Study: Youth see Christians as judgmental, anti-gay

“or even compulsory observance of Ramadan”

Nah. Freedom of religion was not intended to apply to heathen cults like mohammedism. It is of and from Satan. It should be proscribed, and its followers expelled from the US.

Yup. As a Christian, I am judgmental ( right & wrong ) and I am anti-gay ( extremely homophobic ).

As a youth, homosexual men on three separate occasions unsuccessfully tried to rape me. This kind of ordeal is like getting permanently painted black. This orientation business is a cover-up for self-destructive shame.

Homosexuals are predators in sheeps’ clothing. They pervert society, we surrender our values and they literally consume our youth..

Cowardly tolerance and relativism are Godless tools of tyrants.

Umm...I think youll find it probably was.

“Umm...I think youll find it probably was.”

Not according to Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story:

“The real object of the [First] [A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent [472 U.S. 38, 105] any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution (the vice and pest of former ages), and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age…”

Well he wasnt one of the original draftees so that is his opinion. Besides, amongst those “not countenancing” he would have included Catholicism, atheism, and probably Anglicanism.

“Well he wasnt one of the original draftees so that is his opinion.”

Not necessarily. He could easily have gotten it directly from one or more of the framers.

Even if it were only his opinion, the opinion of a renowned supreme court justice of that era carries a lot more weight than that of anyone living today.

Even in my own lifetime, though, it was accepted as too obvious to need stating that freedom of religion applied only to legitimate religions, and not whacko cults like mohammedism and wicca.

It is only the recent, evil machinations of the left that have brought widespread currency to the lunatic notion that, if we do not discriminate against Christians, we must also refrain from discriminating against every nutbar that comes down the pike and pukes the word “religion” in our faces.

“Besides, amongst those “not countenancing” he would have included Catholicism, atheism, and probably Anglicanism.”

Atheism, certainly, as is right and proper. But what in the world would make you think he would discriminate against Catholicism and Anglicanism? That makes no sense whatsoever.

“Even if it were only his opinion, the opinion of a renowned supreme court justice of that era carries a lot more weight than that of anyone living today.”

That is highly debateable. One man one vote. His opinion only carries more weight than anyone elses if it is good and eloquent enough to persuade more people, (which admittedly it does. He was obviously a very talented and erudite individual. Still, doesn’t persuade me). Besides, being from that era he is neccesarily rooted in that era. He didn’t have much idea as to how the US would grow and develop - theres a whole raft of social issues he couldn’t possibly have forseen, starting with mass immigration from non-English speaking nations.

“Even in my own lifetime, though, it was accepted as too obvious to need stating that freedom of religion applied only to legitimate religions, and not whacko cults like mohammedism and wicca.”

I agree...but who decides what is a “legitimate religion”? Is it purely on the basis of numbers? There have been times when Christianity was regarded as a “whacko cult”. There have been more recent times when “Baptist” was regarded as a “whacko cult”. Don’t get me wrong, I share your misgivings about islam and wicca (and indeed several others), but I also think prescribing them is a dangerous step.

“Atheism, certainly, as is right and proper. But what in the world would make you think he would discriminate against Catholicism and Anglicanism? That makes no sense whatsoever.”

Atheism is a bona fide belief system (or unbelief system) shared by a very large number of people world wide. I think they are wrong, but I’m certainly not so scared of them I want to ban them. Both Catholicism and Anglicanism are hierarchical in nature and both, by neccesity, endorse the idea of “state” relgion, a concept he would certainly be opposed to introducing into the US (me too, actually, and I’m not even American). In particular, there was a lot of anti-catholic opinion in the US at the time.

“One man one vote.”

Excuse me? The truth is not subject to vote.

“His opinion only carries more weight than anyone elses if it is good and eloquent enough to persuade more people”

No, his opinion carries more weight if it is more credible, whether he is eloquent or not, and most especially if it is correct. His opinion is more credible because he is closer to the event in question, and therefore had direct access that we don’t, and because he has demonstrated intelligence and wisdom over the long term. As for persuasion, it is a fact of the human condition that it is easier to persuade most people of a plausible falsehood than an implausible or unpalatable truth.

“Still, doesn’t persuade me”

Well then, you need to add to your store of information and reconsider.

“Besides, being from that era he is neccesarily rooted in that era.”

Doesn’t matter. The Constitution is also of and rooted in that era.

“He didn’t have much idea as to how the US would grow and develop - theres a whole raft of social issues he couldn’t possibly have forseen, starting with mass immigration from non-English speaking nations.”

