Page 8 of 32 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 316

Thread: Prayapolooza in Houston

  1. #71
    Senior Member The Storyteller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Rural Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,145
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    That would explain your shrieking "stop it" in bold caps at the start of this thread. Your concern over free religious expression.
    Which itself is his own free expression.

    Just because someone wants it stopped doesn't mean they want to make it.
    "There are too many books in the world to read in a single lifetime; you have to draw the line somewhere." --Diane Setterfield, The Thirteenth Tale

  2. #72
    Senior Member peggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,857
    Quote Originally Posted by alan View Post
    Now now Peggy, I'm not trying to demonize you. Just trying to nudge you out of your box a little.

    You keep bringing up, and exaggerating, specific differences between two parties and then imply that it has something to do with religion. You also imply that a person's religious beliefs should have no influence on the manner in which they represent their constituencies.

    You're right that this is not a theocracy, and I'm not advocating that, but religion is a major influence in the lives of a very large part of our population and there is no requirement that our politicians not allow it to influence their words, deeds or actions.



    In answer, I would prefer that everyone not be required to hide their religious views in order to be accepted. I am secular and secure enough in my beliefs not to be offended or intimidated by others beliefs. Thanks for asking.
    No Alan, what I'm trying to show is that it doesn't have anything to do with religion. That's the point. Where ever our leaders want to say they got their values from, they have to acknowledge that non religious people have the exact same values. They got them from somewhere, but not religion, so the right implying that good Christians should vote for them BECAUSE they are the christian/value vote kind of leaves a whole lot of folks out. And so many are convinced of this, faithful vote republican because, well, you know!
    This is where I, and a whole lot of others have the problem. It's frightening, and not a little embarrassing to know how many people will maybe now vote for Rick Perry, or change their view of him because of this stunt. And it's so obviously a stunt. he looked around and saw this huge mass of people who can be bought by a few well aimed Amen's. And by inviting other governors, positions himself as THE 'christian value' vote.

    Of course all faiths are represented by our members of government, although I do remember the huge outcry when it was 'rumored' that a Muslim member was going to take the oath on the Koran. But if a member stands up and says, 'I'm voting for this legislation because I'm christian', or 'I'm voting to pass this law because I'm Mormon' makes no sense, since religion IS circumcising, dress code and which day of the week you worship on. (god forbid if someone stood up and said 'I'm voting for this because I'm Muslim!)
    They ALL share the same values that govern/guide our country. All of them, religious or non religious, so they really don't need to declare their particular practice, unless they are trying to own /hijack some particular value that all the others share anyway.

    An example. If a member stands up and says 'I vote to discriminate against gays because I'm christian', well that should be an immediate dis qualifier since we are not a theocracy and this person has declared he/she will fight this based on his/her religion. It's a religious thing, and something we should fight against as a secular nation. Now Rick Perry can get on his knees at night and pray whatever he wants, that's his business. But when he publicly and politically prays to toss all gays into the sea, well, here's a guy who wants to write legislation for us all. Here is a guy who is publicly declaring/warning us that he intends to write legislation based on his religion.
    Now just imagine if that Muslim member of congress held a huge Muslim rally to pray that all women wear burkas, then heads back to congress. Just put that scenario in your mind.

    I guess the really frightening part of this is that it's so open, and so blatant and so in your face. See, all those governors are going to have to come up with plausible excuses for why they aren't going, when the only real excuse should be "Are you kidding? This isn't a theocracy. I'm not going to a christian political prayer rally!" But I guarantee you not one will have the courage to do so. And that is very very very frightening.

    *I just want to add, thank god for spell check!

  3. #73
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    9,861
    Originally posted by peggy

    Of course all faiths are represented by our members of government, although I do remember the huge outcry when it was 'rumored' that a Muslim member was going to take the oath on the Koran. But if a member stands up and says, 'I'm voting for this legislation because I'm christian', or 'I'm voting to pass this law because I'm Mormon' makes no sense, since religion IS circumcising, dress code and which day of the week you worship on. (god forbid if someone stood up and said 'I'm voting for this because I'm Muslim!)
    They ALL share the same values that govern/guide our country. All of them, religious or non religious, so they really don't need to declare their particular practice, unless they are trying to own /hijack some particular value that all the others share anyway.
    Since this is the second time you've brought up circumcision in a thread that blends religion with politics, allow me to ask you a question based upon the real world rather than your speculative talking points.

