Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

In regard to this thread I am honestly tring not to be religiously bigost. I have the upmost regard for human compassion as to a field of trying to be a better person. Religion can be the best thing in the world for oneself to live a good life. My only issue is when people force their religious beliefs on others. We live in a country suited for Christians: with God references in the pledge of allegence, "in God we Trust" written on dollar bills, and even school off on Christian holidays but not Jewish ones.

But sometimes it gets WAY too serious. This is most notably the Crusades, in which hundreds were massacred. Also, Indians were massacred in the 1800s when Americans thought it was their "manafest destiny" to come in and "kill the heathens". There are countless historical events involving religious persecution on others; even today. Christians will not let gays have the civil right to be wed, because they believe it is immoral. Don't you think that when religion gets interpersonal it goes a little too far?

_________________

171st POST ANNIVERSARY!!!

Indeed. When someone is more or less violating their own religion in the name of itself... then something's not quite right.

I would agree. Religious bigotry and such things as The Inquisition and Jihad are an abomination. However, let's keep in mind that it is highly unlikely that anyone on this forum are in any way involved in such things. We are involved in intellectual discussion in this forum, and not much more.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, that while I agree with you, I'm not sure what the purpose of this thread is.

As for the gay rights thing, we already have a thread for that and don't really need another.

_________________

I was expecting someone to say something along the lines of "it's important to spread religion to others a.k.a. convert". I purposely didn't put this into the gay marraige thread because it's not about gay marraige, but whether it's right to influence Christianity onto others.

_________________

171st POST ANNIVERSARY!!!

You didn't use the word "influence." You used the word "force." They are two entirely different and contradictory ways of accomplishing certain ends.

Influence I consider to be passive and entirely appropriate. In fact, the very fact that so many people of varying ideologies have posted on threads in this forum proves that EVERYONE is trying to influence others. Everytime Upsilon formulates an argument intending to prove God doesn't exist, he is trying to influence people to renounce God and become atheists. So if it is wrong to influence people into becoming Christians, then it is equally wrong to influence them not to be.

Force is something entirely different. To the best of my knowledge, no one in this country is putting a gun to your head and saying, "Convert or die!" Except maybe those Muslim terrorists who attacked NY and DC.

It is my sincere hope that you do not mean to equate our intellectual conversations on this forum with terrorism or an inquisition.

_________________

for one, its not right to force anything onto others, i know, ive tried.(But it wasnt religion), the ting is that people are trying to spread something that doesnt really matter in everyday life, i belive in the christian way, but not so much to go and get people to become christians, heck, i dont really even care. people can be whatever they want, and we shouldnt try to force them to be anything that we say they should. anyone can be whatever they want, and it's noones right to impose and tell them not to. wow, for once, im not rambling, wow, i should write a book, uhh ohh..... DARN IT!

_________________

Christians do have a biblical mandate to spread their teachings. Jesus tells us, "Go and make disciples of the nations by baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."

One does not make disciples by holding a gun to their head. This passage says that baptizing and teaching are the way to make disciples (i.e., Word and Sacrament). That is what I am called to, a ministry of Word and Sacrament, not a Jihad or Inquisition.

_________________

Influence and force are inter-related. Why is "God" on our money, an in our schools? Because there is mass Christian influence in our country. How would you feel if polytheism was the majority of Americans? "In Gods We Trust." "Under Gods." What if these polytheists were mostly homosexual and proclaimed that heterosexuality is wrong? What if you weren't allowed to marry?

My point is that Christians have no natural right to affect government simply because of what they consider moral. Influence leads to laws (force) which deny rights based on Christian beliefs.

_________________

171st POST ANNIVERSARY!!!

I think he's trying to say, in a nice way, he doesn't want to hear it. Not that I think he should say it, but thats probably what he means.

_________________

If we stopped forcing religion we could accomplish great things. Like when in Spain a long time ago Islamic people and Christian people co-existed and created such things as Algebra and had made great strides in Astronomy.

_________________

So basically you're trying to say you're upset because you feel Christians are trying to control the government. And that because the word "God" is printed on money and stuff. Would you feel better if we took all the "God" language off of our currency?

