Yes, but they refused an Atheist to become part of the Supreme Court or something along those lines because he was an Atheist. Not sure if he got the job.
I don't recall that one, but we've had Presidents who didn't believe in Jesus's divinity. Taft, IIRC, was Unitarian and stated that much about his beliefs.
However, I don't want to see people with political agendas twisting scriptures and liberalizing the churches(by possibly infiltrating or starting liberal churches)
Why not? In spite of religion's claims of static, universal truth, the policies of all faiths have changed drastically over time, with racial policies being a prime example. Many Christian churches (not just a few splinter groups) endorsed slavery, and easily supported it by pointing to passages in the Bible.
The important thing is divesting God's message and love from the messages and rules that were added by those serving as God's imperfect messengers. We've discarded the Biblical sanctions of slavery as mere products of the time it was written, so why should we consider the rules on homosexuality any different?
Once again if Civil Unions were given the same United States legal rights as a marriage it would be equal. What would prevent you from getting a civil union? Nothing. What would prevent you from having the same legal rights as a marriage? Nothing because you'd have the same rights as a marriage.
Separate but equal, eh? If you don't want marriage to be a civil right, then abandon all civil recognition of it. As long as there is a government sanctioned 'marriage', separate cannot and will not be equal. Or have you forgotten the lessons learned via segregation.
How can you debate that homosexuality isn't a sin? If God didn't make us able to be gay then how would we have free will? It's the same with being a murder, or pedophile or anything... you can choose to do it. If I wanted to go out right now and start a homosexual relationship with some buff guy I could but I choose not to. Science is a great tool but it trumps nothing when it comes to the big questions, the ones that really matter.
Wrong. You couldn't start a homosexual relationship, assuming you're not closeted. You'd never be able to get it up, pardon my frankness. It's a purely physiological response, with no inherent moral quantity.
Furthermore, I take offer to you even putting it in the same category as murder or pedophilia, and if you do so again, I will ask that the Mods warn you for it. Homosexuality harms *NOONE*, other than a few bigots who can't pull their heads out of the 14th century.
Maybe because the word marriage has a bigger meaning that you can't seem to grasp.
Why should I be forced to accept your definition of it? How about I force you to accept mine, whether you like it or not.
The day marriage became a legally recognized concept is the day you lost any control over who gets to say what it means. Either remove all legal aspects and make it purely religious, or accept that you cannot dictate to others how to live.
We've had this discussion already in the past. This country was built on Christian/Judea principals.
Wrong. See above. See any sort of history. Read a book that doesn't feature magical cloud-gods. You may learn something.
Find me a Christian that denies homosexuality as a sin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_religious_organizations
Enjoy the reading. Oh, and no "No true Scotsman" fallacy - if they worship Jesus, they're christian, no matter how much you disagree with them.
Lets also face it, a man/man woman/woman relationship won't ever be equal to a man/woman relationship for the simple reason that call it what you will, as intimate as you may be capable of being, it will not produce a biological child, a component of both mother and father, which when you get right down to the metaphysical mumbo jumbo is the fusion of two people into one.
So you think infertile couples shouldn't marry? Or what about seniors who find love in their 70's? Or what about my fiancee and I who simply do not want a child both for personal reasons and because we don't want to contribute to the overpopulation problem?
I equate this to be SIMILAR to that young lady who forced her way into the CITADEL a while back, why did a woman feel a need to force her way into an all male institution? just because a 'boys' club exists doesn't mean it's wrong or sexist, discriminatory or hateful. there are good reasons for these seperations, and i don't think i ever recall a guy forcing his way into a womans school.. (he'd probably be labled as a perv).
Actually, yes, they *are* wrong and sexist. If a woman can pass the entrance requirements, she should be allowed in, regardless of gender. Anything else, no matter how you rationalize it, is sexism.
You can perhaps adopt, and that in itself is a noble and honorable thing, and it will produce much the same result, but that child would be brought into your lives by a court system, compassion, and many other things, but not between that ultimate union that a man and woman can share. (Please note, I am not knocking adoption or minimizing the love and relationships created by it, there are 5 adopted kids in my family.)
Gay people can adopt.
Your claim is just plain stupid. You claim it's about having biological kids, then make an excuse for adoption, but since gays can adopt, you turn around and go back to claiming some magical
stuff about kids. You're a hypocrite merely looking for an excuse to justify your own homophobic bigotry.
Why can't the heterosexual world have something of it's own?
I bet if you'd been born 100 years ago, you'd be saying that about giving women the vote.
I'll make it simple for you: Because it's discrimination based solely on hate.
1) there is quite a bit of evidence for a global flood, not only is it mentioned by nealry every culture on earth, but there is physical evidence itself, Mt. Arrarat for instance has ball lava formations on top of it (not as old as the mt), ball lava only forms under water. Also, it has been scientifically proven that every race on the planet could have risen from one common race within 5 generations
AHAHAHAHA!
Oh, god, you actually believe that? AHAHAHAHA!!
No, there is no evidence for any global flood. No, there is no evidence that the different races could arise in 5 generations, and there's ball lava on top of Mt. Arrarat for the same reason there are seashells in Cincinnati - because it was deposited millions of years ago. Don't believe it? Tough. Reality doesn't change because your little book says so.
Um, the exedous did happen. it is not a disputed fact, it is documented not only in non-religious texts of the hebrew nation, but by the egyptians as well.
Wrong. There is no Egyptian record.
Historians have established links, such as egyptian documents that not only recount the drowning of a pharonic army, but references to the plauges of egypt as well.
Wrong again. Prove it. Show me these documents.
As for a young earth, well, that is hard to swallow, but there is a significant amount of evidence that does, if nothing else, shoot holes all through the structure that supports evolution. data can be read many ways by many people, interpretation of data is more of an art i think than a science.
Wrong again. We've directly observed evolution and speciation, both in the lab and in nature. Read a biology textbook.
Phission, its the people who want to secularize the past that are mistaken.
"One nation under God"
"In God we Trust"
Wrong yet again. Both of those phrases were ADDED in the 1950's in response to scares about the "godless communists".
you see, unbeknownst ot many people who don't like christians (indeed it seems there are many out there who outright hate us and lump us all in the same boat) we are capable of rational and independent thought.
This coming from someone who doesn't acept evolution? Way to prove yourself wrong.
Secondly this "hard evidence" you posted is nothing but bias propaganda.
Um, did you *READ* the second link? That was a phrase in a treaty that Congress ratified. You can find it in any historical register. Go, look it up. And next time, try *thinking* rather than just dismissing things out of hand.
On top of what Rampuppy said, what book is sworn on by congressmen, federal officials and the President? You know the one where they say "So help me God", started by George Washington, the first President of the United States.
Anything you want. A muslim congressman recently swore in on the Quaran. Atheist public officials swear on the Constitution. Just because the majority of the country is Christian does not mean that everyone *must* be, and that we must all follow your rules.
As a final note, if anyone has a problem with my tone, tough. This is hatred and discrimination for no good reason, is absolutely disgraceful, and is one thing I will not stand down on. And no moaning about how I "insulted your beliefs". I'm firmly with Richard Dawkins on this - religion is too often used as merely a pass to let unwarranted and foolish claims go unchallenged. I don't care if something is the deepest part of your faith, I will criticise it as I please, and if you can't handle that, then go live in some safe little theocracy like Iran.
It's bigotry, period. And I will not stand by being 'courteous' while the Religious Reich destroys the freedoms this country was founded on.
Mokele