Im not sure which part of the quotes anyone could genuinely brush aside.

And why should we take seriously anyone who has a faith and feels that alone entitles them to a say in how others live their lives? It entitles them to nothing except their faith. Again, to quote Hitchens, "that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence". Now if they were basing their opinion on historical fact or some genuine experience in a relevant field of work, and could demonstrate that, I might understand. But to have someone prove their point of view today because it says, in a book written and rewritten by 100s, perhaps thousands of unknown people, that someone woke from the dead, claimed to be the son of god, walked on water, told stories and turned water into wine 2000 years ago is just, well, ridiculous. I understand the parables and the nice, ethical meanings and they have their place in Sunday schools for kids. But thats just teaching common sense and calling it religion.

The amount of good theology/religion has done, as you point out, in the arts, literature etc is undeniable, although the Catholic church is still guilty of some scurrilous attempts to defame some who disagreed with it in these fields. Science and innovation is debatable...

What I don't appreciate is is the power over people and the fanaticism that comes with religion. You might argue thats just a minority, but unfortunately, like other groups they judge so quickly, thats what people focus on. Take a look at the world just now and tell me honestly if you think religion as a whole is doing well? Fanatics threatening to wipe countries, races and other religions off the face of the planet, the proliferation of Aids throughout Africa, the gaudy riches within the vatican with beggars lining the streets outside holding pictures of the virgin Mary (I was there a few years ago and walked passed them all), the raping, and subsequent denial by senior members of the vatican, of children for years etc etc

Again, I would stress, I haven't any issue with individuals who get comfort and hope from their beliefs, just don't follow the diktat that forces you to impress that belief on others!

Im not entirely sure about religion's contribution to science either-I understand the burning, persecution and house arrest others risked to further scientific ideas though.

Lastly, to compare Hitchens and Dawkins to a madman like Pat Robertson smacks of desperation and uses the same tactics of the extremists who they bravely attack (Im not calling you an extremist btw!). Both put forward reasoned arguments with evidence to back up EVERY SINGLE thing they say, so the comparison isnt the best

Agree with a good portion of this post.



I can agree with that. But you have the same thing with most social crusaders just take a look at the race profiteer Al Sharpton's lengthy career.



Well put.

You can be a nonbeliever and still appreciate the words and the overall message of religious texts. If you don't feel Jesus is the son of God you can still respect who he was and what he represented, especially when you look historically at the time period he lived in.

"You can be a nonbeliever and still appreciate the words and the overall message of religious texts. If you don't feel Jesus is the son of God you can still respect who he was and what he represented, especially when you look historically at the time period he lived in."

Dwalin/Dude....exactly. Pride makes the majority not believe in this though. Simply because of the overwhelming inability to compromise by the majority. Borne out of years of indoctrination, and more recently, a strengthened need to "believe" because of the global spread/threat of islamic fundamentalism (and no doubt atheism!)

Sorry i can't muti quote you because i'm using my phone and it's just to annoiong to do so. I really can't keep up a proper debate because of my aforementioned using of said crapppy phone .

Even though i brought up a few things there i felt you missed my overall point that calling anyone who believes in religion stupid or naive is incredibly offensive, even though i'm not religious most of my family are. You are using baseless tactics some religious people use against Atheists, in that you are accusing Christians as a whole as attemting to have a say in aspects of everyones life, as you clearly know The Bible, Quran, whatever is up to interpretation just as much as anything, and some use quotes to verify their beliefs; there are plenty of Religious people who don't care about/ support some of the issues you are clearly referring to here.

I don't really have the time nor feel the need to debate miracles since i don't believe in them myself, but there is a ton of more pragmatic Theologists and areas of Theology like Moral Relativism that may interest you, that's if you even have any interest in debating this subject with believers without having to pull out Christopher Hitchens quotes; just saying.

Anyway it's took me ages to write this out on my phone, so i'll just wrap it up with a few words on my Hitchens,Dawkins/Robertson comparison before returning to this later if i have the time. While my comparison was no doubt extreme, i feel that Dawkins and Hitchens work appeal more to the popular market, and they spend(t) their time debunking Creationists and the like rather than debating genuine Theologists they clearly take awway exposure from people much more qualified than themselves, who usually only find an audience from fellow intellectuals. I'm also not a fan of the militant atheism they show, something that has got a load of criticism from the Atheist/ Skeptic community as a whole.

