OBAMA WARNS : GAY RIGHTS MORE IMPORTANT THAN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
- Thread starter crossnote
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
In short, this evil world will forever pursue it's lusts, period: Always has and always will until JESUS returns. How do we deal with it? We give and devote our lives to Jesus Christ and allow the Holy Spirit to move and do the convicting upon us and others. We cannot legislate morality, sadly. All we can do is live our lives and reflect JESUS so that those who will listen can find free salvation, by their CHOICE. We cannot force our Christian standards on others, but you will find that non-Christian standards run rampant. We cannot force patriotism, school spirit, or common sense upon anyone. We can connect people to JESUS by using our GOD given spiritual gifts and talents wherever and to whomever. We do have that freedom in CHRIST.
Your thread title reads "Obama warns Christians: Gay Rights Are More Important Than Religious Freedom", yet Obama's statement reads:
“We affirm that we cherish our religious freedom and are profoundly respectful of religious traditions, but we also have to say clearly that our religious freedom doesn’t grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights.”
Those two paragraphs don't mean the same things. Obama's statement does not put the right to religious freedom in a lesser state than the freedom of a citizen to be gay. Contrarily, it recognizes that religious freedom is a fundamental American right, but that such a right is legally equal to the other constitutional rights afforded to all Americans, including you.
What it means is that your religion doesn't exempt you from the law, nor does it make you legally superior to any other US citizen. In the eyes of the law, you are equal to a gay person regardless of your religion or of their religion. You go to court with a case against a gay person,or vice versa, your religions don't even come into play. The way the law sees it, your religion is a personal lifestyle choice that is protected to the same degree as anybody else's personal lifestyle choice.
“We affirm that we cherish our religious freedom and are profoundly respectful of religious traditions, but we also have to say clearly that our religious freedom doesn’t grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights.”
Those two paragraphs don't mean the same things. Obama's statement does not put the right to religious freedom in a lesser state than the freedom of a citizen to be gay. Contrarily, it recognizes that religious freedom is a fundamental American right, but that such a right is legally equal to the other constitutional rights afforded to all Americans, including you.
What it means is that your religion doesn't exempt you from the law, nor does it make you legally superior to any other US citizen. In the eyes of the law, you are equal to a gay person regardless of your religion or of their religion. You go to court with a case against a gay person,or vice versa, your religions don't even come into play. The way the law sees it, your religion is a personal lifestyle choice that is protected to the same degree as anybody else's personal lifestyle choice.
Last edited:
To correctly illustrate clear American legal principles and fundamental constitutional rights, Crossnote, in a thread dealing directly with a country under secular, constitutional religious principles, is fair debate. The fact of the legal matter is that your rights are not legally superior to anybody else's rights. You might not like that, but it's not incorrect, it's not false, and it's not against forum rules.
I very well know that in a non christian nation, my rights are not superior to any one elses, but I do have the right to proclaim my conscience and resist when that right is suppressed.
Now regarding rights, on this Christian forum according to its rules you dont have the right to propagate your humanistic anti Christian views...after all this is Christian forum not Forum for Humanism.
Now regarding rights, on this Christian forum according to its rules you dont have the right to propagate your humanistic anti Christian views...after all this is Christian forum not Forum for Humanism.
Last edited:
Again, American legal principles aren't anti-Christian views, Crossnote. In fact, I am not anti-Christian, I have several registered Christian people on my friends' list, as you can see from my profile. I also maintain that to speak respectfully on any topic, not inciting hatred, maliciousness, is not unacceptable behaviour. I imagine if the creators of this site were totally averse to having an atheist (which is only part of who I am, by the way) write their views on these threads, one or more of three things would be true:
1. There'd be no option upon sign up to choose the spiritual status "non-Christian"
2. The forum rules would explicitly state "no non-Christians allowed", which would mean I wouldn't be here in the first place, or
3. I'd be banned.
Since neither of these three things are true, I'm still here. Let's take a look at the forum rules:
What is "inappropriate for a Christian chat room or forum" is arbitrary and differs between people. Hence why many of the Christians on this forum have agreed with my views, while many have also disagreed with them. I'm sure if the moderators or site administrators do indeed come across something in the content of my posts that they consider intrinscially "anti-Christian", they'll be sure to let me know. And since theirs is the only opinion which counts on this matter, it is the opinion I will acknowledge. It is their restrictions I must adhere to, Crossnote, not yours. Your opinion in what is "anti-Christian" is only one opinion among this large community of people, many of whom might not agree with you.
I have not done this.
Again, this is subject to the discretion of the moderators and owners, because what is "improper, blasphemous, profane or offensive to this Christian community" differs depending on which member of this site you ask.
This, I haven't done.
I have no photos, so this doesn't apply.
This rule is also subject to the interpretation of the moderators and site owners. What one Christian views as counterproductive may, to another Christian, be a very relevant, interesting, or otherwise beneficial or helpful viewpoint of contribution to discussion. The relative thresholds for "offence", differ between person to person.
