Free Republic

Ahban said: Why should we do the "best" we can? If there is no objective morality, where do you get off claiming there is a "best"? The rational person who really believes there is no objective morality will indeed do the best they can - to advance their own interests no matter how badly others get hurt

I say: I have always said that religious conservatives would always go well with socialism...that is a collectivist statement if I ever had heard one! Quite honestly, we do not have responsiblities than the ones we choose! If you don't like people who only think of themselves..don't associate with them and encourage others to do the same. Having free will, they have the right to be as selfish as they please. This may seem scary to you...but the world is chaos...not only as reflected in the second law of thermodynamics...but as in sociology...where it is showing how wishy-washy reality really is!

Ahban said: You are mistaken when you say that religious conservatives have no gray areas. As the scripture says, "one man regards one day above another, another man regards every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind." Some things are gray, but not all things. It is instead you who leave no room for gray areas with the claim that their is no objective morality. That is a claim that leaves all black, with no area of light at all.

I say: Realize that morality is a social construct created by humans...not created by God...created by humans...I know that your belief in God makes you happy...and I do not want to take that away from you...but what makes you happy makes other people misery...so I suppose you can say some people prefer another shade of grey over another...some people prefer darkness to light...and there isnt anything wrong with that in terms of personal conduct. So either way...please respect scripture and don't put personal beliefs in legislation.

Ahban said: I would like everyone to have a chance to be happy. I only desire this because I believe in an objective moral order that has love of neighbor as a central theme. Lacking this belief, I would have no reason to "like everyone to have a chance to be happy". My primary concern would be to insure my own happiness, even at other's expense.

I say: Well it appears that you only want yourself to be happy...but I thought you were against people on thinking of themselves. What you see as objective morality is certainly debatable. The fact that it is so easily debatable makes it cease to be objective! Anyway, you key mistake is insinuatign that happiness is objective, a totally laughable premise. Happiness is subjective and its definition is completely unique to each person..as is morality. We are all here to pursue our own version of happiness and self-gratification. Pol Pot and Mother Teresa may have had very different matters of self-gratification, but they certainly got their own version of happiness of their acts!

Ahban says: As for your appeal to "use our combined intellects" to make a system that "maximizes this opportunity", I would say that this has been tried many times. Each and every time it has been tried outside a framework of objective truth, from the French Revolution, to Marx, to Hitler, to Pol Pot, it has resulted in a totalitarian nightmare. Idealistic dreamers like yourself may start such revolutions, but they are soon supplanted by remorseless thugs who take the philosophy of moral relativism to its logical conclusion.

I say: That is utter bs...they didn't work outside the framework of objective truth..they created their own...just like the writers and the numerous upon numerous of translators of the Bible have. My ideas are to limit government power...by only having them deal in matters of non-consensual violence, fraud, theft, infrastructure, environmental, and bare bones welfare. Turn government into a debating society of the ever-evolving meaning of those things. You may find the Bible as a source of freedom, but I see it as a totalitarian document if it is included in government as has been document during the days the Catholic Church basically ruled Europe, and when Jews and Muslims were highly taxed in Spain during the inquisition, and the Salem Witch Trials. Under your plan, one is right..under mine both are.

Ahban said: Why is that what we "need"? Why don't we need a set of rules that allows for the benefit of the Master Race (the one we belong too of course) at the expense of "lesser people's"? What if I think I am the fittest? Why don't I want to turn humankind into a primal survival test? Isn't that going to make the race stronger? Why is allowing weakness to multiply good? Why do I need to be "inclusive" towards people I don't like? Because leftwingrightwingchickenwing says so?

I am talking about the public sector!!!! People can discriminate all they like in their private lives, they will just have to pay the consequences from society's reaction. And it seems that people seem to ignore that fact. If you feel that you are part of a master race, you are free to start that revolution on the grass roots level..but keep it in the private sector as with my plan the public sector "government" in its small role will remain inclusive.

