• 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

Completely false. Christians are absolutely under attack rhetorically for their beliefs by people like you.

Was JC Penny under attack from Christians?

And under attack rhetorically? I translate that as "are disagreed with." How come homosexuals aren't under attack rhetorically from Christians who say all sorts of nasty things about them?
 
Last edited:
`
AWoxQ3Y.jpg
What does Gandhi know about Christians? He spent almost all his life in a country which burnt widows when their husbands died and where a caste system still controls people's lives. He should speak of something he knows about. Dead,foreign and dressed in a robe doesn't necessarily mean wise.
 
I'm white. I'm 26. I'm American. I'm Atheist. The last thing we need is Christian values. Just look how f*cked up your average cross wearing Christian person is and how pissed off they constantly are over their fairy tales not being followed precisely.
Excluding tantrums, you would seem to have it all together.
 
What frightens you so much about Christians?


The same thing that frightens me about Muslims, Hindus and all others whom take Peter Pan fairy tales seriously.

xktE1m5.jpg
 
Last edited:
Why do we need the govt to promote any religious values?

Tell me which religions are unable to practice their religious beliefs without the govt helping them to do so?


I can think of a few, like polygamy for Mormons, but I believe the mainstream religion has moved on from that.
 
part of the 1st amendment is religious protections. that would include christian values.

Got any examples where he is preventing people from practicing their religious beliefs? Not protecting them?
 
Leading Republicans on Thursday insisted that America's leaders must do more to defend Christian values at home and abroad, blaming President Barack Obama for attacks on religious freedom as they courted religious conservatives expected to play a crucial role in the next presidential contest.

Read more of this article here: http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-obama-must-defend-christian-values-192212780




If these guys had said that Obama must defend America's 1st Amendment values they would have had my and a lot of other peoples support.

I don't believe that this will win many elections for them.

BTW: if anyone can point out where it says in the U.S. Constitution that defending Christian values is the presidents job, I'd like to see it.

This sounds like a bunch of far right religious malarkey to me.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP

Translation: we need to manufacture an issue to keep the pundits talking
 
I'm not asking our leaders to "defend" anything. It would be nice if they acknowledged that the soul of the country(and it's history) is intertwined with the christian religion in a way that is impossible to separate, no matter how secular the citizens of the country becomes. And spare me your argument that even though the country was founded by christians and the entire population was christian that somehow the founding fathers were not religious and were in no way influenced by christian values. It's not possible to any reasonable person who can read a history book.

What is the constructive purpose of that?
 
Got any examples where he is preventing people from practicing their religious beliefs? Not protecting them?

what does this have to do with anything that i have been commenting on? you evidently haven't been reading.

the first amendment garentee's religous freedom. that includes christian values as well.
if you think that it doesn't then please present your evidence.
 
It's a rallying cry to the Evangelical wing of the Republican base that has its roots in the Bible Belt of the deep south. However, that doesn't mean that the U.S. as a whole hasn't lost touch with its religious convictions. Problem here is how do you reconcile "religious tolerance" with the morality of man's laws in a predominately Christian nation?

It is not remotely the govt's job to support or remedy that (if that is what you are implying.)

If there is a lack in any religious communities or organizations/churches, then it is their responsibility and the responsibility of their members to act. A good start is faithfully and consistently acting according to one's beliefs. Every individual can do that and the govt does not interfere with that.
 
what does this have to do with anything that i have been commenting on? you evidently haven't been reading.

the first amendment garentee's religous freedom. that includes christian values as well.
if you think that it doesn't then please present your evidence.

So I asked you to give examples of where the govt is stopping people from practicing their Christian values. Do you have any?
 
I'm not Christian and I still don't buy anything from the Dixie Chicks. The point was the response is not stifling free speech but it is no different than others who do basically the same thing that was done to the Dixie Chicks to people like voice their opinion on same sex marriage or homosexuality.

It doesn't matter who may have been against something in the past. People change their minds. In 1970, 70% of the US population still believed that interracial relationships were wrong and should be illegal still. By 1985, that had come pretty close to half the population thinking differently. This wasn't all due to young people growing up. It was due to people changing their minds. Just like this guy:

Republican senator with gay son now backs gay marriage | Reuters

This is what happens when people you know and love are gay and you realize that they aren't different from you and they just want to be treated equally.

