Originally posted by sumydid
I said countless churches DON'T get involved. I never said zero Christian churches do. Of course you don't like the Christian church getting involved in the major social issues. I suppose you'd rather the Christians be silenced once and for all so the Liberals and Progressives can get on with their agenda, completely unfettered.
As far as laws being "i others that are "inflicting" their way of life on the Conservatives and Traditionalists.
I think that religious people across the board—and non-religious people—ought to involve themselves in the social discourse, based on reasoned argument. However, you might consider that some people would (and logically could) switch the “liberal/progressive” and “conservative/traditionalist” labels as you have them here—and that not everything that “conservative/traditionalists” have been able to inflict on others (e.g., a particular definition of marriage*) has been a welcome, wholesome, or necessarily moral infliction. You seem not to be arguing for voice; you seem to be arguing that one group of Christians (likely, for you, the only ones who are “True Christians™”, called “the rest of us” ) should be calling out the others. You don’t want to be called out yourself.
But I don’t necessarily like the moral inflictions that you want to (continue to) press on others. I don’t think that the fact that a particular moral infliction has been traditional (or can be called “conservative” ) means that it is actually moral
at all. I don’t think that the fact that some Christians insist that their view of morality is the real morality, means that it is actually moral
at all. I think that refusal to grant gays the same social rights and privileges as heterosexuals—including all rights and privileges that are included under the heading “marriage”—for example, is immoral and bigoted; and the fact that it can be called “traditional” (at least in certain cultural and religious contexts) just means that the bigotry has been long entrenched. And the fact that it apparently can be called “Christian”—well, I’ll let Christians argue over that.
Actually, with regard to the issues that you specifically mention, I don’t want to inflict anything on you
. If you’re heterosexual, or homosexual and don’t believe that you should marry, for example, then the “liberals/progressives” are not trying to inflict anything on you
. If certain Christian churches do not want to marry gays, fine—I don’t want to legislate what churches per se have to do with regard to such matters. But to deny gays the civil equivalent, and equal rights under the law, is another matter (and neither churches nor “traditionalists” have a patent on the word “marriage”, much as they might like to).
I am a “liberal/progressive”, and I don’t want to inflict anything on you
—I don’t want to make you marry a person of the same sex, or have an abortion, or not go to church. I do want to end some of the moral inflictions that “conservative/traditionalists”, often under the banner of Christianity, have been able to lay on those whom you likely would not include under the phrase “the rest of us”. If that makes us enemies, so be it. If you believe that I will do what I can—outside these generally non-productive debates here—to prevent you and those you refer to as “the rest of us” from inflicting your religiously-dictated (im)moral opinions on everyone else, then you’re right: I will. I am not opposed to religion per se
; I am opposed to both bigotry and dogmatism—whether “traditional” or not, whether religiously founded or not.
* Where I lived until recently (and likely elsewhere), the “conservative/traditionalist” definition of marriage outlawed “miscegenation”—i.e., interracial marriage; and the “conservatives/traditionalists” fought (and some still ;do I have heard them) the “liberal/progressives” on that very issue (and many do so from a so-called Christian perspective).