Ahban said: Negative. True liberty is the freedom to exercise one's God given rights. The definition you give is for "license". The Founders of this country knew the difference. They knew that rights came from God. License does not produce liberty, but slavery. As individuals fall to whatever vices tempt them, they then will victimize others in an effort to sustain their vices. Eventually everyone in this "free" society becomes a prisoner as things soon descend into law-of-the-jungle style anarchy.

I say: If you are in fact a by the word fundamentalist...I think that you would probably be a basket case. What is wrong with personal vice? Nothing! Did the Bible have some good laws that we should keep? Yes! Does that fact justify all the needless ones that should be on public record..no? God says "I change not," and yet the Catholic church and its protestant brethern keep on amending the Bible to their preferences..obeying what God said when he basically said case close I aint changin...here are some little practiced nuggets that are spoken of in the bible...

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

shrimp..crustaceans! Up their with homosexuality!!!!

Here is a fun one from Deuteronomy!
21:18
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

21:19
Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

21:20
And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21:21
And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

yes! stone your unruly children death. God says its A-OK!

and my personal favorite...

1 Corinthians 11:7
A man ought not to cover his head, [ Or 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with long hair dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with no covering (of hair) on her head dishonors her head–she is just like one of the “shorn women.” 6 If a woman has no covering, let her be for now with short hair, but since it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, she should grow it again. 7 A man ought not to have long hair] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

1 Corinthians 11:14
Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him

Long hair on a man..a disgrace to God! Sounds eerily similar to what is happing in North Korea..and guess who had long hair if those pictures of him were correct....

Basically...just respect the fact that some people don't believe rights are god given..that religion is okay but just not for them. Keep your personal conduct and beliefs out of law and I won't bother you.

Anyway....I just wanted to end this thread..respond to it as you like.

Cyborg, I am sorry that person hurt your feelings..but hey this is a free nation and he has the right to make such remarks...where I raised an eyebrow is that why should Christians as a group complain about persecution when some Christians persecute non-Christians. Many people, including Christians themselves, get jaded by the religion when they try to include personal conduct and perceived moral standards in the law whereas a populous can decided for itself without legislation what is acceptable and what is not. Government is powerless when the people refuse to recognize it.

I do like your tag MichiganConservative...

Anyway this debate shouldn't have been on this thread..and i apologize...but I did enjoy the debate itself.

"If it takes being protectionist to stop the PRC's military machine from growing then so be it."

You have to face that the paradigm in this world is shifting as information sharing becomes faster and faster and the world comes closer together...we are all becoming one...national soverignity will give way to individual soverignity as the most important thing to preserve. You seem very fixated on the macro outlook when the world is evolving to the micro outlook. National interests don't mean anything anymore.

"Consensual violence=masochism=mental illness?"

I sense more fear of different methods of happiness. In the world of psychiatry...pathology is social construct...and even that world needs a tiny bit of reform...but anyway that was a cheap shot just to satisfy your fears of world where someone would enjoy something you consider abhorrent...are you wrong for feeling that way? No. However mentioning mental illness gives me the impression that you want these people to be locked up..and that is just selfish.

"You still have not answered WHY? Seems like you have no answer, other than you don't like Christians. Sad, I expected at least a cohesive response to back up your unsupported premises."

Your premises are unsupported as well...basically you are taking somebody's word for it that this is the right way and there is no other right way. That is fine for your to believe that...but please don't put it in legislation. Those are your personal beliefs..you are free to share them...but not free to make them law! It's not that I don't like Christians...but rather that I don't like it when Christians (or any other religious faction) try to make their personal beliefs law!

Anyway about the Religious left and right thing..I believe I was answering to this quote, "In fact, the Christian and Judeo religions are founded on the concept that maximum freedom comes from having certain minimal laws."

In terms of social issues...I usually see the left as socially libertarian..and the right as socially authoritarian...that sounds more like a socially libertarian argument taken from Judeo-Christianic religions. Hence, my statement.

"What about "common good". What if we need to create a highway? How would you propose we do that?"