Again, irrelevant. The Constitution says what it says. It doesn’t suddenly start meaning something else just because the left makes the argument you just made. It is morally bankrupt to “reinterpret” the Constitution to suit the whims of the moment, rather than using the procedures for amendment set forth in that document.

“I agree...but who decides what is a “legitimate religion”

I do.

But seriously, folks, that was already decided when the Constitutional Convention met.

“Is it purely on the basis of numbers?”

You really need to get in touch with the principle that the truth is not subject to popular vote.

“There have been times when Christianity was regarded as a “whacko cult”

The fact that people can be wrong serves to demonstrate only that people can be wrong.

“There have been more recent times when “Baptist” was regarded as a “whacko cult”

Not in the same way that wicca is. It was never regarded as other than Christian. More of a fundamentalist sect than a whacko cult.

“I also think proscribing (mohammedism and wicca) is a dangerous step.”

Not even remotely as dangerous as failing to proscribe them.

“Atheism is a bona fide belief system (or unbelief system) shared by a very large number of people world wide.”

That must be some new use of the term “bona fide” that I haven’t run across before. Yes, it is true that Satan has deceived “a very large number of people world wide,” but in what way does that make his lies “bona fide?”

“but I’m certainly not so scared of them I want to ban them.”

WRT mohammedism and wicca, you should be that scared. WRT atheism, it would be sufficient to refrain from according it the intellectual credibility that inheres in a legitimate religious belief.

“Both Catholicism and Anglicanism are hierarchical in nature and both, by neccesity, endorse the idea of “state” relgion, a concept he would certainly be opposed to introducing into the US”

At the time that the Constitution was ratified, several of the original states had official state religions, and there was nothing in the Constitution that required them to be abolished. This was not a concept that needed “introducing” into America.

“In particular, there was a lot of anti-catholic opinion in the US at the time.”

It would be more accurate to say that some people held anti-Catholic opinion, while others did not. I know of nothing to show that Justice Story was bigoted against Catholicism.

“The truth is not subject to vote.”

No it isnt, but discerning truth is much more difficult.

“No, his opinion carries more weight if it is more credible, whether he is eloquent or not, and most especially if it is correct.”

Umm...that’s what I said...

“His opinion is more credible because he is closer to the event in question, and therefore had direct access that we don’t, and because he has demonstrated intelligence and wisdom over the long term. As for persuasion, it is a fact of the human condition that it is easier to persuade most people of a plausible falsehood than an implausible or unpalatable truth.”

So by your argument, if an election votes in the “right” candidate, then democracy is vindicated, but if it results in the “wrong” candidate, then the majority have been persuaded because falsehood is more plausible. Sounds like a no-lose situation for your personal prejudices.

“Well then, you need to add to your store of information and reconsider.”

I see. So when we disagree, I need to learn and reconsider, but you dont have to? Why don’t you just come flat out

“The Constitution says what it says. It doesn’t suddenly start meaning something else just because the left makes the argument you just made. It is morally bankrupt to “reinterpret” the Constitution to suit the whims of the moment, rather than using the procedures for amendment set forth in that document.”

The constitution is interpreted and reinterpreted all the time. The Bible is interpreted and reinterpreted all the time. There’s nothing unusual or wrong in that. The truth is strong enough to stand on its own. It doesnt need help from self-appointed guardians.

“Is it purely on the basis of numbers?”

You really need to get in touch with the principle that the truth is not subject to popular vote.”

Thanks for twisting my argument round to mean exactly the opposite. The comment “Is it purely on the basis of numbers?” is what is known as a “rhetorical question”. Obviously truth is not dependent on numbers, and therefore, the fact that wicca, islam, atheism, reformed toadstool worship (or whatever) cannot be discounted purely on the basis that they are rare. There are plenty of reasons why none of those are “legitimate” reasons, but the fact that they have relatively few adherents in a particular society is NOT one of them.

The point I am trying to make is that I think proscribing various religious groups sets a dangerous precedent. If Islam is proscribed now, what happens in the future? I dont want the State to decide what I can, and cannot think or believe.
And on a more practical point, when religions are proscribed they tend to thrive. Christianity did (and does) and so did the Baptists. And incidentally being a Baptist was regarded as being a member of a whacko cult at one stage. A lot of Baptists were executed, for being Baptists.

“At the time that the Constitution was ratified, several of the original states had official state religions, and there was nothing in the Constitution that required them to be abolished.”

But there is now. Separation of Church and State and all that.

“It would be more accurate to say that some people held anti-Catholic opinion, while others did not.”

OK, I modify my statement. The majority of people in the US at the time held very strong anti-Catholic opinions. It wasn’t just some.