I think it can be simply proved that I am rather instrested and intrigued by Christianity, seeing as I have posted several thought-out, inoffensive threads pertaining to theological questions that I find fundamentally hard to answer -- which you can find on my "created threads" list on my profile. As for fellowship between myself and other members, please feel free to check my profile to see if I have and do connect with other members of the forum, whether they be friends or members whom I converse and debate with on threads.
I do not use the chat frequently, if ever, and if I have, I have not done this.
I speak in English.
I have not posted any music.
I haven't had any infractions or bans, and as far as I know, I've done nothing to question the authority of the moderators of the site.
I haven't done this.
Nor this.
Nor this, though I have replied to one or two threads in the teens and young adults forums where young people were posing questions to all members. If that is something that is not allowed, then please let me know and I'll refrain from doing it.
I haven't had any run-ins with moderators, so this doesn't apply.
Again, I rarely use the chat function, and when I do, I certainly don't do this.
I've never questioned the fundraising practices of this site.
I've never done this.
I've never done this.
I've also never done this.
As far as I can tell, I'm not breaking any rules by being here; discussing civilly (though sometimes debates do get heated); having friends and maintaining contact with members; nor by any of the other actions I've undertaken on the site. And again, if I am mistaken, then it is up to the moderators and owners to reprimand me and make it clear that they consider something I have done to be against the rules of the site. If such a thing occurs, I will be happy to redress my behaviour.
1. There'd be no option upon sign up to choose the spiritual status "non-Christian"
2. The forum rules would explicitly state "no non-Christians allowed", which would mean I wouldn't be here in the first place, or
3. I'd be banned.
Since neither of these three things are true, I'm still here. Let's take a look at the forum rules:
What is "inappropriate for a Christian chat room or forum" is arbitrary and differs between people. Hence why many of the Christians on this forum have agreed with my views, while many have also disagreed with them. I'm sure if the moderators or site administrators do indeed come across something in the content of my posts that they consider intrinscially "anti-Christian", they'll be sure to let me know. And since theirs is the only opinion which counts on this matter, it is the opinion I will acknowledge. It is their restrictions I must adhere to, Crossnote, not yours. Your opinion in what is "anti-Christian" is only one opinion among this large community of people, many of whom might not agree with you.
I have not done this.
Again, this is subject to the discretion of the moderators and owners, because what is "improper, blasphemous, profane or offensive to this Christian community" differs depending on which member of this site you ask.
This, I haven't done.
I have no photos, so this doesn't apply.
This rule is also subject to the interpretation of the moderators and site owners. What one Christian views as counterproductive may, to another Christian, be a very relevant, interesting, or otherwise beneficial or helpful viewpoint of contribution to discussion. The relative thresholds for "offence", differ between person to person.
I think it can be simply proved that I am rather instrested and intrigued by Christianity, seeing as I have posted several thought-out, inoffensive threads pertaining to theological questions that I find fundamentally hard to answer -- which you can find on my "created threads" list on my profile. As for fellowship between myself and other members, please feel free to check my profile to see if I have and do connect with other members of the forum, whether they be friends or members whom I converse and debate with on threads.
I do not use the chat frequently, if ever, and if I have, I have not done this.
I speak in English.
5. No worldly music, please.
We don't want to make an absolute rule against all secular music/lyrics, but most most secular music is indeed worldly (against the teachings of the Bible), and we'd really rather have Christian music or lyrics playing (or being sung) when others enter our "Christian" chat rooms!
We don't want to make an absolute rule against all secular music/lyrics, but most most secular music is indeed worldly (against the teachings of the Bible), and we'd really rather have Christian music or lyrics playing (or being sung) when others enter our "Christian" chat rooms!
6. Do not dispute the chat room moderators.
The moderators are there to watch over the chat rooms, promote fellowship, and protect the chat rooms when necessary. Their job is stressful enough. Don't add to their stress by disputing their actions, especially if it involves someone else and not you. For example, if you see a moderator kick someone, and wonder why, don't worry about it. The moderator probably knows something you don't. Have some trust in the moderators, appreciate them, and respect their oversight of the chat rooms.
Also please don't be making posts in the forums about someone else's ban. It doesn't help!
And please understand that we don't have the time or energy to talk to a hundred different people (or even a dozen different people) about somebody else's ban. Leave it between that person and the moderator, please!
The moderators are there to watch over the chat rooms, promote fellowship, and protect the chat rooms when necessary. Their job is stressful enough.
Don't add to their stress by disputing their actions, especially if it involves someone else and not you. For example, if you see a moderator kick someone, and wonder why, don't worry about it. The moderator probably knows something you don't. Have some trust in the moderators, appreciate them, and respect their oversight of the chat rooms.Also please don't be making posts in the forums about someone else's ban. It doesn't help!
And please understand that we don't have the time or energy to talk to a hundred different people (or even a dozen different people) about somebody else's ban. Leave it between that person and the moderator, please!
I haven't done this.
Nor this.
Nor this, though I have replied to one or two threads in the teens and young adults forums where young people were posing questions to all members. If that is something that is not allowed, then please let me know and I'll refrain from doing it.
I haven't had any run-ins with moderators, so this doesn't apply.
Again, I rarely use the chat function, and when I do, I certainly don't do this.
I've never questioned the fundraising practices of this site.
I've never done this.
I've never done this.
I've also never done this.
As far as I can tell, I'm not breaking any rules by being here; discussing civilly (though sometimes debates do get heated); having friends and maintaining contact with members; nor by any of the other actions I've undertaken on the site. And again, if I am mistaken, then it is up to the moderators and owners to reprimand me and make it clear that they consider something I have done to be against the rules of the site. If such a thing occurs, I will be happy to redress my behaviour.
Has anyone yet considered the fact that the Supreme Court cannot create laws but can only interpret law? -- Am I missing something? - Maybe I am. I'm Canadian after all, but that's how it works with us. The example of Kim Davis for instance.
Here's a 5 min video.. No doubt someone is going to screech that the guy speaking is fake, false whatever label can be applied...lol...
[video=youtube;RJekimLhBXA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJekimLhBXA[/video]
Here's a 5 min video.. No doubt someone is going to screech that the guy speaking is fake, false whatever label can be applied...lol...
[video=youtube;RJekimLhBXA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJekimLhBXA[/video]
NONSENSE
Political Speeches always have CONTEXT.
The CONTEXT (speaker, audience, recent legal rulings etc.) creates a subtext with which we can EASILY get the true meaning of the speech.
So, since people want to debate something so silly, and obvious, lets break it down.
Here is what he said:
"...our religious freedom doesn’t grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights.”
The pivotal word here is the word "deny".
The verb "deny" is a verb that shows conflict. It is a conflict verb.
The two issues at conflict are two types of rights:
"religious freedom" and "gay rights."
("Gay rights" isn't mentioned explicitly, but it's clearly implied due to context: Obama is speaking at a LGTB fundraiser, and THEIR PARTICULAR constitutional rights are the ones being addressed. Also, this fits the context, as it is the "gay rights" which are often seen as being at odds with "religious freedom" which is specifically mentioned in the speech.)
So we have two sides, two types of rights: religious freedom, and gay rights.
These two sides are being set apart by the conflict verb "deny"... showing the two are at odds.
Now, in the context of this sentence, where these two sets of rights are at odds... which side, in this statement, is given victory? It is the "gay rights" side which is given victory.
How precisely is that so?
This statement says that when the TWO SIDES COME INTO CONFLICT, (as will happen with legal issues) and ONE HAS TO PREVAIL OVER THE OTHER (as will happen in legal matters, as one kind of right must NECESSARILY prevail over another kind of right, whenever they cannot overlap peaceably) then RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO PREVAIL OVER THE OTHER.
THUS, BY DEFAULT, WHEN THERE IS UNRESOLVABLE CONFLICT, AND ONE SIDE MUST PREVAIL OVER THE OTHER, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WILL NOT BE THE SIDE WHICH PREVAILS.
Good grief.
Was it really necessary to go through all of this?
Political Speeches always have CONTEXT.
The CONTEXT (speaker, audience, recent legal rulings etc.) creates a subtext with which we can EASILY get the true meaning of the speech.
So, since people want to debate something so silly, and obvious, lets break it down.
Here is what he said:
"...our religious freedom doesn’t grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights.”
The pivotal word here is the word "deny".
The verb "deny" is a verb that shows conflict. It is a conflict verb.
The two issues at conflict are two types of rights:
"religious freedom" and "gay rights."
("Gay rights" isn't mentioned explicitly, but it's clearly implied due to context: Obama is speaking at a LGTB fundraiser, and THEIR PARTICULAR constitutional rights are the ones being addressed. Also, this fits the context, as it is the "gay rights" which are often seen as being at odds with "religious freedom" which is specifically mentioned in the speech.)
So we have two sides, two types of rights: religious freedom, and gay rights.
These two sides are being set apart by the conflict verb "deny"... showing the two are at odds.
Now, in the context of this sentence, where these two sets of rights are at odds... which side, in this statement, is given victory? It is the "gay rights" side which is given victory.
How precisely is that so?
This statement says that when the TWO SIDES COME INTO CONFLICT, (as will happen with legal issues) and ONE HAS TO PREVAIL OVER THE OTHER (as will happen in legal matters, as one kind of right must NECESSARILY prevail over another kind of right, whenever they cannot overlap peaceably) then RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO PREVAIL OVER THE OTHER.
THUS, BY DEFAULT, WHEN THERE IS UNRESOLVABLE CONFLICT, AND ONE SIDE MUST PREVAIL OVER THE OTHER, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WILL NOT BE THE SIDE WHICH PREVAILS.
Good grief.
Was it really necessary to go through all of this?
Last edited: