In some communities the Boy Scouts get to use community hall facilities for free, however that is changing based on their stance on homosexuality and they are throwing a fit over it. The Philadelphia city government basically told the Boy Scouts you can either give gays equal membership and opportunities or pay for the utilities that they use.

 

Here is a link for you about the Boy Scouts and their bigotry as well their strong relationship with the government. Using public and government facilities, as well as using state runned institutions for recruiting I don't count the BSA as a private organization.

http://www.atheists.org/action/alert-28-may-2003.html

But Which one would you rather live under?

Neither. Take either one to the extreme and you have a society that is certainly not free. In the old Soviet Union ( a totally godless society), if they found out you were Christian you would either see the inside of the Lubyanka or die in a gulag somewhere. In most Muslim countries (the other extreme) you can expect to be beheaded at any time if you are not Muslim. To paraphrase Aristotle, nature must find the mean.

In some communities the Boy Scouts get to use community hall facilities for free, however that is changing based on their stance on homosexuality and they are throwing a fit over it. The Philadelphia city government basically told the Boy Scouts you can either give gays equal membership and opportunities or pay for the utilities that they use.

 

Here is a link for you about the Boy Scouts and their bigotry as well their strong relationship with the government. Using public and government facilities, as well as using state runned institutions for recruiting I don't count the BSA as a private organization.

http://www.atheists.org/action/alert-28-may-2003.html

Don't go fishing for herring here Sand. To deal with your post. If Philly wants to make the Scouts pay their way, that is fine. It is the perogative of every municipality to run their city as they see fit so tht is hardly a constitutional issue. You passed this off as a violation of the 1st Amendment which is really what this debate is all about at this point. Based on my response, is it? Is it a violation of the first amendment to have the 10 commandments posted in a public place even if not a single penny of state money was used to put it there?

 

The line between a free society and a repressive one is precariously thin. If zealots on either side win out and the US becomes one or the other then they might be happy but nobody will be free.

Well the Liberals are more of a threat than the christians will ever be.

Edited February 19, 200718 yr by DeathScepter

Well the Liberals are more of a threat than the christians will ever be.

Do you want to elaborate a bit on that swingeing generalization?

 

And everyone else (not mentioning any names) pleaes try not to make blanket statements, as they are often offensive and ALWAYS wrong.

I thought I did specify which Christian gorup I was targeting with the edit.

 

I have yet seen a single Christian fundamentalist who is pro-choice on abortion, for homosexual marriages and equal rights, who is in full support of stem cell research, who can't get past the fact that the earth is millions of years old instead of being just 10,000 years old, and so forth and so on. Scientific and social progress, man. I have yet seen a Christian Fundamentalist for them.

Edited February 19, 200718 yr by Sand

I have to disagree. Christians tend to put religion first, common sense and progress second. Just to clarify, not all Christians. Just the Sunday Fundies. :D

Not to ruin your opinion of me ( ) but i'm a Christian and I think (hope) i have a healthy dose of common sense. We don't all think non-christians are bad people going hell. The only thing I believe to be true with respect to religion is that 1) There is a God, 2) We will all meet Him in the end.

 

This is strictly my own opinion here but to me, christianity is a code you must choose to live by. It is neither right or proper for me to ask anyone else to make that choice. Or hold anything against them if they choose differently. I would not force religion down anyones throat and only ask the same from them. That includes non-religion. Seeing a monument honoring a different faith in public does not bother me. Seeing people pray in public does not bother me either. Preventing people from enjoying their own personal freedoms and choice, that DOES bother me.

You may be Christian (heck, no one is perfect :D ) but I don't consider you a fundamentalist Christian.

 

I don't mind people praying in public. I also don't mind people groping each other in public. As long they keep me out of it, its all okay in my book.

You may be Christian (heck, no one is perfect :D ) but I don't consider you a fundamentalist Christian.

 

I don't mind people praying in public. I also don't mind people groping each other in public. As long they keep me out of it, its all okay in my book.

See, I knew there was a libertarian somewhere inside you just dying to come out!

You may be Christian (heck, no one is perfect :D ) but I don't consider you a fundamentalist Christian.

 

I don't mind people praying in public. I also don't mind people groping each other in public. As long they keep me out of it, its all okay in my book.

See, I knew there was a libertarian somewhere inside you just dying to come out!

 

HA!

 

I am generally for Scientific progress, equal and same rights for everyone, and personal freedom to the extent that it doesn't impede the personal freedoms of others. In that order of importance.

Edited February 19, 200718 yr by Sand

Scientific progress is more important than equal rights?

