By 9? 
It is simple: evangelical and conservative Christians, Muslims and Jews are now totally, probably permanently, pissed off by militant atheists and atheism. The more you insult them and their beliefs, the more persecuted they will feel, and the more obligated they will fight back even more harshly any legal way they can.
The election of Bush is just the beginning of their wrath.
Oh, my, yes. Those vast armies of American atheists who will certainly outnumber and subjugate the poor, trembling minority of traditional religionists hiding in the shadowed darkness of their few poor refuges…
:rolleyes:
The problem is that their idea of “persecution” is “anything less than a theocracy devoted to my beliefs.”
An interesting facet of American life that I don’t think is as true in other countries is that people who might not necessarily describe themselves as religious, who consider themselves “lapsed” churchgoers or even agnostics or atheists will often have a church wedding. Of course, many do not, but many do, for various reasons: your parents want one, that’s what you see a “wedding” as, etc, etc, etc. Religion in America is often more complex than I think many people from other places really realize. People often tend to go back to the church for marriages and funerals even if they’ve purposefully not darkened the door in thirty years.
Personally, I’m an agnostic who was raised Presbyterian, and my family is very religious. If I ever get married, it will probably be a church wedding, albeit with a little less “god” in it than some might have. My family has many friends in the church who have known me since I was a fetus, I have a close relationship with our old pastor (although I haven’t seen him in church for ten years), etc. And I probably won’t be able to get him to take the “god” entirely out of the ceremony, and while intellectually I think that ought to bother me it really dosen’t - I suppose because my idea of what a wedding should be like is the old “we are gathered together” ritual.
I really do think opposition to gay marriage comes from fear of change, because I can’t come up with another reason for it. The guy I’m currently seeing seems quite open-minded, has no problem with my gay friends, etc, etc, etc - he seemed entirely “like us”, I guess. And then out of nowhere he comes up with “I’ve got nothin’ against gay people and civil unions and all but I think marriage should be between a man and a woman.” And the only explanation I can think of for that sort of thing is that people are scared of change. A lot of people are like that, I think - he’s only nominally religious if you ask him, and I don’t get the feeling that’s really what made him say that. It isn’t just the people who really think there’s a religious issue with it - it’s the ordinary “culturally Christian” people whose “marriage tradition” is one way, and they’re afraid of changing it.
Yeah, because people are either completely secular, or they want a theocracy. There is nothing inbetween. :rolleyes:
The issue with gay marriage for many, both religious and non-, is that of the word. Many believe that the word “marriage” itself refers, by definition, to a man and a woman. Many are in favor of some sort of “union” that would grant same sex couples the same rights as married couples (but a different word for it).
The issue, for them, is as if there was a movement to rename anything with wheels a car. Just because something has wheels does not make it a car, but tht doesn’t mean that such a thing should not exist. It should just have different name.
Hoping I answered your querry,
Regallag the Axe
Hey, if they’re loony enough to consider themselves “persecuted” in the United States, they’re loony enough to believe in such a dichotomy.
John and Rjung, can we stop playing “I can be more sarcastically extreme than you.”
In point of fact, there are a few [insert a plural noun acceptable to Gaudere here; the ones I’d use would not be] who do wish to institute an American theocracy – the Christian Reconstructionists discussed in another recent thread.
However, what Rjung said was an exaggeration of a fact-based concept. There are decent people who would be quick to help a flooded-out neighbor, give to the 9/11 victims, reach out in compassion, etc., who are nonetheless convinced that their certitude about God and what He expects of them gives them the authority to institute laws compelling people to do what He commands, as they understand those commandments. The school prayer issue is not seen as a county school superintendent enforcing his beliefs on all the kids in his school system, but rather as “the atheists trying to force God out of schools.” The gay marriage issue is seen as “the subversion of the institution of marriage by trying to redefine it to publicly condone sexual perversion.” And so on.
I really think that anyone who has not been exposed to this frame of mind will have a hard time grasping how someone can reasonably hold it. But they are not slack-jawed stereotypes; they’re real people who claim to be loyal to America and the Constitution, have decent hearts, and are certain of the rightness of the laws they want to see in place “to protect Christianity from those trying to destroy it.”
Of course there are pepple loony enough to want a theocracy-- here and in other countries as well. But it does no good in a serious discussion to lump all deeply religious people in that category, unless all you want to do is insult them. What point were you actually trying to make, exactly? Why make a claim in GD that “evangelical and conservative Christians, Muslims and Jews” all want to impose a theocracy on the US? I’d seriously like to know.
rjung, may I make that my tagline?
Help yourself.
(And anyone who thinks Christians are “persecuted” in the United States these days is welcome to hie down to the nearest Mega-Ultraplex-Shopping-Mall this month and see for themselves just how much persecution is goin’ on… 
)
What Regallag_The_Axe said. There is a difference between reinventing the institution of marriage and wanting to intervene in someone’s private relationship. They are not mutually inclusive. Civil unions carry a greater acceptance among both religious and non-religious groups (more so with non-religious groups).
I’m not sure why non-Americans find our legal machinations interesting or relevant. Maybe the changes we face in law will have a mellowing affect on societies where there is no tolerance for homosexual relationships (in whatever countries those societies exist).
So what, you think we should avoid criticizing the mentalfundalists so they don’t elect bad leaders out of spite? Since they aren’t interested in engaging with reasonable society to begin with, how do you propose that we address them?
I think we call them the ‘red states’ now.
And anyone who thinks Christians are not persecuted in the US should go down to the nearest school and mention the word “God” in a sentence. Christians suffer the lion’s-share of persecution for an interpretation of the constitution that even Caesar would find amazing.
And no, I don’t hold myself to a particular religion.
I don’t recall any “blue state” candidates endorsing a change in the definition of marriage. So your statement should read “the majority of US Citizens”. Which would also be in error when addressing civil unions. Which was my point.
IAUSNRH*, and I also don’t understand where you came up with this. I have plenty of atheist and non-Christian friends (I’m an atheist myself), and they’re all totally pro-SSM. And for that matter, so are my Christian friends.
*I’m a US non-religious hetero
Saying you’re not religious does not make this statement any less absurd. Prejudice against god in schools, if we make a gigantic leap for a moment and assume it exists, which it doesn’t, is not the same as persecution against a particular group of people who believe in god. A minority can’t persecute a majority when the majority is running the country.
Could you please explain this to the US Supreme Court. Nowhere in any document does it elude to the mere mention of God as a defacto state sponsored indoctrination. However, due to court rulings it is now unlawful for a Valedictorian to thank God for his or her success in school.
And I didn’t say I wasn’t religious, I said I don’t hold to a particular religion.
yeah, whatever. I do presentations at elementary schools, and I’ve had teachers thank me by saying, “God bless you for what you do!”
Your point?
Daniel