Chick-fil-a

[FunfGan]

Please, tell me where I said that? !! (Just like where you said marriage was defined in the constitution and also where it was only defined as one particular thing in the Bible) In your wikipedia listing of fallacies, look up Straw Man - you're building one with an argument I never made because yours is full of lose.

You're missing that point that just because general moral values that are shared by multiple religions and cultures were used to build upon for universally accepted civil laws DOES NOT MEAN that one particular religion's definition (or multiple definitions) of marriage would be the basis for an entire nation which included a "separation of church and state". You can look to most religions and find similar principles such as not killing others, not stealing, not cheating, and be decent to others - so it's not surprising that people find common ground with civil laws in a melting pot of immigrants and those seeking refuge from religious persecution. Even atheists agree on basic moral principles. What people don't agree with, and what is un-American, is establishing civil law that oppresses others based on one religion.


Pot, meet kettle. (see start of this post)

My apologies, I thought it was you, not Kershaw, who posted the picture. Regardless, more than one of those shows that they were in fact speaking of the Biblical God. But again, sorry for the mixup. And this is a totally different discussion.

Honest question here: by "thousands and thousands" you mean "two hundred thousand," right? Definitely OT, but that struck me as odd.

I'm middle ground on that. As you may or may not know, the Christian community is kind of touchy on that. We obviously have the "7 days" of creation, in creationism. But there are a few hints that "God's days" are human days, along with some scientific evidence that it has been around longer than 2 thousand years. So simply, it's something I haven't researched enough myself, and therefor don't want to take a stand until I know enough to make my own decision.

What court rulings in favor of Sharia?

Actually what I was saying is that, innocent or not by our standards, those women aren't considered innocent in their culture, hence their fate.

it's barbaric and terrible, pointing it out doesn't mean I agree with it.

For fucks sake you're brilliant.

But my point being, in America we have guaranteed religious freedom, but we also have laws against murder, Equal rights, freedom and pursuit to happiness. So the vague issue becomes when the parents/ family members religious freedom tears into the freedom and pursuit of happiness of others in the family.


And there are a lot of cases of Sharia Law being used in American Courts, some of which I mentioned already. I'll try to find the published reports.

[rwh11385]

My apologies, I thought it was you, not Kershaw, who posted the picture. Regardless, more than one of those shows that they were in fact speaking of the Biblical God. But again, sorry for the mixup. And this is a totally different discussion.

So that makes at least three times you have been mistaken or wrong about facts or realities... not a great track record.

Is it that difficult for you to understand that those Christian men wanted to avoid the establishment of a state religion - even their own? Time and again, I try to help you get this simple concept, but you can't look past what you want to have as a conclusion, regardless of how ridiculous of steps you make to reach it. Re-read what I just posted and try to process it. The assumption that they intended to push their religious beliefs onto the nation in which they created a separation of church and state is a weak and pathetic attempt to explain why people now want their way forced on everyone else. (Which was what the founders wanted to avoid...) Again, arguing to impose one's belief on another is un-American.

p.s. First you get mad at Kershaw for posting an image that said American founders weren't Christian and you say the founding was theistic. And now you are going back to focusing on some of the founders being Christian - instead of actually responding to what I was talking about?? It's like a never-ending circle of illogical reasoning and constantly confusing who you are arguing with and what about - or again, trying to build a straw man that allows you to argue against something that a particular person isn't even talking about...

[FunfGan]

So that makes at least three times you have been mistaken or wrong about facts or realities... not a great track record.

Is it that difficult for you to understand that those Christian men wanted to avoid the establishment of a state religion - even their own? Time and again, I try to help you get this simple concept, but you can't look past what you want to have as a conclusion, regardless of how ridiculous of steps you make to reach it. Re-read what I just posted and try to process it. The assumption that they intended to push their religious beliefs onto the nation in which they created a separation of church and state is a weak and pathetic attempt to explain why people now want their way forced on everyone else. (Which was what the founders wanted to avoid...) Again, arguing to impose one's belief on another is un-American.

