Originally Posted by Philomel

Well, I think that's Crimson's point. A lot of the things he claimed (or at least, implied) he wanted, progressive things, that wouldn't have been difficult to get, he didn't at all try to. Look at DADT -- there are conservatives who were for it's repeal, yet Obama's doing everything he can to delay the repeal's implementation. He's also not spoken out against the war on women the Right has declared as of late. The question is not "has he given up too easily?", but rather, "did he ever really support those things at all?". After all, we know he's not for LGBTQ rights (just because he's not extreme in his hatred doesn't mean it's not there), once described women as a "special interest group", and has been trying to further Christianize the government since he came into office. I don't really see any reason to give him the benefit of the doubt, to be honest.

I guess I give him the benefit of the doubt only because he can't really destroy what was already destroyed. He was left with....a mess. Do I think he's done anything to fix that mess no.....but he can't really make the mess any messier.

As far as civil rights go, yeah, he absolutely can make it worse, and he has. He hasn't even done simple, non-legal things. It would mean so much to me, as a woman, to hear my president speak out on my behalf when every single state is attempting (and succeeding) to limit my rights in ways I have been told my entire life were completely impossible and would never happen again, and I honestly don't think could have happened under Bush, as much as I dislike him. Even if it didn't change anything, it would still be appreciated. But he's been largely silent. And that silence has allowed the extremist Right to define the entire political conversation so completely that I'm not sure we can even get it back to what it was before he took office.

I don't think he'll be elected again. Too many people hate the man. I wouldn't vote for him unless the alternative was worse.

Originally Posted by Cora Lorington

I wouldn't go THAT far o.0

haha, yeah, I really wanted to say that if he were the anti-Christ, you would probably like him because the anti-Christ is supposed to be extremely likeable and make things awesome for a little while before going all dystopian XD

but whatever, the point was I thought it was hilarious to think someone was the anti-christ just like that for no real evidence XD

Originally Posted by Cora Lorington

I don't think he'll be elected again. Too many people hate the man. I wouldn't vote for him unless the alternative was worse.

As things are shaping up now, it looks like you'll vote for him. Philomel did sum my stance up quite nicely. Other problems have been his lack of sufficient financial regulation etc. That being said, if I was able to vote there, I too would unfortunately be in a situation where I would vote for him. Although it would be more a vote against his opposition than an endorsement of Obama. I would personally have preferred to see a nice progressive challenge him to a primary. Someone like Russ Feingold. He has a proven track record of voting for progressive values!

Originally Posted by Crimson Fang

As things are shaping up now, it looks like you'll vote for him. Philomel did sum my stance up quite nicely. Other problems have been his lack of sufficient financial regulation etc. That being said, if I was able to vote there, I too would unfortunately be in a situation where I would vote for him. Although it would be more a vote against his opposition than an endorsement of Obama. I would personally have preferred to see a nice progressive challenge him to a primary. Someone like Russ Feingold. He has a proven track record of voting for progressive values!

I may not vote at all. So far I'm not really liking any of the strong candidates.

I'd rather vote for a real conservative. The government should have as little control as possible over my personal life I think.

I'm confused as to what that has to do with Conservatism. Traditionally, Conservatives support just the opposite, particularly where upholding the status quo is concerned, and even in modern times, the right to privacy is generally only supported by Conservatives when the people in question are white, straight, ablebodied, cisgender, male Christians. Though if you're all of the above, I can see why you might support them.

No actually conservative means you want to government to have as little power as possible. Anything else has nothing to do with it, and was tacked on later.

Btw. you just mentioned the people in this country who have no rights whatsoever so... have fun with that.

Originally Posted by sarofset

No actually conservative means you want the government to have as little power as possible. Anything else has nothing to do with it, and was tacked on later.

I would question that definition of conservative. Are you really asserting that a Conservative is essentially a Classical Liberal?

Originally Posted by sarofset

Btw. you just mentioned the people in this country who have no rights whatsoever so... have fun with that.

I think there was some form of miscommunication. Which are the people that you believe have no rights?

