• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans: Obama must defend Christian values

Maenad said:
So those people who came here to escape religious persecution should have stayed at home. Groovy.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Who is being persecuted for religious reasons in the USA?

Who put the USA in charge of fighting persecution on this planet?

The USA has plenty of problems to take care of in the USA. Once all of those problems are solved we start looking at other people's problems.
 
Last edited:
What exactly do these Republicans mean by "attacks on religious freedom"? The article doesn't specify. But religious freedom doesn't mean the culture as a whole adhering to one religion's ideas. It means the freedom to criticize them, and for each person to choose their own values. It sounds like they're only calling on the president to defend their religion's freedom, and not any others'.

JoeTrumps said:
I see your problem. You are focusing on the worst parts of christianity to make your argument. That doesn't work. I could point to the atheist leaders of the 20th Century and the carnage that resulted from their beliefs, but then I would be doing the same thing you are doing. Taking the extremists, trying to make them the norm, then making it fit your argument that religion is bad, bad, bad.
Click to expand...

No carnage has ever come about as a result of atheism. That some military dictators opposed rather than endorsed the dominant religions of their cultures was no catalyst for their violence, just as many devoutly religious tyrants weren't necessarily motivated to do so by their faith. Some were, but not all. But no one has ever been motivated by their lack of a belief. Grow up and give up this nonsense.

roguenuke said:
No. The beliefs about freedom and human rights simply evolved within societies that had many Christians within them. Christianity did not cause those ideals to develop, it simply was there in the same place that that they did.
Click to expand...

Those beliefs mostly came about when the people of those societies stopped taking their religion so seriously. But it's a misnomer that our modern ethics only ever existed in the Enlightenment. Similar forms existed in China and India, and among some American Indian societies. That ours are drawn primarily from Enlightenment ideas is no surprise, as that is within our own culture, but other parts of the world developed similar ideas on their own. Even Enlightenment values have a long history, tracing through ancient Rome and Greece, and then through Muslim kingdoms, not European ones, before returning west for the Enlightenment. Without Islam, it's very likely that the supposedly Christian Enlightenment would never have happened. Nor would modern science. It is important not to forget crucial parts of history, just because they're not necessarily our history. It is important not to be ethnocentric.

Grant said:
Franco was a Fascist and that overrides any feelings he made have had towards the teachings of Christ.
Click to expand...

That's awfully convenient, isn't it?

Jredbaron96 said:
When the President takes the oath of office, he swears on the Bible to uphold the Constitution. He doesn't swear on the Constitution to uphold the Bible.
Click to expand...

John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce swore on a book of laws, rather than a bible. Much more appropriate, I think, since the president is to uphold our laws, not any religious myths.
 
Grant said:
If you read my posts you'd see I said Christians try to follow the Golden Rule and the examples taught by Jesus Christ. That doesn't mean we'll always be successful, but we try. I cannot debate issues which you claim I 'seem to believe'.
Click to expand...

Some Christians try to follow the Golden Rule. As do many other non-Christians. But, like many others, many Christians seem to feel, even if it is only subconsciously, that they only have to follow it when it is something that they agree with or someone they agree with. I don't know how many times I've been told by a person claiming to be Christian that it was completely in keeping with the Golden Rule for them to tell someone that they were going to hell for being gay or not believing the way that Christian believed. Or worse, that someone was angering God or disobeying God. Claiming to speak for God as a way to condemn others or their actions is not following the Golden Rule.
 
Grant said:
That may well be and certainly ancient Greeks made great contributions to the world, but a religious doctrine wasn't among them. The poor, as has been mentioned, were treated rather shabbily and there was certainly no place in the afterlife for them.

You don't seem to understand how we gain 'reason'. Do you think we just stumbled across it without some trial and error along the way or have we in the democracies arrived at the zenith of mankind and we are the heighth of all man can possibly be? I doubt it. We have to be taught 'reason' and need free ideas and expression to arrive at some 'reason' as to what life and our attitudes toward our fellow man is all about. This has been debated since the aforementioned Greeks, and perhaps earlier.