I knew you are going to address that...anyway I will give you the anti-federalist answer...the nation will only pay for national roads...the state will only pay for state roads..and the county will only pay for county roads..that and also in terms of air and water quality (noted I did not say global warming) some national standards will be need to be made as we do have a responsiblity with our massive intellect to watch over the earth. As for land preservation and keeping species alive..privatization is the way to go.

"Jesus did. He condensed 600+ plus laws down to two."

Condensing is not the same as cutting the fat....and there would be a whole different debate about what got condensed where and what got left out. I could pull out some bible verses which no American Christian in their right mind would support being law..but that would be an unnecessary cheap shot.

If one were to kill all the infidels...they would be alone on this planet.

good point meatloaf...

"The Free Traitors have been trading with China for 40 years now. It is still a dictatorship that opressess people, murders people, forces a one-shild policy, threatens neighbors and threatens to nuke Los Angeles. Is THAT your idea of democracy?"

I suppose your are a protectionist...how very NeoCon..most people don't know that NeoCons stem from the Trotskyites...anyway as was mentioned before, why would China kill the golden goose? It's non-sensical from their standpoint...however through free trade...and the spread of information and ideas with that...communism's grip in China is sliding and will eventually fall...it will happen.

Sure I will....non-consensual violence is something like murder, rape, assault..consensual violence..i think of kinky practices..such as S&M..or even that case with the German cannibal..not to mention violent sports.

"Moral relativists in the religious left are not capable of writing a Constitution that only exists in order to guard and protect absolute moral (self-evident) truths. That leaves you and your emotionally unstable friends out, ace."

Emotionally unstable...hmm...and yet your ilk is so frightened and insecure about the fact that some people have different realities from you. Basically, my idea is that government would only intervene on matters concerning non-consensual violence, fraud, and theft...and as the times evolve...our government would merely become more of a debating society discussing how those things are defined. Perhaps moral relativism is okay only the individual and consensual act front as people have different ways of looking at happiness.

To finish it..I will cite a prior post pointing out a fallacious argument often used by the religious right...

Are there decrees in holy books that decry (non-consensual violence, fraud, theft)? Of course! Does that fact justify to enforcement of other "moral" laws. Of course not!

Yes...there were some good ideas for government in the Bible and other assorted Holy books...but we need to trim to fat as face it...Jesus is not one size fits all...

"Iran is a state sponsor of Islamic fundamentalism."

However, that nation is already liberalizing..its a great chance to try the free-market capitalism alternative.

"North Korea exists for the benefit of one nutcase and his family."

You may be correct about North Korea...but I feel diplomacy and trade should be the first alternative. Let us see how ambitious Jong-Il is....and if that doesn't work...he certainly wouldnt want to nuke the place where most of his favorite pop culture comes from!

I wonder what would happen in terms of immigration if we abolished minimum wage....I feel all peaceful immigrants should be let in...however I wonder what abolishing the minimum wage would do...

"Same sex marriage is completely different from the Lawrence issue, since there the whole purpose, and plenty of gay activist writings admit this, is to obtain government imprimatur and affirmation of homosexual activity. There is no law preventing adults of the same sex from living together in an intimate relationship. It simply does not need government extolling, which is what is illegitimate and to what most traditional Christian believers object to most strongly."

I do not see it as extolling, just realizing that homosexual couples exist! Anyway a couple posts back in this line I talked about my "no more marriage, just civil unions" idea. Leave marriage for the church and civil unions for the bureaucrats.

"We are NOT, NOT, NOT advocating that the government impose our religious beliefs on others. We simply ask for equal treatment and that the government not impose liberal moral and religious viewpoints on us."

Really...then why the talk of things called "moral values" being big buzzwords into attracting votes? I just don't believe that what you say. I would like to...but I just can't imagine the Falwell, Robertsons, Bauers, and Dobsons of the world letting go of the shortcuts of legislation just to merely go into the hard work of grass roots change. I feel the same way about those who want to press lawsuits on the Boy Scouts for not allowing gay scoutmasters or Augusta National not allowing women..they are a private organization who can make their own decisions on who they admit. If the right could just stop trying to enforce religion in the public sector and the left could just stop trying to enforce PCness in the private sector..just sit down and shake hands and promise it..then we got something. All and all...lobbying and violence are the refuge of scoundrels and the uncharismatic.

