me please? I know there is no name on it, but mine is on the previous. It wasn't my statement.

 

[I'ddie4him]

Closing down for a staff review.
24-48 hours is only a guideline, Not a rule.

 

[RN4CHRIST]

We have reopened this thread after doing an extensive clean up for posts violating

Rule 2.1 No Flaming

You will not "flame" other members or groups of members. Flaming includes, but is not limited to:
- Ridiculing, insulting, or demeaning another member or group of members;
- Ridiculing another member's beliefs;
- Ridiculing public figures important to another's religious beliefs;
- Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian;
- Calling or describing other people, groups, belief-systems, or ideas as heresy or a cult (or derivatives of these words). Instead of using these emotionally charged words, please state "X is wrong because of Y" rather than using these words in polemical discussion;
- Asking loaded questions that directly cause flames in response;
- Using sarcasm to attempt any of the above; and
- Threats of any sort, including advocating or supporting physical or mental harm against another living creature (this creature clause does not apply to political discussions of military action, hunting/fishing discussions nor ethical discussions of capital punishment).

Please, keep it within the rules or this thread will be closed permanently. I would hate to see that happen because this is a valid discussion. Please address the issues posted not the other posters!

Thank You
Debate Team
RN4CHRIST
Casey

 

[chalice_thunder]

so you say. I would think if a majority speaks, it's not fringe. But beyond that, I don't see Bush waving a placard, even if my personal feelings about him and his administration is a bit on the down side.

(of course, I'm Canadian, and don't worry much about American presidents.)

It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that anyone who doesn't agree with your personal ideology is "fringe."

I don't want to be argumentative - but the majority spoke in 2000, and yet Bush was put into office anyway.

 

[TuxThePenguin]

Not to be a Smart Aleck, but does that mean that if you call Natural Marriage advocates intolerant, that I should go into ignore mode?

'Natural Marriage' ?

I wasn't aware of marriage occurring in nature.

In Penguins (some species of which tend toward monogamy) how do we tell if they're married or just 'living in sin'?

 

[Uphill Battle]

I don't want to be argumentative - but the majority spoke in 2000, and yet Bush was put into office anyway.

true enough, I suppose. He did win the election though... perhaps the electoral college needs to be looked at more closely?

 

[Harpuia]

The problem is that liberals being intolerant of tolerant people violates the very tolerance that they preach.

For example, I know many non-religious people who think that all religious people are intolerant nobodies because we want to legislate laws against other people. Now if that's true, that kind of thinking could cause one to ban religion altogether, because it's ok to be intolerant of intolerance to them.

Catch my drift?

 

[JGG]

The problem is that liberals being intolerant of tolerant people violates the very tolerance that they preach.

For example, I know many non-religious people who think that all religious people are intolerant nobodies because we want to legislate laws against other people. Now if that's true, that kind of thinking could cause one to ban religion altogether, because it's ok to be intolerant of intolerance to them.

Catch my drift?

No. Not really. Aren't you doing the same thing by saying non-religious people are intolerant of religious people, putting the whole discussion in an unnecessary loop of circular logic?

 

[Harpuia]

No. Not really. Aren't you doing the same thing by saying non-religious people are intolerant of religious people, putting the whole discussion in an unnecessary loop of circular logic?

Bingo.

You answered your own question.

 

[Spherical Time]

The problem is that liberals being intolerant of tolerant people violates the very tolerance that they preach.

For example, I know many non-religious people who think that all religious people are intolerant nobodies because we want to legislate laws against other people. Now if that's true, that kind of thinking could cause one to ban religion altogether, because it's ok to be intolerant of intolerance to them.

Catch my drift?

Are you representing the religious people?

Do you think they'd prefer it if liberals stopped trying to tolerate them?

 

[chalice_thunder]

The problem is that liberals being intolerant of tolerant people violates the very tolerance that they preach.

For example, I know many non-religious people who think that all religious people are intolerant nobodies because we want to legislate laws against other people. Now if that's true, that kind of thinking could cause one to ban religion altogether, because it's ok to be intolerant of intolerance to them.

Catch my drift?

I think liberals (religious or otherwise) are very tolerant of intolerant religious conservatives.

However, when the intolerant religious conservatives begin to legislate an agenda that suppresses the rights of others, liberals will not tolerate the legislation - because of injustice.

 

[Robinsegg]

I think liberals (religious or otherwise) are very tolerant of intolerant religious conservatives.

However, when the intolerant religious conservatives begin to legislate an agenda that suppresses the rights of others, liberals will not tolerate the legislation - because of injustice.

Ah, but is it tolerant or intolerant to try to keep religious conservatives off the airwaves (so their point of view isn't heard)? Many media outlets have been accused of just that, as they have their own agenda. So, if it is true that some media outlets are actively trying to keep people from hearing religious conservatives views, would that be tolerating the other point of view?
Rachel