Sorry for any typos, missing words, sentences that don't make sense i'll edit this later.

No probs Camarel, you make good points and seem like an honest Scotsman!

But, if you went to Vegas in the hope of winning a million based on the faith that "they" tell you you can and millions of others have, is that naive or sensible? I compare that to any other faith. I dare you to bet your mortgage on the second coming or whatever else in the bible...obviously not...

The weakness with religion is that we, people who dont believe, can focus on the minority for an easy hit, catholic priests shagging kids, silly bible stuff, isis etc just as people who do beleive, gays, sinners etc. But, the easy arguement against religion is that theres no substance really, its sand through your fingers-thats what pisses me off, These people have so much power with NOTHING at all to back it up, just historical shite, which goes back to the Hitchens quote...

Miracles, you dont have time??? Well everyone else apparently beleives in them! (Sorry if that sounds a bit arsy, not meaning to mate!)

A. First, there are plenty of atheists, agnostics and general unbelievers who believe that they are entitled what others believe and how they should live their lives. So this version of "holier than thou" doesn't cut it. Hitchens and Dawkins in their books absolutely did tell other people what to believe (or what not to believe) and regularly use insults and mockery to do it. They have (or had in Hitchens' case) faith in their own set of beliefs, especially since much of it does not rely on evidence. In fact, some are contradictory, such as his self-righteous attack on Mother Teresa because she gave hospice care. In doing so he appealed to some sort of morality that's based on his own subjective standard. A more consistent approach would have him accept that all of her behaviors were determined.

B. Their books are not full of historical facts, but a mix of facts and assertions. Big difference.

C. What you call ridiculous is pretty offensive to a lot of people. There are also works by scholars who have investigated this things that you dismiss, and they came to very different conclusions after evaluating all of the evidence. On the resurrection, for example, Gary Habermas has done some excellent work. Rather than just slam beliefs because you don't like them, look over the facts, evidence and arguments, then come to an educated conclusion. It's not without reason that the world's top atheist analytic philosopher, Antony Flew, who spent years debating Christians, left atheism for theism.

D. As for Camarel's comparison, the evidence would show that despite your opinion of Pat Robertson he has done far more for the poor and needy than Hitchens and Dawkins combined.

Not sure why my mention of Pat Robertson was brought up at all, since i was clearly disagreeing with all of the anti-religious comments made in this thread; but ok.

Pat Robertson - +1

You were required to take a certain amount of religious credits back then (1977-1981). And Catholic High School in the mid-'70s? Forget about it. One full religious class a day was mandatory for all four years.

It's all moot anyway. I graduated Fordham in the Spring of '81, and went right into the Teamsters. I was in the office at 813 by '88.

@ Fergie: Extreme Atheism is the fastest growing "religion" in the world. They're as fanatical in their non-beliefs as any fundamentalist is in their beliefs.

And Christopher Hitchens was a divisive scumbag who got the death he deserved. I only hope he suffered half as much as has been reported.

Does that make me a bad Christian? Yup. But I'm Catholic, in a bad mood today (unrelated to you guys, I think you all know why), and I trust that God will forgive my outburst.

Faithful, lets take it point by point...

A. First paragraph means nothing until you state Hitchens/Dawkins do not rely on evidence, absolute bullshit, they're whole lives are/where based on evidence gathering-do you know anything about them? You name Mother Theresa..lets put that to rest, she was a clever/naive person who was unfortunate enough to praise dictators across the world and stated time and again that abortion was THE greatest threat to world peace. Got famous after a malcolm muggeridge doc in the 60's which was bullshit as well..

B. simply bullshit, read the books (you haven't obviously, otherwise Ill ask you more about them, ill not even insist on detail

C. Again, I cant change my opinion, Bertrand Russell gave the analogy of a teapot circling the world which anyone could believe in, who are you to dismiss it?

D. Stupid comparison and a rather silly point to even try and make

Pizza, Im disappointed with your comment about Christopher Hitchens, he died a long, slow, painful death through cancer. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, no matter their beliefs. As I said earlier though and you've proved my point, believers are always only a few conversations away from hating people.....

(And I like you pizza!)