"In utopia, maybe but in the real world what you see as fit for yourself is an imposition on your neighbor. What you espouse is anarchy. Please try again"

That is the classic Bill O'Reilly response isn't it? Start loosening things to much and anarchy is sure to happen. Of course we have to find a good place somewhere in between totalitarianism and anarchy..and I think that only having legislation on cases of non-consensual violence, fraud, and theft is a good place...closer to anarchy than totalitarianism i admit. Sure, I'll try again and clarify myself. Do what you see fit and your own life only!

"This doesn;t answer why? You merely restated your premise. In fact, the Christian and Judeo religions are founded on the concept that maximum freedom comes from having certain minimal laws."

Sounds more like a statement from the Religious left rather than right...

I should also give a pat on the back to Cyborg...sorry he offended you. But you can start your own walking club that is Christian friendly...don't patronize him...perhaps I chose the wrong thread for my statement..probably because I see persecution as abominable when it is legislated as the state cannot and should not have control about persecution. Anyway its just like a business...feel like their service is lousy and they have short changed you..spread the word and not shop there..they will sink!

I suppose I am more of a moderate libertarian...

"According to who?"

You do think that the fetus is a human...don't you? It obviously doesn't cannot jump out of the womb at any time and start living like a new born? There we have it! A dependant individual.

"If gov't has an interest in making two people's assets 'one,' then it should follow logically that the gov't would also have a vested interest in protecting its' 'interest' by advocating Against adultery, which most generally leads to the Undoing of 'united" assets. "

But the government DOESN'T have an interest in it! Their union of assets is just a legal recognization! It's a matter between the couple (or more if the case may be) Adultery is still a personal issue.

"You've avoided the issue of sodomy, which has widespread financial, economic, and health consequences."

Big deal...are the people doing it happy? If yes, why stop them? They have a right to lead their own version of a happy life. Religious nuts would fit so well with socialists with their collectivist arguments...and hey..if you can have nothing in this life and never be able to change it...might as well start believing in something afterward!

"If smoking is so harmful and egregious due to its consequences, which are financial, economic, and health, then it isn't logical that society turn a blind eye to sodomy, which has consequences in excess of those that accompany smoking."

Um..I am a libertarian..ya know...it means establishments have the right to decide whether they want smoking or not...ending the drug war..personal responsiblity..self government. So bad parallel...

"My original premise, that there are no neutral stances stands. And your recitation of what is nothing more than your unneutral 'beliefs' gives evidence of that."

You certainly left out my idea for marriage...so something certainly must stand.

"Why?"

Simply enough, we should have the freedom to conduct our own lives in the way that we see fit for ourselves. Legislation based on religious dogma does not allow for that.

As for Matchett-PI..I already launched a pre-emptive strike on the Founding Fathers statement. Sure its a nice start...but I feel that we have the capability to write a new and better constitution. Of course saying that is herecy and treason due to the American worship of the Apostle (Founding Fathers) and the Bible (Constitution) as perfect and immutable.

"Of course, you're not saying cyborg launched any stones in this case, are you?"

I am taking cyborg as a representative of the Religious Right..not him or her personally. If you can state what you see is wrong about secular humanism, atheism, etc; expect criticism about Judeo-Christianic religions. Just saying its a two way street.

"Sorry. Judge Pryor specifically said he would enforce the law. Schumer said he was disqualified solely because of his "deep religious beliefs". You can dress it up all you want, but it is a religious test pure and simple, and under this test, that apparently you advocate, probably 99% of the judges and public office holders in this country in its history would have been disqualified from office."

I wasn't condoning it...I was just stating their fear.

