Prayapolooza in Houston

[treehugger]

If I didnt believe it to be fact, I would not be basing my life and death on it. You cannot limit me to saying "I believe it to be fact" , forcing or demanding I phrase it according to you, unless you yourself want to be guilty of what you are accusing others. As far as forcing anyone, I cant force anyone to believe anything. Nor would I try. I dont know who the American Family assn is, never heard of them, so cant comment on that.

Personally I don't care if you call it a fact or not. Believe what you (general you) want to govern your own life. Where we (as a country) need to draw the line is allowing people to vote/enact laws that take away rights from people based on their beliefs/personal facts.

There's a giant difference between someone who says they think gay people (or anyone different from them) are sinners (absolutely nothing legally wrong with thinking this) and people who vote to take away civil rights of minorities (I will speak out and vote against this till the end).

Taking away civil rights should only be done when there is a clear benefit to society as a whole (imprisioning felons, for instance) and has nothing to do with freedom of speech, which is, of course, protected.

Kara

[loosechickens]

"I think the real question is, can a person express his belief that it is a fact that the only way to God is through Jesus Christ, without having someone else feel that it is an imposition on their own beliefs. You wouldn't consider it proselytizing and a violation of forum guidelines to have someone proclaim that there is no god and no path to heaven would you? They're both just individual beliefs.

As inconvenient as it might be for those too insecure in their own beliefs as to feel threatened by others, there is still freedom of speech in this country. Isn't there? " (Alan)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I WOULD consider it a violation of forum guidelines were a person to say "There is no god and no path to heaven", thereby proselytizing atheism. The person would be perfectly free to say "I BELIEVE that there is no god and no path to heaven" and that would be fine. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.

You know that, Alan. We've been over this ground over and over on these forums. Beliefs are fine. Stating one's beliefs are fine. What is not fine is stating those beliefs as fact, and proselytizing that belief as anything other than what it is, a belief.

[loosechickens]

"If I didnt believe it to be fact, I would not be basing my life and death on it. You cannot limit me to saying "I believe it to be fact" , forcing or demanding I phrase it according to you, unless you yourself want to be guilty of what you are accusing others. As far as forcing anyone, I cant force anyone to believe anything. Nor would I try. I dont know who the American Family assn is, never heard of them, so cant comment on that." (poetry_writer).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure you DO believe that to be fact, and believing that, base your life and death on that belief. There is nothing WRONG with that, poetry_writer. Can you hear what I am saying? We ALL have beliefs, attitudes, ethical standards, etc., that we base our lives on. I have beliefs that I base MY life on, but I wouldn't attempt to say that my beliefs are fact, and therefore others should conform to them. It is sufficient for me to govern my OWN life by those beliefs, and leave others to govern their lives by the ones they hold. I respect and defend your right to not only hold what religious beliefs you hold, but to believe them to be true and to govern your life by them.

You may believe what you like. You may base your life on that belief. And you should. That is not a problem. Where the problem comes is in moving away from the "I believe" into "this is fact" (meaning it is provable, which even theologians understand is why they call it FAITH, as opposed to FACT).

No atheist can come on these forums and say, "There is no god, and the whole thing is hooey". The most they can say is "I believe there is no god, and the whole thing is hooey". It's just how it is. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but no one can state something as FACT that cannot be shown to BE a fact. And religion (all of them, or the lack of any) is the same, a belief system, not a factual system. Which is why you need faith to be a believer. Because there is no way to prove it. Just as there is no way to prove there IS no god.

[loosechickens]

AND, I keep trying to bring this back to what was actually under discussion....not peoples' beliefs, but their ability to mix religious beliefs and government action together, which in this country, which has separation of church and state, means that official government actions cannot favor one religion over another, but must govern and guard that their actions do not discriminate against one religion in favor of another, or make laws and push for legislation based on religious grounds of belief.

The Jews, mentioned by Catwoman, could hold whatever beliefs they wanted about keeping kosher, but if they were elected to office, and went about trying to make this country into a "kosher country", passing laws that restaurants, food processors, etc. had to present their product according to kosher law, and that people who were not Jewish had to keep kosher houses, too, that would be a huge violation of the separation of church and state.