A. Okay, you don't like Mother Teresa, sounds like you're the one who's a few conversations from hating people.

B. I have them on ebooks. Right now I can find "God Is Not Great" and "The Portable Atheist" by Hitchens and "The God Delusion" by Dawkins. I'm sure I have more, but that's what's currently coming up when I do a search on my hard drive. So what do you want to know?

C. Anybody can dismiss it. It's a stupid, silly analogy.

D. It's only valid if helping others means anything.

Maybe a few Hail Marys would have eased his pain. Although he probably said a few foxhole prayers that he'd never admit to. Not that he could admit it now anyway. Because, you know, he's worm food now. And if you think he suffered then, that's nothing compared to being distanced from God for eternity.

You see, I don't go for the Devil with the tail, and the fire and brimstone. True Hell is getting a glimpse of what paradise could have been, then being distanced from it for eternity.


I'm hardly a fanatic. I was only pointing out that Extreme Atheists are as hateful as any Extreme Fundamentalists.


I like you too, Fergie. But this is just another reason why religion and politics don't belong on message boards. No one ever changes anyone else's mind anyway, so what's the point?

Please don't waste your time reading any of Hitchens or Dawkins crap Faithful, from your comments here i have a feeling that you've already spent some time reading and (civilly) debating far more worthwhile people/texts.

A. You didn't answer my points about her, meeting/even laying wreaths on dictators graves, her distorted view of abortion and the hysterical programme when muggeridge "saw" a vision....

B. Have you read them?

C. My point about religion, do you get it??

D. You compared a fraud, who said he was healing/helping people against 2 authors and thinkers who put forward their measured opinions for anyone to consider and agree or refute.

Faithful, you seem a nice guy (tell me your taking the piss!:))

Camarel, your advice is to not read about evolution or arguments against religion? The two authors you mention are the 1st on anybody's list.

PB, you're right......

Lets all take 5, agree I was right and move on

Any fan of popular rehashed arguments, or Dawkins modern take on Darwins' On the Origin of Species, should read either them or if you are a fan of Militant Atheism you'd be lucky to find any finer.

My advice was not to read Dawkins or Hitchens, not once did i say don't read about evolution or arguments against religion, nice strawman though it's sad that i wont stay to see you knock it down.

The thing i find funny here is you are bringing up "arguments against religion" to people who have read much more (AAR) than you and have also read the Religious texts to debate from both sides. So good luck with that one!

I never said that, did I? You're intentionally ignoring the point about the nuclear family unit of a man, woman and children being the fundamental building block of society. Births out of wedlock, divorce, etc. have already screwed things up enough and now we're going to screw things up even further by changing the definition of marriage altogether?



If you want to believe that, fine, but the issue is the fact that it should be left up to the states. Not the courts. Once again, there is nothing in the Constitution that warrants or justifies gay marriage. Therefore, it is under the jurisdiction of the individual states. But that's where gay marriage supporters like yourself run into the problem of not having the majority of public opinion on your side.



The "gay marriage doesn't affect you" argument has always amused me. For one thing, the gay marriage supporters who so often use that argument wouldn't - and don't - give a damn if and when it did affect somebody.

Below are just three examples of the effects the gay marriage movement has had. There are many more. Many of which often infringe on the infinitely more important and fundamental religious rights of people. Of course, like I said above, gay marriage supporters couldn't care less. In fact, I imagine they look at these examples with a certain smugness and sense of satisfaction.

Employment

Example 1:

A Baptist-affiliated organization that places at-risk children in adoption or foster care terminated an employee because her admitted homosexual lifestyle was contrary to the organization’s core values. Accusing the organization of sexual orientation discrimination, she brought a federal lawsuit that the organization is still defending against more than a decade later. Pedreira v. Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children, Inc., 579 F.3d 722 (6th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2091.

Comment: Businesses that publicly operate according to religious beliefs should have the freedom to hire based on religious criteria they deem necessary to ensure that the working environment is supportive of those beliefs. This case illustrates that even overtly religious organizations can be sued for sexual orientation discrimination and that the resulting litigation can consume an organization’s resources for many years.