"What right have you to speak for all those with same sex attraction? How can you say that everyone with this condition embraces the gay activist agenda? Have you spoken to every single one oth them? What utter arrogance to assume that all those with this condition not only embrace the radical gay activist agenda but want to have the government preach and impose this gay agenda. The government should be NEUTRAL on the issue of the morality of homosexual activity. It is a complicated moral issue on which people have the absolute right in a free society to disagree and even believe that it is immoral. Gay activists and liberals have absolutely no right to use the government to impose your moral views on others on this matter. And as for abortion, it is a moral issue about which people disagree, but the stakes are even higher, since if the pro-life claims are correct, then a human life is at stake. Pro-lifers have every right to speak out in the public square and try to influence public policy on a matter of life or death. And really, the government should give the benefit of the doubt to the preservation of life, not to death as culture of death affficionadoes of the left do."

One has the right to embrace or reject their homosexuality. It is up to them. Homosexuality will still exist despite whatever activities which may be tried to ban it in legislature. Letting people be openly homosexual while letting people criticize it IS neutral. I never said that right had to be taken away. Please don't put words in my mouth..also read some of my prior posts..especially on abortion..because I happen to be pro-life in that aspect as well (see my neutral stance on a previous message).

"I could go on, but your hate and animus toward traditional Christian believers and advocacy of liberal denials of their civil rights and even humanity are plain to see. Probably a "tolerant" libertarian who doesn't believe in liberty or tolerance."

A classic case of deflection. I do not want to take away the right to celebrate the faith you love so dearly. It makes you happy, so why take it away from you. However, I feel that you should respect the right that some people are not Christian and do things in their private lives with theirself or a consenting person that is immoral. Once again, they are happy being heretics and heathens, why take it away from them?

Legislation has never saved one soul.

"All NK has to export is starving people, drugs, counterfeit currency, and weapons."

More reason to lift the war on drugs...

"Capitalism in and of itself is cause of aggression. So what happens when the whole world practices capitalism and every nation competes for the finite resources? The one with the biggest stick will get the most. That's the way it's been and that's the way it will be."

You sure your a conservative? Perhaps you are a visiting liberal...cool with me either way..anyway in argument for capitalism...capitalist nations are the most efficient societies. The places with the best environments are the first world nations, where techonology has improved the environment, and third world nations, where there isn't enough industry to cause pollutions. The developing nations are the biggest polluters...but once they become first world...it will get better there as well. What does this have to do with fighting for resources, when every nation becomes first world...they will all use resources efficiently. Of course there would have to be growing pains.

"IT IS caving to Dictators. You don't spread freedom and democracy by giving in to and propping up dictators who want to destroy us."

You don't do it with violent government assisted coups either. It's just temporary change. For example, I hope the best for Iraq, but I just don't think that democracy is going to last due to the method of doing so. There were no grass roots..you just planted sod on a desert..and that sod will die. You don't change minds with violence, you are just coercing them. And also..what is the sense of denying new friends?

"15 years ago Chinese students were willing to die for democracy. Today Chinese students are willing to die to get a Japanese head on a pike. 15 years ago Chinese students erected a replica of the statue of Liberty. Today they revile the United States and couldn't care less about democratic reforms as long as they can get a good job and a nice car. Dreams of democracy have given way to dreams of Asian domination and superpower status. The recent prosperity in China has given the CCP a new mandate among the people and enabled them to build up their military to a point that it has become a threat to U.S. interests and U.S. allies in the region. You want to extend that model to Iran, Cuba, and North Korea?"

Well it appears to be nationalistic BS on both sides doesn't it? The collective idea of superiority and domination. Anyway, I thought this was about freedom and promoting democracy rather than promoting US interests, and the Chinese people are now better off than they were 15 years ago. Give it time...China will become a democracy that will stand the test of time in a couple generations. The grass roots are in..we just have to let them go.

"What's the neutral position on abortion?"

The fetus is an individual, a dependent individual, but an individual nontheless. It's a human rights issue rather than a woman's right issue. What makes it cited as a woman's rights issues is the lack of accountability on the male spectrum. I feel there are many loving families out there of all different formats who would be glad to adopt an American child rather than go through the troubles of going overseas. And for those who decided to keep the child...the male must pay child support no matter the marital status. In terms of rape...the rapist doesn't go to jail..but instead has to pay 100% of the fees in taking care of the child (some Celtic law for ya). Incest, big deal! See...neutral!