Anyone has a right to speak out against or for anything they want, but that does not absolve them of social consequences of what they say or do (even when it's legal), as we seen with the Dixie Chicks, Paula Dean, Mel Gibson, Michael Richards, and others. We have seen it on both sides, so it is not right to pretend it has only happened to "Christians" or those who are against same sex marriage or homosexuality. Carrie Underwood faced backlash from supporting it.

Celebrities Who Were Caught Being Racist | List of Offensive Celeb Comments (Page 6)

Carrie Underwood Faced Backlash for Supporting Gay Marriage - Us Weekly

Eventhough, a lot of famous female (at least) country singers support it, including Dolly Parton, Reba McEntire, and Martina McBride. Even many male country singers and bands support it. And this is a group whose main fans are going to be the most likely people to be anti-ssm. When JC Penny's ran an ad a few father's days back featuring two gay fathers, people were calling for a boycott.

JCPenney Responds to Homophobic Boycott Calls with Gay Father's Day Ad

The same thing happened to Nabisco when they ran ads with rainbow colored Oreos in support of same sex marriage. Honey Maid faced a call for a boycott just in the past year over its commercial featuring (omg) a gay couple with a kid.

Nabisco's Gay-Inclusive Honey Maid/Teddy Grahams Commercial Slammed By One Million Moms

So yes, there are calls to boycott brands/people from those who are anti-ssm just as much as from those who are pro-ssm. They fail. Why? Because the majority are major household brands/names that people don't want to give up over such a stupid issue. In reality, the who Eich thing should not have gone where it did (I didn't approve), but it was due mainly to a company worried about their bottom line and recognizing that people support same sex marriage, especially young people, more than they are against it and that their main demographics in many areas (but especially technology) is young people. People overreact.

Yes, people change their minds and fashions come and go. What was popular in the 50's changed in the 60's which changed in the 70's and so on. Every generation believes themselves to be on the cutting edge of social thought but are eventually proven wrong. At one time Christianity was commonplace and now it seems to have fallen out of favor with 'spirituality', or even Islam, taking its place. They still don't teach wisdom in Universities.
 
Yes, people change their minds and fashions come and go. What was popular in the 50's changed in the 60's which changed in the 70's and so on. Every generation believes themselves to be on the cutting edge of social thought but are eventually proven wrong. At one time Christianity was commonplace and now it seems to have fallen out of favor with 'spirituality', or even Islam, taking its place. They still don't teach wisdom in Universities.

Really? Please tell me how those who supported integration or interracial marriages in the 1960s were "proven wrong"?

Other religions didn't take the place of Christianity in most people's lives, reason did. Thinking for ourselves when it comes to what we believe in. That is true wisdom, knowing the difference between reflecting upon your beliefs and simply believing what others tell you and trusting them to be right.
 
The targets of Islamists are western democracies and they will attack anyone who doesn't defer to their brand of Islam. Your concern about Christian zealots is overwrought, and nothing compared to the Islamists..

Interesting that while I call out the religious fanatics on both ends - Christians and Muslims - you prefer to overlook this fact and focus on the Islamist and ignore over the top Christians just to spur Muslim extremism even further.

Look, I don't like the so-called followers of the Muslim faith who co-op the religion any more than I do those of my faith, Christianity, who come across all holier than thou yet do the same thing. The only difference between the two is one group will strap a bomb to their chest to get their point across, whereas, in some cases the other is very willing to take up a gun to defend their religious beliefs. Neither are living up to scripture according to the teachings of Christ per the Gospels as far as I'm concerned. All are zealots.
 
It is not remotely the govt's job to support or remedy that (if that is what you are implying.)

If there is a lack in any religious communities or organizations/churches, then it is their responsibility and the responsibility of their members to act. A good start is faithfully and consistently acting according to one's beliefs. Every individual can do that and the govt does not interfere with that.

Exactly! And not that I've never claimed otherwise. Nonetheless, we Americans do tend to put a lot of emphasis on our nation's President being a pseudo-religious example. I mean, we (media) tends to question whether or not the President attends church, if he prays, condemn him if he doesn't invoke God when concluding a speech and yet if he doesn't demonstrate his Christian faith somehow it makes him...un-American?

