Hi Randy.
No, I don’t hate every group that lobbies for what it wants. After all, that’s just the way things work. And I agree with you about the leaders and lawmakers getting in bed together. Also, I have no problem with Christians that isn’t applied to EVERY religion, the religiously-oriented country I’m living in is Islamic. As far as Christians being happy with the present separation of church and state, I have a different perspective on that due to several comments about the US being a “God-less” country. To me, this implies a desire to chanage that.
I believe (yes, I realize it’s a BELIEF.S) that most religious leaders, regardless of their faith, desire power and will try to gain it in any way possible. I don’t consider a religious leader to be a monster, just a guy that likes to run things. The problem with someone running a government on a religious basis is that he has, or can manufacture, a religious justification for nearly anything he wishes to do. After all, if he is sincerely religious, he is enjoined to spread the “Word,” and what better way of doing that than establishing a church someone HAS to belong to and a lifestyle he or she HAS to publicly support?
An extremely religious leader, a “Fundy,” would change laws in ways that I consider highly intrusive and would have not only the here-after to threaten me with, but the here-and-now as well.
As I mentioned, I’ve seen first-hand what religious dictatorships can be, and I have very little faith that Christian-led governments would be any more tolerant or fair.
Actually, in the scientific community (where they like to mess around with facts and things) the heated debates of Darwinism died in the triumph of Neo-Darwinism (made viable with the recently-at-that-time understanding of genetics) over 70 years ago. In the ensuing period, the debates regarding Darwin’s theory have fallen into one of two categories:
a) people who debate the finer points of the events while accepting the obvious truth of the process (E.G., Gradualism vs Punctuated Equilibrium)
and
b) people who struggle with Darwin’s solution as a matter of belief and attempt to construct alternative solutions to their stumbling blocks (E.G., “Intelligent Design” supporters–who have provided interesting arguments, but have provided no information to actually challenge Darwin’s Theory). (Some of these folks actually accept Darwin “to a point,” then can’t get past some aspect of their perception of the Theory. It is not a hotly debated topic, however, within scientific circles.)
Okay. I’ll put it on the list, but in another Thread I started, a Poster already asked me to do a brief write-up on the complex ocellus of the Agriolimax reticulatus. I’ll jump on that gravity thing, first thing after that one though.
Anyhow, if this is turned into a theory of Evo. debate, you won’t mind if I slide out, will you?
Actually I will, since you brought it up. It will demonstrate that you feel comfortable making assertions you can’t defend about topics you don’t understand. Not a good track record to establish in GD.
Wow. A rant of mine in the pit spawns a GD and I didn’t even realize it until now.
I suppose I will have to admit to a prejudice of mine. After all, while I feel I didn’t bash Christianity as a whole, I did bash someone. My prejudice is against those who feel they know all the answers to life’s great questions. It drives me nuts. The religion or the belief don’t really enter into it. A new religion dedicated to the belief that a big orange spotted dinosaur named Genima could sprout up tomorrow and their “I will live forever cause I love Genima” bumper stickers would irritate me too. But that doesn’t mean I feel they don’t have the right to say such things. I just feel I should have the right to be annoyed by it.
I think betenoir stated quite well what my post was really about.
Christian fundies tend to raise my annoyance level most often because they are one of the most numerous groups in the US of those who believe that they have all the answers and you don’t so nyah nyah. The core values of Christianity certainly are not what offends me.
Addressing the OP is bashing Christian fundamentalism more tolerated in the US than other forms of prejudice? I don’t believe so. Few public officials are willing to cross them. Even in this forum there certainly is a an inclination to dive in and protect the belief in Christianity should it be attacked. Meanwhile the public figures of Christian fundamentalism seem to have no problem denouncing homosexuals and others. It’s hard to take seriously calls that one group is under unfair prejudical attack while that group is making similar attacks against others.
Public figures can appeal be successful by appealing to a narrow constituency that agrees with them. Public officials must take into account the reaction of those who do not share their views. This will tend to temper their statements.
A Farrakhan or a Robertson (not to equate the two) is not overly concerned with the fact that a large portion of the electorate finds him abhorrent - he is preaching to a large constituency that wants to hear someone “tell it like it is”. Either of these men would have a hard time getting elected.
So you’re position is that because public officials must appeal to a large audience that public figures it is unfair to create them. Ok.
Revised statement: The OP is incorrect because few elected officials are willing to cross fundamentalist beliefs and allow gays full rights in marriage or the military. The prejudice against homesexuals still, in legally allowed rights, outweighs any that may exist against Christian fundamentalism.
Sorry. I went away for the weekend so I couldn’t respond sooner.
pldennison, you have a couple things wrong here.
I never “brought it up”. Screwtape did and I tried to ignore it the first time till he remarked that I hadn’t addressed any of his comments. Believe me, I immediately regretted acknowledging it, but I stand by the FACT that although SOME members of the Scientific Community now regard it as a Fact, it is not 100% accepted. Now, we could both put up different links to different sites to “prove our point” on the subject FOREVER, but why? In the end we wouldn’t convince each other of anything. (I was just at “askjeeves”, and there’s plenty of debate, even on that one site!) If you scroll up, you will see that I admitted that many people here are more “educated” on the subject than I am. So, I have this sneaking suspicion that you know quite a bit on the subject and you want alot of people to know that you know alot, OR, you are trying to make a fool of me, or maybe a little of both. What do you want?
I wasn’t trying to establish a “track record in GD”.
As a matter of fact, I originally posted this in IMHO, the moderator moved it here to GD, and my OP had nothing to do with Evolutionism at all. If you will look at the OP, it was my humble opinion that you could say most anything you want to about Christianity here, and no one would notice.
Anyway, that’s it for me on Evolution. Please, start a Thread on Evo., if you want to debate it.
So far as to the OP, there’s been three or four posters who have said yes, they bash Christians because they deserve it, more or less. The point of the OP was eloquently proven by Freedom2, and some have said that any group is up for ridicule. It has been fun to read EVERYONES opinion. So, thanks to everyone who bothered to respond (except pldennison, heheh. [just kidding]).