Close Topic Options

The Christian Right - Page 3

I was thinking more about this last night as I was going to sleep. It seems to me that most of this objection to the Christian Right is an attempt to either silence them, or get legislation passed that will reduce their civil rights.

Since many of the opponents of the Christian Right use the argument of "separation of church and state" as the basis for their objections. However, they refuse to realize that they are inserting their religious beliefs into the argument. If they are atheist, their religious belief that there is no God, and that humanism is essentially the pinnacle of human philosophy shapes their political beliefs and actions (this is a very generalized discussion, not aimed at anyone in particular).

The Christian Left, based upon their rejection of traditional Christianity, also use that religious belief to form their political philosophy.

Personally, I have no problem with people either on the left or the right using churches to spread their political views. People of similar political philosophies tend to gather together, in one way or another. Churches are NOT prisons, where people are held as captive audiences, forced to listen to and learn a particular political view. They are free fellowships. However, the same cannot be said for the liberal bastions of "religious" philosophy, the university system. There, if a student wants to graduate with a degree or certificate, they are "forced" to listen to, and frequently participate in, liberal traditions, activities, and discussions. There are many documented cases of college professors who gave bad grades to students, simply because the students wouldn't parrot the professor's liberal attitudes and thoughts. To me, that is just as much religious indoctrination as any that the "Right" is accused of.

So, how do we resolve this?

Right Christian The

Which university did you go to? At my university and every one that I have visited there is just as much right-wing interest groups as there are left. Often the left wing students were more assertive about their views. But most people just ignored them because a lot of them were opinionated political pawns trying to get into the politics.

Universities do NOT preach left wing ideology more so than conservative. Most university courses don't even have compulsory philosophy/political subjects. I was encouraged to learn both philosophies as part of my curriculum. I was never encouraged oneway or the other. You would actually be surprised to know that I tended to associate with conservative students more because the left-wing tree huggers were so fake and I felt didn't believe in what they preached.

I would be interested in seeing some examples of these "documented" cases where professors have punished concervative minded students. If that was the case I would totally agree with you, it's unaceptable. Students don't pay ridiculous amounts of money to be spoon fed ideologies of the left.

If you look at the history of the church and the way it has been used to force opinion and violence on masses of people, you would then understand why I support a separation of the church and state. Look at what is happening in the Middle East with the Islamic leaders exerting their will on people regardless of their convictions. It's not fair that any religion should exert its belief on others. And I'm sorry, but being an atheist is NOT a religion. You choose to believe in god. People don't choose not to believe in god, because nobody actually knows if god exists.

The Christian Right Beliefs Religious General

I went to BYU, which is clearly identified as the 2nd most conservative University in the United States. Baylor is the 1st.

However, in the US, liberalism is overwhelmingly prominent in the Universities. At most universities, any sort of conservative group is refused official status, while liberal groups such as Gay, Lesbian and Trandgendered and feminist groups are given prominent status.

Of course, if you consider the New York Times either moderate or conservative (or even worse, fair), then I can understand how you would not see the universities as being horribly liberal.

Page 3 Right Christian The

Nighthawk quote:

Several things about this statement bother me. 1. The intelligent design theory was started and it is largely funded by groups that are openly for creationism. Several of them supported creationism in school before and switched to intelligent design. Its the christian right that some how got people to believe that it isn't about the bible, which is it. 2. I would be for any president that gives ALL people the same rights, including marriage, and believes in teaching SCIENCE in schools. 3. Clinton signed the defense of marriage act. If thats your plea that he was openly against the christian right, carrying a bible, going to church openly, and defining marriage as between a man and a woman, what exactly is far left defined as?

And you make the comment that people are out to silence the christian right or take away their civil rights. You have part of it right. I am out to silence them. But they get their civil rights. They can believe gay marriage is wrong by virtue of the bible, they can believe that god created the world in 7 days by virtue of the bible, but they can't make laws that impose that OBVIOUS religious belief on me as law! What they try to get passed are not things that are traditional family values, they are biblical values that don't have a place being put into law.

The christian right exists solly for the purpose of making biblical laws into real laws. Thats a direct attempt to legislate their own specific moral laws onto me. I won't stand for it, I can make my own moral judgements thank you, I don't need a law for it. As long as my moral beliefs don't do not hurt anyone, you don't have the right to force me to accept them by making them laws! The christian exists only for that purpose, and I would be glad if they were silenced. You are right, we do want them silenced, they don't have the right to force their beliefs on others. Things like gay marriage are civil rights issues, they are discussed elsewhere, but banning gay marriage and teaching "intelligent design" in public schools are not civil rights of the christian right. Besides, what was the last law that attempted to ban any christian right members civil rights?

Right Christian The

As I am sure you realize, I disagree with you on every point.

1. Intelligent design is NOT creationism. It is science, but uses ONE different assumption at the beginning. Perhaps some of the "creationist" groups support it, but it is completely different.

2. Marriage is defined, and has been throughout all history, as being between a man and a woman. Homosexuals and lesbians have that same right. If they don't want it, then that is their concern. There are other, currently legal, ways to ensure that they have the same legal contracts as are part of the marriage institution. Keep in mind that while I am saying this, I couldn't care less, personally, about the whole gay marriage debate, as I don't believe that government has any place at all in marriage.

