More Southern Shenanigans

[funhusker]

TG for President!!!

 

Seriously, great post!

[knapplc]

It seems to me that the better way to change society is one heart at a time and not by broad based legislation that cuts across the current of today's cultural values. Whether a person agrees or disagrees wt the cultural values, paddling against that current will cause you to go no where and most likely go back wards as the current pushes against those laws. As Dude has quoted here, Christ came into the world not to judge the world but that through Him all might be saved (John 3:17). If a person has a moral conviction that homosexuality is morally wrong, one has to remember that other 'sins' are also condemned equally in the Bible- lust, greed, lying, etc and yes judgment. In the moral world, all of us live in glass houses including those who try to legislate morality. With that said, we aren't forbidden from expressing ourselves in the marketplace, the courts and in governance but we must be aware that legislation like this can and often does have unintended consequences that can be damaging to one's cause and/or to the society. Most if not all laws have a moral component. Those moral components have biases, judgments, etc that come from some foundation - religious, historical, political, cultural. The negative biases & judgments need to be neutralize as much as possible for the law to best serve society.

 

Yet there is also a slippery slope the other way that we have to avoid. How do we adequately protect the religious freedoms of individuals and do those freedoms extend to their businesses?. If so - what size business - just sole proprietorships?? We obviously don't want to go back to the days when a café owner or cake maker can refuse serving someone because of the color of their skin or in this case their 'sexual orientation'. Or maybe just maybe the 'church' (believers at large) may need to recognize that they work and live in the midst of a contrary culture and that in their living and working they can be an even greater witness in serving even those who they may differ with on this subject. This may be more of the 'grace principle' - showing love and using our gifts to serve regardless of who is receiving the gift of our service. Somehow, I think this is the higher road, the higher calling, and more Christ like. I'm old enough to remember the hay days of the Moral Majority and the net result has been greater separation from people we are called to serve and no reversal of Roe v Wade which was the primary goal of the MM. I'm a traditionalist morally - pro-life, one man/one women marriage but in a multi cultural society, I'm called first to be a servant of Christ and therefore a servant of others - regardless of 'who those others are' - I don't get the option to choose. Love serves best those who are different than oneself. It is easy to love and serve those who are like us and with whom we agree. Real love is able to serve those who are 'different' with the same grace as serving those with whom we are alike.

 

Good stuff.

 

A concern about the "slippery slope" argument. That slope can slip in many ways. If we allow people to discriminate against homosexuals because of their religious principles, where does that end? Can I not decide that, due to my religion, I don't want to serve Blacks in my shop? Or women? Or Christians? Could a Lutheran deny services to a Catholic because of his religious beliefs?

 

It's absurd to us today to think it should be legal to prohibit a Black man and a White woman from marrying - but 50 years ago, that was a norm, and it was based on religion.

 

I'm against allowing religion to undermine civil rights. That knife can cut way too deep.

[zoogs]

Well said. I certainly am not for government interference in freedom of religion, but that said, religion can't be a basis for picking and choosing laws to follow, either.

 

Take the contraceptives issue. The Supreme Court is currently trying to make it as easy as possible for organizations to wash their hands of this on religious grounds*, but I just think that if you're going to be an organization responsible for providing health care, you need to do it in full. If you're a county clerk and it's your job to issue marriage licenses, then issue them.

 

* specifically, under a previous ruling these organizations can simply fill out a form stating they have a religious objection, to let the government know to kick in an alternative pathway. Those organizations promptly sued again on the grounds that having to even state their objection is too burdensome. What they really want is to deny contraceptive coverage.

[huKSer]

 

 

adoption agencies from refusing to place a child with a couple who they believe may be having premarital sex.

 

Don't get me wrong. The other stuff ticks me off too, and people should fight tooth and nail to raise hell about this.

 

But THIS^^^? What the hell planet are these people living on? Is it the 1950's? Holy crap.

 

 

It gets better (or worse)

 

 

To become a CARE family, a husband and wife would have to be married for at least seven years and at least one of the pair could not work outside the home. The bill would prohibit alcohol, tobacco and unlawful drugs in the home and “sexual relations outside of the marriage.”

 

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article9711821.html#storylink=cpy

He referred to the 1950s sitcom “Leave it to Beaver” to give an example of the types of families he is hoping to attract to the program.