It's strange you should be upset by that, because most of the Christians I know feel like we are actually being undervalued and repressed by our government. Religion is a verboten topic in schools. Religious opinions are suppressed in our courts. While Christians are allowed to serve in juries and such, if the lawyers find out that it is a Christian who actually attends church regularly and takes his faith seriously, he'll get removed.

Let me tell you a story. When I worked for Office Depot, one of my coworkers asked me if I would ever cheat on my wife. I replied no, of course not. She pressed me, trying to get me to say I would if I felt unhappy about the relationship, but I stood by my statement that adultery is absolutely wrong, and that if a person is unhappy with a marriage, it does not give them the right to violate the marriage agreement. Anyway, ten minutes later, my bosses came to me and chewed me out for expressing religious beliefs. I answered to them that my coworker was the one who initiated the conversation and that all I did was reply truthfully, but they didn't want to hear it. My coworker could say whatever she wanted, but I couldn't because I was Christian.

Like it or not, Rick, Christians have just as much right to be politically active as anyone else does. You don't have the right to tell us we cannot participate in our government because of our religious faith. That is discrimination, you know. That is, if you are indeed proposing that we Christians be excluded from the public forum.

And as for the word "God" in our currency and such. The word is pretty much meaningless the way they use it, anyway. For all the "God" language in the Declaration of Independence, most people forget that Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian. For him, the term "God" was just a throw-away word, and that's pretty much how our government treats the word, anyway.

But even if our money said, "Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritu Sancto," it's still not the same as putting gun to your head or a sword to your neck. Just because our government expresses an idea does not mean you are being forced to accept it.

_________________

See, for some reason I think you took it a different way then he ment it.

I think what he means, and again I'm interpreting(sp), that no religion should have affect on our goverment. Not that Christians shouldn't and say, Jewish should, but rather beliefs and politics should be total seperate. I kind of agree, because if the two religions disagreed on an issue, neither religion should be picked above the other. If your Christian your obviously going to beleive that your veiw is right, and the same goes for the other side.

I also beleive that when your participate on a Homestar Runner forum, that religious and politcal differences should be left at the door. Someones not gonna like someone else veiw and its just going to cause trouble in the long run.

_________________

I'm not sure the poor would like that very much.

_________________

wait, what poor are we talking about?
on topic: god is a throwaway word to the government, i mean, god could mean any god of any religion.

_________________

JC said that religious and political differences should be left to the poor.

_________________

arrghh, that was horrible typo. I ment door.

Religions and politics left at the door.

and I said at the poor, not to the poor.

_________________

In my school, we get rosh hashana and yom kippur off. Those are really the most important Jewish holidays. We also have part of passover off. You were most likely referring to Hannukah. In the Jewish religion, Hannukah is actually not very important at all, really.


I don't even know why you stuck this in there. Manifest destiny had nothing to do with religion, except for one key thing. Americans believe that God wanted them to take the land all the way to the west. They didn't kill to spread the religion, they were just being selfish and wanted all of the land for themselves.


I totally agree with you. Religion should be an individual choice and should not govern over all society.

_________________

Actually, I was referring to Rosh Hashanna, Yom Kippur, and Passover. In my school district we don't have school off and they're not even acknowledged. I live in a very irish Catholic town.


I recommend reading James A. Mischner's Centennial. You'll find that many people believed it was because Indians were "heathens" that they had the right to kill them and take their land. Americans didn't realize that Indians had lived in America for centuries; they even suggested that these "red-bloods" were the lost tribe of Isrealites, denounced by God.

Didymus, I don't know why you keep misunderstanding my posts. I'll try to use better wordingthoughtness. Anyway, JumbleCaper said my thoughts better than I could have. I didn't mean that people shouldn't have governmental influence just because they were Christian. That's ridiculous. What I meant was that Christian ideas that are merely according to Christian morals (as opposed to non-christian) should not affect government: namely gay marraige.

The gay marraige law is force. Christians are forcing us not to get married because we don't fall into your image of "idealism". (Note: This encompasses more than gay marraige, like censorship.) These laws are simply Christian, with no other significant support.

_________________

171st POST ANNIVERSARY!!!