3. As for Clinton having signed the Defense of Marriage Act, that is a completely worthless piece of evidence concerning Clinton's feelings towards Christianity. Over 80% of the people in the US, according to polls at the time, supported the Defense of Marriage Act. Clinton was, and is, a great actor. He carried a Bible, went to church, etc., but his works did not support his words. He continually supported groups, actions, laws, and regulations that were and are hostile towards traditional Christianity.

EVERYONE has political beliefs that are founded on religious beliefs. EVERYONE votes according to philosophies based upon religious beliefs. They may not recognize those religious beliefs, but they are there anyway.

Really? You want to silence them, but they get their civil rights. How interesting, since freedom of speech, whether religious or political, is the foundation of ALL civil rights. I see, they can vote for whom they want, as long as they don't discuss, among themselves, who best represents them. Is that right? Let them all live in solitary confinement, but they can vote. Or is it that they can vote, but only for people who DON'T share their beliefs, both political and religious?

You can't have it both ways. You want to censor the Christian Right. You want them disenfranchised, unable to vote according to their beliefs. Oh, it is okay for them to exist, just as long as YOU don't have to know about it. You don't want them to trouble you with their existence.

I really don't mean this as a personal attack. This is purely an observation. Your dislike of traditional, conservative Christianity is so great that you appear to be allowing it to move you towards a horrible form of bigotry. I really doubt that it is true, but your words point in that direction. If the same words and concepts were used in an attempt to silence environmentalists, you would rightly point out the bigotry. But since it is a "safe" group, Christians, you don't appear to recognize it.

The Christian Right

I agree in part with both of you.

I personally don't believe the Christian right should be silenced. I believe in freedom of speech. They just shouldn't be allowed to Govern or directly influence Government.

I don't believe any religiously motivated groups belong in politics. The reasons are because I don't believe in the teachings of the bible, or any other religious philosophy, so why should I be forced to abide by laws or morals designed for Christians? Christian teachings are not right or wrong, that is just their belief. I feel just as strongly, if not more, against Islamic lobby groups and governments. I have lived in Malaysia, a moderate Muslim country. I totally disagree with forcing the Koran's teachings or ideology on the wider population. The majority of Malaysians aren't even Muslim, it is largely a three-race country. Although this is slowly changing because of the discrimination expressed towards Muslims.

I disagree with this completely! I am not religious. That is my choice. Not believing in a religion is NOT in itself a religion. There is a difference between having your own moral beliefs and having learnt religious beliefs. Not everything in this world stems back to religion, far from it. That may be your personal belief but it is very far removed from fact. Of course Governments are going to make decisions based on a society's moral beliefs, it is their job to represent society. But this is not the same as saying they are founded on religious beliefs. Philosophies are not based upon religious beliefs, how can you possibly back this up with evidence?

My problem with Christian lobby groups is that they want to make life decisions for people who don't believe in their religion. Nowhere is this more apparent than the abortion debate. Abortion should never fall under the responsibility of Government who is invariably influenced by lobby groups. Everyone should have the right to such an important medical procedure and no lobby group should stand in their way. Unfortunately it appears that the Christian Right, among others, has stood in the way in the US. This makes the US quite backwards on this issue. I feel strongly about this because I have been through the emotions of having an abortion with a previous partner and now I am about to experience the joy of starting a family with my current partner. The fact is, I chose when this was right for me and I challenge anyone to dare take that right away. This is what freedom is about.

I am not for or against gay marriage. The bottom line is I have no right to tell a gay couple they cannot enjoy the same joys and social benefits I hope to one day have. Gay marriage will become legal, it is just a matter of time. It is also quite silly fighting against what 10 percent of the population want. It's also such a harmless debate I cannot understand why the Christian Right is opposed to it. It is amazing and sad that this pointless subject can generate more debate in the US than the fact that most of the world live in or below the poverty line.

One final point I would like to make is that intelligence design has no basis in science whatsoever. I have heard the creator of intelligent design speak about it. The whole theory is based on the principles that some complex microorganisms have parts that cannot have possibly evolved, in his opinion, therefore they must have been created. The guy even suggested they were created by a "god". There is no way this theory can ever be proved as it relies on a concept, namely god, that also cannot be proved. It is a blind belief that cannot be qualified. Because the theory cannot be tested, it is NOT science. Another reason why intelligent design is not science is because the scientific community does NOT accept it as science. There is no doubt ID is being pedaled by Christian groups as a lame attempt to provide another theory as to how humans were created/evolved. With all due respect to those who believe in it, please do not confuse or cloud theology for science, there is no grey area here. Teach it as schools if you must, but don't wrongfully label it science.

The Christian Right - Page 3

See, you are identifying religious beliefs, with religion. I don't. Your religious beliefs appear to be atheistic, or at least agnostic in nature. That is your philosophy, and I fully support it.

However, religious philosophy is STILL philosophy. You believe certain things, based upon a humanistic philosophy. I believe certain things based upon a religious philosophy. You, and konquererz want to make a "non-religious" philosophy more important than a "religious" philosophy. That is prejudice just as clear as any prejudice that is claimed against the religious people of the world.