"On adultery?"

It's a personal matter between the couples themselves, government has no place in it.

"On males and females who engage in sodomy and want mankind, who didn't create the institution of marriage, to nevertheless give them the right to marry?"

All marriage is to the government is a bureaucratic contract, which makes two peoples assets one. I think it should no longer be called marriage due to its religious connations..ya know..protecting religion from government. Just give out civil unions to any number of people of any sex over 16 (12 with parental consent). I stop short at animals because they cannot say yes or no..and the benefit of the doubt must be no. Neutral position!

"There is no such thing as the 'neutral position."

Sorry to prove you wrong...giggles.

"Secular humanism is atheistic socialism based squarely upon the theory of evolution."

Oh dear...is that an effort for conservatives to link together social authortarianism and economic libertarianism...its not very good. Don't worry, liberals have the same problem doing it vice versa. Ya know, Darwinism talked about the survival of the fittest and adapting. Communism is all about artificial egalitarianism...something which is more preached in the bible than Darwin...

"Secular humanism didn't build this country. When the liberals stop their desperate attempts to revise history to say otherwise, they'll be better off mentally."

I do sense an idolation of a false idol..the founding fathers here...you may have violated a commandment. The Constituion is the American version of the Bible...we are all indoctrinated in saying that it is perfect and that the Founding Fathers were apostles of a sort. And yet just like the many different Protestant sects we have in terms of the bible, we have tons of political parties who have their own variation of what the constitution really means. It is not only treason, but herecy to say that we actually can do BETTER than the Founding Fathers!

Ya know...planning possible attacks on Iran and North Korea only proves their point in getting nuclear weapons...we might attack them! So they better get in on the M.A.D. plan before its too late. Anyway there is a very good alternative which takes time but would instill permanent change inside the nation...free-market capitalism! The societies in China and Saudi Arabia are slowly liberalizing as we do trade with them. Why not do trade with the Irans, Cubas, and North Koreas of the world? It may seem like we are caving in to dictators, but in order to stay competitive in a capitalist nation, you have to spread ideas and concepts in order to fill niches and continue to be successful or start to be successful. Is it any coincidence that the nations with the freest markets have the freest lives?

And also, wouldn't it be best if that was our policy and we left the manpower to defend the homeland?

"Christians believe that suicide is a terrible sin, because it is self murder and leaves no time to repent before death and judgment. It is the sin of despair. Now, I can tell you that, and try to persuade you not to act rashly, but I can't impose my beliefs on you."

I appreciate that response.

"I don't think suicide kits are a good idea, or even too much talk about suicide, because their very existence would be too likely to influence young people who are not really competent to make such decisions. Teenage suicide is a problem in developed countries, not because these young people are suffering, but because they have too much time on their hands, too few responsibilities, not enough purpose in life. There is every chance that they could have pulled up their socks and lived happy and responsible lives had they not given in to momentary depression."

Still a choice is made. Perhaps the parents should talk about self accountability and making something for yourself. Going to life instead of having life come to you. But still...and individual choice will be made...if they want to end their life they will end their life..I don't see how home suicide kits being on the market will encourage suicide. A remark like that is just a promotion of irresponsibility.

"There's no such thing as a completely victimless crime, although killing yourself might seem to be so. People whose parents or relatives commit suicide, for instance, or whose friends or classmates commit suicide, can be badly damaged psychologically. I once had a friend who killed herself, partly, I think, because she knew that her grandfather had killed himself. In turn it has damaged the lives of her children."

Well every little decision in life has a consequence. Just because of this fact should everything from whether you want to live or die or what you have for breakfast be legislated? Sure their will be indirect pain caused by a decision for an individual...but I hear the same argument when I usually debate the liberals in terms of their economic policies. I don't see indirect harm as coercion, however they do. Things happen in life, and we just have to make the best of what we are dealt.

"So where do you stand on the states prosecuting pharmacists who refuse to sell the morning after pill to customers?
Do these doctors have the right to stand by their moral and religious convictions?"