Example 2:

A New York City restaurant was ordered to pay $1.6 million to a lesbian chef and manager for allegedly discriminating based on sexual orientation and religion because the restaurant held weekly prayer meetings and the owner expressed the view that homosexual conduct is sinful. Salemi v. Gloria’s Tribeca, Inc., 115 A.D.3d 569, 982 N.Y.S.2d 458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Comment: The reported decision doesn’t say whether employees were told that the restaurant’s owner held out the business as operating according to traditional Christian beliefs. But it’s probably the most striking illustration of what effect a sexual orientation law can have on such a business.

Example 3:

A Minnesota health club, owned by Evangelical Christians and operated in light of biblical principles, was ordered by the Minnesota Supreme Court in 1985 to stop hiring only employees who shared their religious beliefs in order to comply with state nondiscrimination laws. Blanding v. Sports & Health Club, Inc., 373 N.W.2d 784 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985), aff’d, 389 N.W.2d 205 (Minn. 1986).

Comment: This is a frequently cited case where a business that held itself out as operating on religious lines lost to nondiscrimination rules.

Issue: Employers, such as Boy Scouts of America, that exist to express or inculcate a religious or values-based message should be free to make hiring decisions based on their religious beliefs or values.
Issue: All employers should be free to establish reasonable employment regulations that are consistent with their values, including those relating to dress, grooming and use of private facilities.
Issue: All employees should be free to express their religious commitments in the workplace in reasonable, nondisruptive ways and on equal terms with similar expressions by other employees. Employees should not be terminated or disciplined for expressing their religious convictions about marriage, family and sexuality outside the workplace, any more than employees should be fired for expressing in nondisruptive ways alternative views on those topics outside the workplace.

Housing

Example 1:

A private Jewish university in New York City was sued by a lesbian couple for its policy of reserving its married student housing for male-female couples. The state’s highest court ruled that the university’s policy could be challenged as violating the city’s ordinance barring housing discrimination based on sexual orientation. Levin v. Yeshiva Univ., 96 N.Y.2d 484 (2001).

Comment: Churches and other religiously affiliated organizations that own noncommercial housing units should have the freedom to give preferences to those of their own faith. Religious schools should have the freedom to establish values-based regulations for student housing, including regulations separating male and female housing and protecting values of privacy, modesty and sexual morality.

Example 2:

In 1996 the California Supreme Court ruled that a devout Presbyterian widow with traditional Christian morals violated state law when she desired to rent one of her properties only to couples who are married. The court explained that the widow could avoid compromising her religious beliefs by getting out of the rental business altogether. Smith v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., 913 P.2d 909 (Cal. 1996).

Comment: Small landlords and landlords renting units closely associated with their family living arrangements should have the freedom to determine who will occupy such units. Mrs. Smith’s plight is perhaps the best-known case pitting the religious liberty of small landlords against the insensitivity of sweeping nondiscrimination laws. Note that it involves an unmarried heterosexual couple.



As I posted above, we're already seeing the bogus "rights" of gays affecting the actual Constitutional rights of others.



LOL! Spoken like a true liberal. Looking to the United Nations rather than the Constitution (which what this is all about).



It depends on how well they understood Reagan. I have yet to encounter a secular liberal that has even a moderate understanding of scripture. They have no desire to. The only time they cite it is to criticize it.



Even if you want to throw out the translation I mentioned, what you're doing is no different then when liberals cite the scripture about "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." They also misuse that in order to justify whatever they want. Of course, they ignore what Christ said to the woman taken in adultery after the crowd had left - "Go thy way and sin no more."



Hitchens and Dawkins? Really? Rest assured, Hitchens is singing a different tune now, as will Dawkins when he passes on.