Why does science favor abortion? I mean, other than it's just another handful of straws to salvage your argument, what exactly does abortion have to do with it? ...And assuming your a single issue voter with that one issue being abortion, how does abortion favor scientific progress?

 

...And if you favor personal freedom then is it not the manifestation of that freedom using your own judgement in deciding to vote for a particular candidate. Or does that "impede" your own personal freedom. Would you then impede my freedom to vote as a Christian? How free of you.

 

Nevertheless, back to science. Let's talk about science. What does science say about policy?

Why does science favor abortion? I mean, other than it's just another handful of straws to salvage your argument, what exactly does abortion have to do with it? ...And assuming your a single issue voter with that one issue being abortion, how does abortion favor scientific progress?

 

...And if you favor personal freedom then is it not the manifestation of that freedom using your own judgement in deciding to vote for a particular candidate. Or does that "impede" your own personal freedom. Would you then impede my freedom to vote as a Christian? How free of you.

 

Nevertheless, back to science. Let's talk about science. What does science say about policy?

 

 

Abortion is about personal choice, freedom of the mother to have the child or not. Now my view is that it should be the last possible choice and available only at the first trimester in the development of the fetus but should still be an allowable choice for the woman. Its her reproductive system.

 

Also, you are free to vote for whoever you want. I never said you shouldn't have that freedom, just as I have the freedom to vote against your candidate if I don't agree with his or her views.

 

One hot button issue where it comes to progress in medical science is the Stem Cell issue. I am all for full stem cell research. From cloning of human tissue for organ transplant, to curing cancers, and eliminating brain degenerative diseases. I will not vote for a candidate who is against stem cell research or wish to limit it.

And you are in favour of that above all else, including equal rights?

Equal rights are meaningless if you are dead or a mental vegetable.

I'm sure these same equal rights are meaningless if policy was enacted that forced some parts of society to abort their unborn children in order to acquire fetus' for stem cell research.

 

But hey, it's for scientific process.

I don't see how that would be needed, for at least here in Iowa, we have progess to the point we can clone all the stem cells we need to conduct the research necessary and no laws to hamper such lines of research.

So it wasn't an absolute list of priorities, it was a list of priorities based on your existing local conditions.

I don't see how that would be needed, for at least here in Iowa, we have progess to the point we can clone all the stem cells we need to conduct the research necessary and no laws to hamper such lines of research.

 

 

You said you value scientific research above equal rights?

 

 

You'd have no problem if some people took you away and began testing stuff on you, as long as it was in the name of scientific progress? I mean, they could save lives by doing these tests.

Edited February 19, 200718 yr by alanschu

Uh oh. Sand if you have Alan and Meta after you at once, you are doomed. Either is more than a match for you, both together......

You'd have no problem if some people took you away and began testing stuff on you, as long as it was in the name of scientific progress? I mean, they could save lives by doing these tests.

 

If there was no other means, then they wouldn't need to drag me away. I would volunteer.

 

Besides, I value each one pretty damn highly and the difference between them is only slightly. And that is all I will say about it for now.

If there was no other means, then they wouldn't need to drag me away. I would volunteer.

 

I'm sure you would. How noble.

The first thing to do is to understand that science is never the basis for public policy. Science can provide arguments for your policy, but it is never the basis of it. So, if you're for scientific progress, you're going to have to explain yourself a bit further. You say that scientific progress is the primary driver for your decisions. Okay. So, should we perform experiments on convicted fellons? What if progress is best served by permitting abortions, then that should be the basis of your policy. If progress is best served by denying abortions, then that should be the basis for you policy. If you progress is best served by declaring that some women will be impregnated against their will and have resulting feti aborted at various stages of pregnancy, then that should be the basis of your policy. Science, however, is not the basis in any case. What is the issue that trumps all in your world, Sand?

If you are going to take it tot he extreme then there is no point in discussing it. One thing I hate most is extremist views and using extremism as a means to argue. You don't like my stance, that is fine, but you are pushing it to an extremist viewpoint of what I said which is just ridiculous and if that is how you view it then there is no reason to continue at all.

If you are going to take it tot he extreme then there is no point in discussing it. One thing I hate most is extremist views and using extremism as a means to argue. You don't like my stance, that is fine, but you are pushing it to an extremist viewpoint of what I said which is just ridiculous and if that is how you view it then there is no reason to continue at all.

 

So you're saying you don't necessarily believe human rights should be put to the side in the name of equal rights?

 

 

Also, don't play victim. You do the same stuff, pretty much everytime you mention the word Christian. Don't blame us for painting yourself into a corner and being unable to scramble for some way to get out of it.

Edited February 20, 200718 yr by alanschu