Oooooooowhee!!! I can go on so many tangents. But in short, yes! However, they can expect the other people to take their business elsewhere. However, that is a private sector issue as a pharmacy is a private organization and do not have the obligation to tolerate certain things. The public sector has a duty to let its diverse people be who they are...and public areas I look at like international waters...anything goes..as long as its not non-consensual violence, fraud, or theft.

I could have gone and talk about how I think abortion is murder (!) or ending the drug war...but I think this will suffice.

"I'm not claiming I'm being persecuted. I do ask people to respect me and not insult my religion."

Fair enough...but if you launch stones..expect to have some hurled back at you.

"The anti-traditional and anti_Christian hatemongers on the left of course have the freedom of speech to spew their ludicrous and venomous screeds, but that doesn't mean their right, and they should be denounced in no uncertain terms. However, they go far beyond that, trying to classify traditional religious believers as second class citizens who because of their very religious beliefs are to be barred from public office, and particularly the judiciary, and yes, Senator Schumer was advocating barring people like Judge Pryor from the judiciary solely because of his political beliefs. In addition, the left wants to use the government and public schools to impose its religious and moral beliefs on sexuality on the rest of society, through government promotion of homosexual activity through civil same sex "marriage" and teaching in public schools of the appropriateness of same sex activity."

I believe the reason why the left does not want them in public service is the idea that they fear that their religious convictions would bleed into legislation or judicial decisions...which would violate individual freedoms for those who may not happen to be part of that religion. In terms of the gay issue, basically a class of people is tired of hiding who they are. Being honest with one self is tremendously healthy and freeing. I don't think its a condoning more than it is acknowledging that homosexuals exist. There will always be homosexuals and sexually active people in this world...so I feel sex ed should teach those things to prepare these people for safe sex and the consequences of not having it, also mentioning abstinence as the only way to be 100% safe of disease. Just mentioning the options isn't condoning anything, its just showing the reality of it all. But yes it should be a two way street. As for marriage..perhaps we should get government out of marriage altogether and just issue civil unions to all people who want to take on the responsiblity of being legally one...all it is is a bureaucratic contract now.

"I can accept that others don't believe in God or the same God. I cannot accept being told that I must shutter my own religious expression because it might offend those who disagree."

Let it be done in the private sector..it shouldn't be government policy.

"The complete denial of God is the promotion of Atheism as state religion. Kids should be able to do reports on Jesus and other figures of the Bible. Jesus isn't being excluded from the classroom simply because it is bad practice to source a report from one book."

Tolerance should be a two way street as well...but secular humanism is the closest thing we have to religious neutrality and like any religion in itself is not a bad thing. Its just when that religion like any other religion is forced into a person's private life is when it gets toxic. So let the kids to reports on Jesus, but I don't see how secular humanism is going to make Christianity a crime.

Militant Agnostic- I don't know and you don't know either!

I must say this idea of Christian persecution is ludicrous. You are free to practice your beliefs aren't we? Social liberals aren't lobbying government to close churches and other private places of worship, and yet social conservatives are looking to meddle within choices in private lives and places. Perhaps you may be jaded by the PC-police, who's attempts to change private institutions with lawsuits is just as horrible as the religious rights attempt to put unnecessary Judeo-Christian laws in legislation. People are going to disagree with your version of Christianity..just like you disagree with secular humanism...can't we just agree to disagree!

Anyway as for the public sector...individuals who work within the sector should be free to worship as they please in their private lives...but as a representative of the public sector should remain neutral.

but certainly they would like to have the access to a less painful more sure method...but then I would be entering the whole stopping the drug war rant. Face it...razor blades and shotguns in the head are too crude!

Perhaps we shall sell home-euthanasia kits to keep the doctors out of it! It would fill a niche market and probably would be a big success. We can make lots of money! Hold on..I have to go to the patent office...be right back!

That statement was semi-serious...an interesting compromise. Anyway like I said...unless the dying person or person who wants to die okays it...it shouldn't be done. The person has the right to ask..but the doctor has the right to refuse.