It is no longer socially acceptable for someone to be white, male, christian, etc. Because clearly if you're any of those things you are evil.

And as for the definition of conservative. Remember it was Democrats who fought to keep slavery. And it's Democrats who want a government takeover of health care. Democrats who want to outlaw smoking. Democrats who made it illegal in my state to have anything but fluorescent bulbs in your house, if you want to sell it. Democrats who want to ban fast food in low income neighborhoods (already did in California). Democrats who banned people from wearing crosses in some schools, which by the way goes directly against the constitution. And yet Democrats are called liberals? What's liberal about them?

Originally Posted by sarofset

It is no longer socially acceptable for someone to be white, male, christian, etc. Because clearly if you're any of those things you are evil.

I am not sure if I would agree with your assertion that those identities are being marginalized.

Originally Posted by sarofset

And as for the definition of conservative. Remember it was Democrats who fought to keep slavery. And it's Democrats who want a government takeover of health care. Democrats who want to outlaw smoking. Democrats who made it illegal in my state to have anything but fluorescent bulbs in your house, if you want to sell it. Democrats who want to ban fast food in low income neighborhoods (already did in California). Democrats who banned people from wearing crosses in some schools, which by the way goes directly against the constitution. And yet Democrats are called liberals? What's liberal about them?

Firstly, you didn't really define what conservatism is so much. Rather you seemed to make a bunch of assumptions about my political leanings. I am not sure if you wanted me to address those points or if they were rhetorical.

Originally Posted by sarofset

It is no longer socially acceptable for someone to be white, male, christian, etc. Because clearly if you're any of those things you are evil.

LOLOLOLOLOL. Sorry, please give me a moment to collect myself.

Okay, so.

--Men still are assumed to have more authority than women, and still do (women make up over half the population in the US, but less than 30% in every level of political leadership), and control 99% of the world's wealth (while making up slightly over half of the world's workforce). Women are more likely to be the victims of violent crimes, primarily committed by men, and those issues that uniquely or primarily effect women are considered "not important", "not human rights issues", and even "debatable".

--Systematic racism means that whites receive less harsh sentences for crimes, are far more likely to be born above the poverty line (and thus, free of many of the issues that come along with poverty that have the ability to determine one's life), generally suffer less from economic downturns, and despite what people like you seem to think, study after study after study has shown that white people are, in general, treated better, especially where things assumed to be related to the colour of their skin -- accents, names, religions, etc. -- are concerned, even by people of colour and white people who claim not to be racist.

--Laws are still being written based on Christian "values", and Christian views. "Christian" is still used as a synonym for "good". When Obama was accused of being a Muslim and his Christian-ness was further questioned, the response was not that it didn't matter, but that he was really really Christian, promise, and couldn't possibly be a Muslim because, according to people like McCain, he's a good person and one must be Christian in order to be a good person, therefore he must be Christian. Abstinence-only sex "education" is still being funded by the federal government, pretty much purely because of the insistence of Christians, and abortion, birth control, and discrimination against LBGTQ people are pretty much only issues because Christians are so power-hungry that they want to further legislate their personal morality, and have been pretty successful at it so far, seeing as how no law, even those that do not go up for public vote, can pass without Christian support.

Any other persecution complexes you'd like me to pick apart?

And as for the definition of conservative. Remember it was Democrats who fought to keep slavery. And it's Democrats who want a government takeover of health care. Democrats who want to outlaw smoking. Democrats who made it illegal in my state to have anything but fluorescent bulbs in your house, if you want to sell it. Democrats who want to ban fast food in low income neighborhoods (already did in California). Democrats who banned people from wearing crosses in some schools, which by the way goes directly against the constitution. And yet Democrats are called liberals? What's liberal about them?

Um, you are aware that "Democrat" and "liberal" are not synonyms, correct? There are liberal Republicans, and tons of conservative Democrats. Nothing Democrats do is remotely representative of liberalism.

