RBB, Why didn't you as a parent take your child out of that school or press charges against the school after the arm breaking incident, etc.? Seven years is a long time to allow someone to wallow in anguish.

Believer, "lsp, then I take it you would be in agreement with not allowing some groups to use these anti-bullying programs as an opportunity to push their agenda on students??" No, I support forcing tolerance towards homosexuality in public institutions as I believe a secular government with secular ideals is more reasonable for the U.S. than a government based on religious morals. Please s...more

Believer,

"lsp, then I take it you would be in agreement with not allowing some groups to use these anti-bullying programs as an opportunity to push their agenda on students??"

No, I support forcing tolerance towards homosexuality in public institutions as I believe a secular government with secular ideals is more reasonable for the U.S. than a government based on religious morals. Please see my response to Prophet for more detail.less

Prophet, "You'd think that someone with the screen name of Logicshouldprevail would be more logical, and realize that." Why make the assumption that because I didn't say what you wanted me to say outright that I therefore didn't realize this point? I certainly did, and I just didn't want to write out a lengthy initial response fraught with anticipatory arguments from opponents such as your...more

Prophet,

"You'd think that someone with the screen name of Logicshouldprevail would be more logical, and realize that."

Why make the assumption that because I didn't say what you wanted me to say outright that I therefore didn't realize this point? I certainly did, and I just didn't want to write out a lengthy initial response fraught with anticipatory arguments from opponents such as yourself.

Now that you've brought up the claim that "And it's only morally accepted based on your definition of morals," let's discuss it.

1. Yes, according to Fundamental Christianity/other sects of Christianity who take the language in the Bible to be literal and absolute (and who also read this language without regard to changing definitions, changing cultural conceptions of what a homosexual relationship is, etc.) homosexuality is considered immoral by biblical standards.

2. According to a secular word view, homosexuality isn't immoral in itself as disregarding religious viewpoints, the lifestyle itself doesn't hurt anyone.

3. Based on this, you and I have different worldviews from which we garner our definition of morality.

4. So, the question becomes whose worldview is more reasonable to: (a) believe as true and (b) enforce upon society?

5. Truth: I'd argue in light of the vague evidence of supernatural activity, it's more reasonable to believe in a secular, agnostic world view. I mean, let's face it, we don't even know whether any God, let along the Christian God, exists. How can one be expected to unequivocally follow the morality of a God based on these circumstances? Now if this God descended from the clouds, and performed objectively observable miraculous acts, we'd have a different story. At present, all we have is second hand biblical accounts and vague subjective personal testimonies. Not enough, I say, and it's cruel to expect people to fundamentally alter their lives based on such vagueness.

6. Enforcing on society: In light of #5, and in light of the history of what's happened when religious-based viewpoints without accompanying secular interests (i.e. blasphemy laws for example) are merged with government, I'd argue it's more reasonable for the U.S. to be a secular nation, based on secular values, while allowing individuals the right to worship and believe the way they want in private.

7. I don't think there's any legitimate secular interest for banning gay marriage, labeling homosexuality a sin, etc.

8. Thus, I'd argue that while religious proponents can believe the way they want, a policy endorsing tolerance towards gays is better for our national and state governments.less

You operate on the presupposition that Christianity is true. If you look at things from a different point of view, Hitchens is showing love. He's doing this by presenting an opinion which he believes is true. In his mind, informing people of what he believes is the truth is quite consistent with love.

"I mean isn’t that all that this new bill is about anyway? Getting straight kids to accept gay kids deathstyle? Forcing them to think gay is ok when it is perversion, immorality, mental illness, sin?" It's only a sin based on your definition of sin. To make matters of worse, your whole world view depends upon the definition of morality defined by a God which you can't even prove really exist...more

"I mean isn’t that all that this new bill is about anyway? Getting straight kids to accept gay kids deathstyle? Forcing them to think gay is ok when it is perversion, immorality, mental illness, sin?"

It's only a sin based on your definition of sin. To make matters of worse, your whole world view depends upon the definition of morality defined by a God which you can't even prove really exists.

" When you remove morals from a society, you lose the basis for punishment of evil – then anything goes, and I mean ANYTHING. Legislators listen, I’m talkin to you next – you are helping NO ONE. You are sticking your dagger deeper into the heart of this nation, "

And when you force mutually exclusive religiously based definitions of morality on a religiously diverse society you end up with persecutions and religious squabbling. As a result, I argue if there isn't a strong secular basis for a law, it shouldn't become policy. You're free to believe whatever you want, but stop trying to shove you're mutually exclusive, world view on others.less

One of the reasons why American conservative Christians aren't at this level yet is because we've got separation of church and state preventing them from beginning the slippery slope downwards. However, if you look at Christian-based governments in the middle ages, heretics were tortured and killed, and non-believers were forced into ghettos and exiled from many countries such as England and Spai...more

One of the reasons why American conservative Christians aren't at this level yet is because we've got separation of church and state preventing them from beginning the slippery slope downwards. However, if you look at Christian-based governments in the middle ages, heretics were tortured and killed, and non-believers were forced into ghettos and exiled from many countries such as England and Spain. Religion should be a private matter, plain and simple. Keep the government out of it.

As former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Black said: the "first and most immediate purpose [of the Establishment Clause] rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion."less

Ketch, Correct. Please see my response to my post above, as I address your response there.

Ketch, I get what you're saying. Those who use the Bible to justify actions for killing, maiming, or hurting others are taking it out of context. As a former Christian, I'm inclined to agree with you. However, I'd argue that taking the bible/other religious writings out of context inevitably happens when you allow a political system to incorporate religious-based concepts into governmen...more

Ketch,

I get what you're saying. Those who use the Bible to justify actions for killing, maiming, or hurting others are taking it out of context. As a former Christian, I'm inclined to agree with you.

