Re: re: Disurbing article Christie

[Guest guest]

<<The Constitution was not written by Christians.

Christie, You are grossly incorrect. Whether you like it or not - this country

was founded by and about Christians - Protestant Christians to be more specific.

Each colony had its particular protestant church - many settlers to those

colonies came seeking religious freedom - to believe as they chose because they

did not have that in Europe. It certainly was not the only driving force but it

was a very major one and to try to negate that is to create nothing but lie.

You cannot separate or negate the Protestant Reformation from the initial

settlement of this country and the resulting Constitution that was written.

Whether they were good Christians or bad ones, whether God even exists, is not

the point. They were most all extremely religious people and the society they

created was in respect and reflective of their beliefs. To unite the colonies,

they had to acknowledge freedom of religion - the various churches had to be

separated from the government because unification of the colonies would not have

been possible otherwise. Sure there were a few writers of the Constitution but

what they wrote had to be representative and acceptable to all - not simply

their own individual ideas or one particular protestant church. But that

Constitution was and is still based on Judeo/Christian ideology - not Islamic,

not Buddist, not humanistic. The whole concept of individual rights is Judeo

Christian. The concept of free will - freedom to choose whether we are gay or

not - is Judeo Christian. Whether Jefferson or any of them where at points in

their lives of challenging and questioning the existance of God does not

disprove that. Plus, you are taking Jefferson's writings out of context of the

times when the Catholic and Anglican Churches and government were mutually one

and the same and had ruled dictorially over Europe. Their idea was not to

suppress religion - to knock it or prevent its existance. It was to get the

organized church out of the government allowing people to practice Christianity

as they chose through various interpretations - a major reason people had come

to this country in the first place. This was contrary to Europe where people

were forbidden from thinking or worshipping differently than the Catholic Church

dictated. Their writings reflect what was going on at that time with the Church

which is not at all what goes on today. I don't want to follow the

transgression from the subject of homosexual rights to Christianity or the

founding of this country. My point was that you knock the church and Christians,

but you use their values, beliefs, and creations to justify doing what you do

and getting the " rights " you want.

<Because I WANT IT. You have it, I want it too. It's really that simple.

I completely agree that it is that simple. That is what irritates me about this

issue. It is not really about the sexuality. It is not really about " rights " .

It is not really about discrimination. It is really not about second class

citizenship.

It is really about a minority who wants a " priveledge " granted to them and uses

all kinds of pathethic smoke screens to manipulate and get what they " simply

want " . This is not the first time. I use to be sympathetic with your cause, I

am not any more. You want " rights " and you want respect for your way of life?

Then give the same back to others who are different from you.

Re: re: Disurbing article

>> We've been raised to believe rights are God given only because that

Constitution was written by Christians and based on Judeo/Christian ideology

that states so. <<

The Constitution was not written by Christians.

>> I don't always like majority rule but it works better than minority rule

which is the one thing going in this issue that I don't like. <<

That's why in the United States we (supposedly) don't really have either. We

are SUPPOSED TO have the rule of law instead of the tyranny of either the

minority OR the majority.

>> Marraige has for 1000's of years represented the permanent joining of a man

and woman with the intent of producing offspring. <<

That's fine. If you will agree that infertile people cannot marry, I'll stop

demanding gay marriage. But last time I looked, menopausal women, and men who'd

had vasectomies, were still allowed to marry in this country and have a legally

identical marriage to one entered into by the most fecund bimbo and her horny

boyfriend.

>> What gives anyone - especially a minority group of people - the right to

change that definition and make it applicable to other different situations that

suit only them? <<

>> We've been raised to believe rights are God given only because that

Constitution was written by Christians and based on Judeo/Christian ideology

that states so. <<

The Constitution was not written by Christians.

I'm sure you realize that this same argument not only could be but WAS made

about recognizing black people and women as citizens? The whole argument. The

majority vs minority part, the bible part, the whole thing.

Christie

[Guest guest]

At 08:58 AM 2/15/2004, you wrote:

>It is really about a minority who wants a " priveledge " granted to them and

>uses all kinds of pathethic smoke screens to manipulate and get what they

> " simply want " . This is not the first time. I use to be sympathetic with

>your cause, I am not any more. You want " rights " and you want respect for

>your way of life? Then give the same back to others who are different

>from you.

mary -

whu?

in what way are gay people not respecting your rights and way of life? in

what way are they trying to impose anything at all on you? they're not

trying to do anything at all to you. if two heterosexual strangers down the

street get married, how does that affect you? if you pass by a church in a

town you're visiting and see it's decorated for a wedding, that wedding

doesn't affect you. what does it matter if the people inside are

heterosexual or homosexual? you wouldn't even know, just driving by. how

would it possibly have any effect on your life?

i just don't understand your bitterness.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/15/04 8:59:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> The whole concept of individual rights is Judeo Christian.

Not really. Utilitarianism and liberalism came out of atheist and agnostic

philosophy, from my understanding.

You can certainly frame individual rights from a Christian perspective, but

historically it has also been framed by several extremely influential

philosophers from a non-Christian perspective.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>It is really about a minority who wants a " priveledge " granted to them and uses

all kinds of pathethic smoke screens to manipulate and get what they " simply

want " . This is not the first time. I use to be sympathetic with your cause, I

am not any more. You want " rights " and you want respect for your way of life?

Then give the same back to others who are different from you.

>

>

, why is the fact that a group of people wants something

irritating to you? The fact two girls want to marry does

not impact YOUR rights at all, as near as I can tell, and it doesn't

damage either of them by any yardstick except the doctrine

of some (not all) churches. Christie isn't saying YOU can't

get married, but you are saying she can't.

As for " rights " being Judeo-Christian, I know the church teaches

that, but this is a somewhat revisionist view of history. The concept

of " rights " predates the church and is hardly exclusive to Christianity.

Europeans and Americans have obviously been

shaped a lot by Judeo-Christian culture, from the Middle ages,

but THAT was in turn built upon a culture that was built by

the Romans, Greeks, and Celts, which were in turn built upon

others. Shoot, look at the design of the White House -- it is

taken straight from Roman/Greek design. The folks who designed

our government were influenced by their church upbringing ...

and by Aristotle and Plato and the local Indian tribes. They had

toga parties and you might notice that they wrote stuff like

" E Pluribus Unim " in Latin.

And the Greeks and Romans DID have individual rights ...

the Greeks were a lot more democratic,

in fact, than our current system is. Our system of " republics "

is, I believe, built largely on the Roman system of senators etc.

It certainly wasn't based on the Anglican or Catholic heirarchy,

and is far more democratic than any church system (where

decisions are typically made by the leaders -- did the Catholics

get to vote on whether birth control was ok or not?).

Hmm. And the Greeks also weren't

exactly worshipful of heterosexuality either, and the Romans

tolerated lots of gods. Which might be why they don't get

mentioned much in church circles, except as persecutors.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

I was referring to our concepts of individual rights and those concepts that

influenced in the writing of the constitution which were Christian. Whether some

had read of other philosophers or not and been influenced, still would not

change the dominant value system that our system developed on.

Re: re: Disurbing article Christie

In a message dated 2/15/04 8:59:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> The whole concept of individual rights is Judeo Christian.

Not really. Utilitarianism and liberalism came out of atheist and agnostic

philosophy, from my understanding.

You can certainly frame individual rights from a Christian perspective, but

historically it has also been framed by several extremely influential

philosophers from a non-Christian perspective.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/15/04 3:12:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> I was referring to our concepts of individual rights and those concepts

> that influenced in the writing of the constitution which were Christian.

Whether

> some had read of other philosophers or not and been influenced, still would

> not change the dominant value system that our system developed on.

That's fine, but our Constitution was primarily influenced by liberalism,

which I think was derived from Enlightenment thought, not traditional Christian

thought. Locke was essentially the basis for the Declaration of Independence,

and, while Locke believed in God, I don't know whether he was a Christian, but

he was certainly a secularist.

Chris