    There is currently a ballot initiative in San Francisco to make it illegal to circumcise a male child. If a politician opposes this initiative based upon religious grounds, would that mean that San Francisco is a theocracy? Should that politician be forbidden from expressing the view based upon it's source?
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  4. #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,528
    The Houston Chronicle has an interesting piece on Gov. Perry's "prayer" meeting:

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...w/7602059.html


    AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry's Aug. 6 day of prayer and fasting at Reliant Stadium is generating significant heat nationwide, with critics protesting the exclusively Christian focus of the event and Perry's partnership with the controversial American Family Association, which advocates against gay rights.

    Expressing objections on a variety of religious and cultural grounds, some opponents have organized a protest on Facebook, while others are urging the nation's 49 other governors invited by Perry to boycott the event.

    To host the Reliant Park event, Perry chose the Mississippi-based American Family Association, a nonprofit that operates a network of 192 radio stations with 2 million followers that has been labeled a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center for what the SPLC calls the dissemination of "known falsehoods" about homosexuality. The AFA also has called for numerous boycotts against companies and entities it says "promote the homosexual agenda."

    Critics also accused Perry of using a religious event to boost a possible presidential bid.

    "I want to be clear that my criticism of the governor doesn't stem from my lack of appreciation for religion, rather it comes from my deep respect for religion and from not wanting religion to be prostituted for political purposes," said C. Welton Gaddy, a Baptist minister and president of the Washington, D.C.-based Interfaith Alliance. "I think the people of Texas elected him to be the governor of the state, not the pastor of the state."

    Gaddy also expressed concern that Perry is organizing an event that "is not just distinctively Christian, but would be exclusionary of non-Christians. What got my attention is the close proximity between him talking about the run for the presidency and the critical condition of our nation all defined in pretty much policy issues."

    The website for the event, dubbed "The Response," includes a statement from Perry: "Right now, America is in crisis: we have been besieged by financial debt, terrorism, and a multitude of natural disasters. As a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles, and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy."

    Mustafaa Carroll, of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Houston, said he regretted that the service would be strictly Christian.

    "We're down with the prayer part," Carroll said. "I just wish they would join other people in the prayer. It would be more productive to ask the whole community."

    Several gay rights organizations also decried Perry's partnership with the AFA.

    "Governor Perry's decision to work with such blatantly anti-LGBT groups on an event billed as a day of prayer is disturbing," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization. "Governor Perry has called on governors from all other states to join him in recognizing the day of prayer. HRC is calling on governors across the nation to not support the August 6th event, and take a stand against the hijacking of religious values by those who actively work to suppress LGBT Americans."

    'Hate group' label denied
    Noel Freeman, head of the Houston GLBT Political Caucus, said his organization did not take offense with "the event itself. If Governor Perry wants to have a prayer event, that's his prerogative. The thing we take exception to is that his primary partner in this is an anti-gay hate group. They are primarily known for that fact. This was not a secret to either Governor Perry or his staff."

    Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, rejected the label of "hate group" and characterized his organization's position on homosexuality as representative "of a lot of people who have traditional values."

    "They want somebody to speak for them," he said. "We try to do that. We are reaching the Christian community with the truth about what is going on in our country."

    He acknowledged that a stated purpose of the August prayer event initiated by Perry - to pray for an end to the "debasement of our culture" - refers to the increasing acceptance of homosexuality by American society.

    Accused of defamation
    Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report, said the AFA - through blogs and radio programs - willfully disseminates falsehoods about gays and lesbians.

    "This is a group that has repeatedly defamed gay men with the falsehood claiming that gay men molest children at rates far higher than heterosexuals. And this is provably, scientifically false," he said, citing research by the American Pediatric Association and the American Psychiatric Association. "This has been well-known for many, many years. So our feeling, the American Family Association is either consciously lying or has absolutely failed to do any kind of due diligence as it engages in the personal defamation of gay men in this country."

    Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for Perry, defended the governor's association with AFA.

    "The American Family Association is an organization devoted to faith and strong families," she said. "We are pleased to have them as a sponsor for the event." She also denied that the event was politically motivated, saying Perry simply felt it was important to bring people together in prayer.