However, I'd argue that taking the bible/other religious writings out of context inevitably happens when you allow a political system to incorporate religious-based concepts into government. As you can't guarantee everyone in power is a genuine believer, you'll wind up with politicians inevitably taking the bible out of context to satisfy their own agenda. As such, I believe its best to have separation of church and state to prevent this evil from occurring.less

DP, It certainly does. And, because it's a secular concept as well which can be embraced apart from religion, it can be incorporated into a public school setting. On the other hand, blasphemy laws are rooted only in religious conviction and thus have no place in a civilized, caring society.

In the middle ages, Christians butchered Jews, burning them alive if they refused to convert. Read up on the Maintz incident in 1096. When left to their devices, religious extremists will turn a country to a "Lord of the Flies" camp ground.

The facts of this case prove beyond a shadow of a doubt why religious-based viewpoints have no place in governing a country. Unless a law or policy has some type of secular basis, it should not be policy. If Pakistan had heeded this advice, this woman wouldn't have rotted in jail for a year merely for insulting a fictionalized prophet. Religion should be a private matter, left to individuals an...more

The facts of this case prove beyond a shadow of a doubt why religious-based viewpoints have no place in governing a country. Unless a law or policy has some type of secular basis, it should not be policy. If Pakistan had heeded this advice, this woman wouldn't have rotted in jail for a year merely for insulting a fictionalized prophet. Religion should be a private matter, left to individuals and should have no place in a governing society.

Biblical proof for this? Okay, the fact that Christianity is defined in the New Testament as an individual relationship with Jesus Christ, not a relationship with the world. The fact the New Testament explains that once someone becomes a Christian they are the bride of Christ, not of the world's. The fact that the world and Christianity are considered to be opposites in scripture. Based on this, the world and Christianity should go separate ways.less

Logically, religion requires some type of positive affirmation/creed, which by implication includes a negation of other inconsistent ideals (i.e. Christianity positively asserts that Christ is the only God, and this implies that other Gods/ways are false) . In contrast, in terms of supernatural thought, secular humanism teaches that the only "creed" is that there is no set creed and that we c...more

Logically, religion requires some type of positive affirmation/creed, which by implication includes a negation of other inconsistent ideals (i.e. Christianity positively asserts that Christ is the only God, and this implies that other Gods/ways are false) .

In contrast, in terms of supernatural thought, secular humanism teaches that the only "creed" is that there is no set creed and that we cannot really know the truth (i.e. the only truth is that there isn't a set truth we can discover).

Based on this, secular humanists are espousing a negative (i.e. we cannot know the truth) which results in a positive (the truth is that there is no truth). This is the opposite of religion, which as I explained above is defined in relation to positives.less

I'll argue that secular humanism as a philosophy is the opposite of religion. Religion, by definition, in the context of what Christianity is, requires some type of positive, by-faith position on some type of specific supernatural activity. In contrast, secular humanists believe that the evidence proffered for supernaturalism is weak and that therefore naturalism is the way to go. Based on this...more

I'll argue that secular humanism as a philosophy is the opposite of religion. Religion, by definition, in the context of what Christianity is, requires some type of positive, by-faith position on some type of specific supernatural activity. In contrast, secular humanists believe that the evidence proffered for supernaturalism is weak and that therefore naturalism is the way to go. Based on this, secular humanism doesn't qualify as a religion and indeed is the opposite of religion.less

andyyax, There was no indication that were being jocular in your original post. You seemed serious in your criticism as you didn't have any "lol's" or other internet lingo to suggest otherwise. Based on this, my inference is justified. Anyhow, I'm done talking to you. You annoy me.

DP, That's because proposal 8 was a state constitutional matter. State constitutions have to answer to the Federal Constitution legally. What I'm saying, is that the people ultimately have the final say as they can amend the federal constitutional if need be.

andyyax, Are you autistic or something? From my context, it is quite clear that I, feeling sorry for the woman, was angry at her country and was simply venting. Seeing as I'm a private citizen and don't own military weapons, I think its quite obvious that I wasn't intending this to be serious. Sigh . . .

lpepperw, Seeing as I probably understand the tenants, history, and scripture of your faith better than you do, I will claim as an unbeliever that I do think I know how Christians should be. Have you even read 1 Cor 13 or you too busy judging, dividing, and condemning to care? That's my 3 cents on this topic, but it probably went WAY over your head.

DP, Can you provide me with a secular, non religiously based source which is current and up to date which states that gays can become straight? At present, the APA, a secular, mainstream organization has determined that conversion therapy doesn't work. In my opinion, this settles the matter, regardless of whether homosexuality is a biological or early environmental trait.

lpepperw, That doesn't sound like a Christian response to me. Haven't you read 1 Cor 13, or are you like most professing Christians who take what their pastor says as gospel while remaining biblically illiterate?

DP, I agree the people have the ultimate say in our government. However, the process necessary to exercise this differs depending on the circumstances. For example, the people have the right to elect the President, and that president nominates Supreme Court justices. Arguably, one could claim that those judges do reflect the will of the people, seeing as the President (who was elected b...more

DP,

I agree the people have the ultimate say in our government. However, the process necessary to exercise this differs depending on the circumstances.

For example, the people have the right to elect the President, and that president nominates Supreme Court justices. Arguably, one could claim that those judges do reflect the will of the people, seeing as the President (who was elected by the people) nominated them.

Also, if the Supreme Court takes an action that is inconsistent with the people, the people can always amend the constitution, and reverse the judicial policy.

This brings up a question however. Do the majority of Americans want Christianity involved with our national and state governments? Quite frankly, I think separation of church and state and the implementation of secularism is better than where people can be punished under blasphemy laws.less