Thank you for clarifying that, Rick. It helps me to see where you're coming from. This isn't about Crusades or the printing of dollar bills.

I can see why you would be frustrated about this. If there were laws forbidding the practice of my faith, I would be just as upset about it. (Actually, there are some laws that are sometimes INTERPRETED as prohibiting the practice of my faith, leading to situations like that one I described at Office Depot).

But I don't think that we Christians are the only ones to blame about the current laws regarding same-sex marriage. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time in history anyone has ever suggested homosexual unions as marriage. Even in the ancient Roman and Greek cultures, where homosexuality were acceptible in the culture, I do not know if marriage between same-sex partners was even ever suggested. In other words, this is an issue with which even non-Christians struggle to understand.

I struggle with it myself. While not in favor of same-sex marriages myself, I did become good friends with a chaplain of another denomination who is married to her same-sex partner. I know what kind of pain this causes her, and it hurts me, too.

Now, in my own denomination, I could not bless a same-sex marriage (and frankly, it does go against my conscience), but in the political arena, I try to stay out of the debate. Why? Because I know that there are people hurting on both sides of the issue. Gay people because they feel alienated by a society that does not allow them to share in this one right, and those who oppose gay marriage because they feel their values and morals are being undermined by it.

The same with abortion. Although with abortion, I feel I have a responsibility to speak out because human lives are in danger. But I also recognize that the political debate has already been lost. No, the only way I can help in this issue is to care for women in crisis pregnancy, help them make informed choices, and give them whatever help I can in the difficulties they face. In fact, I think the Church could go a long way in curbing abortion if it reached out and cared for unwed mothers.

_________________

It is funny, but I was pretty sure that this nation was governed by the people. If one religious group gained majority over all other groups, what do you think would happen? The nation is governed by majority, now I know it really isn't that simple, but dumb it down and that is what you get. How are you going to stop over half of the people in America from promoting values that are important to them? The answer is that you can't. I would really hate it if someone tried to take away my right to choose what is right for me, especially if everyone else in this nation agreed with me. Unfortunately, majorities do form. It doesn't mean the world is going to end. If people start feeling oppressed the majority will shift and everything will change again. And the cycle of life goes on...

_________________
“Guys, we have to make a stand and fight the golem here. If we don’t kill it here then it is just going to keep chasing us and…guys, H-hey wait for me!” Low intelligence Fighter trying to make battle plans for the party

Let me rephrase my point again: The bible alone should not be reason for making or destroying law. Laws should be made by considering reason.

_________________

171st POST ANNIVERSARY!!!

I think it needs to be decided where the government has to draw the line. Should "morality" be a government matter?

_________________

No. Government should only decide make laws regarding what you do to other people. You should be able to do whatever you want as long as no one else is affected.

_________________

171st POST ANNIVERSARY!!!

...that, I don't agree with.
And even stealing and murder are questions of morality, so yes, the government DOES legislate morality.
The question of same sex marriage is not just Christian, as Didymus said.
And since no one else is affected, we should all probably buy heroine and use it, because the government certainly shouldn't interfere with me wanting to die.

What non-christian issues are there for same sex marraige?

_________________

171st POST ANNIVERSARY!!!

Maybe this should be relocated to the Same Sex Marriage thread.

_________________

We've gone over this; this thread covers a wider issue than same-sex marraige.

_________________

171st POST ANNIVERSARY!!!

\
Even if you take views on morality out of the pictuer, stealing and murder would still be illegal because it directly affects other people in a negative way.

This directly affects the user in a negative way. Don't you think that human life is precious. The government thinks so no matter what "morality" is. The government would rather make heroin illegal than allow its citizens to do serious damage to themselves. When you get down to it, everything has a reason beyond "morality," except, in my opinion, same sex marriages. But that's not what this thread is about. Save it for another time, me...

_________________

I heart JS Mill as well.

_________________

What you propose isn't a gov't free of religious influence, but one free of basic human decency... (insert George Bush joke here)

Besides, though you may find it hard to believe, politicians do have a life. They also, for the most part, are part of some religious faction that will doubtlessly affect their decisions. So until someone finds a way to get a robot elected to political office, there's going to be some influence there.