In response to:

It’s Time Christians Told Those Who Seek to Silence Them, ‘Yeah, Right’

Charles1471 Wrote: Jul 07, 2013 9:15 AM
Certainly, there is no problem wearing a cross. The supervisor overreacted. That said, this is a two-way street. If all people would mind their own business, we'd all be better off. I am an atheist and I could not care less if/how you pray or do whatever you do as long as you don't scare the horses or make the cows give sour milk. Unfortunately, there are extremists on both sides who either want no expression of religion being shown, or insist on changing our secular laws to include a Christian version of Sharia law, despite those tenets being against not only secularism but against many other religions including many, many branches of Christianity. This is a "Live and Let Live" country. I wish people would remember that.
joseywhales Wrote: Jul 07, 2013 10:17 AM
we have a muslim potus and groups like cair and la raza that are slowly working against the live and let live idea, we have a war on our hands for our way of life, and sheeple better start fighting this war or all will be lost!!!

Charles1471 Wrote: Jul 07, 2013 11:08 AM
Seriously? A Muslim POTUS? You see, when you make statements such as this, your credibility goes right down the drain. Let me guess, Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, either?

For those of us in the real world, remarks such as this do nothing to bolster your argument.
NW-Res Wrote: Jul 07, 2013 9:45 AM
"Unfortunately, there are extremists on both sides who either want no expression of religion being shown, or insist on changing our secular laws to include a Christian version of Sharia "
Really, name a Christian that is advocating to change secular laws into some kind of Christian mandate and give an example of the legislation that attempted to do so.
Ken6226 Wrote: Jul 07, 2013 9:57 AM
"Chirp! Chirp!" (crickets)
NW-Res Wrote: Jul 07, 2013 10:10 AM
You didn't answer the question, Ken.
Ken6226 Wrote: Jul 07, 2013 10:16 AM
I didn't intend to answer it. I was calling attention to the fact that no one else has answered it.
Charles1471 Wrote: Jul 07, 2013 11:00 AM
Easily. The profound effort by various religious organizations to halt secular civil marriage of same-sex couples is perhaps the most notable in the news right now. There are two parts to marriage in the USA. There is the state-issued marriage license (deemed by the courts to be a contract) and there is an optional religious ceremony of the choosing of the couple.

Despite it being obvious there are these two aspects of a marriage, many in the Christian crowd just cannot grasp the idea that one can have a marriage without some religious involvement.

An example: Take two straight atheists. They have nothing to do with any religion. They can go to City Hall, get a marriage license, find a Justice of the Peace, and be legally married. That marriage is recognized by the State, all other States, the Federal government, and all other countries. Not a word of god or religion was involved. That is ALL the same-sex marriage effort is about. There are plenty of churches who will perform a same-sex marriage ceremony but it is not needed for a civil marriage. This concept, I must have explained a thousand times and still people just cannot seem to grasp it, yet it is accurate. If you don't believe the State is involved, explain why a parting of ways ends up in Divorce Court and not Divorce Church.

Despite this obvious fact, some of the well-known religions have spent millions of dollars to influence laws, lobby legislators, push for the passage of Constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, and spread lies and innuendo about same-sex marriage -- all "justified" only by something they or their leaders interpreted from some version of a bible.

Is that proof enough of religious interference in our secular laws?
MudontheTires Wrote: Jul 07, 2013 11:14 AM
"Is that proof enough of religious interference in our secular laws?"

The only thing it is proof of your dishonesty. Trying to keep a handful of homosexual radicals from forcing their attemps to redefine marriage on the majority isn't "religious interference". It's an attempt to keep those homosexual radicals from turning marriage into, quite literally "anything goes".

Charles1471 Wrote: Jul 07, 2013 11:27 AM
You prove my point entirely. You don't get it, you are not going to get it.

The secular and sectarian worlds have similar but different concepts for the concept of matrimony. Both happen to use the word "marriage." That term is used by religious organizations but it also is used in the legal sense to mean the results of a marriage license (contract). The secular marriage can exist without religion as it mentioned in my example with the straight atheists. By the way, why is there not "outrage" because these two atheists "defiled" the word "marriage?"

That "handful of homosexual radicals" to which you refer now amounts to more than 50% of the USA population. Among the under 30 crowd it is close to 80%.

And, what is all this hooey about "redefining" marriage? It has been redefined countless times over history. The most recent in 1967 when we (gasp!) allowed inter-racial couples to legally marry. I am sure there are churches out there who to this day will not perform a religious marriage ceremony to people of different races and people who were previously divorced. But, I would ask, who cares? Unless I am a member of that particular faith, I frankly could not care less.

And, yes, it is religious interference. We are speaking of CIVIL marriage that has nothing to do with religion. The religious crowd doesn't have a dog in this fight.

I know this is all about logic and legalese and that seems to be confusing to many of the religious crowd. Here's the deal: If your religion does not approve of same-sex marriage, then don't perform any ceremonies. But, there are many churches that do. Your efforts to quell this are infringing upon the religious freedoms of those churches that do wish to perform same-sex marriages. How is that ANY different than a Muslim cleric complaining that American women are harlots for going out in public with their head and arms bared and driving (gasp!) a car?
Charles1471 Wrote: Jul 07, 2013 2:46 PM
Apparently, it is my turn to listen to the crickets...
DHE Wrote: Jul 07, 2013 9:28 AM
Generally agree. I notice some commenters do not distinguish between government action and private action though. I do believe Madison and others were correct that the less government entanglement with religion, the better for both. As an atheist, I might be suspected of being biased in other atheists favor, but, anecdotally, I can tell you that I have never met an atheist personally who did not feel pretty much like you describe yourself. Frankly, that describes most people of faith I know too. However, there are more, in my opinion, religious people who have bought into the culture of victimization than atheists (and though there are few atheists - surveys show us even fewer than describe themselves that way). On TH, because of the nature of the medium, it makes it seem like a lot of people believe that Christians are being regularly victimized and I meet nice people from time to time who by into it. Liked you comment.