    Potok said the AFA earned the "hate group" label based largely on the writings and radio program of Bryan Fischer, the AFA's director of issue analysis for government and public policy.

    "He claims that gay people are responsible for the Nazi Party's murder of 6 million Jews. This is utterly false," Potok said.

    Fischer could not be reached for comment, but in a YouTube video of a radio program discussion of Hitler, he states "virtually all of the brown shirts were male homosexuals" because Hitler found them to be especially vicious warriors.

    Fischer also has asserted that gays should not be allowed to hold public office. Eric Bearse, spokesman for the prayer event, said organizers did not take into consideration the fact that Houston Mayor Annise Parker is a lesbian.

    Mayor's response
    Parker on Wednesday said she was aware of the AFA's anti-gay history, but she declined to criticize the event.

    "No, I'm glad to have anybody's dollars coming to the city of Houston. They can come back on a monthly basis if they'd like as long as they spend money," she said. "I'm not responsible for their message. My job is to make sure that anyone who comes and chooses to use Houston as a convention venue has a safe time (and) is able to navigate the city, and we thank them for choosing Houston."

  5. #75
    Senior Member peggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,857
    Quote Originally Posted by alan View Post
    Since this is the second time you've brought up circumcision in a thread that blends religion with politics, allow me to ask you a question based upon the real world rather than your speculative talking points.

    There is currently a ballot initiative in San Francisco to make it illegal to circumcise a male child. If a politician opposes this initiative based upon religious grounds, would that mean that San Francisco is a theocracy? Should that politician be forbidden from expressing the view based upon it's source?
    No, him opposing it doesn't make them a theocracy, but if they pass it based on religious views, or not pass it based on religious views, then they are skating pretty close, or even breaking the law, in my opinion. Sure someone can say I oppose this because it's against my religion, but he/she had better bring something more to the table than that, because we don't pass laws based on religious dogma. For every religion that opposes this you could find others who think it's fine, or even demand it. They have to say more than, my bible forbids this. Is it dangerous? Is it cruel, or torture? Rule of Law, not rule of god.
    Why are they trying to outlaw it? Personally, I think it's between the doctor and the parents, and really circumcision isn't just for Jews you know. In our case, I left the decision for our son up to my husband feeling, as a man, he would have the perspective i didn't. I'm not familiar with this case but perhaps they are just trying to outlaw the Jewish practice cause if done the 'old school way' well, look it up sometime. You'll see why, if that is the intent which I think is maybe the case here. But again, I haven't heard anything about it.

  6. #76
    Senior Member peggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,857
    Ok Alan, well I looked it up. I thought perhaps they were trying to ban it because of mezizah, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Apparently this has been brought before legislation in several states before being defeated. There is a school of thought that this is nothing more than male genital mutilation, and should be outlawed. They say female genital circumcision is outlawed so this should be too. I suppose I can see their point.
    On the other hand, the WHO says circumcision has been shown to help prevent the spread of AIDS in developing nations, as well as preventing other problems. I guess in the US that isn't a factor as most new cases of AIDS are gay men and circumcision doesn't seem to help in those cases. Anyway it's an interesting case. Religious freedom in this practice should probably win out unless the opposing side can actually prove, at least to the courts satisfaction, that it is in fact torture and harmful. I don't think they have that many doctors on their side really as it's performed with anesthetic in a clean, hospital environment, mostly. This is probably one of those cases that won't make it very far, regardless of religious implications or not.

  7. #77
    Senior Member Catwoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    SoTx.
    Posts
    222
    Loosechickens, is your entire post from the Chronicle or did you take a few liberties? just checkin...sounds a little lopsided for the Chronicle

  8. #78
    Senior Member Zigzagman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by Catwoman View Post
    Loosechickens, is your entire post from the Chronicle or did you take a few liberties? just checkin...sounds a little lopsided for the Chronicle
    You are really trying hard.......

    Peace

  9. #79
    Senior Member Catwoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    SoTx.
    Posts
    222
    Its a yes or no question dude

  10. #80
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Mid-Michigan, Lansing area
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Catwoman View Post
    Its a yes or no question dude
    Well, loosechickens did provide a link to the source so you can compare that to his post if you want the answer....

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •