there is a difference between the black and white evangelicals where moral conviction and acts does matter; this can be seen with how Blacks voted in Alabama recently

Got your back pal ... *quality first post

I'm of similar mind with this woman. For me it was all about the "who" Donald Trump is [and who the hell even knows THAT for sure?]. I'm not against change but casting a vote for this particular [fill in your choice of unlimited colorful adjectives] condones absolute chaos and fear on multiple levels and platforms. Now ... IF your vote compromised any deeply held moral convictions or human decency values in any way, I have zero respect and feel only contempt. The manchild hasn't even been sworn in and it's as if the nation has been set back 60 years already.

If I do something or say something wrong to a person, I ask forgiveness from both my God and the person I did it to, as I did with you. The great commandments are to love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, all of your soul, all of your mind, and all of your strength, and also, to love thy neighbor as yourself. I think a Christian who does something wrong should do what is reasonable to reconcile with people who they have wronged.

As far as the cake goes, the man didn't refuse service because the men were gay. He was more than happy to make them a cake, just not a gay wedding cake. I don't see how you're inserting the word hatred into the discussion. The man has a sincere conviction that gay marriage is wrong and he doesn't want to participate in it. The question really being posed is, is this unchristian not to make this cake?

For one, Jesus didn't tell us not to judge, He told us not to judge hypocritically. That is what is meant by the log in someones eye versus the splinter in the other. Christians are to judge all things to see if they line up to the word of God. Now, would you think it is wrong for a Pastor to refuse to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony? I don't think you could say it was unchristian for the Pastor to refuse to do it, on the basis of his moral conviction. Well, this baker also had a moral conviction about supplying the cake for the ceremony. His conviction is to make wedding cakes for heterosexual weddings only because he believes gay marriage is immoral. I really don't see anything wrong with this; it isn't loving your neighbor to help someone along in their sin. Neither do I think he should be forced to violate his conscience by lending his reputation to something he knows God disapproves of.

In the name of tolerance, people are coming out of the woodwork to bash Christian businesses like Chick-fil-a on the basis of their beliefs about homosexuality being a sin. A lot of these are setups; the gay community gets wind of a Christian business who has strong convictions, and then they send someone in to get refused so they can go to the media and create a bunch of hype and drama and generate sympathy. In the end, the hatred and intolerance seems to be entirely one sided. Christians don't hate gays; Jesus died as much for them as He did for the rest of us. Christians who do hate gays are simply ignorant and wrong and they should be chastised. That doesn't mean you should indict Christianity as a whole, because true Christians recognize that we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

>> ^UsesProzac:

Business has doubled since the incident? I really don't understand why religious people glorify in the hatred of others. I've seen it firsthand in extended family members and it chills me. How can Christians ignore the gospel of loving thy neighbor and judge not and all those other fancy things their prophet said in their own religious text?
@shinyblurry, how do you reconcile that hypocrisy within yourself? You're the only person I know to ask here, seeing as you called me a harlot and all that. When you judge another person and go directly against the words set down in your bible, do you immediately ask your god to forgive you or what?
Edit: I'll throw in one of my favorite quotes to further illustrate the rampant hypocrisy.
“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.” - Stephen Colbert

>> ^Grimm:

RP wants to end all the needless wars. If any war is worth fighting then he would only require that Congress "declares war" as it is outlined in the Constitution.


Exactly, I think that would answer some of @bcglorf 's hold up on isolationism. Like isn't so black and white, especially on matter of war. Which is why he is an advocate of declaring war, not the president just going in willy nilly. We can never really answer the question of if a particular war is good or not morally for every person at once, but we don't want to leave that moral choice in the hands of one man for no good reason other than self defense. My like the recent stop to the SOPA legislation due to pressure from the outside, the same kind of pressure could of been used to help in Libya..but only if the supporters of that action could sway enough people to support that decision...just like a democracy should. And I don't think hiding behind things like NATO or the US should undermine our Presidents responsibility to us, he works for us first after all. Like in most questions of this nature, there isn't really a right or wrong when the action is taken or not taken in the most strict sense...only what was the most supported.

I think it is a little, in that light, to say that we couldn't declare war on the Libyan government. We are just so used to the President going to war for us, that we have basically abdicated our responsibility in this area. That is one of the major dangers I see in Statism is when you outsource responsibility, you usually don't relegate much thought to it. The plumber fixes my pipes, I don't concern myself with how they work. Likewise, when you place all sorts of powers in agents hands, you tend to concern yourself with the goings ons...till they break. I think a Statism and Libertarianism have the same net effect if the people don't take an active concern in all forms of domestic affairs. I think that Statism might have a higher entropy, though, because it invokes an active outsourcing of all matters of life to agents. While that could work if you are always haggling your agent to make sure he is doing his best, and not up to shenanigans, why not just cut out the middleman and keep up with the basic concern yourself?

I think the idea of the Democracy is starting to fail, not because of some flaw in it that wasn't already widely known, but the culture we find ourselves in. For a Democracy to exist in a healthy way, each citizen has to see his role as a citizen to provide enrichment for the body politic. In this way, the Wests focus on individual rights and Libertarian ethics sorts of causes entropy on this notion. We would much rather be watching a movie, or some other form of playboy recreation, then running down to our local City Council and partake of our duty (not only to others, but ourselves).

I don't mean to ramble, but I wanted to make that point, that it doesn't matter if you are a federalist, or a anti-federalist. If your voting body is poor in intellect, will, and a toxic cultural environment, then no matter of political philosophy will save you. I think Jefferson foresaw that this entropy, and the saying, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." comes from; that things have to get really bad enough for us to actually care about democracy for it to work again for us, and more importantly, us for it.

But more to @bcglorf 's point on genocide, and cowardice. I don't think it is fair to say cowardice when your only course of action is making more widows and orphans. And more importantly, it is an entirely different thing for some president to commit you to that course of action without any "due process", in this case, a declaration of war. I don't think it is cowardice, persay, to not want to kill someone that doesn't want to kill you, and might have a legitimate claim to kill the person they want to kill. But that is neither here nor there, a moral question that most likely will never see commonly, the point is, that each of us should have a voice in the action we collectively have to take, action or inaction. The benefit of defaulting to inaction is that it doesn't stop someone morally convicted like yourself to fund operations of support for whatever side. That is why I usually side with Libertarian answers for complicated issues, sometimes, you don't need one answer for everyone. Sometimes, dare I say most times, it is actually better to let those whom are convicted on the goodness of something to take the risk themselves and not try and hedge everyone in with them.

Did you read beyond the headline? "Asian Americans endure far more bullying at US schools than members of other ethnic group". "Gay" isn't an ethnic group.

This study wasn't done before the trendy gay anti-bullying campaign. As for "ethnic group" rubbish, only the left cares about such distinctions, for the purpose of divide and conquer, vote-buying and tribalism. And "Gay" is now officially a victimized group, political movement AND voting block.

The problem is that it is the LGBTs are the group most affected by this clause, "statement[s] of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction". No religion gets away with overt racism so abuse against Asian Americans doesn't have this escape clause. I very much doubt you can get away with claiming white supremacy as a religious belief or a moral conviction and you should not be able to get away with homophobia as a moral conviction either.

"Homophobia" is one of this delightful thoughtcrime control words terms made up by those suffering from homophilia. There's a world of difference between scum who violently attack others for being gay and stern but non-violent Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong for religious reasons. "Homophobia" is a word meant to lump both together. When I call anyone on the left a 'communist' I am closer to the truth than a liberal calling everyone on the right a 'homophobe'.

I don't think any other minority is as affected but if there is, then they shouldn't have abuse against them legitimised like this.

Leftists are the only ones making these ridiculous generalizations about the purpose of the religious clause. Would you see Christians go to jail for simply stating, "Homosexuality is wrong"? That's what they're doing up in Canada (or damned close to it).


>> ^Quboid:

Did you read beyond the headline? "Asian Americans endure far more bullying at US schools than members of other ethnic group". "Gay" isn't an ethnic group.
The problem is that it is the LGBTs are the group most affected by this clause, "statement[s] of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction". No religion gets away with overt racism so abuse against Asian Americans doesn't have this escape clause. I very much doubt you can get away with claiming white supremacy as a religious belief or a moral conviction and you should not be able to get away with homophobia as a moral conviction either.
I don't think any other minority is as affected but if there is, then they shouldn't have abuse against them legitimised like this.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Luckily, this law allows me to state that I have a moral conviction that you're a moron. And I religiously believe morons should be punched at every available opportunity. The FSM told me to.

Luckily, we're working on a bill to crack down on internet bullies. (link
)
Enjoy your time on the internet while it lasts, calling someone a moron will not be tolerated. This is your final warning.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The march is on for the normalization of sin in our daily life. This is what the bill says:
(b) "Bullying" means any written, verbal, or physical act, or any electronic communication, by a pupil directed at 1 or more other pupils that is intended or that a reasonable person would know is likely to harm 1 or more pupils either directly or indirectly by doing any of the following:(i) Substantially interfering with educational opportunities, benefits, or programs of 1 or more pupils.(ii) Substantially and adversely affecting the ability of a pupil to participate in or benefit from the school district's or public school's educational programs or activities by placing the pupil in reasonable fear of physical harm.(iii) Having an actual and substantial detrimental effect on a pupil's physical or mental health or causing substantial emotional distress.
Meaning anyone who said to a gay student that they think that being gay is a sin would be indicted under the law as a bully. This is the ultimate goal of the gay movement, not just for the toleration of the lifestyle, or even the integration of the lifestyle, but the stifling of any dissent. They want anyone who says being gay is a sin to be labeled a bigot and to have it be declared hatespeech.
My question is, if gays are born that way, what about pedophiles? Aren't they just victims of their genetics and the behavior is irreversable? If a man can marry another man, why not his horse? Why not his car? Once you open these doors, you can never close them.
God has blessed this country greatly, and gave us much favor among the nations. Yet, from those who are given much, much more will be required. We have failed to do what is required in every respect. Judgement is upon us for breaking His law, it is at our peril to allow these things. If He didn't spare israel for them, He certainly won't spare the United States.


Luckily, this law allows me to state that I have a moral conviction that you're a moron. And I religiously believe morons should be punched at every available opportunity. The FSM told me to. Also...

>> ^shinyblurry:

Meaning anyone who said to a religious student that they think that being religious is retarded would be indicted under the law as a bully. This is the ultimate goal of the religious movement, not just for the toleration of the lifestyle, or even the integration of the lifestyle, but the stifling of any dissent. They want anyone who says being religious is retarded to be labeled a bigot and to have it be declared hatespeech.

FTFY

Did you read beyond the headline? "Asian Americans endure far more bullying at US schools than members of other ethnic group". "Gay" isn't an ethnic group.

The problem is that it is the LGBTs are the group most affected by this clause, "statement[s] of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction". No religion gets away with overt racism so abuse against Asian Americans doesn't have this escape clause. I very much doubt you can get away with claiming white supremacy as a religious belief or a moral conviction and you should not be able to get away with homophobia as a moral conviction either.

I don't think any other minority is as affected but if there is, then they shouldn't have abuse against them legitimised like this.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Good catch, @Quboid. If Asian kids are the "most" bullied than that means more so than any other group.
Aside from your ludicrous implication that because one group is getting it worse then another group should shut up, the bases for this implication seems to be built on absolutely nothing.
How about not bullying anyone?
You make the point for me. If this is an anti-bullying measure, then it has no bearing on whether or not the victim is gay, Asian, etc. Presumably it increases punishment of the bullies.
One third of the population are fuckups and will be no matter what you do. It's called The Bell Curve. The incapability of dealing with children bullying is a small scale example of the grand failure that is liberalism, and the dearth of common fucking sense and lack of personal empowerment that liberalism promotes amplify these evils.
The Bowing Kenyawaiian tries to placate dictators and the hopelessly swamped and time-wasting state government and government school bureaucracy tries to make a network of laws and rules that only end up strangling freedoms in the name of safety.
Do gay kids deserve equal protection? Yup. Do they deserve special protection that infringes on others' freedom? Nope.
At this stage of the game, if a gay kid is self-aware he should already be learning how to to fight, because just as 9-1-1 is government-sponsored dial-a-prayer for those who don't own guns, no teacher or camera is always going to be there to protect every bullied child.




>> ^Quboid:
>> ^quantumushroom:
But wait! Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids.

Where does that article state that "Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids", or anything even remotely like that?
Aside from your ludicrous implication that because one group is getting it worse then another group should shut up, the bases for this implication seems to be built on absolutely nothing.
How about not bullying anyone?

>> ^entr0py:

Here's the text that was added at the last minute:
“This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian.”
So, apparently even teachers are free to inform their kids that god hates whatever minority they might belong to. As long as they do so with sincerity, and aren't just faking religious bigotry.
And here's the full bill
>> ^rebuilder:
Does anyone have the actual text of the bill?



Which religious bigots committee gets to decide if they are faking it or not?

Here's the text that was added at the last minute:

“This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian.”

So, apparently even teachers are free to inform their kids that god hates whatever minority they might belong to. As long as they do so with sincerity, and aren't just faking religious bigotry.

And here's the full bill

>> ^rebuilder:

Does anyone have the actual text of the bill?

@rougy @NetRunner @heropsycho

Would you say that it is a progressive mindset to not focus on individual rights? In my looking into "progressive era", I found that in that age, they were the main supporters of alcohol prohibition. Also, they supported protectionist import laws to make local goods more dear. I can see how it actually has no real definition or stance on things and be more of an attitude, like conservative. But that makes it a fairly precarious ideology, as it has no foundation in any particular identifiable ideology. So is it more of a mind set then, conservatives want things to stay the same, and progressives don't? If not, then there is a deffinate different in modern progressives and progressives from the progressive era.

Many of the things Hero mentions are still problems even after the progressive movement, and some are unfair all together. I mean, is it worse that the FDA condemns certain people from experimenting with certain medical procedures than it is that it protects uninterested people from harm? That is like saying it is worth the 10k people dying in the drug war from drive by shootings, for the greater good. Now, I understand that many of you don't support the drug war because you don't believe it is for the greater good, but does greater good even have any meaning beyond personal moral convictions? Or is "greater good" not actually a progressive mindset. And if it is, are conservatives just as justified by using "greater good" that teh gays not getting married helps the family.

On that note, progressives from the progressive era would not of supported gay marriage. They would also support cencorship of movies to protect the "family system".

So what is a progressive, really? I mean, I don't want to keep all things the same...and I a progressive? Does it have no real scope in meaning?

>> ^bobknight33:

Loving someone enough to tell them that what they are doing is wrong is a good thing. Turning your head and letting wrong behavior continue doesn't help anyone.
Sadly the younger generation has been fed such a pack a moral lies that they don't know the difference between right and wrong.
For the most part what is morally right today was morally wrong 30 years ago. Has man obtained such wisdom in this short period of time to discount the wisdom of the past thousand years?
>> ^bareboards2:
What I find is that some Christians are quick to call it "evil" when more truly loving folk call it "compassion" and "acceptance of diversity."


There is no such thing as a behavior that is wrong. Wrongness is comes from morality. If a person doesn't share the same morality, then it can't be wrong to them. While you might make a universalistic claim that Christian morality is the true and only morality, but you can't prove it. And even in the bible itself, it says that the motivations of our heart our are the concern. To convince someone whom isn't a believer that cursing is wrong benefits him none. Youngness has nothing to do with wrongness. As King Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun. The world has always been corrupt and generally morally bankrupt. But to the point, we all fall short of even our own personal moral convictions; the theist and the atheist.

There are some things that were wrong that are now considered acceptable, and vice versa. Universal claims of a general depreciation of moral values seem trite, and lacks a full view of world events at large. Man has always been corrupt and corrupted even in our own lives. Heaping down judgment for judgments is not the point of Jesus...heaping down forgiveness for loves sake, however, is. Loving someone enough to forgive their actions is much greater than telling them they are wrong, IMO. Behavior is nothing, the soul is everything.

