I would have been more than happy to, but until you responded, I had no reason to assume I wasn’t wasting my time by articulating it. I’m pretty sure I wasn’t the only one that felt that way about your post.
Now then, here is your post that I objected to:
You seem to be suggesting that anyone who thinks there is a God is ignorant. Forgive me for judging, but that strikes me as not only ignorant, but wrong. And I don’t mean that anyone who doesn’t believe in God is wrong, I mean that anyone who thinks that people who believe in God are ignorant, is wrong.
Maybe. Or maybe he’s decided that it’s politically useful to have people think that he’s a Christian. There’s no way that we can tell what the real religious beliefs of politicians are. For that matter, Bush never even talks in interviews or press conferences in any specific matter about the doctrines of Christianity, nor does he quote the Bible, nor does he quote any other Christian source. We know nothing about Bush’s sincerity nor his level of knowledgeability about Christianity.
You’re going to say, “Yes, but at least he claims to be a Christian. Isn’t that something?” You’re going to find this hard to believe, but there are a lot of people who don’t think that proclaiming oneself to be a Christian in political speeches is a proper way to show people what your policies are going to be. For many people, it’s slightly offensive, just as some people find “flagwaving” (making a big deal about showing the flag as an illustration of your patriotism) slightly offensive. Their reaction to these sorts of people is “Why do you keep proclaiming how Christian you are? Why do you keep proclaiming how patriotic you are? Why not just show it by your actions?”
There are a lot of people who think that the way to show either that one is a Christian or that one is patriotic is to do Christian things, not to constantly proclaim how pure one’s beliefs are.
No, Bush is a Christian. We know of his life before he ran for office. He had a problem with alcohol. He saw it destroying his family and he accepted Jesus into his heart. (The story isn’t that simple but it will do.) And I think he does show it.
> There are a lot of people who think that the way to show either that one is a
> Christian or that one is patriotic is to do Christian things, not to constantly
> proclaim how pure one’s beliefs are.
I meant:
> There are a lot of people who think that the way to show either that one is a
> Christian or that one is patriotic is to do Christian things or to do patriotic
> things, respectively, not to constantly proclaim how pure one’s beliefs are.
prisoner6655321 writes:
> We know of his life before he ran for office. He had a problem with alcohol. He
> saw it destroying his family and he accepted Jesus into his heart.
Some atheists have been alcoholics who have given it up without changing the fact that they were atheists. Being able to turn away from alcoholism isn’t by itself proof of one’s Christian beliefs. Besides, when I vote for a President, the main thing I look for isn’t whether that person was able to give up drinking or quit using drugs or quit being an adulterer or quit gambling or any other personal sins. The main thing I look is what policies they will try to enact. There are a couple of reasons why choosing people according to what sins they have given up is not a good idea. First, they may relapse. Indeed, the chances that a former alcoholic, a former drug addict, a former adulterer, a former gambler, etc. may relapse are greater than the chances that someone who has never been one of things will take it up. Second, should I not vote for someone because they have never been an alcoholic, a drug addict, an adulterer, a gambler, etc.? All that may prove is that they have never been tempted to that sin. That doesn’t seem to be a reason to vote for or against that person.
See, it’s not about society becoming increasingly intolerant of religion(read Christianity). It’s about Christians and their frustration regarding America not being now or ever a Christian state. They would insist that it’s okay to play Christian music in the office but bet your bottom dollar they’d hem and haw if you tried to play say Buddhist spiritual music. Much less “secular” fare.
The place where I take my dry cleaning often has sappy, worthless religious music on. I can’t see how it would be my place to get “offended” by it. If they were ever to have something on that really offended me, say an audio book by Ann Coulter, I would just go take my business elsewhere.
No, it’s not Christians and their frustration regarding America not being now or ever in a Christian state. It’s about America not being tolerant towards Christianity or religion in general. When a family can’t put a cross on the highway where their child was killed in an accident, then I can accurately say that the US is being intolerant of religion. And I’d be right.
In your example, I might not like the Buddhist spiritual music (Or I might. I don’t know. Can’t say as I’ve ever heard it before.) but it would be out of musical taste. I wouldn’t feel like my rights were being trampled on. I wouldn’t ask them to turn it off because I felt that they were trying to convert me or anything. The issue IS about society becoming increasingly intolerant of religion, which it is.
(And I didn’t confuse the word religion for the word Christianity and vice-versa in the OP nor the subsequent posts. I was very careful to not say one when I meant the other.)
Since Roman Catholics alone constitute a majority of the world’s Christians, and almost a super majority when you lump them in with the Orthodox and the Anglicans, I’d figure “progressive non-denominational churches that sing contemporary praise music” amount to a bit more than a rounding error when compared to Christianity as a whole.
That’s an absurd definition which makes discussion impossible. You say that the music is atheist, than you say that it is anti-religion, so are you saying that any music that is not specifically religious is in fact anti-religious? That’s so untenable that I can’t imagine that you would believe such a thing.
Most music doesn’t advocate anything. Just because a song is about something doesn’t mean the song encourages something.
The man is petulant, rude, dismissive of others and obstinate in his own ignorance. He mocked a woman who was on death row mercilessly. He has led a hateful, bigoted, evil crusade against America’s homosexuals. He rushed into war without properly preparing our soldiers. He has allowed torture of prisoners to occur, and had his pet lawyer write a memo justifying it. He has given massive help to the richest and done little to aid the poorest, and has through policy decisions in fact made the lives of our nation’s poor much, much harder.
The man fits no definition of the term “Christian” that I recognize.
Well, that was as specific response to one person’s argument. It was a hijack actually. The OP isn’t about the difference between or the definitions of “atheist” music or anti-Christian music. It’s about two people being offended by different kinds of music. One type of music happened to be Christian, so the offense prompted the “opposite”, music that was known to be “offensive” to some Christians.
So a song with the chorus “Holy is the Lord, God Almighty,” doesn’t encourage God worship?
My point prisoner66double5321 is that if a family can’t display a cross on a public road, then some other family can’t display a star of David either or any other religious icon… It’s about separation of church and state. And further I sincerely believe(ex-Christian here) that some Christians think they know the absolute truth and the whole country needs to come around to their way of thinking. That’s where I see the intolerance.