On the one hand I can understand it. The President is the Chief Executive for the country, it's #1 representative. So, I can understand why many who believe America to be a Christian nation (by virtue of Christianity being the nation's #1 religion not to mention that American was founded on the Christian faith) would expect their nation's President to be of the Christian faith in some capacity and, as such, would in some capacity lead the country along lines that walk the path of the Christian faith. But fact is, it's not his responsibility to be the "leader of the faith". It's why each President appoints his own Priest or Pastor or defers to the Pope or some other prominent religious leader of the faith for religious guidance.
 
Really? Please tell me how those who supported integration or interracial marriages in the 1960s were "proven wrong"?
Wasn't one side 'proven wrong'?

Other religions didn't take the place of Christianity in most people's lives, reason did. Thinking for ourselves when it comes to what we believe in. That is true wisdom, knowing the difference between reflecting upon your beliefs and simply believing what others tell you and trusting them to be right.
There is no evidence that 'reason' is part of anyone's DNA. We are all influenced by our environment.
 
Interesting that while I call out the religious fanatics on both ends - Christians and Muslims - you prefer to overlook this fact and focus on the Islamist and ignore over the top Christians just to spur Muslim extremism even further.
Do you feel that Christian fanatics are the same as Islamic fanatics? And how am I spurring Muslim extremism?

Look, I don't like the so-called followers of the Muslim faith who co-op the religion
What co-opting are you talking about?

any more than I do those of my faith, Christianity, who come across all holier than thou yet do the same thing.
What 'same thing' are you talking about here?
The only difference between the two is one group will strap a bomb to their chest to get their point across, whereas, in some cases the other is very willing to take up a gun to defend their religious beliefs.
Is that the only difference you can find? What about the treatment of women? Anything similar going on there?

Neither are living up to scripture according to the teachings of Christ per the Gospels as far as I'm concerned. All are zealots.
Scripture, huh? You seem to be as unfamiliar with Islam as you are with Christianity.
 
Exactly! And not that I've never claimed otherwise. Nonetheless, we Americans do tend to put a lot of emphasis on our nation's President being a pseudo-religious example. I mean, we (media) tends to question whether or not the President attends church, if he prays, condemn him if he doesn't invoke God when concluding a speech and yet if he doesn't demonstrate his Christian faith somehow it makes him...un-American?

On the one hand I can understand it. The President is the Chief Executive for the country, it's #1 representative. So, I can understand why many who believe America to be a Christian nation (by virtue of Christianity being the nation's #1 religion not to mention that American was founded on the Christian faith) would expect their nation's President to be of the Christian faith in some capacity and, as such, would in some capacity lead the country along lines that walk the path of the Christian faith. But fact is, it's not his responsibility to be the "leader of the faith". It's why each President appoints his own Priest or Pastor or defers to the Pope or some other prominent religious leader of the faith for religious guidance.

It is thought that those calling themselves Christians have values based on the teachings of Jesus Christ while those who would call themselves atheist or agnostic would have values which are less clear. Although Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama both claimed to be Christian I doubt anyone felt they were too serious about it, but their claims were enough to satisfy many voters.
 
Wasn't one side 'proven wrong'?

There is no evidence that 'reason' is part of anyone's DNA. We are all influenced by our environment.

This is what the integration/interracial marriage thing is in response to:

Every generation believes themselves to be on the cutting edge of social thought but are eventually proven wrong.

This would mean that those who are for integration and/or for interracial marriage, being the ones on "the cutting edge of social thought" at that time, would have to be the ones "proven wrong" in order for your comment to be true. Do you believe that those people will eventually be "proven wrong" when it comes to these issues? Those who hold with the old beliefs couldn't possibly be described as "on the cutting edge of social thought".

I didn't mention "reason" as being in our DNA, but it is almost certainly there since all humans (barring some tragic injury or condition affecting their brain functions) have the ability to reason, at least to a point. If it were only our environment that led to us having the ability to reason, then some people would never be able to use reason. Reasoning ability must be ingrained in us somewhere. We are a combination of nurture and nature.
 
It is thought that those calling themselves Christians have values based on the teachings of Jesus Christ while those who would call themselves atheist or agnostic would have values which are less clear. Although Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama both claimed to be Christian I doubt anyone felt they were too serious about it, but their claims were enough to satisfy many voters.