(Grammar edit )

The point here is that because it is staged ABC is just setting up a peice to pull on the heart strings of the public. There is no constructive goal in mind here just a ratings grab because they can toss on a tagline "What would you do if confronted by racism" or "Americans ignore reacism in upscale shop." Even if people are offended the line is too narrow to draw here, racism is bad, turning a blind eye to it can be just as bad but in the context of the store is that what is going on? The only negative things going down are the illusion of prejudice and the reactions of patrons. Who are they to tell the people running the store what they should think, no matter if they disagree with it or not. The point here is that its a private store, to quote Voltaire "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." If you walk into a store and they tell you that you cannot shop there do you expect other patrons to come to your defense? Not everyone is Jonny on-the-spot.

I feel that the situation they set up is one that proves nothing and is simply praying on emotions for ratings. In that way the entire set up is manipulative where by the means are the ends and the discussion about how racism is alive or allowed to continue is simply fabricated from a very biased test.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

You first point misses the point entirely. There was nothing about lawful conduct as the subject of this test. In a certain since, it wasn't even about racism. Racism was just the unpleasant vehicle in which to carry out the real test, what would you DO in this situation.
As to your second point, it is hard to guess the long term effects of exposures such as this. Once again, though, this isn't what this show is about. It isn't about the long term cost analysis of being a racist, it is about the actions we take as people when confronted with things we all take as an evil. Do we take an active role in helping what we all see as a victim, or do we let them suffer their fate? Do we help a stranger that is getting screwed over, or do we ignore the moral conviction?
Personally, I find experiments on the nature of human morality fascinating. So any experiment, no matter how crude, is very intriguing to me. We, of course, have to realize that it is tv, so they choice the best "ratings" shots to air. What I would like to see is all the people that did exactly nothing. I would like to see their faces. I would like to see the struggle. I would like to see the moment when they decide their course. I would love to know all of this, but I can't. So I resolve myself to be mildly amused by it as purely anecdotal. But those reactions we did see, are still very interesting.
For me, I was rather moved by the one lady whom was moved to tears. It wasn't constructive, it didn't help anyone, in a way it was almost childish. But, the depth of her sensitivity to the well treatment of others being violated, to me, was truly beautiful.

>> ^Mi1ler:

1. These tests are pure bullshit
-you are allowed to be racist as long as you dont cross a few lines, thats freedom of speech and the freedom of owning the store you have the privalige of choosing who to serve. You may not agree with it, it may disgust you but these tests are pure bullshit just done to grab attention and ratings.
2. Though the customers may not do anything in the situation they will probably avoid the store in the future and the negative stuff that was demonstrated will kill the business of the store so it will work out.
3. ABC are jackasses.


You first point misses the point entirely. There was nothing about lawful conduct as the subject of this test. In a certain since, it wasn't even about racism. Racism was just the unpleasant vehicle in which to carry out the real test, what would you DO in this situation.

As to your second point, it is hard to guess the long term effects of exposures such as this. Once again, though, this isn't what this show is about. It isn't about the long term cost analysis of being a racist, it is about the actions we take as people when confronted with things we all take as an evil. Do we take an active role in helping what we all see as a victim, or do we let them suffer their fate? Do we help a stranger that is getting screwed over, or do we ignore the moral conviction?

Personally, I find experiments on the nature of human morality fascinating. So any experiment, no matter how crude, is very intriguing to me. We, of course, have to realize that it is tv, so they choice the best "ratings" shots to air. What I would like to see is all the people that did exactly nothing. I would like to see their faces. I would like to see the struggle. I would like to see the moment when they decide their course. I would love to know all of this, but I can't. So I resolve myself to be mildly amused by it as purely anecdotal. But those reactions we did see, are still very interesting.

For me, I was rather moved by the one lady whom was moved to tears. It wasn't constructive, it didn't help anyone, in a way it was almost childish. But, the depth of her sensitivity to the well treatment of others being violated, to me, was truly beautiful.