May 28, 2010 -- 9:31PM, Do_unto_others wrote:

May 28, 2010 -- 6:05PM, Girlchristian wrote:

So one guy repeats what a historian and a researcher said and that means "the evangelical christian conservative republican right want people think it is relevant to DADT"? Me thinks someone only knows how to use huge generalizations to make their point.

Reading comprehension 101 for you, GC. That "guy" is "Top social conservative Bryan Fischer (the head of a Christian conservative group the American Family Association).

That means he REPRESENTS "the evangelical Christian conservative republican 'right'". He said it on a radio broadcast in response to the Congressional vote on DADT. He DOES want people to make that association which is why he made that association. Hardly a "huge generalization.

And it's by no means only "one guy"  on the far, radical "right" "religious" nutwing fringe coming up with kooky scare tactics that are DIRECTLY "relevant to DADT" (well, actually, they aren't, but these desperate religiosos shure are trying to make it look that way) ...

"Far Religious Right Group, Headed by Cliff Kincaid, Says if DADT Repealed "Gay Blood" Will Taint Military" (Link: blackpoliticalthought.blogspot.com/2010/... )

Cliff Kinkaid of American’s Survival, Inc produced a ten minute video claiming that “Disease tainted gay blood harms our troops.” His recent column is entitled “Save Our Soldiers from Gay Death.”

Lost on Mr. Kincaid is the fact that all would-be soldiers must undergo mandatory HIV screening and are not allowed to serve if the results show they are positive. (Which means that he - an avowed "Christian" - is  either ignorant or lieing (aka bearing false witness, aka a "sin"). Or both. He WANTS people to think of gays as "disease[d]" and as "tainted" - it's WHY he uses those words. Get it yet?

 

And I haven't even got to the lies of the Fambly "Research" Council's (that JohnQ references above) about gay soldiers = rapists. See how they make those (not-so) subtle 'connections/associations yet, GC? Frankly, I think they do about as much "research" as you did when you quoted from "The Pink Swastika" - hey, maybe YOU want us to make those associations with gays and Nazis too. Naaaw, couldn't possibly be, eh?)

Dec 31, 1969 -- 6:00PM, Girlchristian wrote:

Whether Hitler is a homosexual or surrounded himself with homosexuals has nothing to do with DADT and whether or not it should be repealed.

Agreed, but you miss/ignore the point, GC, which I will reiterate here: "the evangelical christian conservative republican right want people think it is relevant to DADT". THEY are the very people making these, er 'points'.

Actually, he doesn't speak for Christians. I know of NO Christian who pay any attention to what he says and know MANY that denounce what he says (that's like saying Rush speaks for Republicans when what is really true is that he happens to be louder than most of us and rich enough to have access to the media). As I've already said, his comments have nothing to do with whether or not the repeal of DADT should happen.

May 29, 2010 -- 12:59PM, Girlchristian wrote:

Actually, he doesn't speak for Christians. I know of NO Christian who pay any attention to what he says and know MANY that denounce what he says (that's like saying Rush speaks for Republicans when what is really true is that he happens to be louder than most of us and rich enough to have access to the media). As I've already said, his comments have nothing to do with whether or not the repeal of DADT should happen.

girlchristian, it's your "homosexuality is wrong" message that has EVERYTHING to do with whether or not DADT gets repealed.

Point your fingers all you want at those "other" Christians, but you have the same message of hate as those "other" Christians you point at.

May 29, 2010 -- 8:14PM, Girlchristian wrote:

May 29, 2010 -- 7:54PM, Sirronrex wrote:

May 29, 2010 -- 12:59PM, Girlchristian wrote:

Actually, he doesn't speak for Christians. I know of NO Christian who pay any attention to what he says and know MANY that denounce what he says (that's like saying Rush speaks for Republicans when what is really true is that he happens to be louder than most of us and rich enough to have access to the media). As I've already said, his comments have nothing to do with whether or not the repeal of DADT should happen.

girlchristian, it's your "homosexuality is wrong" message that has EVERYTHING to do with whether or not DADT gets repealed.

Point your fingers all you want at those "other" Christians, but you have the same message of hate as those "other" Christians you point at.

Here is where you and I will never agree. You believe that acknowledging sin is the same as hatred and I do not. One can acknowledge someone's sin (whether it be homosexuality, premarital sex, being a drunkard, pride, etc...) and not hate them.

Exactly.

I've have known people who really did hate/fear gays. None of them were particularly religious. Some themselves were, in fact, closeted homosexuals I knew in my younger years, and that would come out later in their lives.

 I'm sure there are religious people who do hate/fear gays. To me, that (whether somebody is religious) is beside the point. Except that religion stridently teaches not to hate anybody. And no, acknowleging something as sin, or going against religion, is not, never was and never will be "hatred." And, as much as somebody might profess or believe in a religion, if they really do hate, then they are acting in a manner contrary to their religion.

Some seem to think the function of religion is to tell people what they want to hear.

Judging from what I've seen in your posts, you do not hate or fear gays.

May 30, 2010 -- 2:03AM, leguru wrote:

 

You believe that acknowledging sin is the same as hatred and I do not. One can acknowledge someone's sin (whether it be homosexuality, premarital sex, being a drunkard, pride, etc...) and not hate them.

 

 

There are none so blind

As those who cannot see.

 

Acknowledging a "sin" is the same as judging someone, because your idea of "sin" is the breaking of a law, i.e., God's law. When you present extraordinary proof of the existence of "God", or "Allah", then you can argue that Sharia, or any other "law of God" is the correct law to follow. Until such proof, please look to Constitutional laws as the Supreme Law of the Land. Constitutional laws are made by people, just as those religious laws you claim to follow. However, the former are made by contemporary people and more acurately reflect the best way for our culture to survive in the world. Bronze-age tribesman are hardly contemporary.

And note that REteach's post confirmed how many teens are driven to low self-esteem and suicide because of the effects of "acknowledging their sins." The way the teens view your "acknowledgment" of their sins looks identical to them as you hating them.

 

Peace

Nobody has suggested that religious law be made the law of the land.

Sin really isn't lawbreaking. It's really just imperfection. And we are all imperfect. The concept of sin -- of man falling short of perfection, of needing God's grace, doesn't change with time. So, regardless of your strawman veiw that it's all about what a bunch of Bronze age sheepherders thought, it is not. Some things are absolute and eternal, regardless of whether some are willing to acknowledge them as such.

Still, we might be confusing things here. The military isn't a religious institution, and I'm sure GC understands that just as well as you or anybody else here does. So, in that context, there's really no reason to bring "sin" into the consideration of whether to repeal DATD.

Unless I'm mistaken, GC is not opposed to gays serving openly in the military. Like me, she apparenlty has no problem seeing a clear line between religious concepts and a secular institution like the military. Again -- near as I can tell -- she has no desire to impose her beliefs upon anybody.

And neither do I. Let gays serve openly in the military. End of story.

Rather, it is arguments such as yours that apparently want to blur the lines and insist that one can't see clearly the difference between religion and secular society. All in an attempt to slap the "hate" lable upon any POV you might find unpalatable.

Jesus said to worry about your own planks.  So acknowledge your own premarital sex, drunkeness, pride, etc.  When you start trying to point out the specks of others with planks in your own eyes, you cease to be a follower of Christ.  Funny how hard it is to figure that out, isn't it?

____________________________________________________________________________
Edited for format