It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by orwellianunenlightenment
I hate to be the party pooper, and I acknowledge I am definitely nitpicking a little, but I think I still have a valid point that needs to be said. Why the part about the pastor's stomach tightening?
Originally posted by Mykahel
I have mixed feelings about this situation. It is good to see Christians acting as Christians in the sense that they are welcoming others and trying to show Christ's love, but something still bugs me about it.
Christians are supposed to go take the message to people, not bring people to the message (part of the reason the church is filled with so much corruption and discipline is near non-existent). I personally would be appalled at having some other religion using our building as their place of prayer. Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God, as many would try and say that they do. Christians and Muslims can work side by side, but worship is a completely different matter.
I suppose my question is if there wasn't another way to show this same love, respect and kindness. Surely something else could have been done other then letting a group of people practice a religion you believe to be false in a place designated to worship your own God.
Is my soul in peril because I don't follow the path laid for me by Christ?
Is my soul in peril because I don't follow the path laid for me by the Koran?
Do these religions believe that God has given me a choice of paths, two means to the same end?
Is the intention of this collabrotive effort my redemption or my condemnation?
Originally posted by Faustian Spirit
Well, I agree with the diference between tolerance and promotion of something you don't relate to, I smoke, for instance, and yet I want not my son to be a smoker, because it is bad, though pleasant. On the other hand, you're totally right when you say YOU (Man, that is) corrupted and perverted the church. I mean, it's business all along. I am portuguese, I've been to Fatima twice to try to understand what makes roman-catholics be so ignorant and at the same time faithful to their ignorance (I'm refering to the praise of saints, when your bilbe says "thou shall not practice idolatry", which they do). You don't have a clue on how many tons of gold have been poured into Fatima's vaults from believers (yes, I do mean GOLD as in the element gold, It's not a figure of speech), so they can please the lord. There are records going back to the 50's where they kept records of tons of gold per year, which is depressing.
Getting to the point: the muslim even felt bad for the prejudice he felt, which means it's a human condition: to deny something we don't understand and to be defensive about it. I prefer to think of people as people, and I sure pass if someone tries to lecture or endoctrinate me since I dismiss it completely. It's not unrespectful, it's just I prefer to look at things from a secular view. Weren't I an ex-evangelic christian myself.
Originally posted by 23refugee
Shall I stand up for another's religious freedom or shall I generalize all Muslims for being the same bigots as the "patriots"?
Will my willingness to stand with another oppressed minority be reciprocated or will that common bond of Abrahamic religious disgust for homosexuality override any concerns for my freedoms.
The Constitution is amendable and subject to interpretation, after all.
Is the enemy of my enemy my friend?
I have made my position very clear in the past that I emphatically support gay rights especially those of the right to marry and adopt.
Why many of you have probably asked considering my religion?
Well it’s quite simple, while I do not proclaim that there is a shred of evidence in Islam that it’s religiously acceptable for gays to marry, I also proclaim that my theology is not to be imposed on others, nor would I want anyone else’s theology imposed on me. You know that whole golden rule thing?
My point is that I cannot justify a legal system where our founding documents proclaim that we are endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, yet at the same time make it legal for one group or segment of the population to use their religious ideology as a catalyst to counter those inalienable rights toward another segment of the population.