Actually, those calling themselves Christians merely have values that are likely influenced by some teachings of the Christian religion, not necessarily Jesus Christ. Those of us who are atheist or agnostic have values that can be influenced by anything that influences Christians. Jesus didn't make up values that no one had ever heard of before until he came along. Those values existed prior to him. He merely set forth a specific set of values. For the most part, most humans, no matter their religious beliefs or cultural background, share some very basic, general values, such as family, working to provide for our basic needs, helping others, etc. These are going to be the base values. More specific values may vary, but that is true even among Christians. Some Christian faiths value large, extended families, while others prefer the "nuclear" family. Some faiths value donating freely, without pressure, to the church or other charitable causes, while others demand tithes. Some faiths value procreation to the maximum extent, while others value responsible parenting. Some faiths value lifelong commitments to spouses while others value healthy relationships that should end when they are no longer working out, despite effort included. Some faiths value modesty, whereas at least one Christian church I know of believes that clothing is completely optional.
 
Do you feel that Christian fanatics are the same as Islamic fanatics? And how am I spurring Muslim extremism?

.

They certainly can be. See: Westboro Church. See the illegal offshoots of the Mormons. See the fundamentalist Christians that desire (& would support) turning the clock back and keeping women in the home, breeding and subservient. See the followers of Jim Jones and their kool-aid. See the snake handlers.
 
This is what the integration/interracial marriage thing is in response to: This would mean that those who are for integration and/or for interracial marriage, being the ones on "the cutting edge of social thought" at that time, would have to be the ones "proven wrong" in order for your comment to be true. Do you believe that those people will eventually be "proven wrong" when it comes to these issues? Those who hold with the old beliefs couldn't possibly be described as "on the cutting edge of social thought".
Those who were for racial inequality were proven wrong and were not supporting the idea of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". This is a very old idea but an example of how many can still forget it.
I didn't mention "reason" as being in our DNA, but it is almost certainly there since all humans (barring some tragic injury or condition affecting their brain functions) have the ability to reason, at least to a point.
It's the 'at least to a point' where the differences begin.
If it were only our environment that led to us having the ability to reason, then some people would never be able to use reason.
And some people never have. They can live in their immediate environment in which they were raised but once removed they can not cope on their own.
Reasoning ability must be ingrained in us somewhere. We are a combination of nurture and nature.
CC Lewis asked why man has a conscience, and it's an interesting question. Why do we have one and where did it come from? Did evolve just as our thumbs did? Or was it placed there by God, as Lewis suggests.
 
They certainly can be. See: Westboro Church. See the illegal offshoots of the Mormons. See the fundamentalist Christians that desire (& would support) turning the clock back and keeping women in the home, breeding and subservient. See the followers of Jim Jones and their kool-aid. See the snake handlers.
How many people has the Westboro Church killed when compared with Muslim fanatics? Any idea?

Have you done any research of how many Christians are keeping women subservient compared with Muslims? Snake handlers? I doubt that was inspired by the teachings of Jesus.
 
Actually, those calling themselves Christians merely have values that are likely influenced by some teachings of the Christian religion, not necessarily Jesus Christ. Those of us who are atheist or agnostic have values that can be influenced by anything that influences Christians. Jesus didn't make up values that no one had ever heard of before until he came along. Those values existed prior to him. He merely set forth a specific set of values. For the most part, most humans, no matter their religious beliefs or cultural background, share some very basic, general values, such as family, working to provide for our basic needs, helping others, etc. These are going to be the base values. More specific values may vary, but that is true even among Christians. Some Christian faiths value large, extended families, while others prefer the "nuclear" family. Some faiths value donating freely, without pressure, to the church or other charitable causes, while others demand tithes. Some faiths value procreation to the maximum extent, while others value responsible parenting. Some faiths value lifelong commitments to spouses while others value healthy relationships that should end when they are no longer working out, despite effort included. Some faiths value modesty, whereas at least one Christian church I know of believes that clothing is completely optional.

The customs of the Church may differ but the similarities tend to compensate for these differences. Certainly atheists can have ideals but they tend t coincide with the teaching of Jesus rather than the teachings of Mohammed, or any other religion. And of course in a Christian influenced country we can freely have this conversation, which is not so in many other parts of the world.
 
Back
Top Bottom