We can see students in Universities today who feel that their education thus far has convinced them that they have achieved this 'reason' and therefore others should not have the freedom to speak their ideas, or share their values. Is this reason? No, of course no t,and yet this effort to deter others from their right to free speech has been supported by those who teach them. This would lead us to wonder what other nonsense they've been taught.

We are not near as advanced as we like to think we are and philosophies, Christianity among them, will teach us that we haven't traveled all that far.
Click to expand...

We've had reasoning abilities since at least the first homosapien existed (likely some of those earlier human-like species also had reasoning skills, considering what we have seen in apes and what was left from those species).

Who are we to say that a "democracy" is the best way to govern? We know that a direct democracy is a horrible way to govern. But people come up with new ideas all the time. Why is it so hard for you to believe that people in the past came up with the idea of a democracy or a republic or even a Constitution? We don't need to be taught reason. We may need to be taught how to refine our reasoning ability, but not actually taught that reasoning ability. And, yes that includes working on past ideas.

The problem is that some are viewing reasoning as a goal. It isn't. It is an innate ability in all (or at least most) of us. And those who would try to keep others from speaking their ideas come from all sorts of places and backgrounds, not just "universities". Christians, like many other religions and even some who are not religious or atheists, attempt to stifle free speech or other freedoms just as often as those who you claim are doing so because they have achieved "reason".

Christianity isn't a philosophy. It is a religion. Philosophy is different than religion. Philosophy relies on reason and thinking to come to conclusions, whereas a certain amount of faith is necessary for something to be a religion. While philosophy might say that a god could exist, religion says that a God does exist. Philosophy might say that there could be life after death, while religion says there is life after death, in some form. Philosophy might include a discussion about religion, but the "Philosophy of Religion" is not saying that religion is a philosophy in itself, but rather looking at religion philosophically.
 
Grant said:
So you feel your philosophy would be the same as it is now if you were born in Afghanistan, North Korea, or India?

People can call themselves Christians but you'll know better by their actions, the 'quality of their character'. Often, everywhere, a persons claim to following a religion is used for political purposes, a trait not limited to American politicians.
Click to expand...

First of all, I have no idea what my philosophy on life or government would be like if I lived in any other country, but that doesn't mean that it would be vastly different. There are plenty of people in those countries who wish to be like Americans, free and treated equally. There are plenty of people in those countries who do not approve of what their government or their people do, but they don't know how to change things.

Second, you are now getting into a "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy. You are trying to discount others as not being Christian because you don't believe they are acting as Christians are supposed to act.

Here is the definition of Christian:

a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
b (1) : disciple 2 (2) : a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3) : a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961

Christian - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

That's it. That is all that is required to be a Christian. Everything else is subjective, personal opinion.
 
ecofarm said:
Personally, sure, but not objectively in the case of religions.
Click to expand...
I don't see any impediment to judging religions objectively or personally.

Having spent years in Kenya, I can assure you that's not true.
Click to expand...
Were those years spent prior to Obama becoming president? All you need do is Google to discover what many Kenyans believe.

But, again, I have no interest in this subject. The subject of the thread is more interesting.
 
shrubnose said:
Who is being persecuted for religious reasons in the USA?
Click to expand...
The guy who made the anti Muslim video and that Rev. in Florida who wanted to bur the Koran.
Who put the USA in charge of fighting persecution on this planet?
Click to expand...
Perhaps it's something we should all take an interest in.

The USA has plenty of problems to take care of in the USA. Once all of those problems are solved we start looking at other people's problems.
Click to expand...
Every person and every country has problems but we can multitask as well as having different groups looking after different problems. In fact that the way it usually works.
 