Also, this isn't personal anecdote time. "Conservative" means one thing, "liberal" means another, and those definitions are far bigger and older than the American political system.

Originally Posted by Conservatism - Wikipedia

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were.[2][3] The first established use of the term in a political context was by François-René de Chateaubriand in 1819, following the French Revolution.[4] The term has since been used to describe a wide range of views.

Political science often credits the Irish politician Edmund Burke (who served in the British House of Commons and opposed the French Revolution) with many of the ideas now called conservative.[5] According to Hailsham, a former chairman of the British Conservative Party, "Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself."[6]

Robert Eccleshall states, "It is the persistent image of society as a command structure in which the responsibilities of leadership can be exercised within the framework of a strong state manifested in divine-right royalism ... that distinguishes English conservatism from rival ideologies."[7]

Linkeh: Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, I'm aware it's Wikipedia, but just about everything else will tell you the exact same thing. Personally, I learned all this in history class in high school, but I can't very well use my (before you ask, conservative Protestant Christian) history teacher as a source. Also, while the bit I quoted mostly pertains to original, English Conservatism, the earliest American divide followed that same pattern -- Liberals wanted the personal lives of citizens free from government interference, whereas Conservatives believed that the government had a responsibility to intervene in citizens' personal lives, particularly in areas of morality and traditional values.

If we are going to rely on personal anecdotes, however, please tell me how putting restrictions on women obtaining medical care that force one group's religious ideology into the presumably private doctor-patient relationship in a way that harms both (anti-abortion laws, anti-birth control laws, forcing women who wish to obtain an abortion to seek counsel from "crisis pregnancy centers" before doing so, forcing doctors to spread misinformation), and determining who someone can marry (anti-marriage equality laws), who someone can be in a relationship with (anti-adultery laws), and even how consenting adults have sex (anti-sodomy laws) and what they can do to enhance their sexual experience (laws against female genital piercing, attempts to limit or effectively ban sex product availability) is not an invasion of privacy. And note that I'm doing you a favour -- I'm simply mentioning the more egregious laws Conservatives have put forward and gotten passed, and only those relating to the most private part of one's private life.

As an aside, in every case where children have been banned from wearing crosses in school, it has been a ban on something else -- no large or obtrusive jewelry, no proselytizing, no political or religious apparel in general. Though thank you for saying that; it is quite telling that in those instances, your only concern is Christians and not the myriad other faiths and the lack thereof that were affected just as much as or more than Christians. After all, there is no sect of Christianity that requires the constant wearing of a cross, whereas those bans usually applied to apparel that other faiths had to wear, and sometimes were put in place specifically to oppress those people.

your only concern is Christians and not the myriad other faiths and the lack thereof that were affected just as much as or more than Christians.

Incorrect. First off, only crosses were banned. The Jewish kids still wore Yarmulkes. The little group of pagan kids were allowed to wear pentacles, pentagrams, sacred spirals, etc. So yeah, only my religion was targeted. And banning any religious practice, or expression is banned in the constitution. It goes with freedom of speech and the press.

Women are more likely to be the victims of violent crimes, primarily committed by men,

ha! wrong.

Men are also far more likely than women to be the victims of violent crime, with the exception of rape.

Systematic racism means that whites receive less harsh sentences for crimes, are far more likely to be born above the poverty line

partially wrong. Which Race Earns Most in US? The Numbers May Surprise You - Careers Articles

Criminology - Larry J. Siegel - Google Books

Crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and discrimination against LBGTQ people are pretty much only issues because Christians are so power-hungry

aaaaannnd wrong. You really think only Christians have a problem with gay people? Because I've gotten a lot of crap from atheists, and seen atheists give my gay friends more crap.

Religion is used as an excuse, but it's not the real issue.

Gay-hating atheists - YouTube

Here's the thing. A lot of people say they're Christian. However, if they hate people, they're not. That's a rule in the bible. The same bible which says that the laws of the old testament no longer matter. The only rules now (to be Christian) are love God, and love everyone else. The end.