I may (I don't, but just for the purpose of discussion) believe that no NON-religious groups should be involved in politics. That makes EXACTLY as much sense as your statement above. Religion is a type of philosophy. It shapes peoples thoughts, just as various other "political" philosophies do. It isn't forced upon people. They CHOOSE to believe it (at least as far as most people choose their beliefs).

I am getting very frustrated with this discussion. Two "atheists" or "agnostics" place political philosophy at a higher value than religious philosophy, when we are supposedly discussing these things in terms of democratic societies. In other words, you are both saying that you would gladly restrict the rights of religious people to speak their opinions, organize political groups based upon shared beliefs, and lobby for laws based upon their beliefs of what makes a good society.

If the majority of people in, say, Utah, vote to restrict abortion to ONLY those cases where the mother's life is actually in danger, and they vote that way based upon their religious beliefs, who are you to say that they shouldn't vote that way? Isn't that restriction of political philosophy, based upon their religion? If the majority of people in Massachusetts want to allow gay marriages in their state, shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

But no, you want to restrict the political activity of the religious people. You would ONLY allow them to vote in ways that YOU find acceptable. Don't let the majority decide, let the elites decide what can even be discussed. Since the elites don't like the "Christian Right" point of view, let's make sure that they can't discuss it, and especially make sure that they can't propose any legislation based upon their beliefs. But most of all, you want to make sure that they cannot elect anyone who represents their beliefs concerning the body politic.

I am sorry, but this is pure bigotry. When certain people on Christian Right makes these kinds of statements about secular humanists, or gays, or academics, you are right to denounce such statements. But when you make these sort of statements about the Christian Right, you are slipping into elitism, and political censorship. Don't expect me to NOT denounce such blatant bigotry.

The Christian Right General Religious Beliefs - Page 3

Here is the definition of religious:

re‧li‧gious 
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion: a religious holiday.
2. imbued with or exhibiting religion; pious; devout; godly: a religious man.
3. scrupulously faithful; conscientious: religious care.
4. pertaining to or connected with a monastic or religious order.
5. appropriate to religion or to sacred rites or observances.
-noun
6. a member of a religious order, congregation, etc.; a monk, friar, or nun.
7. the religious, devout or religious persons: Each year, thousands of the religious make pilgrimages to the shrine.

Atheism, which is not necessarily my belief, is not a religion. You cannot have a religion based on something you do not believe. There is no philosophy in atheism. It is a term used to describe someone who does not believe in god. Everyone is born an atheist. You are taught to believe in religion, it is not a natural philosophy you are born with.

I have never once said this. All I have said is that religious philosophy should remain just that and not be imposed as law onto others or be used to influence governments into prejudicial decision making.

Neither of us, certainly not I, has advocated restricting the rights of religious people. All I am saying is that I don't believe religion should mix with politics. Religion, throughout history, has been used far too often to control masses of people. It is used as a reason to invade other people, destroy other cultures and suppress human rights. There are many examples of this in the Catholic, Christian, Muslim, Hindu and several other worlds.

Tell me Nighthawk, do you agree that women who practice adultery, or are accused of adultery, should be stoned to death or have their genitals mutilated? Do you believe that wives who are accused of being unfaithful to their Hindu husbands should become the subject of a sacrificial burning? These aren't the beliefs of your religion, but they are the result of allowing religion to dictate the rule of law.

Look at the AIDs situation in Africa. Do you want to estimate how many lives could have been saved if the Catholic Church wasn't telling every good law abiding follower that it is a sin to use condoms. This is exactly why I do no believe religion should mix with politics. When people believe in religion they do so with a lot of goodwill. This is NOT always returned through honest preaching. And these beliefs should not effect those who do not believe in it.

Look at this ludicrous "idelogical" war in Iraq and the Middle East. Do you think it is not at all influenced by religious philosophy? Of course it is. The Muslims are evil terrorists and the Christians/Jews are here to save the day.

Abortion is NOT a religious issue. It is a medical issue between a women, her partner and their doctor. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHURCH. Religious people have no right to prevent someone from seeking medical treatment. I don't care what the majority of people in Utah say or their government, who just parrot what they believe people will say. The body of my partner is HER matter, not one for you, the church or anyone else. While it is fine for Christians to believe against abortion and chose not to practice it, how dare they try and shove those beliefs onto others. And you can't say that the Christian Right hasn't had a major influence on this law. The US is a very religious country, but I can assure you most people who aren't religious would not care whether it was practiced or not.

The reality is the Christian Right, much like the Jewish lobby, are extremely powerful in the US. If they weren't, you would have ridiculous, backwards debates over gay rights and abortion. Bill Clinton wouldn't carry around a bible on the campaign trail if the Christian Right wasn't a massive vote winner. Many political analysts have said it was the Christian and Evangelical vote that has kept Bush into power for his two terms. I don't believe in silencing religious philosophy, because a lot of it is good. I just shouldn't be forced to live with decisions and laws that are so blatantly influenced by any religion.