It's easier for us to see when the religious beliefs in question are held by a minority religion, like being up in arms about Sharia law, but difficult for many when the beliefs in question are a dominant view, held by a majority of citizens, to see that the attempt to impose religious beliefs and make laws according to them is no different, whether it's Christians doing it, or Muslims, or the aforesaid Jews. Since they are in the majority, many will actually say "this is a Christian nation" which is simply not true. America is a secular, pluralistic nation, with separation of church and state, and comprised of citizens of many different religions including none at all, and each has exactly the same right to their beliefs as any other. And none have a right to impose their own religious beliefs on others. It's how the system works.

[creaker]

I think the real question is, can a person express his belief that it is a fact that the only way to God is through Jesus Christ, without having someone else feel that it is an imposition on their own beliefs. You wouldn't consider it proselytizing and a violation of forum guidelines to have someone proclaim that there is no god and no path to heaven would you? They're both just individual beliefs.

As inconvenient as it might be for those too insecure in their own beliefs as to feel threatened by others, there is still freedom of speech in this country. Isn't there?

To mix phrases, I think the right of a person to swing their beliefs stops at the edge of my nose.

[Alan]

To mix phrases, I think the right of a person to swing their beliefs stops at the edge of my nose.

But that's not the same thing is it? Someone stating something as a fact doesn't require you to accept it and does not constitute force against you, whereas the censure of a strongly held belief (that something is a fact) does constitute a form of force, or at least control.

[creaker]

But that's not the same thing is it? Someone stating something as a fact doesn't require you to accept it and does not constitute force against you, whereas the censure of a strongly held belief (that something is a fact) does constitute a form of force, or at least control.

Actually I agree with the statement you made - people can say whatever they want, I can do the same. Censure does constitute a form of force - but only if there is action taken. Verbal censure is just more thought and words. But when you are at a point where only unaccepted facts and censure are occurring, there is no discussion taking place.

[The Storyteller]

I WOULD consider it a violation of forum guidelines were a person to say "There is no god and no path to heaven", thereby proselytizing atheism. The person would be perfectly free to say "I BELIEVE that there is no god and no path to heaven" and that would be fine. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.

Fortunately, you are the moderator for neither this forum nor the spirituality forum, as it is clear you don't know what proselytizing is. I can most certainly say there is a God and the only way to heaven is through Him, or the opposite without prefacing it with "I believe". That is a given. I pretty much see anyone's statement of faith or opinion to be just that, without the need for qualifying statements.

To say otherwise would be to say that you, LC, proselytize constantly, as you very rarely use qualifiers for anything you say. I think most people here, however, are bright enough to know you are just stating your opinion.

[peggy]

But that's not the same thing is it? Someone stating something as a fact doesn't require you to accept it and does not constitute force against you, whereas the censure of a strongly held belief (that something is a fact) does constitute a form of force, or at least control.

Actually, this has merit. There is no god and I think religion is hooey, is different than saying there is no god and I think YOU are hooey for believing that. (or stupid, or foolish or whatever) Since perception is reality, this is my reality, just as your belief in god is your reality, and each knows the other is speaking for themselves and their reality. For you and everyone in your world (which includes me and everyone on this board) there is a god. I beg to differ.
Now if I say there is no god and from now on anyone on this forum who says there is will be banned, that is discrimination and censure.

For Perry, in his capacity as political leader, his and the AFA's reality most certainly does not include a good number of Texans or the country at large. And he has given notice, by holding this rally in his capacity as political leader, that he intends to try to form our government to his religious reality. Fair enough. We've been warned. And as a secular pluralistic nation we should shout this guy down without question. The other governors have essentially done that by declining his invitation, although none that i know has the backbone to say why.

whatever our political leaders religious reality is, is their private matter, and of course we expect them to be guided by their own beliefs as to their conduct, honesty, integrity, etc.. But as most religions share their beliefs in that regard, we don't even really need to know which religion they subscribe to. Or no religion since we know morals are not connected to religious belief.

But religion is a tricky thing. It doesn't just demand you be good and kind and moral, which we can all agree on, it also demands women cover their heads, or whole bodies, or everyone eat a certain way, or you wear special underwear, or that gay people are sinful and dirty.
This is why our founding fathers said believe what you want but keep your religion to yourself. Of course that's not a direct quote so don't try to call me on that or derail the thought.
Even the bible instructs you to pray in your room by yourself.

[pinkytoe]

As a kid growing up in a Texas old money environment, I was taught by osmosis that it was impolite to discuss matters of money, religion or politics with anyone outside your family or closest friends. I still believe that especially with religion - to each his own but keep it to yourself.