8 yr. old tells Bachmann: " My moms gay but she doesnt need fixing"- Child Abuse?

Originally posted by Believer101

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
I am saying that for a well-rounded person to flourish intellectually in a Western society, they need to understand Christianity. If they have no notion, then they can not understand music, art, literature, architecture, culture...get my notion?

I see where you're coming from, but again I have to disagree. You don't need religion or an understanding of any of it to understand culture, music, art, literature, architecture, etc, and I'm the perfect example. I was raised without any sort of religious talk in my home, and music and art are my passions in life.

Well, then we'll simply have to agree to disagree, won't we.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Well, then we'll simply have to agree to disagree, won't we.

There needs to be a way to communicate/teach those things you mention - - without using religion.

Atheists have children too.

Belief is a choice - - it should never be forced on anyone - - especially young minds.

Originally posted by theovermensch
I actually think its counter-productive in a way for homosexuals to take the approach of a full frontal assault.

If it was not for that tactic, we never would have had the civil rights act passed here in the states.

To be honest, I find the civil rights act insulting. We should never have to pass a law to ensure a person rights that are already protected by our consittution. As for peoples opinions, they have the right to believe and think what they want. What they dont have a right to do is tell another person they dont have a right to be happy or to be able to determine on their own who they fall in love with and if they spend the rest of their lives with that person.

I find it personally humerous, as well as confirming the ignornace of some, when guys rail against gays. Right up to the point they talk about porn and girl on girl action. Apparently being gay is acceptable to those die hard straights afterall, so long as it benefeits them in some manner.

Being a member of the Military requires a person to take the exact same oath, regardless of age, race, sexual orientation or even nationality now. The Military expects its members to uphold the highest standards when it comes to honesty and truthfullness, yet for years they forced people to lie about who they are and when it was found out, they were drummed out of the service.

A volunteer service mind you. To protect and defend the Constitution of the United states against all enemies foreign and domestic.

These people knew what they were getting into when they joined up. Knowing full well if they were found out they were done. It says a LOT when people, knowing what their government thinks of them, religion think sof them, close minded people think of them, to take the oath and defend and protect those listed groups rights to tell them they arent good enough to serve.

Gays have been fighting for equal protection and treatment. They have protected yours, is there any reason people refuse to protect theirs?

The argument about gays revolves around nature and religion, which our founding fathers envisioned when our country was being put together. They, however, acknowledged that religious views should be respected, but not used when it came to laws that govern people.

After all, its one of the reasons they left England, to be able to worship a God of their choice, free of influence or force.


Suggesting kids are being abused by having gay parents is about as intelligent as people who kill in the name of God, who work on the Sabbath, who wear clothes made from differnt cloth, from planting crops side by side, to being killed for touching the skin of a dead pig.

If people are going to hold fast to their own religious beleifs and force them on others, then shouldnt those same people be held to their own religious standards as well? Ms. Bachman is a conservatice Christian after all, and being a conservatice christian places her into a group of do's and dont's.

Apparently she, and others, forgot the part that says only God can judge, the part about turning the other cheak, as well as pushing a religious doctrine while running for public office is just a bad idea.

While she admonishes gays through her own ignorance, maybe her conservative christian brothers and sisters should hold bachman herself accountible?

Or because she is going after gays it gives conservative christians the right to be hypocritical ignorant jackasses?





as for what the 8 year old said to her....

Sometimes the village idiot comes to the right conclusion before the nobel laureate.

Originally posted by Believer101

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
Your reference to my religion? I profess none. I am saying that for a well-rounded person to flourish intellectually in a Western society, they need to understand Christianity. If they have no notion, then they can not understand music, art, literature, architecture, culture...get my notion? By the same notion, if one wishes to flourish in a world society, one needs to understand other religions and their influence upon cultures.

As to your own experiences, I am indeed sorry. Much wrong has been committed by some professing faith to wield power, and that is not to be dismissed. But a lot of good folk find inspiration and comfort in their faith and it is wrong to define religion by its failings without acknowledging its benefits, too.

I see where you're coming from, but again I have to disagree. You don't need religion or an understanding of any of it to understand culture, music, art, literature, architecture, etc, and I'm the perfect example. I was raised without any sort of religious talk in my home, and music and art are my passions in life. It wasn't until my friend talked about her church that I decided, on my own, to get into it.

No need to be sorry for something you had nothing to do with. What's in the past is in the past and I'm over it completely. I agree, there is some good with religion, but my experience and what I've witnessed is what has led me to my opinion over it.

Ok here is an idea.

To be honest I don't think you need to be versed in Christianity to understand western civilization. Because you could just say well in order to understand Catholicism say you would need to understand that some saints are just the archetypes of pagan gods resurrected to fit a new religion. But to understand those religions you would need to understand the birth of these archetypes in the very first nature/ancestor worshiping religions. and so on and so on.

Why not just have a Tradition and Archetypes class? It would compare and contrast various religions and belief systems. It would give broader context to the meaning of not only religious figures but the circumstances that bore those figures forth. Also the systems and societies put in place by those religions.

I guess what I am trying to say is why not a philosophy class with the context of history and at the same time a history class with the further understanding of philosophy.

I like to imagine that is much closer to how the people of antiquity had there places of learning set up.

Though I am no philosopher so maybe that is just too much.