So what point are you trying to make? I never said we should impose our beliefs. All I said was that many of our founding fathers did, at the very least, believe in a God, and in fact, the God of the Bible. That was my very point before, that although they held those beliefs, they don't play any part(read, banning gay marriage) in our laws that they didn't already have. I completely agree with you. The separation of church and state means, as you've said, that there will be no forced state religion, even if the laws had bits of theism in there already. Sorry again for any misunderstanding, hopefully that clears it up.

And I was mistaken about who said something, or about something somebody said. My bad, I'll try to be more careful reading :)

[rwh11385]

So what point are you trying to make? I never said we should impose our beliefs. All I said was that many of our founding fathers did, at the very least, believe in a God, and in fact, the God of the Bible. That was my very point before, that although they held those beliefs, they don't play any part(read, banning gay marriage) in our laws that they didn't already have. I completely agree with you. The separation of church and state means, as you've said, that there will be no forced state religion, even if the laws had bits of theism in there already. Sorry again for any misunderstanding, hopefully that clears it up.

And I was mistaken about who said something, or about something somebody said. My bad, I'll try to be more careful reading :)

My point was that your argument about them being Christian or not MAKES NO DIFFERENCE in the gay marriage discussion what-so-ever. Why even argue it or bring it up? They could believe in flying spaghetti monsters but still think that the basic moral values and principles that are pretty much universally accepted are good. And regardless of what they may or may not personally think about anything, their striving for separation of religion and civil law takes priority over that. It's good to know that you agree on this, but wasted a bunch of time arguing with Kershaw about something that doesn't influence the topic at hand.

Just because someone is Christian doesn't mean they have to be a dick to everyone else about it. It's just that so many politicians are Evangelical assholes and start these cultural wars because they lack any respect for religions other than their own.

[Cliche Guevara]

I'm middle ground on that. As you may or may not know, the Christian community is kind of touchy on that. We obviously have the "7 days" of creation, in creationism. But there are a few hints that "God's days" are human days, along with some scientific evidence that it has been around longer than 2 thousand years. So simply, it's something I haven't researched enough myself, and therefor don't want to take a stand until I know enough to make my own decision.

Try the entire body of scientific evidence. There really isn't a middle ground on this, either you accept the factual evidence and acknowledge that the universe is 13.7 billion years old or you believe in an old book. Not trying to be a dick (though it certainly comes off that way ;)), that's just how it is. It's good that you're open to learning about it, though. Here's a great explanation of evolution to start you off.

[FunfGan]

I've looked into evolution, and will continue to do so, but it just doesn't make sense. There are no middle ground species etc etc, and there had to be SOMETHING to start evolution. Ie, I can see the sense in creationist evolution, and I also agree that at the very least, creatures had adapted and evolved to their surroundings, but not the extent of total evolution. But to each his own. I don't think we need to get into things that have nothing to do with the thread topic haha.

[FunfGan]

Also, just popped to mind: Aren't people not accepting of Chick-Fil-A's intolerance? Ie, you all are intolerant of intolerant people. Just food for thought...

[Cliche Guevara]

I've looked into evolution, and will continue to do so, but it just doesn't make sense. There are no middle ground species etc etc, and there had to be SOMETHING to start evolution. Ie, I can see the sense in creationist evolution, and I also agree that at the very least, creatures had adapted and evolved to their surroundings, but not the extent of total evolution. But to each his own. I don't think we need to get into things that have nothing to do with the thread topic haha.

I'll reply in the god thread.

