Sacrilegious

The word sacrilegious doesn't protect anything. I don't see how the word homophobe would protect the interests of anyone, either.

Quote:

Originally posted by madame_zora@Oct 5 2005, 01:59 AM I'm so sick of little ego-shattered cretins running the world. Grow some balls, no one owes it to you to tiptoe around your religious mythologies even if YOU think they do.

But back to the original topic, the left demands that the rights of everyone be tip-toed around, save for Christians. So tolerant, yet so intolerant...

<!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora@Oct 5 2005, 01:59 AM
Hey, if you practised some of the good ideas in the good book instead of using your religion to put yourself on a pedastal above your fellow man, you just might not ilicit the same responses as you are getting now. Just a thought.

[/quote]

And what religion would that be, Zorag? Maybe you could find the post where I claimed to be religious or Christian? Just a thought.

Again, a sweeping generalization. I suppose that my views on individual rights and liberties would qualify me as "left." Yet I do not demand that rights be tip-toed around, just protected and respected. That includes the rights of christians. I hold neither great affection nor great animosity toward christians or any other group. Really, the only problem I have with most any group comes into play when they start trying to "legislate morality" by forcing their beliefs into my private life. It is no more anyone else's business whom I choose to marry, than it is my business whether they masturbate right- or left-handed. It just simply should be a non-issue. If it is in private, between two consenting adults, it just is not the government's (or the church's) business.

So, not all us "leftists" are out there disparaging christians. Some of us actually are practicing what we preach.

For the most part, I'm a political leftist. However, I'm a devout Catholic as well. I try to keep my political views and my religious beliefs separate, but it's getting more and more difficult nowadays with politicians who cater to a religious-based following and religious leaders who feel the need to step into the political arena. My personal opinion is that it's wrong for anyone in either position to force another to accept his views in either subject as being the only viable option. I am a Christian, and it is my right to be a Christian. I respect the right of others to follow whatever religion he accepts as true or to follow no religion at all. We must make our own path, and we must be true to ourselves to do it. It is not the job of any political figure the mandate what I believe, nor is it his job to promote legislation that reflects his religious beliefs.

About Fred Phelps: I do not view him as a false prophet. I would expect a false prophet to have a sizeable following in order to be taken seriously. Fred Phelps's congregation hardly extends beyond his family. He is a hateful, bitter old man; I will not give him credit for being anything more significant than that.

[/quote]

Are you serious? Please read every topic posted by a disgruntled member of this board here in Etc. It won't give you the full scope, but it will be a damned good start.

[/quote]

You don't agree that Christians are trying to legislate morality? Are you serious? That level of denial must be very tiring to maintain.

[/quote]

That answered directly your original question- No, it is not sacrilegous to insult members of a faith, be they authentic or not. People who wish to have their freedoms protected are not being sacrilegous by confronting a perceived fraud. Even Jesus did this, was he sacrilegous by confronting the Pharisees?


sorry, I don't know what went wrong with the quotes, I put my words in red and your in blue

I think the real point here is WHO GIVES A SHIT. if christians feel I'm disrespecting their faith, what are they gonna do? pray that I get hit by a bus? it's a waste of time to even worry about it.

And what religion would that be, Zorag? Maybe you could find the post where I claimed to be religious or Christian? Just a thought.
[/b][/quote]


Point 1), the word "protect" wasn't the perfect choice, but I thought my meaning would be clear. Since it was not, I meant it like this, the word "sacrilegous" is there, carrying a negative connotation to add condemnation to a perceived wrong. "Homophobe" is thrown around in much the same manner. I wasn't taking issue with actual instances of theft of sacred goods or thier desecration, nor actual instances of prejudice or violence against gays- only that the words were pulled out too easily to add volume to the claim.

Point 2) nomatter how many times I say it, you keep ignoring it. NO ONE IS GOING TO BE TOLERANT WHILE THE INTOLERANT SPEAK THEIR PIECE!!!!!!!!!

Get it yet? Well, don't worry, if you forget or ignore it some more, I'll be glad to remind you.

There is a dangerous and ugly breed of religion and government blending together in a way that putrefies both. If someone belongs to the neocon movement, they need not expect tolerance while they continue producing and passing legislation against the rights of anyone who does not agree with their one narrow view.

As for Christianity, I have a great deal of respect for Christians. Until recently, the separation between belief and law allowed me to hold harmless those whose beliefs were different than mine. That is no longer the case. Now, we're in a situation where it's "us" against "them" and like it or not, it's the Christians in government that have forced this situation.

Point 3) The words "the good book" generally refer to the Bible, I thought everyone knew that. My post started out "Note to Christians", so therefore I was not directing it to you. I don't know or care about your religious affiliation.

[quote=madame_zora,Oct 5 2005, 02:14 PM]
Freddie

Good comments, Jana. I would clarify one point, "the Christians in Government that have forced this situation" only involves a small segment of Christianity when you look at Christianity as a world wide religion. Sadly some of these "Christians" are definitely opportunists and I suspect some to be frauds. To be sure their viewpoints are 100 percent opposite of many Christians in America today.

Church membership does not a Christian make.

Jesus never mentioned church membership as a criteria to be a Christian.

BTW, I kind of like this new person Zorag. Perhaps we can hear more from Zorag in the months to come. Wonder if she can outdo Zora? I hope so. Looking forward to hearing from her some more. Of course Jana is my personal favorite. She is more Christian than many who have expressed ardent support of Christianity.

Still Freddie can just imagine some of the posts that Zorag could post in the future. Bet she can really lay it on. :evilgrin:

You'll find most of these hate groups are like that. Speaking of which, looking at the ADL or SPLC's list of hate groups, I'm shocked by the dearth of hate groups in South Dakota. Because when I lived there . . .

I still do not understand the intent of this topic. Do you mean:
That all who profess to be Christians are sacred by definition?
That liberals cannot be Christian?
That liberals are immoral by definition?

It is my impression that in Christianity, mortals are not sacred. If so, how would showing a lack of respect to a professed Christian be sacrilegious?

jay

I'm remembering all the respect and cooperation shown by the right toward Bill Clinton (and his family). It was a shining example worthy of emulation by everyone.

SG

Let us not forget that Bill Clinton is a devout Christian. He is a human being and subject to err, but what a demonic way of treating a brother. I respect Christians who are worthy of respect, but the "moral majority" is a hideous and grotesquely deformed version of that religion. They get only my unqualified contempt.