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article9711821.html#storylink=cpy

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article9711821.html#0

[Moiraine]

^ that is so sad.

 

They want women to not get abortions. Fine. I'm pro life too (with exceptions).

 

But then they want to make it as hard as possible to adopt a baby.

 

What the hell is wrong with these people? If you want women to not abort babies then make adoptions easier. Oh. And maybe don't cut food stamps or other things that make having the baby more affordable.

 

Or hey... and f'ing make contraception easy to obtain so abortion doesn't have to enter as many people's minds. I mean, just fyi to all you guys, I don't care if it's TMI, once a year I have to get a piece of plastic, followed by some needles, shoved up my vagina so I can obtain birth control. And it doesn't feel good. Because for some reason sitting in a doctor's office doesn't do anything to get me ready if you know what I mean. I guess the closest thing I could use to describe it for a man to understand is to say maybe it's what it'd feel like to have a charlie horse inside your anus. It doesn't last long and it's not excruciating but it's not enjoyable. (I do understand the need to do this for health but in your 20s and 30s it's probably not necessary to do once a year and if I'm having sex with only one dude I don't need to be checked for STDs every year).

 

I just don't understand how people are this stupid. If you think abortion is murder, then do what you can to prevent women from feeling the need to abort babies. It's pretty damn simple.

 

Republicans and their policies seem to do everything they can to make abortions MORE likely.

 

 

Lastly, the types of familes they described, those perfect familes, are often secretly effed up familes in private. Gays had to fight for marriage for years. If they want a kid I'd trust how good they'd be to that kid as much as I would a "perfect" married Christian set of parents.

[TGHusker]

 

It seems to me that the better way to change society is one heart at a time and not by broad based legislation that cuts across the current of today's cultural values. Whether a person agrees or disagrees wt the cultural values, paddling against that current will cause you to go no where and most likely go back wards as the current pushes against those laws. As Dude has quoted here, Christ came into the world not to judge the world but that through Him all might be saved (John 3:17). If a person has a moral conviction that homosexuality is morally wrong, one has to remember that other 'sins' are also condemned equally in the Bible- lust, greed, lying, etc and yes judgment. In the moral world, all of us live in glass houses including those who try to legislate morality. With that said, we aren't forbidden from expressing ourselves in the marketplace, the courts and in governance but we must be aware that legislation like this can and often does have unintended consequences that can be damaging to one's cause and/or to the society. Most if not all laws have a moral component. Those moral components have biases, judgments, etc that come from some foundation - religious, historical, political, cultural. The negative biases & judgments need to be neutralize as much as possible for the law to best serve society.

 

Yet there is also a slippery slope the other way that we have to avoid. How do we adequately protect the religious freedoms of individuals and do those freedoms extend to their businesses?. If so - what size business - just sole proprietorships?? We obviously don't want to go back to the days when a café owner or cake maker can refuse serving someone because of the color of their skin or in this case their 'sexual orientation'. Or maybe just maybe the 'church' (believers at large) may need to recognize that they work and live in the midst of a contrary culture and that in their living and working they can be an even greater witness in serving even those who they may differ with on this subject. This may be more of the 'grace principle' - showing love and using our gifts to serve regardless of who is receiving the gift of our service. Somehow, I think this is the higher road, the higher calling, and more Christ like. I'm old enough to remember the hay days of the Moral Majority and the net result has been greater separation from people we are called to serve and no reversal of Roe v Wade which was the primary goal of the MM. I'm a traditionalist morally - pro-life, one man/one women marriage but in a multi cultural society, I'm called first to be a servant of Christ and therefore a servant of others - regardless of 'who those others are' - I don't get the option to choose. Love serves best those who are different than oneself. It is easy to love and serve those who are like us and with whom we agree. Real love is able to serve those who are 'different' with the same grace as serving those with whom we are alike.

 

Good stuff.

 

A concern about the "slippery slope" argument. That slope can slip in many ways. If we allow people to discriminate against homosexuals because of their religious principles, where does that end? Can I not decide that, due to my religion, I don't want to serve Blacks in my shop? Or women? Or Christians? Could a Lutheran deny services to a Catholic because of his religious beliefs?