A. I didn't see a question, but I did see you use a lot of loaded language.

B. Mostly skimming, stopping to read certain parts that I find more interesting, that sort of thing. I rarely read any book from beginning to end. Don't have the time to do that. Let's take Dawkins' book for example. I'll admit that he's a good writer in the sense that he has good writing skills, fine prose. I find his argumentation weak. Same really for Hitchens, who in some areas I like. Hitchens seems to be the more caustic of the two, with a strong sarcastic streak. They both tend to attack people who don't act as they should and they attack straw men. Hitchens' work is more autobiographical in nature, more personal. That's fine, but mostly reads like one set of bad experiences after another more than anything else. Both are screeds, long-winded rants, are short when it comes to refutation. Both cited Michael Shermer, a Southern California atheist and skeptic who has written many books, but fails to understand certain important aspects of philosophy. This came through in a debate he had with Greg Koukl, where Koukle repeatedly tried to explain that one's epistemology needs an ontological foundation, but Shermer just wasn't getting it. Dawkins, I think, has a longer section on morality, and it has no foundation and ends up being subjective. He's aware of Antony Flew but only covered him in a footnote, but he should have read Flew's discussion on the is/ought fallacy since Dawkins falls right into it. I also noticed that they didn't include contemporary atheist philosophers such as Michael Martin, nor Christian philosophers like Greg Bahnsen, William Lane Craig or Alvin Plantinga. They discussed alleged Bible contradictions, but neglected to deal with the solutions that have been around for many years and put out there by scholars. Instead they take on old and weak arguments, sort of like a professional basketball team claiming victory after they beat a bunch of elementary (primary) school players. They had their chance to take on the grown-ups, the experts, but failed to do so.

C. Your point on religion is simply irrational. Bertrand Russell's teapot was one that circled the sun and related to the burden of proof. It's the ancestor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is really an example of mockery and a straw man since no one believes it. Some viewpoints are less likely. Well, duh. Actually some viewpoints can be ruled out altogether as being impossible, some physically and others logically. I read Russell's creed many years ago, "Why I Am Not A Christian," and his basic point is that there was insufficient evidence. However, by showing the impossibility of the contrary (called transcendental argumentation) it is possible to show that the entire atheist worldview is impossible, then one is left with the contrary, which is theism.

D. Robertson isn't a fraud when it comes to charitable contributions, but his beliefs are out there for anyone to refute as well, just as I did on Dawkins and Hitchens. I'll even throw in Shermer and Sam Harris if you want. These so-called New Atheists don't have the same reasoning ability as the older ones and are more squishy, but unlike the older generation enjoys mocking and insulting people. If I wanted that I'd go see Don Rickles. At least in person Hitchens was more reasonable.

E. I am a nice guy, but in this country taking a piss means something else entirely! LOL

If this is personal don't answer what is your religious affiliation? Catholic? or a denomination of Christianity? Just out of curiosity


You implied that the central part of marriage is to produce babies and if you don't you are not part of the social norm.

I wouldn't say births out of wedlock and divorce have screwed things up, throughout history we have plenty of examples of successful people coming out of these situations. I don't see a total global meltdown coming if we "change" the definition.



I am not arguing the fact that states should have more authority in some aspects. If you consider majority of the people you speak to who agree with you but national polls show 48% are in favor and 38% oppose



I don't disagree with that at all. This has nothing to do with gay marriage affecting you.



As long as the prayer meetings were not mandatory. If the chef and manager had a choice not to be there and not hear what the owner had to say. If I working at this restaurant I wouldn't go to the prayer meetings. Knowing that you have a homosexual on staff and singling them out in front of the rest of the staff condemning them to Hell is rude. The owner has a right to feel that way and to "preach" that but not at a mandatory workplace meeting. This has nothing to do with gay marriage affecting you.

I don't feel like responding to all of them but I if a religious organization has standards that you don't meet they have a right not to hire you or allow you to leave there. But you can't say I am firing you because you are a homosexual, that is discrimination. How it should be done "When you were hired you signed an at will agreement. As of (fill in date) your services are no longer needed."

The cases don't have anything to do with the right to marriage. They are about gay rights in conflict with religious institutions. If you are gay and go to a church ask a priest to marry you, it is not wrong for the priest to say "Unfortunately I can not because according to the Bible and book I consider to be the word of God, marriage should be between a man and a women." If someone goes to a Town Justice and says will you marry us, the judge can't say no because of religious feelings. The right to dedicate your life to someone you love does not restrict the rights of others.



Spoken with true ignorance, since I first said it was about freedom of speech, with a link to Cornell University Law School First Amendment definition "The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference."

Brought up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because Americans helped write it, and the United States voted in favor of it.

Big difference between a Liberal and a Libertarian. Big difference between religion and politics, you can't seem to differentiate the two.



You probably have no desire to find a moderate any interpretation that differs from your you view as criticism.

It seems you live in a small world then, I've met extremely intelligent Christians, Muslims and Atheist. It was actually a Muslim who opened my mind to how great the teachings of Jesus are. Before I would argued the Bible is complete nonsense now I have a desire to know more about Jesus(as a man not as a son of God).



Well when he says "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." He is telling a crowd, he is teaching them the error their way(how the Torah's teachings were not correct). It seems he deliberately waited for the crowd to leave when he tells the women "Go thy way and sin no more," I take that as go and stop violating the Torah because I won't be here to protect you next time, if she continued to be an adulterer the same crowd would come and stone her because they were following the Torah

I'm Mormon.



Then you haven't been paying attention. Much of today's societal ills are due to the breakdown of the family unit and traditional values. Government legitimization of gay marriage only takes us further down that road.



I'm more than happy to leave it up to the states, as it should be. It doesn't mean I would consider those states who would legalize gay marriage as being morally right but it would at least be following the Constitution. What's happening right now, i.e. gay marriage being legalized by liberal activist judges, is against the Constitution.



Once again, the point is we are already seeing the so called "rights" of gays intruding upon the rights of others. The kinds of things gay marriage supporters said would never happen. And it's only going to get worse.



The subject at hand has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with freedom of expression. And it certainly has nothing to do with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You say you're not a liberal but only a liberal would even attempt to bring something like that up. This issue has to do with the U.S. Constitution alone and what powers it gives to the federal government and those retains by the states. Period.



Well that's another untenable position many secular liberals take. They like Jesus' teachings but don't believe He was divine. Christ's central teaching was that He was the Son of God and Savior of the world. He was either what He professed to be or else a mad man. You can't have it both ways.



While Jesus certainly condemned all the vain additions the Jewish leaders made to the Law of Moses, this situation didn't pertain to that. Those who brought the woman to Jesus were correct in that she was guilty of adultery and, under the Law of Moses, should be stoned. However, Christ (as the One who originally gave the Law of Moses) had come to once again offer the fulness of the Higher Law or the Gospel, which fulfilled, transcended, and superseded the lower Law of Moses (which was simply full of types and shadows pointing to the eventual Atonement of Christ). Contrary to what many secular liberals would like to think, this did not mean He condoned or excused her adultery in any way. Forgiveness was available to her, if she repented and "sinned no more," but the latter part of that exchange liberals seem to prefer to overlook when they simply quote the first part about "casting a stone."

Ivy.....that was one of the best rebuttals that I've read....great job, well said.

Social ills? Which are you referring to?

Our biggest social problems come from economically deprived areas, my opinion



They are not what you call "gay" rights but equal rights of American citizens and they shouldn't be changed or be called into question because you are "different." I don't see how the right to be gay or the right to marry someone you love is infringing on the rights of straight people.



The subject at hand is freedom. How all people are equal and no one should be restricted to live life to the fullest because of religious qualms. The federal government needs to step in (I hate myself for saying that) when a state government allows a religious opinion to influence the government's decision making.

I really don't see a valid political argument without religious overtones. Forcing people to live life the way you (not you exactly just the word I am using) want to define how it should be lived is what the actual issue is.

You define it how you do I define it how I do, who is wrong? Neither of us, because we live in a country where difference of opinion and different ideas are tolerated. Making something unlawful because it is in conflict with you personal views is just not right.



Since being liberal is a political ideology it has nothing to do with religion.

I can have it anyway I want since I can interpret what the bible says, what history says and what reason tells me.

Well I don't consider him a mad man, but no I do not think he was son of god. Before and after his death many people who were defying the Romans and the Jewish leaders claimed to be the messiah it was not an uncommon thing. Since the gospels were written by man 40 years after Jesus died, I have to say yes I am skeptical. That being said I don't deny the greatness of who Jesus was historically.



I will just say your views on the Bible and mine differ greatly.

Economically deprived, i.e. poverty is one of the main examples. Crime is another. Kids being raised in one-parent households is another. It's a continual cycle that is the result of the breakdown of the family unit.



I realize you believe that but that isn't the question. The question is, is there Constitutional support for gay marriage? The activist judges are using "Equal protection under the law" to justify allowing gays to be married to but it is, needless to say, quite a stretching and liberal interpretation. Much like "Right to privacy" was used to justify abortion. Gay people have the same rights as the rest of us - to enter into a marriage between one man and one woman. If they want to enter into a gay marriage, that is recognized and sanctioned by the government, that is an issue that should be left up to each individual state. Whether it directly infringes on the rights of straight people, although we've already seen that it does, is beside the point.



Once again, it doesn't matter if religion is the primary reason why people are against gay marriage. The federal government, under the Constitution, has no right to "step in" in this matter. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives it the right to usurp the state's rights in this issue. But you, and other gay marriage supporters, are all to happy to do that anyway and pretend that there is justification for it, even if it means ignoring the Constitution altogether. The Constitution means something or it doesn't. Liberals shouldn't have the luxury of misinterpreting it according to their own social whims which they then use activist judges to enforce.



That's just it, it isn't a matter of our personal definition. Or how we (or even the Supreme Court justices) choose to interpret it. The Constitution says what it says. If you really cared about freedom, you would be fine with leaving it up to the citizens of each state to decide for themselves. It's you and those like you who want to force your agenda on everybody, despite what the Constitution says, through the courts. Ironic, to say the least.



Matthew and John were two of the original 12 apostles and were eye-witnesses to what happened. Mark wrote his account based on the eye-witness of another original apostle - Peter. Of course Luke was a missionary companion of Paul later on. The argument secular people make about the gospels being written "years later" doesn't really hold water.



Well that's one thing we can agree on. But I would submit to you that a reason for that is because the scriptures need to be read - and can only be understood - through both reason (don't forget that comes from God too) and faith. Secular unbelievers throw faith out altogether, and because they do so, the scriptures will always be largely "closed" to them.

Ivy, to be fairly direct, it seems you're hiding your prejudice behind your fairly articulate "defence of the constitution". Most, if not all religions (yours included) teach that homosexuality is a sin and that is the real undertone of your comments, I feel. And the real issue is that most religions feel the need, indeed are commanded, to spread their particular line of faith to anyone that'll listen, and also to most that don't want to. This itself is inherently wrong and offensive to a lot of people. What makes it more offensive is that the faith doctrine is then mixed in with the constitution, as if that gives it some vicarious credibility.

Scriptures can only truly be understood if you have faith?? Thats a great get out clause! Ill right that on my next tax return! I must have not understood correctly ( because of my lack of faith), the teachings of the LDS doctrine that, until relatively recently, being black was a genuine curse from god. Its obviously easy to go on and on with many other examples across all religions which are usually explained away as being "taken out of context" or "misinterpreted" but its all wearing a bit thin and makes anyone else not of faith fairly reasonably suspicious about what other thoughts and aspirations religion has in store for us all.

How can anyone of faith be taken seriously to preach on civil rights, aside from the crazy doctrines? Yes, you speak eloquently and put forward some reasoned points but then go on to mention as some sort of proof "eye witnesses" who were present during some fairly dubious events -which even most religions cant even agree on- over 2000 years ago as if you've just spoken to them-it just removes all credibility. Even in todays age of instant media communication, I wouldn't base my entire judgment of a situation on an eye witness statement, let alone let it influence my entire life and persuade me to tell everyone else I was right because of it.

Fergie, just a question for you. I think you said previously that you're an atheist. If that's correct, on what basis do you claim that Ivy's spreading his faith, even for people who don't want to hear it, "inherently wrong"? Just curious.

Nice post

Its inherently wrong for people of faith (not Ivy in particular) to tell people what to eat, what to wear, who they can and can't have sex with (and in what position), to mutilate children's genitals and so on and on....all based on miracles that are just fairytales used to scare children. The endgame always is to accuse anyone who wont be coerced into believing as not being as moral as someone with faith...which is frankly, insulting. Well...

Is it moral for orthodox jews to thank god every morning that they were not born a woman?
Is the muslim injunction that states anyone wishing to denounce their faith should be killed, moral?
Is it moral to tell children they will go to hell if they do wrong?
Is it moral to be told we would no know right from wrong if we were not already the property of some celestial dictator? And with that comes a demand for compulsory love
Is it moral to be told you can be convicted (by god) of thought crime at any minute of any day

Religion is almost like a celestial North Korea, except when you die you get out...not with religion we're told, thats when the real fun begins.

That is why I have a real defiance of theocracy and no real respect for those who mix their political view points with this

That's a rant showing how you hate religion, but you didn't answer the question: Why is it wrong? Why is [fill in the blank] inherently wrong?