roguenuke said:
We've had reasoning abilities since at least the first homosapien existed (likely some of those earlier human-like species also had reasoning skills, considering what we have seen in apes and what was left from those species).
Click to expand...
Yes, we have learned something from trial and error.
Who are we to say that a "democracy" is the best way to govern?
Click to expand...
Because we are a free people who can use what intelligence we have to compare and reflect. We know that that people are not trying to escape to Cuba so we should be able to draw some rational conclusions from that.
We know that a direct democracy is a horrible way to govern. But people come up with new ideas all the time. Why is it so hard for you to believe that people in the past came up with the idea of a democracy or a republic or even a Constitution? We don't need to be taught reason. We may need to be taught how to refine our reasoning ability, but not actually taught that reasoning ability. And, yes that includes working on past ideas.
Click to expand...
The Swiss have the most direct democracy and it seems to work quite well. Better than many others systems operating in other countries, certainly. Maybe there were cavemen who devised a Constitution but this is like the 1000 monkeys with typewriters theory. We can speculated about fairies on a pin but we have to go with what we know. Believing in something in which there is no real evidence is bumping into the religious area again.
The problem is that some are viewing reasoning as a goal. It isn't. It is an innate ability in all (or at least most) of us. And those who would try to keep others from speaking their ideas come from all sorts of places and backgrounds, not just "universities". Christians, like many other religions and even some who are not religious or atheists, attempt to stifle free speech or other freedoms just as often as those who you claim are doing so because they have achieved "reason".
Click to expand...
Take a look around the contemporary world and look to see who is trying to stifle free speech. It is not the Christians. It tends to be Muslims, universities, the US Government, and the politically correct.
Christianity isn't a philosophy. It is a religion.
Click to expand...
No, it is a philosophy. Jesus Christ established no religion.
Philosophy is different than religion. Philosophy relies on reason and thinking to come to conclusions, whereas a certain amount of faith is necessary for something to be a religion.
Click to expand...
The same is true of philosophies, which is why philosophies change and philosophers come to debate. The 'Truth', has yet to be established and likely never will be.
While philosophy might say that a god could exist, religion says that a God does exist. Philosophy might say that there could be life after death, while religion says there is life after death, in some form. Philosophy might include a discussion about religion, but the "Philosophy of Religion" is not saying that religion is a philosophy in itself, but rather looking at religion philosophically.
Click to expand...
I agree but it also depends a great deal on the religion. Some philosophers certainly embraced the philosophies and teachings of Jesus Christ and authors and speakers like CS Lewis (among many others) philosophized often about the existence of God. One does not necessarily negate the other. Some religions disallow any philosophizing apart from within the established religion, while Christianity does not do this. Many Christians would like to see the Christian philosophy, as in the NT taught in schools and I would be in favor of that. These teachings have effected the world in a very dramatic way and is part of our shared history, just as is the Magna Carta and the US Constitution.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
Some Christians try to follow the Golden Rule. As do many other non-Christians. But, like many others, many Christians seem to feel, even if it is only subconsciously, that they only have to follow it when it is something that they agree with or someone they agree with. I don't know how many times I've been told by a person claiming to be Christian that it was completely in keeping with the Golden Rule for them to tell someone that they were going to hell for being gay or not believing the way that Christian believed. Or worse, that someone was angering God or disobeying God. Claiming to speak for God as a way to condemn others or their actions is not following the Golden Rule.
Click to expand...

Again, some of these "Christians" give Christianity a bad name and they are forgetting the teaching of Jesus Christ. These types would be referring to the Old Testament which, as far as I'm concerned, contains mostly nonsense.
 
roguenuke said:
First of all, I have no idea what my philosophy on life or government would be like if I lived in any other country, but that doesn't mean that it would be vastly different. There are plenty of people in those countries who wish to be like Americans, free and treated equally. There are plenty of people in those countries who do not approve of what their government or their people do, but they don't know how to change things.
Click to expand...
You woukd have as much understanding of freedom in North Korea as you do about life in other galaxies. Those living in contemporary democracies tend to take their freedom for granted, never having ever had the need to fight for it.
Second, you are now getting into a "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy. You are trying to discount others as not being Christian because you don't believe they are acting as Christians are supposed to act.
Click to expand...
I'm saying that anyone can call themselves a Christian, and may well be working toward Christian ideals, but that doesn't necessarily make them a Christian any more than saying I'm a Buddhist would make me a Buddhist. If we are following the teaching of Christ then we are adhering to the Christian philosophy. Jesus Christ never called himself a Christian.
Here is the definition of Christian:a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
Click to expand...
I'd go along with that.
That's it. That is all that is required to be a Christian. Everything else is subjective, personal opinion.
Click to expand...
Exactly!
 
