Previous 11 - 20 Next
If Obama is anti-Christian, he's very bad at it. Christianity is still the most dominant religion in the country. It's nearly impossible for a non-Christian to be elected into public office. Some of the richest and most powerful organizations in the country are Christian. One of the major political parties that happens to hold a majority in Congress is dominated by Christians. So why does Matt Barber pretend that Christianity is on the brink of destruction when it's probably the most powerful religious group? Why is it so important that his brand of Christianity is the underdog and the victim? Nobody should be proud of being a victim like this. Now maybe the problem is that Matt Barber's brand of Christianity isn't popular anymore. Society has moved on to the point where we don't use the Old Testament for our morality anymore. We don't feel that it's moral to discriminate against homosexuals, African Americans, Jews, and atheists. We don't think it's moral to subject minorities to horrendous treatment, as Christian groups like the KKK did for decades. The AFA is not the KKK by any stretch, but its ideology is every bit as barbaric. The AFA is listed as a hate group for a good reason. They are not for families. They are for the abject hatred of homosexuals. Every bit of their literature and most of their rhetoric is full of vitriolic hatred towards homosexual men. Curiously, they rarely mention homosexual women. And they adopt this Christian ideology that is completely based on the hatred of one particular minority, as though that was the most important issue Jesus ever spoke about. There's nothing family-friendly about the AFA. They are a hate group that hides behind words like "American" and "Family." Here's something Matt Barber and people like him need to accept. Homosexuals are Americans. There's nothing in the constituion that says they can't be citizens. Homosexuals also have families. They have mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters. Some of them even have children of their own, either through adoption or through IVF. Are they not entitled to the same dignity that other Americans enjoy? What are they doing that is disrupting the lives of the Matt Barbers of the world? Sure, they're making it harder for some people to publicly condemn minorities, but there's nothing Christian about that. In fact, that's the very opposite of Christian. Matt Barber knows that on some levels. And if he doesn't care, then he's not a Christian. He's just a hateful man
And if there was evidence indicating that you were wrong about legalized marijuana, would you accept it? Because if not, then what you stated isn't a fact. It's a dogmatically held opinion with no basis in reality.
Nancy Reagan tried to use an overly simplistic answer to a complex problem. You can say whatever you want. You're not going to change human desires. And there's an inherent hypocrisy in this plan because according to the CDC and the DEA, most drug overdoses occur from prescription drug overdoses. So these are drugs people don't say no to. These are drugs doctors give them and say they have to take. How is that reasonable? Human beings have always consumed illicit substances. Some of these substances have inspired new ideas. Steve Jobs admitted outright that his experimentation with drugs helped expand his thinking. Is it any coincidence that Apple's motto is "Think differently?" If Steve Jobs had said no, what would we have lost as a result? The drug war is an irrational, unjust, and often racist policy. It needs to end and Obama's failure to take steps in the right direction is one of his most egregious failures, especially since he outright admitted to using drugs.
It's amazing how far society has come on this issue. When a state like Texas comes to accept same-sex marriage, then I think it's a positive sign that compassion and understanding eventually wins out against religiously motivated bigotry. This is a losing issue for conservatives. Like inter-racial marriage before it, younger generations are more accepting and understanding than older generations. They're voting now and conservatives will not win any elections if they keep clinging to this dogma.
In response to:

We Are Not Equal

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Feb 20, 2015 10:46 AM
The concept that Mr. Bomberger states is valid. But what he tries to do with it is irrational and wrong. It's not wrong to say that there's a certain level of inequality amongst the human race. That's undeniable. Not everybody has the same skills. Not everyone has the same talents. And from a strictly biological standpoint, men and women are not equals. Some might dispute that, but biology says otherwise. However, Mr. Bomberger goes too far in attempting to apply this concept to other issues. With same-sex marriage, the issue comes down to the benefits and protections conferred by the state. Under the 14th and 5th Amendments, the government cannot give special preference to one group and not another without a compelling government interest. The fact that some people are disgusted or some people find it immoral is not a compelling government interest. Tastes change over time. Inter-racial marriage used to evoke the same disgust. It doesn't anymore. Same-sex marriage is no different in that it involves a group of people seeking the same benefits and protections that another group has. They're not changing the fundamental aspects of that group. They're just seeking the same recognition. That's a proper application of equality with respect to the law. Mr. Bomberger talks about "validating" a relationship. The state does not validate relationships. There's nothing in the constitution or marriage laws that validate relationships. It's about legal status and the benefits conferred as a result of that status. Under the constitution, that should be equal and a judge has the power to declare it as such. He then mentions relationships involving incest. These are not the same as same-sex relationships. It's a false equivocation and one that relies on an imaginary slippery slope argument. Regardless of whether same-sex marriage is legal, these relationships already exist. One is not related to the other. Nobody is being silenced because of these relationships. Nobody else's relationships are affected by them. The only difference is that the Mr. Bombergers of the world can't use the law to discriminate against minorities.
In response to:

Fifty Shades of Sickness

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Feb 20, 2015 8:51 AM
The Passion of the Christ was controversial for a very different reason than 50 Shades of Grey. I don't think it's fair to compare the two. One deals with bloody violence with religious overtones. The other one deals with a certain brand of sexuality that make some people uncomfortable. In a free society, controversy is permitted. Now I don't agree with the critics of the Passion of the Christ. I think Gibson's emphasis on the brutality of what happened to Christ was bold and a lot more accurate than some of the other portrayals. Realism in movies should count for something. By comparison, 50 Shades of Grey is hardly the most violent or the most sexual. There are far more extreme materials out there and there have been since movies were invented. The only difference is that 50 Shades of Grey has found success.
Please look up the scientific definition of the word theory. According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the definition is, "A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." It's because of that definition that we still call gravity a theory. Quantum mechanics and germ-caused disease are also theories as well. The concept of the Earth revolving around the sun is a theory too. Evolution is a theory in that same mold. If you fail to even understand the definition of a word, how can you claim to understand it enough to reject it?
What evidence are you talking about? Evolution has gone through a gambit of scientific tests over the decades and it has passed every one of them. Evolution is consistent with biology, paleontology, genetics, comparative morphology, and taxonomy. Creationists claims have been debunked time and again and it doesn't help that the Ken Ham's of the world continue using these claims. Evolution is one of the most robust theories in science and if you're getting your evidence from creationists or psuedo-creationists, then you're not utilizing real science.
I think Walker made a mistake in answering such a loaded question. One of the most popular and often effective criticisms of conservatives is that they're anti-science. Even if conservatives are competent, compassionate, and intelligent, they can come off as foolish by not accepting evolution. I think it sends an important message to voters. It says that if someone is not willing to accept a concept that has a massive body of evidence supporting it, then they might not be fit for public office. By not answering the question, Walker basically gave the media all they needed to paint him as an anti-science zealot who thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old. Even if that isn't true, that's the perception and that's all the media needs to smear someone these days.
You're right. You can't fit billions of years into the biblical record. That's a clear sign that the bible is full of things that are wrong. That shouldn't surprise anyone. The bible is a book written by ancient pre-modern men. They had no understanding of the age of the Earth, the age of the universe, and where disease comes from. That's why believing it over the evidence is completely without merit. You can believe in God and accept evolution. God doesn't require that an ancient book be literally true. God just requires faith. If you're so insecure that you cannot accept a reality where your preferred holy book is literally true, then what does that say about your faith? Do you worship God or do you worship a book?
Do you know the scientific definition of a theory? If you did, then you would understand why your statement is flawed. Gravity is a theory. Quantum mechanics is a theory. Germ theory is a theory. And evolution is a theory in the same mold.
Previous 11 - 20 Next