Posted on 11/27/2006 5:37:30 PM PST by SJackson
I am an American atheist. I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I do not believe in gods or in revealed texts. My belief in the tools of democracy is relevant on the public square. My disbelief in gods is not.
On Nov. 7, the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin, whose mission is to "forward Judeo-Christian principles and traditional values in Wisconsin," won a victory for the organization's interpretation of the Bible with the passing of the amendment to ban gay marriages and civil unions.
According to a Sept. 23 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article, the institute claimed that the amendment had the support of 5,000 churches and 2 million congregants. Fair Wisconsin, the group leading the fight against the amendment, claimed that resolutions opposing the amendment had been passed by organizations representing 500,000 congregants.
On Oct. 19, a forum was held in Madison to debate the state's Nov. 7 advisory referendum on establishing the death penalty for first-degree murder cases backed by DNA evidence. The Rev. Mike Mayhak of Faith Baptist Church quoted Genesis and Romans in support of the death penalty. Bishop Robert Morlino of the Diocese of Madison relied on the pope's interpretation of the Bible to oppose the death penalty.
While acknowledging that there were people of different faiths on either side of these issues, I can only assume there was a preponderance of Christians. So to them I ask: Are you guys reading the same Bible? And if you are, where is its ultimate authority if such diametrically opposed opinions can be buttressed by the same text?
This is not a rational debate. It is a Bible-quoting arms race, each side cherry-picking its way through a religious document that was arbitrarily cobbled together over several centuries from many writers and diverse cultural milieus. Whoever ends up with the most fruit expects to win the day. The trouble is many of the cherries in the Bible are just plain rotten.
In the early 19th century, abolitionists held the moral high ground by any objective, rational, nonbiblical backward glance. However, Southern slave owners and their representatives in Congress won the theological argument hands down. As the Rev. Richard Fuller said in 1845, "What God sanctioned in the Old Testament, and permitted in the New, cannot be a sin."
Slavery, as we now know, was a sin and a national disgrace, even if the Bible didn't tell us so.
Have we learned anything in the intervening 160 years about Scripture and policy? Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey once said, "The Bible is very clear on this (homosexuality). ... I abide by the instructions that are given to me in the Bible."
One can only speculate if Armey's understanding of Scripture was informed by the Rev. Ted Haggard's weekly televised pulpit pontifications.
Will it take our country another 160 years to know that discriminating against a group of people because of their sexual orientation is a sin and a national disgrace, regardless of what the Bible tells us? My point is that the Bible, or any religious text, has no authority on the public square in a secular society whose guiding authority rests in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Our democracy is based on a rational defense of the civil rights, civil liberties and economic welfare of its citizens, not on the ambiguous and often contradicting approbations and proscriptions of religious texts. Democracy cannot serve two masters.
This is not to say that an individual's political stance cannot be informed by his or her religious belief. It would be absurd to claim otherwise. But as a political argument, religious belief should go no further than the church door or your own pocket. On the public square, "because the Bible tells me so" just doesn't cut it ... or it shouldn't.
Robert Weitzel of Middleton writes frequently for newspapers, magazines and Web sites. E-mail: rweitz@tds.net Published: November 24, 2006
If the God allows slavery, which we mere humans think is detestable imagine how really detestable homosexuality is to God.
what the jackass fails to understand is that the very Country itself was founded in God
There is a distinct difference between allowing and approving. God allows divorce but in no way approves of it. Slavery was not on the slate for Eden nor was sin, but because of the hardness of mans heart it happened.
This guy is sick.
Maybe if they stop defining themselves by what they stick in ther butts or lick, well, maybe then we can cut them some slack.
+
If you want on (or off) this Catholic and Pro-Life ping list, let me know!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Atheists don't need to disprove the existence of God. The burden of proof is squarely on those who claim that God exists.
Ditto for those pushing the existence of UFOs, Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy.
Nature makes it easier for heteros to reproduce and impossible for homosexuals to reproduce.
This position is fundamentally flawed. There is no "right" to marriage.
Historically, marriage has been an obligation one undertook before engaging in activities which might lead to pregnancy (by no means universally held to, but at least a principle which was supposed to be followed).
If marriage was a "right" why would it sometimes have to be forced on people?
Remember "shotgun marriages"?
Noone ever has to be forced to take advantage of a right; they only have to be forced to meet an obligation.
Plenty different. Children, the deceased and animals cannot give consent, other adults can. Interesting thought about the necrophilia, whose rights are being infringed?
That is my point. God allows many "bad things" but never ever allowed homosexuality. Not before Moses, not under the Mosaic code and not under Christianity (Acts 15).
All of those are provable and verifiable.
Sorry, Sissyfag, it's very clear: Homosexuality is a sin. No two ways about it. It not "almost" sinful, it's sinful and condemned by the Western World's Bible. Emphatically!
And, since the average life-span of a male homosexual WITHOUT AIDS is 41, and with the average life-span of a male homosexual WITH AIDS at 39, it is also a disgusting and filthy rotten bad habit that should be condemned socially in all societies. These are not "conjured up" figures. Do a Google search for "male homosexual lifespan" and see what you get.
Smokers live to their seventies and are daily condemned by the smoking Nazis, whereas the male homosexuals get a free pass at a horribly dirty way of life that kills them before middle age (39-41). Go figure.
To promote this lifestyle is sinful and contrary to any good sense.
Hey! You left out the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
That's because, unlike everything else listed, He is the One True God.
Ramen.
Are you certain there is no God? Why?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.