Grant said:
The guy who made the anti Muslim video
Click to expand...

A man who violated the terms of his parole, aren't you one of those "Personal Responsibility" conservatives? "We are a nation of laws" types?

Or as long as he's being Anti-Muslim he can violate his parole with no problem.

that Rev. in Florida who wanted to bur the Koran.
Click to expand...

How exactly was he discriminated against?

People asked him not to do it, but he certainly could have done it anytime and still can so absolutely no discrimination there.
 
ecofarm said:
What sense would that make?
Click to expand...

Because that would have made BHO largely unknown to you and not a subject worthy of conversation. His name therefore would seldom be mentioned and you would never have heard of these claims.
 
Jetboogieman said:
A man who violated the terms of his parole, aren't you one of those "Personal Responsibility" conservatives? "We are a nation of laws" types?
Click to expand...
So you believe it was for violating his parole which caused a SWAT team to arrive at his home in the middle of the night?
Or as long as he's being Anti-Muslim he can violate his parole with no problem.
Click to expand...
He can be pro or anti anything. Being on parole doesn't disallow freedom of speech.
How exactly was he discriminated against? People asked him not to do it, but he certainly could have done it anytime and still can so absolutely no discrimination there.
Click to expand...
The question was persecution and you should familiarize yourself with the subject and the question before responding.
 
Grant said:
Because that would have made BHO largely unknown to you and not a subject worthy of conversation. His name therefore would seldom be mentioned and you would never have heard of these claims.
Click to expand...

In 2005, I told many people (while I was in Kenya) that Obama would be the next president. I made this prediction based on his convention speech.

In 2010-2012, I didn't meet anyone who thought Obama was born in Kenya. They all knew his father was, and thus they consider him a 'Kenyan son'.

Sure, I met thousands of Kenyans, all over Kenya... but you can believe a google search if you want.
 
Grant said:
So you believe it was for violating his parole which caused a SWAT team to arrive at his home in the middle of the night?

He can be pro or anti anything. Being on parole doesn't disallow freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

Ah so he can flaunt his probation as long as he was doing something YOU LIKE which is misrepresenting the Islamic Faith.

And since you advocate discrimination and violence against Muslim immigrants that largely makes sense.

The question was persecution and you should familiarize yourself with the subject and the question before responding.
Click to expand...

I believe you should because you weren't able to actually respond to what I said, you did not demonstrate how he was actually discriminated against and it'd be a pretty tall order considering he wasn't.
 
Grant said:
Again, some of these "Christians" give Christianity a bad name and they are forgetting the teaching of Jesus Christ. These types would be referring to the Old Testament which, as far as I'm concerned, contains mostly nonsense.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what kinds of Christians they are, they are still Christians. You can't discount them as Christians just because they do not believe the same as you do.
 
Grant said:
Yes, we have learned something from trial and error.
Because we are a free people who can use what intelligence we have to compare and reflect. We know that that people are not trying to escape to Cuba so we should be able to draw some rational conclusions from that.
The Swiss have the most direct democracy and it seems to work quite well. Better than many others systems operating in other countries, certainly. Maybe there were cavemen who devised a Constitution but this is like the 1000 monkeys with typewriters theory. We can speculated about fairies on a pin but we have to go with what we know. Believing in something in which there is no real evidence is bumping into the religious area again.
Take a look around the contemporary world and look to see who is trying to stifle free speech. It is not the Christians. It tends to be Muslims, universities, the US Government, and the politically correct.
No, it is a philosophy. Jesus Christ established no religion.
The same is true of philosophies, which is why philosophies change and philosophers come to debate. The 'Truth', has yet to be established and likely never will be.
I agree but it also depends a great deal on the religion. Some philosophers certainly embraced the philosophies and teachings of Jesus Christ and authors and speakers like CS Lewis (among many others) philosophized often about the existence of God. One does not necessarily negate the other. Some religions disallow any philosophizing apart from within the established religion, while Christianity does not do this. Many Christians would like to see the Christian philosophy, as in the NT taught in schools and I would be in favor of that. These teachings have effected the world in a very dramatic way and is part of our shared history, just as is the Magna Carta and the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

