There you go again...speaking about my "faulty logic" using an inaccurate comparison, and running with it. Of course, that makes your entire post invalid.

Christian conservatives aren't just voicing their opinion, they are trying to get their beliefs written into law. THAT is pushing your beliefs onto others.

Voicing opinions is part of what makes this country great.

So is separation of church and state.

Well, of course. That is what everyone does whether they are Christians, secularists, whatever. EVERYONE tries to get their "beliefs" legislated. Christians have the same rights to do that as do secularists, etc. The democratic process does not EXCLUDE Christians.

Really? So you don't mind if your banker steals your money and justifies it by saying "morality is relative?" Somehow I doubt it.

I have yet to meet a moral relativist who didn't want moral absolutes applied to THEM. They don't want to be murdered, robbed, raped THEMSELVES. Moral relativism is nothing more than an indication that the person has not really thought it through.

I didn't say that Christians don't have the same rights, or shouldn't have the same rights.

If organized religion wants to have a hand in lawmaking via lobbyists, etc., then they should all have to pay taxes like every other money-making venture in this country.

If morality is relative, then how can anyone object to an adulterous spouse? What would one be doing on a website that promotes fidelity?

Want to read your own quote again?:

That's how I raised my son, too. I told him what I believed, and why I believed it, but I also encouraged him to explore what the other side had to say about issues and to think for himself. When I was in college, I heard the saying "Honorable men may honorably disagree" and it really resonated with me.

As parents, we have a moral obligation to teach our children right from wrong and to teach them the truth. Now, they can grow up and adopt whatever views they want, but teaching truth and morality to children is a parental obligation. Telling them to make up their own minds when they have no wisdom, maturity or judgment to DISCERN any such thing is gross dereliction of duty. Doing so just causes moral confusion.

If a parent doesn't KNOW right from wrong, as many don't, I hope to God they get their tubes tied instead of confusing little children with their own confusion.

I didn't say that they don't or shouldn't have the right.

So I caused my son moral confusion by suggesting he listen to the arguments of people whose beliefs are like yours?

You know, you may very well have a point.

There is nothing "inaccurate" about my "comparison," Krazy. It is the APPLICATION of your stated "logic" to other scenarios to see how it "holds up" under "general rule" application. Your "logical argument" FOR abortion fails miserably when the standard you proposed is applied. And that has NOTHING to do with any "religion."



Certainly a "Christian belief" IS important to Christians, duh?

But you are trying to use "class envy" and "religious bigotry" as your argument for excluding any opposition to any abortion on demand issue.

I have argued, MEDC has argued, others have argued, that the ISSUE is LIFE, a living human being, WHOSE rights are being terminated with extreme prejudice along with its right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," that IS a founding principle and part of our Constitution and reason for existence AS a Country.

THAT is the issue, whether or not any given proponent who is "Pro-life" and not "Pro-abortion" happens to also believe that God is against abortion. "Biologically," that developing, fertilized egg, IS a human being with its own unique DNA, not the mother's and not like any other "tissue" of the mother.




Yes, it is. That is what the FIRST Amendment is all about, and it doesn't make any difference if someone is a "Christian" or not. They have the same right of free speech, except when the liberals try to enact laws "abridging the free exercise thereof."




There is NOTHING in the Constitution regarding this overworn "red herring" of "separation of church and state."

What IS in the Constitution is that the Congress SHALL NOT pass any law establishing any ONE "religion" AS the "official State(National) religion" such as many other countries have. What is also in the Constitution, immediately included with THAT prohibition is the further prohibition that the Congress (and by extension the Courts, whose duty it is to enforce the law, not make the law) WILL NOT make ANY law that abridges the free exercise of religion anywhere, at any time, in the United States.

Arguments such as you are marking ALWAYS like to forget the "no abridgement" part of the very Amendment they like to "use" for their own purposes.

p.s. and I did teach my kids to "think for themselves." When one of their teachers promoted idiocy and mental retardation, as many do, I showed them the FACTS and taught them how to CHALLENGE that teacher. I taught them to NEVER accept anything someone says at face value.

For example, when my son came home in 10th grade and told me that Harry S Truman was a "murderer" for dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima, I showed him the FACTS that led him to a different conclusion. He then brought that information back to his retarded, anti-American teacher and challenged her views.

I taught him to be a REASEARCHER and to validate anything anyone tells him. EVEN ME. I taught him to use reason, logic, and FACTS to validate his conclusions.

There you go again, Krazy, wanting to abridge the free exercise of religion again. NOW you want the "church" to NOT be separated from the State.

You really need to think this stuff through, Krazy.

Moral confusion is caused by a FAILURE to teach kids morality. We are not assigned the duty of telling them to listen to different viewpoints and then make up their own minds. We are assigned the duty of teaching them right from wrong.

lol

He is backpeddling fast and furious.

I'm so perplexed by this. American is where we die to defend our right to dissent, to have different views, beliefs, opinions. So a teacher having views different than yours IS American.

As you are.

It's like you said something and then the exact opposite in the same sentence.

I think I'm having a Huxley moment.

LA

That doesn't make any sense, LA. Having a RIGHT to say something is not the issue, but the substance of what she said. It doesn't mean that every view is pro-American just because someone has the right to make it.

Do you think I can say something anti-American and just because I have a RIGHT to say it, it changes the NATURE of my statement? Does that make any sense to you?

LMAO...exactly MEL!

Not at all.

I think that organized religions should either butt out of politics, or they should pay their admission fee like everyone else.