Originally Posted by sarofset

Here's the thing. A lot of people say they're Christian. However, if they hate people, they're not. That's a rule in the bible. The same bible which says that the laws of the old testament no longer matter. The only rules now (to be Christian) are love God, and love everyone else. The end.

I find this to be too much of a restrictive and reductionistic approach to identity in general, and Christian identity in particular. What it means to be a Christian shows both cross cultural and historical variance. Indeed in general attempts to provide ahistorical and acultural identities are quite suspect. Their shortcomings are something which has been continuously identified by both post structuralist and post modernist theory.

Originally Posted by sarofset

Incorrect. First off, only crosses were banned. The Jewish kids still wore Yarmulkes. The little group of pagan kids were allowed to wear pentacles, pentagrams, sacred spirals, etc. So yeah, only my religion was targeted. And banning any religious practice, or expression is banned in the constitution. It goes with freedom of speech and the press.

Link. If that's actually true, it's a case I haven't heard about. Also, uh, no. The Bill of Rights is meaningless in schools, otherwise dress codes would be unconstitutional and children would be allowed to say whatever they like.

ha! wrong.

Ha! Right. See? I can do it too.

aaaaannnd wrong. You really think only Christians have a problem with gay people? Because I've gotten a lot of crap from atheists, and seen atheists give my gay friends more crap.

Religion is used as an excuse, but it's not the real issue.

Gay-hating atheists - YouTube

Every anti-gay hate group in the US is overtly Christian, usually having it in their name, often being run by a religious official of some sort. They're not the only bigots, and I never said they were. But atheists (aka non-religious; not the same thing) do not get laws passed. Muslims do not get laws passed. Jews and pagans and Buddhists do not get laws passed. There is not a single law that gets passed in this country that does not have at least sizeable, if not complete, Christian support. They're just too big a group not to determine the political landscape. And not only are politicians concerned about their "base" and making Christians happy, but they're almost always Christian themselves. And then, on top of that, we live in what could certainly be described as a Christian culture. Even those who are not Christians are still heavily influenced by Christianity (which is how we get idiotic statements like "Christmas is secular!").

Here's the thing. A lot of people say they're Christian. However, if they hate people, they're not. That's a rule in the bible. The same bible which says that the laws of the old testament no longer matter. The only rules now (to be Christian) are love God, and love everyone else. The end.

Here's the thing: you don't get to decide that. See, the law of agape isn't as cut-and-dry as all that. Eternal, constant YHVH said he hated many people, and it was after going on his little "brotherly love" thing that Yeshua claimed all who follow him must hate their families and friends, must forsake them, because in order to truly follow him they must love only him.

Then you have the fact that you're not the first Christian with a Bible. The Christians who came before you, who murdered and tortured non-Christians and other Christians alike, who to this very day often support violent ideologies (anti-choice, pro-war, pro-death penalty, just to name a bit) read the exact same thing you did, and obviously took it a different way. You have no right to say that they weren't Christian, just because they didn't believe the exact same way you do.

And then, for modern-day Christians, there's a very easy out, one they employ often -- they just claim they don't hate gay people. They may say that YHVH hates gays, and since he did hate people according to the Bible it's completely possible, but if you ask them about their personal feelings, they'll tell you no, that they *love* gay people, they just want to make them change so they don't burn in Hell.

The issue is, all this about "they weren't really Christians" and "it's not JUST Christians", aside from being a clever way for the majority to minimize its numbers so they can foster the persecution complex they so desire, is just an excuse. Christianity isn't bad. Not my thing, but that doesn't mean it's not right for anyone. But a lot of Christians are. If you're really not like "them", like the Inquisitors and witch-burners and pagan-slaughterers and culture-eradicators and slavery-supporters and patriarchists and gay-haters and morality-legislators and people yelling about "PC" when what they really mean is "removing Christianity's 'special' status", then you can prove it by taking responsibility for your brethren, rather than trying to act like they don't exist.