[JinormusJ]

#mostepic/threadever

[der affe]

Also, just popped to mind: Aren't people not accepting of Chick-Fil-A's intolerance? Ie, you all are intolerant of intolerant people. Just food for thought...

it's called hypocrisy. it is fine to choose not to frequent their establishment because of statements made by the owners of the company.

however, when you try to force YOUR beliefs on the company because you do not agree with theirs, you are just as bad as what you claim to hate.

i see nothing wrong with what he said, THAT IS HIS OPINION and he is intitled to it (freedom of speach and freedom of religion).

was it a smart business decision to tell the world his OPINION??????? Hell no!!!!

i don't however remember him saying that he would not serve food to GLBT people or that it was a company policy to not hire them.

for the record, i am for gay marriage. whatever sanctity there once was to marrage, has long been stripped away by divorce, child support, alamony, infidelity, etc. marriage has been more of a legal contract (giving half of your stuff to your partner if it is terminated) than a life commitment for a while now.
society has let it evolve into what it is today, why not let the gays in on it??????

[FunfGan]

Bless your sig.

it's called hypocrisy. it is fine to choose not to frequent their establishment because of statements made by the owners of the company.

however, when you try to force YOUR beliefs on the company because you do not agree with theirs, you are just as bad as what you claim to hate.

That is exactly my point!


i don't however remember him saying that he would not serve food to GLBT people or that it was a company policy to not hire them.

Same, THEY still have to abide by the laws, wether or not the politicians think they have to

[bernzpeed]

some people need to go back to school and learn to spell. lol. but i'm enjoying eating my popcorn here.

[Dozyproductions]

I'm middle ground on that. As you may or may not know, the Christian community is kind of touchy on that. We obviously have the "7 days" of creation, in creationism. But there are a few hints that "God's days" are human days, along with some scientific evidence that it has been around longer than 2 thousand years.

you're definitely frustrating. When christianity doesnt stand to reason lets just change it till it makes sense. ;) At best there were christians and deists in the ranks of our founding fathers.

http://www.jameswatkins.com/foundingfathers.htm

Can't I as easily just put the words into our founding fathers and just say when they mentioned god that it was just referring to the driving force of the universe? May I remind you that einstein's theory only existed in the 20th century and we have yet (but are very close) to a unifying theory of everything?


after reading this thread I can tell that nobody has been putting words in your mouth. How old are you to no comprehend that?

[rwh11385]

Also, just popped to mind: Aren't people not accepting of Chick-Fil-A's intolerance? Ie, you all are intolerant of intolerant people. Just food for thought...

Yes, yes I am intolerant of people shitting on other's rights. Again, you are defending ignorance, bigotry, and working to keep others down and without their fundamental civil rights??

Would you support CFA donating money to end women's suffrage because of what the Bible says?

The Klan is protected in having free speech and the right to assemble, but that doesn't mean that many people would go to a Klan Chicken Shack. Maybe if they were white, protestant, and hated minorities (like the GOP) - actually, a lot like CFA. And if such a business was on the wrong side of history and was at risk of hostile work environment lawsuits, local officials don't have to believe it is a good use of space to open a venue for it.

Tolerating lack of respect for others and hate is something that makes America behind the times. Heck, we didn't even care if someone put stars on people they didn't like until we got bombed by their buddies for strategic naval advantage.

[FunfGan]

you're definitely frustrating. When christianity doesnt stand to reason lets just change it till it makes sense. ;) At best there were christians and deists in the ranks of our founding fathers.

What are you referring to?

http://www.jameswatkins.com/foundingfathers.htm

Can't I as easily just put the words into our founding fathers and just say when they mentioned god that it was just referring to the driving force of the universe? May I remind you that einstein's theory only existed in the 20th century and we have yet (but are very close) to a unifying theory of everything?

So you're saying that there was only one idea of "God" back then? I fail to see how else you could just assume that, regardless of the fact that many used "Christ" and "jesus" when referring to God.


after reading this thread I can tell that nobody has been putting words in your mouth. How old are you to no comprehend that?

So what would you call Kershaw assuming that I was denying that something in the Bible happened, or that when I said "theistic" I was immediately referring to Christianity?