Jesus - the bleeding heart liberal

There is conviction, and then there is fundamentalist lunacy, the same kind that inspired the crusades, and all the misery, sin and bloodshed that occured in the name of God.

You can believe as fervently as you wish for yourself, but when you decide for others what is right, you disrepsect them as human beings. I've always been taught that the christian way is non-aggressive. I do not believe in the hardline, fundamentalist, evangelical approach, which, by all appearances, you are completely wrapped up in. This is the same kind of religious fascism that led to book burnings and witch trials. I can no longer remember the specifics of the story, but i remember reading about a book burning propagated by the Catholic Church hundreds of years ago in Europe, which led to the Papacy (I cannot spell today) explaining that burning books does not make people non-sinners, or consequently, more religious. Which is the mind of greater conviction - the educated one which, of its own free will, rejects sin, or the one that was brow beaten and fascistly steered towards faith? The latter is the same manner as your approach, albeit on a different level.

I do not believe in hard line religious zealotry or fundamentalism. I do not believe in the type of evangelacism (sp?) that I often see because it disrespects the free will of man. And yes, I know I'm burning in hell and an idiot liberal to boot because I believe in free will. Your answers are so fundamentalist that I don't even need to see your posts. Sadly, I know what you're going to say.

 

You didn't mention them which is my problem with your post. You act like Pubs are the only group that want to force what they think is moral down our throats. Give up the charade.

 

There is no charade Sly. I f you want me to criticize the Dems so you feel I'm being fair, I guess I can appease you somehow. I just don't see them using some kind of religious and moral authority to validate their campaign. If they were, I would. Esepcially since that's the topic here. I guess I'll have to wait for Kerry to show up on TV wearing a "there is no god or moral authority" shirt. I wouldn't hold your breath on that one though (despite TheIt's convictions). And even if he did do it, I wouldn't be overly critical, because I do believe in free will - specifically, his right to endure with whatever consequences that might entail in this life and hereafter. From what I understand though, he is a Catholic and is loathe to use religion as a campaign platform.

 

You honestly don't think forced charity is a moral stance?

 

There is a difference in my position, which is, that there are certain moral absolutes that are true in every situation whether the situation involves me or you or joe blow and the position you attribute to me which is that I think everyone should be forced to agree with me.

I do respect free will and as such I believe that everyone is free to believe and within limits act however they want. I can however believe this and still say that what they believe or what they do is wrong.

My stance on abortion, for example, is not rooted in trying to make anyone agree with me. It is rooted in the belief that the unborn deserve a chance to live and that our laws should protect them.

 

I.E. using your religious beliefs as a shield (defensive/protectionist). Which, if that's what you believe, is perfectly acceptable. The problem, IMO, is that you cross the free will line (which I'll admit is razor thin on that issue), and become far too aggressive (i.e. the sword/offensive).

I could derail this thread like crazy and cross over into politics since yous eem to want me to take a stance so you can go back on the offensive, where you are most comfortable. I don't want to do it, but if you can let this go... My biggest problem with Birth control isn't abortion. It's the behavior and the options that lead up to a situationw here someone would consider an abortion. In other words, in campaigning for your moral, partisan and theological victory on that issue, have you really solved the greater problem? I don't think so. This crosses the line into my hatred of partisanship, but I worry about the two sides squabbling over issues such as this and not seeing the big picture. It's the product of a closed mind and thinking system. Instead, looking at the issue from a different, common sense angle, if we expended as much energy on education, lifestyle pattern behavior changes and making alternative contraception available to our public, then the issue of abortion, which would still remain a moral dilemna, would be heavily de-emphasized. But no one wants that it seems. We're more worried about proclaiming a "victory" over the "opposition".

I wish the Church would see things this way too, because I believe it is a very minor compromise of their beliefs. Educuate the public on responsible family planning and you kill two birds (abortion & overpopulation) with one stone.

 

Sly, if you really wanna debate me, I will require you to unroll your logic, because I am not of the mind to answer your very-loaded-with-assumptions-and-questionable-logical-leaps questions. Sorry, but as a good attorney, I don't play ball with the other team's equipment. That's stupid and suicidal.

 

I am not opposed to education and other ways to curb unwanted pregnancy before conception. Because I do believe in free will, however, I do not suggest that we can control the behaviours that lead to unwanted pregnancy. That is why I care more about legal protection for the unborn. As it stands now the unborn are not protected by our laws.

I am not sure what you are getting at with your whole shield vs. sword thing but I can sum up what I think you are getting at by saying I am for the right to say that something is wrong (because it is a moral absolute) but I am not for controlling the beliefs of others or within limits their behavior.

 

Should they be? You're not going to like it, but the unborn have limited legal protection in our greater legal system. Some would argue that estate law affords them some rights, but it is really protecting the will of the grantor. Additionally, the courts have always been loathe to define a life in being in several areas of the law, and not every decision has agreed with the others. I'm not sure that the law wants to be involved with this. It seems a highly personal decision. Yes, I know that "the unborn" doesn't have a voice, which forces the system's hand.

Careful there, slippery slope. I thought you respected free will and only abridged behavior for the rights of the unborn? Specifically though, I hate this issue because it is your safe harbor. Because it is so nebulous, you can safely disguise a lot of your behaviors that I am criticizing here. What about the other issues that you consistently preach about? I submit that you do not respect free will. It is God's will alone (as interpreted by you and an innumerable amount of other people through the ages) that governs all. We have no free will beyond do as you say or perish/suffer/be wrong/etc. Your approach isn't completely fascist, but it sure as hell is a few steps in that direction.

 

Regardless of whether or not the legal system affords rights to the unborn, they should do so. That is one of my moral absolutes. I do not have to rationalize it, it is just the truth.

As far as limits to behaviour goes it is a chicken and the egg argument. If you do not have limits then the weak have no protection from the strong. We have to limit criminal actions or there can be no freedom.

I think you can recognize the free will of others but still believe that there are consquences for actions. I respect your free will to touch a hot stove, that does not mean I do not believe you will get burned if you do.