“I know of nothing to show that Justice Story was bigoted against Catholicism”

Its not a question of bigotry. Its a question of belief.

“discerning truth is much more difficult.”

Difficult, but often possible…especially when we have Revelation to guide us.

“Umm...that’s what I said...”

That may be what you intended to say, but what you actually said was that his opinion carries more weight if it is more persuasive.

“So by your argument, if an election votes in the “right” candidate, then democracy is vindicated, but if it results in the “wrong” candidate, then the majority have been persuaded because falsehood is more plausible. Sounds like a no-lose situation for your personal prejudices.”

It is truly amazing that you were able to leap all the way over there from my statement that: “His opinion is more credible because he is closer to the event in question, and therefore had direct access that we don’t, and because he has demonstrated intelligence and wisdom over the long term. As for persuasion, it is a fact of the human condition that it is easier to persuade most people of a plausible falsehood than an implausible or unpalatable truth.”

Several comments on that:

1. Credibility accruing from demonstrated knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom is not a matter of “personal prejudices.” Unless one is a leftist, in which case one’s entire worldview is a matter of personal prejudice, malice, moral bankruptcy, and lies.

2. Democracy – or, as some of our Founding Fathers called it, mobocracy – can never be vindicated, because it is as unworkable as socialism. A representative republic, on the other hand, is quite workable, so long as the franchise is properly limited.

3. As a matter of empirical, objective observation, there have been many occasions in recent American history in which the majority have been persuaded because the falsehoods of the left were more plausible, and, more importantly, more palatable.

4. One big difference between Conservatives and liberal filth is that Conservatives are aware of the danger of being blinded by one’s prejudices, and further, are able to take measures to guard against that. Yet further, and again unlike liberal scum, Conservatives are highly motivated to guard against being blinded by one’s prejudices, and do a pretty good job of it.

“So when we disagree, I need to learn and reconsider, but you dont have to?”

I really despise this argument. What people attempt to do when they make this argument is discredit the opponent, and not his arguments, by painting him as a closed-minded person who always reacts by saying “I’m right and you’re wrong” without any consideration of the arguments to hand.

People of good faith don’t act that way. They give others the benefit of the doubt until a person proves that he doesn’t deserve it.

I am quite certain that there are areas in which you are more knowledgeable than I, and in which I could learn from you. However, we’re talking about the US Constitution, in which tradition I have been steeped my entire life. I’m presuming that isn’t true of you, as a non-American. Further, this is a subject I have discussed many, many times. I am justified in thinking that I have seen and carefully considered all the evidence and arguments arrayed against me. If you have a new one, trot it out, but don’t ask me to go over the same well-winnowed ground once again.

“The constitution is interpreted and reinterpreted all the time.”

Illegally and treasonously. That practice is the proximate cause of most of America’s present woes.

“The Bible is interpreted and reinterpreted all the time. There’s nothing unusual or wrong in that.”

Certainly there is. If you’re interested in an article discussing that, I can either e-mail it to you or try to find a link.

“It doesnt need help from self-appointed guardians.”

There’s another one of those invalid arguments that I despise.

We are all charged by God to defend the truth. There is no “self-appointing” about it. Further, our understanding of the truth most definitely does need defending contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli, et contra Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos qui ad perditionem animarem pervagantur in mundo.

The denigration of those who advocate alignment with God and the good as “self-appointed guardians” of personal prejudices, prejudices with no real validity, is one of Satan’s most successful ploys. The falsehood upon which it fundamentally rests is the assertion that it is the prejudice of the single, individual person that is being advocated, and not the revealed word of God as understood by all the best minds of Western Civilization across two millennia.

“Thanks for twisting my argument round to mean exactly the opposite.”

I don’t do that. If I misinterpreted it, you weren’t clear.

“but the fact that they have relatively few adherents in a particular society is NOT one of them.”

I think there were two factors there. One is that you weren’t clear, and the other is that it would never have occurred to me to think that having few adherents has any bearing on the truth.

“The point I am trying to make is that I think proscribing various religious groups sets a dangerous precedent.”

Mohammedism is not a religious group. It is a Satanic death cult that has been at Christianity’s throat since the day that the Earl of Hell first whispered in the ear of mohammed (cursed be his memory). Wicca is one of his more recent, and, as yet, less successful ploys.

“If Islam is proscribed now, what happens in the future? I dont want the State to decide what I can, and cannot think or believe.”

That’s yet another of those sophistries that I despise. The premise here is that if we disallow anything, we will end up disallowing everything. Taken to an extreme, this would mean that disallowing murder is a slippery slope to disallowing tea.

There certainly are slippery slopes. For instance, contraception was the first step on a slippery slope that led through abortion to euthanasia. Some people say that this can only be prevented by refusing the government the power to prohibit anything. However, limiting government power didn’t stop legalized contraception from leading us to euthanasia. While limited government is a good thing, alone it clearly does not keep us from sliding down slippery slopes.

The only thing that will keep us from sliding down slippery slopes is electing the “right” people and disdaining the “wrong” people, and this is something that is only achieved through a solid historical and moral education, combined with a properly formed Christian conscience.

“And on a more practical point, when religions are proscribed they tend to thrive.”

More sophistry. Mohammedism ceased to thrive in Spain from 1492, when Ferdinand and Isabella finally succeeded in kicking the last of their murdering, Satanist butts out. Wicca will cease to prosper when its adherents are correctly seen as nutbars.

“A lot of Baptists were executed, for being Baptists.”

Yes, Satan has fomented a lot of religious conflict in Western Civilization. That fact serves to demonstrate absolutely nothing more than that Satan has fomented a lot of religious conflict in Western Civilization. It cannot be used to impeach Christianity, nor any Christian denomination.

“At the time that the Constitution was ratified, several of the original states had official state religions, and there was nothing in the Constitution that required them to be abolished.”
>But there is now. Separation of Church and State and all that.

The history you have been taught is inaccurate. There is absolutely no, no, no, no, no “separation of Church and state” requirement in the Constitution. Not then, not now, not ever. This was invented whole cloth by the Satanic left (sorry to be redundant) as part of their attack on religion and believers.

“The majority of people in the US at the time held very strong anti-Catholic opinions. It wasn’t just some.”

The history I have learned does not bear that out. In fact, my mother’s people were Florida Catholics from the mid-seventeen hundreds, and no such history was passed down to me.

“Its not a question of bigotry. Its a question of belief.”

Not all belief is bigotry, but all bigotry is belief. Unreasonable belief in falsehood, but belief nonetheless.

As Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen said, “There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church—but there are millions who hate what they mistakenly think the Catholic Church teaches.”

I have never once run across a Catholic-basher who correctly understood the teachings of the Catholic Church. If an educated, intelligent, wise man like Justice Story believed that the Catholic Church should be proscribed, this could only be ascribed to the phenomenon that Bishop Sheen describes, and that can only be called bigotry.

That said, I have seen no indication that Justice Story was, in fact, bigoted against the Catholic Church.

“That may be what you intended to say, but what you actually said was that his opinion carries more weight if it is more persuasive.”

My original statement: “His opinion only carries more weight than anyone elses if it is good and eloquent enough to persuade more people, (which admittedly it does. He was obviously a very talented and erudite individual”

Notice the words “good” and “talented”.

I apologise if I have attributed personal prejudices to your arguments as opposed to talent, reason and experience. I was probably influenced unduly by phrases like “liberal filth”, “liberal scum”, “Satanic left”...

“I really despise this argument. What people attempt to do when they make this argument is discredit the opponent, and not his arguments, by painting him as a closed-minded person who always reacts by saying “I’m right and you’re wrong” without any consideration of the arguments to hand.”

That’s quite a statement when your response to my argument was “Well then, you need to add to your store of information and reconsider.” How is that not attempting to “discredit the opponent” (opponent?) by painting him as an ignorant individual?

“I am quite certain that there are areas in which you are more knowledgeable than I, and in which I could learn from you. However, we’re talking about the US Constitution, in which tradition I have been steeped my entire life. I’m presuming that isn’t true of you, as a non-American. Further, this is a subject I have discussed many, many times. I am justified in thinking that I have seen and carefully considered all the evidence and arguments arrayed against me. If you have a new one, trot it out, but don’t ask me to go over the same well-winnowed ground once again.”

Quite true. You’re right, although of course, It’s very hard for me to array new arguments when I dont know which ones you have been exposed to.

“That’s yet another of those sophistries that I despise. The premise here is that if we disallow anything, we will end up disallowing everything. Taken to an extreme, this would mean that disallowing murder is a slippery slope to disallowing tea.”

I’m sorry. I understand your argument, but I dont think the analysis I made in this instance was too far a stretch. Im not trying to do away with tea-drinking. Im talking about me being unable to practice my faith because someone else was refused to practice his earlier.
I know you are an american and an expert on things I know little about, so let me bring my experience to bear on this. Unlike you I live in a nation with a state religion. It doesnt work. I am a baptist in a country with very few baptists. I AM in a minority, and yes it does change your opinions (actually it just brings some opinions more to the fore).

“The history you have been taught is inaccurate. There is absolutely no, no, no, no, no “separation of Church and state” requirement in the Constitution. Not then, not now, not ever.”

I bow to your superior knowledge here. Thank you for telling me that.

“Not all belief is bigotry, but all bigotry is belief. Unreasonable belief in falsehood, but belief nonetheless.”

Agreed.

“I have never once run across a Catholic-basher who correctly understood the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

There aren’t too many Catholics who correctly understand the teachings of the Catholic Church either :)

Perhaps that is always the problem. Perhaps people are always against not what the other side believes, but what they think the other side believes. Im a student of military history and I see this all the time. You see something like the spanish civil war, and the two sides labelled as “fascist” and “communist”. It would probably be more accurate to label them “anti-communist” and “anti-fascist”. A very terrible thing.

There are plenty of good kids in this country. That said, what should we expect the other kids to think when all the MSM & Hollywood does is bash Christians?
************************************************************

Add about 15,000 hour of classroom propaganda by the NEA to get through grade/high School.

“Notice the words “good” and “talented”.

Talented doesn’t help your case, as witness the exceptionally talented liar Billy Blythe. As for “…good and eloquent enough to persuade…” I think that speaks for itself.

“I apologise if I have attributed personal prejudices to your arguments as opposed to talent, reason and experience. I was probably influenced unduly by phrases like “liberal filth”, “liberal scum”, “Satanic left”...”

No doubt. The Satanic left has decreed that anyone opposing them must weasel and waffle, speaking more in disclaimers than substance. Calling them what they are – Satanic filth – must be seen as evidence of stupidity and prejudice. It’s a very neat trick. They can say anything they like (for instance, that Bush enjoys the deaths of US soldiers), but their opposition must maintain utmost timidity or be labeled…oh, any one of a number of pejoratives. Well, I call BS. It is far past time to call them what they are. Oh, to be sure, words are inadequate to describe their perfidy, their moral bankruptcy, their repulsive dishonesty. But words are all we have, so I say let the expletives fly.

They are scoundrels…call them scoundrels. They are crawling, reptilian, treasonous godless unpatriotic pierced-nose Volvo-driving France-loving left-wing Communist latte-sucking tofu-chomping holistic-wacko neurotic vegan weenie perverts…call them that. They are a bunch of effeminate, leftist, pickle smooching neo Nazi would-be tyrants...call them that. They are crystal-crunching nutjobs…call them that.

“How is that not attempting to “discredit the opponent” (opponent?) by painting him as an ignorant individual?”

By now you’ve probably figured that out on your own. We all have areas in which we lack information. It’s part of the human condition. Telling a person that he lacks information on a given subject is not telling him that he is an “ignorant individual.”

“it’s very hard for me to array new arguments when I dont know which ones you have been exposed to.”

It would have to be one coined in the last ten minutes.

“I’m talking about me being unable to practice my faith because someone else was refused to practice his earlier.”

And my argument is that we are protected from that only by the decency of the men we elect, and our own. Preventing government from responding appropriately to whacko cults that in no way deserve the name of religion serves only to place us at the mercy of Satan. It protects our own freedom of religion not in the least. This is being played out daily in the US.

“Unlike you I live in a nation with a state religion. It doesnt work. I am a baptist in a country with very few baptists. I AM in a minority, and yes it does change your opinions (actually it just brings some opinions more to the fore).”

I lived for twenty years in a country that was only 2% Christian, of all denominations. I think I know a little about being in a minority. And one thing I know is that driving religion from the public square is not the same thing as protecting freedom of religion.

“There aren’t too many Catholics who correctly understand the teachings of the Catholic Church either :)”

We have quite a number here on FR. I’ve been able to learn a lot from them.

“Perhaps that is always the problem. Perhaps people are always against not what the other side believes, but what they think the other side believes.”

Perhaps that is sometimes the problem, but not always. As an ex-leftist, who spent a great deal of time tucked away in the pocket of the Earl of Hell’s weskit, I know very well what they believe…and why it is wrong, and why it is evil.

“You see something like the spanish civil war, and the two sides labelled as “fascist” and “communist”. It would probably be more accurate to label them “anti-communist” and “anti-fascist”.

It would be more accurate to label one side as “evil, murdering communist swine,” and the other as “everybody else.” The Generalissimo saved millions of lives…the lives of the Spaniards that the communists would have murdered if they had won.

“A very terrible thing.”

Satan’s actions are always terrible, and those he takes through the communists and other leftists are no exception.