As an aside, no, there is nothing that says the laws of the Old Testament "don't matter". In fact, Yeshua said exactly the opposite of that, that he did not come to do away with the old laws. It's just the Levitical laws, those applying strictly to Jews and mostly dealing with ritual purity, that Christians have no reason to follow.

Also, I like how you didn't actually address anything I said, including a question I asked you, but rather fractions of sentences from entire paragraphs.

Quote:
ha! wrong.
Ha! Right. See? I can do it too.

You ignored the statistic that proved you blatantly wrong, which was under that. good job.

And in about five minutes of searching I found at least one anti-gay group that is non religious. (or claims to be)

Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment

Here's the thing: you don't get to decide that. See, the law of agape isn't as cut-and-dry as all that. Eternal, constant YHVH said he hated many people, and it was after going on his little "brotherly love" thing that Yeshua claimed all who follow him must hate their families and friends, must forsake them, because in order to truly follow him they must love only him.

Here's the thing. I do get to decide that, since it's what I believe, and I decide what I believe. You don't. And you misquoted the bible there. He said hate your life. He didn't ever tell anyone to hate another person. In fact he said "love those who hate you."

Helpful Not Helpful
1 John 4:20 ESV / 90 helpful votes

If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

Helpful Not Helpful
1 John 3:15 ESV / 64 helpful votes

Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Helpful Not Helpful
Ephesians 4:29 ESV / 41 helpful votes

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

I believe, quite logically, that if someone does not follow Christ's teachings, they are not Christian (since that's what the word means) Therefore, hate groups, by definition cannot be Christian. They can call themselves Christian if they want, but that doesn't make it true. I can call myself a banana if I wish to, but that doesn't make me one.

Also, by your logic, all Muslims should be considered terrorists, because some terrorists, (who broke half the teachings of Muhammad by doing what they did ) Called themselves Muslim. Clearly (according to your line of thinking there) they are the same, and should "take responsibility for their brethren."

Christians are attacked in all areas of pop culture in the U.S. It's constant. It never stops. The fun part is that people say it's okay, because Christians are the majority. Why does that make it okay?

The cross banning wasn't an official policy. You were simply asked to remove them, or told to go home if you wouldn't. The principle of the school had issues with Christians. Not any other religious groups mind you, just Christians.

And regardless of all of that, it has nothing to do with this thread. If you want to post about religion there are other threads for that, or you can message me to continue this discussion. However please tone down the hostility. I have slight issues with it myself and am trying not to escalate. XD (bipolar disorder)



Another thing: There is actually a large movement within Christianity in general, especially with my generation, to stop the persecution of GLBTQ people. Those of us who have read the bible, and know that these actions are unbiblical, and unchristian, are trying to stop them. I know I'm not the first Christian with a bible, however until the late sixties or seventies most major churches (catholic, baptist, and Lutheran, at least) told their followers not to read the bible on their own, in case they would misunderstand something. This caused the beliefs of only their leaders to be taught and handed down. The bible actually tells us to read it, and interpret it ourselves. But that would make it hard for the pope, priests, what have you, to control what people thought and did. So they ignored that part, and told people that "trust us, we're telling you the truth." They weren't. A lot.

I to am very scared of Palin o.O
and I feel like for the people where race was an issue it was in a trying to not be racist PC I'm going to be called a racist if I don't kinda way... Much like you were afraid of Saro XD
I myself and hard core hippy green party so, what Democrats were supposed to be rather then being... well almost republican XD they don't seem to be more different then rivaled high school sports teams. And I think my party died when Nader fell under the radar. But Obama was supposed to do a ton of environmental things, which he hasn't, he was supposed to improve health care, which he hasn't, he promised to end the war, and we still don't have an exit strategy... he promised to do a lot and instead... well, I'm not saying it's all his fault it is a system of check and balances, but yeah nothing seems to be getting done about any of the problems.

I don't like palin either. Or freaking bauchman. O.o Where are all of these crazy ladies coming from?

See last election I didn't like either option, and voted for Obama because McCain openly admitted that he was gonna screw healthcare. Then of course Obama did that anyway so... yeah. I really really hope there is a sane person this election.