 

It's absurd to us today to think it should be legal to prohibit a Black man and a White woman from marrying - but 50 years ago, that was a norm, and it was based on religion.

 

I'm against allowing religion to undermine civil rights. That knife can cut way too deep.

 

Knapp, I agree. While some 100 to 150 years ago, the USA may have been considered culturally a Christian nation, the times have changed. Fortunately for us, the Founders ( a mix of strong Christians, deists, and perhaps some closet atheists/agnostics thrown in) were wise enough to recognize that the day was coming when we would be much more pluralistic than what we were at our founding. For our govt to work in this new cultural mix, we have to have broad enough civil liberties to accommodate all people with limits that don't infringe rights specifically towards one group. It is a difficult tight rope to walk. Will one group get 100% of what it wants? - probably not and that may be a good thing. We need to allow religion to bring to the culture all of the benefits it does bring (care for others, moral values and teaching, etc, etc) - I think religion speaks best when it speaks with its actions of doing good. We aren't Iran so we need to recognize that religion has a role in society but it is a role separate from government. Govt has a role but it isn't to teach us religion (like in Iran). From my Christian perspective I see God as having established 3 main societal institutions 1)Family 2) Govt 3) Religion Each are separate, each have a profound role to play, and each can strengthen each other and the society if allowed to play their proper role. Can a religious person have a role in govt and a voice in the market place? - yes just like the non-religious. Can a religious organization petition the govt (via court or legislation) in the same way as a non-religious organization? Yes. But can a religious organization be the govt - NO. It would be failing society and its God for trying to be what it wasn't meant to be. This is when religion looses its 'salt' and eventually looses its influence on society. I think one could argue (I don't have the facts but just a hunch of following politics from the early 1980s) that in some ways the more politically active the religious element has gotten it has lead to less overall influence on the society.

[TGHusker]

 

 

 

adoption agencies from refusing to place a child with a couple who they believe may be having premarital sex.

 

Don't get me wrong. The other stuff ticks me off too, and people should fight tooth and nail to raise hell about this.

 

But THIS^^^? What the hell planet are these people living on? Is it the 1950's? Holy crap.

 

 

It gets better (or worse)

 

 

To become a CARE family, a husband and wife would have to be married for at least seven years and at least one of the pair could not work outside the home. The bill would prohibit alcohol, tobacco and unlawful drugs in the home and “sexual relations outside of the marriage.”

 

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article9711821.html#storylink=cpy

He referred to the 1950s sitcom “Leave it to Beaver” to give an example of the types of families he is hoping to attract to the program.

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article9711821.html#storylink=cpy

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article9711821.html#0

 

Talk about the dog chasing its tail. We want to limit abortions not adoptions. Yet this will limit adoptions. I wonder how many of these legislators grew up in a "Leave it to Beaver" house hold. I venture to say not many. Most of us grew up in less than idealistic homes but somehow we made it without too many quirks . Again we get back to legislating a certain type of morality. The more specific we get the more limiting and I think in the end we get a bigger bag of unintentional consequences.

[TGHusker]

TG for President!!!

 

Seriously, great post!

It is hard enough just trying to be a good husband. I think I'll pass on the President spot. Although based on the 5 we have left in the campaign, I believe you will find more common sense and good judgment by many here on huskerboard.

[TGHusker]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, TG. I may get on your case in the political threads now and again, but I can tell from what you just wrote that you're a good guy and I respect you.

 

I, too, think that was should focus more on what we can do as individuals, be it due to our religion or just our own moral compass, to help people instead of trying to legislate it. There's lots of good we leave undone, and a lot of the time these legislative attempts are led by those who in their hearts believe themselves to be doing good by their faith, when many of us can see they're just setting people back if they overreach like this.

 

It's not hard to find how easy it is for the most "infallible" among us to lose their way. Look at the scandal going on with the governor of Alabama right now. Ran as a family values candidate, currently embroiled in extramarital affair and possibly being ousted here soon.

 

Lastly, as an interesting aside, the Bible says some very odd, archaic things are sins.

Thanks - we can learn from each other if our feet & minds are NOT set in concrete. I'm getting too old to argue positions just for the sake of arguing and proving to the world how 'right I am'. If I'm going to argue, let it be to out of a passion to educate someone or out of a passion to learn from someone else (who can correct my path if needed)