General Pace, Homosexuality, Sin and Immorality

[bryant69]

Referencing an earlier poll --> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

The thing that strikes me about this debate is where exactly did General Pace fail, and why Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are having a hard time articulating much of a response. If I had to articulate my opposition to General Pace it would be something along the lines of "General Pace does not get to set Governmental policy based on his personal prejudices or religious convictions, no matter how passionately he feels them. If he can't distance himself from those convictions to do his job (and it seems clear that he can't), he needs to step down."

On the other hand many Christian Churchs have a negative opinion of homosexuality, including quite possibly the Churches Obama and Clinton attend. On the other hand they claim to believe in civil rights for gays and lesbians. How do they negotiate those two positions? More to the point how do liberals/Democrats in general negotiate them? Is it acceptable to believe that homosexual actions are a sin, while still believing that gays and lesbians civil rights should be protected?

I don't really have any answers.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. It's immoral to call homosexuals immoral.

I don't see where the big hang up is.

[bryant69]

2. Is it immoral to call them sinful?

Or to believe such?

Bryant

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Yes to both.

[donco6]

4. If your religion determines it is so, then no.

But your religion is not superior to my non-religion, and my non-religion says its not immoral. So who wins?

Furthermore, when a politician needs my support - financial and otherwise - to gain office, it would behoove them not to imply that I am inherently immoral.

[BattyDem]

5. If a person disagrees with something or sincerely believes it's a "sin" ...

why does it automatically mean that they are "forced" to make other people's lives miserable? I never understood why some religious people feel compelled to deny civil rights to anyone, when it's those same civil rights that allow THEM to live their lives as they choose.

Being an American means that you respect the rights of other people to live THEIR lives in a way that works for them. As long as no one else is getting hurt, it should be a non-issue for all of us.

Every American, regardless of their religious beliefs, should put their belief in democracy above all, because it's that very democracy that allows them to practice their religion (or practice no religion) without interference. Any person who can't do that has no business holding public office or serving in any branch of government. JMHO

Believe in whatever god you want; believe in none at all - but when it comes to other people, allow your belief in democracy to reign supreme. No person should be oppressed because of someone else's religious beliefs. :patriot:

[kenny blankenship]

6. "As long as no one else is getting hurt,"

But what if what I want to do hurts Baby Jesus?

"As long as no one else is getting hurt" expresses the core idea of freedom or liberty in Enlightenment liberalism. Following this idea, my right as an individual to swing my fist ends at your nose. After that point, my swinging fist is doing a harm to someone else that everyone can see and understand. I'm at liberty to do as I please until what I do harms someone else. Religious folk, however, often have different definitions for "hurt" and "no one". God is most definitely a someone, not a "no one" for a religious believer. They haven't laid eyes on God and can't point out God in a police lineup, but in becoming a believer they learn to believe that not only is God a person, God's personhood is the most indubitable personhood in the Universe! God is a real person like flesh and blood human beings--only much more so. God takes offense at MANY things, if religious books are any guide, and it is not acceptable for a believer to make light of offenses by others upon God's personhood and majesty. In spite of God's omnipotence it is routine for God to be harmed. It is a very different notion of harm, to be sure, from the material based harm at the root of Enlightenment liberalism. God is harmed and offended by those who introduce imperfection into the Order he has prescribed for the Universe and all the activities of his creaures. It is a duty, correlatively, for religious believers to confront and oppose those who offend their God by doing forbidden things or by not believing in his obvious existence. One would think that God was big enough to take care of Himself; but the duty of loving and worshipping God demands proof from His believers, proof which often takes the form of fighting God's fights for Him.

When some person does not do what God commands all people to do (such as Believe In Me), it is an offense to God. God is hurt, he has received a harm that all religious believers can see and understand, (even if the rest of us don't get it) and the offense to His Majesty has to be avenged. The law of civil governments is the only permissible avenue for this vengeance, until God's reign over Earth is fully established at some future time. If religious believers are not allowed to punish those who offend their God with the use of civil laws, they discover that they are not being allowed to exercise their religion freely. It's an open and shut case really. God says "stone this one and that one" but the civil law says no. What is a believer supposed to obey? Of course: God at all times.

[BattyDem]

7. Like I said, people can believe whatever they want

but if they wish to hold office in the United States of America, I expect them to support democracy, not theocracy. Anything less is a violation of their oath of office. :-)