I think the problem with the green party winning, is that their whole platform is based on only one major issue. It's also an issue with some actual scientific debate around it. There are problems with the environment, but with all the hype over global warming nothing else is getting any attention. ...also peta is associated with them in a lot of peoples heads. XD

...peta ruins everything.

Originally Posted by sarofset

You ignored the statistic that proved you blatantly wrong, which was under that. good job.

Wasn't a statistic, it was you making a statement. I didn't just pull these stats out of my ass; I have looked them up. I have my sources, you have your sources, and that's fine. I don't feel like getting into a source contest.

And in about five minutes of searching I found at least one anti-gay group that is non religious. (or claims to be)

I went to said site. Would you mind linking to or quoting where they say they aren't Christian? Because I have to say, all their arguments are Christian, they practically fan-girl over Focus on the Family (which is Christian), and their site has more doves on it than any I've ever seen before. I only know of two religions in which doves are that important a symbol, and I -know- they're not of mine.

Here's the thing. I do get to decide that, since it's what I believe, and I decide what I believe. You don't. And you misquoted the bible there. He said hate your life. He didn't ever tell anyone to hate another person. In fact he said "love those who hate you."

Except it's *not* what you believe, it's what you're saying about a group. Do I get to decide that you aren't Christian? If not, then you have no right to decide that other Christians are not Christian, especially when they outnumber you by a long ways (this "love everybody" thing is pretty new).

Also, no, I am not misquoting Jesus. You are intentionally removing context.

Originally Posted by Luke 14:25-27, ESV

Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.

Now, the word he used there, "miseo", does not necessarily mean "hate" as we think of it. But it is used in other places to mean exactly that, and the other possible meanings ("to love less than", "to push away", "to refuse", "to reject") are still not exactly loving. But then, you already agreed that he meant "hate", so that's not really a problem.

I believe, quite logically, that if someone does not follow Christ's teachings, they are not Christian (since that's what the word means) Therefore, hate groups, by definition cannot be Christian. They can call themselves Christian if they want, but that doesn't make it true. I can call myself a banana if I wish to, but that doesn't make me one.

Unless Christ's teachings are up for debate...which they are. Indeed, there probably isn't anything in Christianity that hasn't been questioned, by people far more intelligent than you or I. And, as I said, if most Christian homophobes are to be believed, they don't hate anyone. How will you go about kicking them out of Christianity in that case?

Also, by your logic, all Muslims should be considered terrorists, because some terrorists, (who broke half the teachings of Muhammad by doing what they did ) Called themselves Muslim. Clearly (according to your line of thinking there) they are the same, and should "take responsibility for their brethren."

Um. No. Not at all. First off, they don't call themselves "terrorists". There are very few terrorist groups that call themselves that. And the two examples are completely different. On one hand, we have a great many people who follow some of Christ's teachings calling themselves Christian and you, following some of Christ's teachings (after all, I doubt you've castrated yourself as Yeshua asked), saying they aren't, and on the other hand you have a minority group of a religion being called a pejorative and it not applying to the whole faith. The two are completely unrelated. And you know that. And you're grasping.

Christians are attacked in all areas of pop culture in the U.S. It's constant. It never stops. The fun part is that people say it's okay, because Christians are the majority. Why does that make it okay?

Ohh, really now. And Muslims aren't? The nonreligious aren't? The Jews aren't as much, but only because we drove that into the ground decades ago. Witches are portrayed as either villains or clinically insane, and pagans -- even those who have been such their entire lives -- are portrayed as just "being rebellious" and "going through a phase" and cannot be taken seriously unless they dare to start asking for rights, and then they're crazies trying to destroy our way of life. Buddhists and Hindus are completely dehumanized. And Scientology's viewed as so ridiculous it's not worth even making fun of anymore; they just skip right to the hardcore attacks and boycotting of anyone with any ties to it. The only reason more non-Christian religions aren't mocked more often and with more venom is because people don't know they exist. See, that's the thing. You only see the cruelty you want to, the injustice that fuels your persecution complex. You subconsciously skip right over the suffering you don't care about.

And no, it being in the majority doesn't make it okay. But it does make it less serious. Jokes intended to hurt often lead to more serious, more hurtful things. But the fact is, Christians are not in imminent danger. Most of the people in this country are Christian, most of the politicians are Christian, most of the more vocal celebrities and culture leaders are Christian. There is no way we non-Christians, if we wanted to, could ever do anything to you as a group. The same is not true for the opposite.

The cross banning wasn't an official policy. You were simply asked to remove them, or told to go home if you wouldn't. The principle of the school had issues with Christians. Not any other religious groups mind you, just Christians.

In other words: I made it up/heard it from a fundie relative once and it probably didn't happen.

Whereas, if you want to talk about other religions and the expression thereof being banned, we have tons of documentation. And that's exactly my point. It's not that no Christians are attacked or suffer persecution. They absolutely do. But 90% of the oppression they feel they're under is either imagined, not specific to them, or just their privilege being challenged -- the privilege to be the only religion mentioned or acknowledged, the privilege to be the default assumption, the privilege to have society twisted around their moral whims.

And regardless of all of that, it has nothing to do with this thread. If you want to post about religion there are other threads for that, or you can message me to continue this discussion. However please tone down the hostility. I have slight issues with it myself and am trying not to escalate. XD (bipolar disorder)

Ah, sweetie. Here's the thing: I feel for you, I really do. But the thing is, I'm tired of watching my tone. Despite what you believe, your rights are not in danger. You will never not be able to marry the person you fall in love with, or have to worry about being verbally and even physically attacked should you show them the slightest affection in public. You'll never have someone try and commandeer your body and tell you that you must use it to support someone else, or hear a politician say that if you don't sacrifice your life to do so, you are selfish, or worry that the place you go to receive medical treatment will be firebombed, shot up, or run out of business. Whether or not you choose to have children, you will never have to be afraid that one day, your child will come home and ask why her friends told her she was going to Hell and you will have to answer her. That's the situation I'm in right now, thanks to the Conservatives whose "rights" you're so concerned about. If you sense "hostility", good, because it sure as hell is there.

Another thing: There is actually a large movement within Christianity in general, especially with my generation, to stop the persecution of GLBTQ people. Those of us who have read the bible, and know that these actions are unbiblical, and unchristian, are trying to stop them. I know I'm not the first Christian with a bible, however until the late sixties or seventies most major churches (catholic, baptist, and Lutheran, at least) told their followers not to read the bible on their own, in case they would misunderstand something. This caused the beliefs of only their leaders to be taught and handed down. The bible actually tells us to read it, and interpret it ourselves. But that would make it hard for the pope, priests, what have you, to control what people thought and did. So they ignored that part, and told people that "trust us, we're telling you the truth." They weren't. A lot.

And I'm aware of that. I'm surrounded by Christians; if all of them thought gays were of the devil, I probably wouldn't still be here. Never have I suggested that all of them are like that. I don't hate Christians, even the ones who think people like me need to die and have murdered those I've looked up to. That does not mean that I cannot feel anger at such people, and if I criticize Christianity as a whole, it is only because the most vocal and most active Christians are the very worst (gotta say, it doesn't feel good being blamed for every natural and manmade tragedy).

i am not a fan of President Obama either.
i thought he would be a wonderful President too,
though i did not vote for him.
but i think he is a candidate, and a really good one at that.
i am grateful he has not been tested and had to make an awful decision like President Bush did.
it does make me upset when people dump on President Bush about the 'mess' he made.
he did not fly planes into buildings with innocent people in them!
he reacted to attacks on our soil for God's sake.
what should he have done?
nothing like President Clintion?
anyway sorry to get off topic.
i think President Obama should stop putting in way more debt that ever by bailing out compaines who go bankrupt anyway.
give me some of the billions of dollars so i can keep my house!
work on helping our homeless, unemployed *and the people who don't even count for unemployment*, feed our kids and teach them.