Yes, Christians do try to stifle free speech. Look at Uganda, where people are not allowed to talk about homosexuality in a positive way or they face penalty. Who is it that is trying to levy fines against people for nudity or foul language on TV or in media in general? In general, that would be Christians and people of other religions, mostly. In reality, very little free speech is stifled here in the US. There are claims of this all the time, but private parties taking action of some kind against those who say or do things that they do not approve of is not stifling free speech.

Again, the Bible is not philosophy. It is religion. While it may include some philosophy, none of what Christians want taught in school is actually philosophy, especially not solely Christian philosophy. You may wish to believe that the Bible alone inspired those documents, but you are wrong, especially considering those parts of the Christian religion that could be considered philosophical were not invented by Christians or even Jesus. They had existed for quite some time before him.
 
Grant said:
Obama would like other leaders to work together to solve their country's problems but forgets that back in DC.
Click to expand...

When hard line Islamic fundamentalists are more cooperative than the republicans in congress, you should consider the possibility that the problem isn't the president.
 
ecofarm said:
In 2005, I told many people (while I was in Kenya) that Obama would be the next president. I made this prediction based on his convention speech.

In 2010-2012, I didn't meet anyone who thought Obama was born in Kenya. They all knew his father was, and thus they consider him a 'Kenyan son'.

Sure, I met thousands of Kenyans, all over Kenya... but you can believe a google search if you want.
Click to expand...

Well if you met thousands of Kenyans all over the country and discussed Barrack Obama with them then I take you at your word.
 
Deuce said:
When hard line Islamic fundamentalists are more cooperative than the republicans in congress, you should consider the possibility that the problem isn't the president.
Click to expand...

Do you consider that to be true?
 
roguenuke said:
Yes, Christians do try to stifle free speech. Look at Uganda, where people are not allowed to talk about homosexuality in a positive way or they face penalty. Who is it that is trying to levy fines against people for nudity or foul language on TV or in media in general? In general, that would be Christians and people of other religions, mostly. In reality, very little free speech is stifled here in the US. There are claims of this all the time, but private parties taking action of some kind against those who say or do things that they do not approve of is not stifling free speech.

Again, the Bible is not philosophy. It is religion. While it may include some philosophy, none of what Christians want taught in school is actually philosophy, especially not solely Christian philosophy. You may wish to believe that the Bible alone inspired those documents, but you are wrong, especially considering those parts of the Christian religion that could be considered philosophical were not invented by Christians or even Jesus. They had existed for quite some time before him.
Click to expand...

It might not be wise to use Uganda, or any African country, as the best Christianity has to offer. Again they are reading the OT, with which I have little use, and are not following the teachings of Jesus Christ, which is exclusive to the NT. In fact there is a great deal of stifling of free speech though you might not be aware of it because mush of it may not arrive at your inbox. Perhaps you can start a thread on the subject.

When you talk of "the Bible" you should separate the OT from the NT. If Christians are against foul language or public nudity then they are clearly losing the battle. Who is winning?
 
roguenuke said:
Doesn't matter what kinds of Christians they are, they are still Christians. You can't discount them as Christians just because they do not believe the same as you do.
Click to expand...
Just calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you one. I feel that too many people who call themselves Christians are overly influenced by the OT, causing many of them to behave irrationally.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Ah so he can flaunt his probation as long as he was doing something YOU LIKE which is misrepresenting the Islamic Faith. And since you advocate discrimination and violence against Muslim immigrants that largely makes sense. I believe you should because you weren't able to actually respond to what I said, you did not demonstrate how he was actually discriminated against and it'd be a pretty tall order considering he wasn't.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom