Genuine Question To Theists (all faiths)

[juantoo3]

Wiki isn't a very reliable source, but I am sure that you know this.

I'm certain you know full well I can as easily find credible sources to say the same thing.

Let me know if you don't think that's possible. Of course, you might start in those books you wanted me to read. (I already read them, but thanks for the offer.)

 

[dauer]

The conversation was -in a general sense, at that time- about how liberal the north was compared to how *backwards,* uneducated and <gasp> conservative the south is.

No, I was dealing specifically with issues of the religious dogma that's to be found in certain areas of the US which includes both creationism (in its different guises) and opposition to gay rights among other things. I used gay marriage as an example to show that Massachusetts is clearly not dominated by those perspectives. There may be other states that are conservative but would still poll differently and for them the gay marriage example wouldn't work to show they're free from those types of backwards dogmas. Here it does. But since you bring it up:

We did the same thing here, we decided for ourselves how to rule ourselves, fair and square. Are we to be faulted for it, because we don't agree with the Kennedy dynasty?

A decision can be democratic and still be backwards imo. Unless you believe that decisions made by democratic process define what is morally right (rather than what is law within a democratic community) then I assume you agree with me. Yes, I think if a state, on a constitutional level, limits providing equal freedoms to individuals that would do no this-worldly harm that it's quite backwards and goes against the spirit in which our nation declared itself free. I think it's just as backwards as the laws against biracial marriage to bar homosexuals from marriage. I think if the state constitution were not being amended that it would be less backwards.

 

[juantoo3]

Fair enough. And no, I was not implying any moral superiority (or triumphalism), yes I was refering to law within a democratic community.

I do think the voice of the community should have a say in how it should govern itself...just like how this nation was begun.

While I *do* feel it is right and equitable to allow a minority voice to be heard, I do not feel it is right that a minority voice should be allowed to shout down the majority. Case in point, the Democratically controlled house as it stands now. The Republicans can throw all the hissy fit they want and the Dems will do what they damn well please anyway. Touche!

 

[dauer]

I didn't think you were implying moral superiority or triumphalism. I just think you were arguing against something you saw that I hadn't intended to be conveyed.