Common hypocritical doublespeak designed to silence Christians. Every time that we (people, citizens, etc.) open our mouths to say something, or debate with someone, or educate someone about anything, or design and enact legislation, we are, in a sense, "forcing our beliefs on [someone] else." The only way that this can be avoided is to believe and assert nothing, which is absurd.
forcing your religious beliefs on someone when those beliefs inspire a political agenda. It is no secret that gay marriage is opposed almost exclusively for religious reasons. Such things are unconstitutional.
"Forcing beliefs on anyone else" would really only be meaningful in the context of a state religion, in which case it would be punishable by law not to believe certain religious tenets (as it is in some Islamic countries). As it stands, it's an empty (and bad-faith) claim made mostly by whinging anti-Christians who are desperate for them to flee from the public discourse.
When the pledge includes the phrase 'One nation under God' the state is endorsing a religion. Again, its place in the pledge is unconstitutional.
Atheists are the least trusted 'group' in the USA. You are either ignorant or lying to yourself if you do not think that atheists are persecuted in America. It is common knowledge and widely reported. There is a reason why politicians in the USA do not come out as atheists, even though I am certain many are. It is almost impossible to be elected unless you have an invisible friend. The Presidency is certainly not even close to being a realistic goal for the areligious.
They're abundant, such that it is more practical to speak broadly or categorically. They tend to lie in the attempts to purge Christianity from schools, universities, institutions, and media. If you're not already more than familiar with these (e.g. attacks on school prayer, on public displays of the nativity scene, etc.), you can do the research as easily as I can.
Of course it is more practical to speak broadly, since you have no specific examples.
Allow me to correct you. Secularists tend to tell the truth and keep religion out of science classes
. Religion is not science and should not be taught as such. Are you telling me that there is no opportunity to study religion in educational institutions? Think carefully before answering, as I am eager to bury you with the facts.
You don't seem to understand how this works, do you? The burden is on you to make a case in the first place for your own insulting and false assertion.
Fair enough. These should get you started. Happy debunking.
"If however the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death..." Deuteronomy 22:13-21.
"For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head;" 1 Corinthians 11:9, 10.
"Wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting to the Lord." Colossians 3:18
Imagine if I said, "Clydey, you're a homophobe and a racist," and then when you replied, "That's absurd," I said, "Well, it should be easy to prove me wrong then." The point, of course, is not at all the ease or difficulty of the task. The point is that it's not your job to build a case against a mere careless, insulting, unsupported assertion.
Poor analogy. By all means deconstruct the facts that support my 'careless, insulting, unsupported assertion'.
Yes. (Boy that was easy)
I'm looking forward to watching you tie yourself in knots while attempting to reconcile this view with the facts.
This is mistaken. Morality (i.e. the nature of good and evil) does not change. Practices and rituals can and do change, and the reasons for their employment are in no way reducible simply to "good and evil."
Of course it changes, since there is no absolute good and evil. The moral zeitgeist is always tentative. What is evil to you is not evil to someone else. Good and evil are as indefinable as crime.
Also, strictly speaking, cultural context is completely relevant to absolute morality; human actions are always informed and determined by a particular context.
If morality is absolute, actions are either right or wrong no matter where or when they take place. You cannot claim absolute morality exists and in the same breath advocate a multicultural, relativist view. Absolute morality means that if an action is evil in the USA, for example, it is also evil in Pakistan.
Yes, human agency is always informed and determined by environment, but absolute morality is constant. Again, if god is perfect and he asserted that homosexuality was wrong thousands of years ago, it then follows that it must be wrong today. This applies to all moral statements within the bible.
For example, let's say that in one culture, shaking hands is a sign of respect, and in another, bowing is a sign of respect. In one culture, it would be wrong not to bow in certain scenarios, and in the other, wrong not to shake hands.
You are not describing absolute morality. You are describing moral relativism, which is
context sensitive. You seem to be utterly confused at this point. You say that absolute morality is influenced by culture and then go on to describe an example of moral relativism to back your claim.
However, it should be obvious that this does not somehow refute absolute morality just because we cannot set out some principle, "It is always wrong not to bow to your superiors." Rather, the operative principle is more broad (e.g. it is wrong to show gratuitous disrespect to people), but in its specific application, the moral action itself changes based on the cultural context.
Give me an example of a moral absolute.