The Observation Deck

I am glad to see that you are able to have discussion without name calling and mocking people, and for that I applaud you.

I try.

I don't believe that mocking and name calling will get this issue to be resolved any faster. Diplomacy and open dialogue can only do good to the general purpose of progression.

I accept the views and beliefs of others because I feel everyone is entitled to them. What I don't like is when the views and beliefs of a few are forced upon a general mass of people that generally disagree.

Sometimes, you have to agree to disagree with others. It's common law, and instead of fighting, shouting or finger pointing it makes the discussion more in depth and valuable. To have a one sided debate over a topic doesn't meet my qualifications of a good debate. You have to balance one side with the other and move forward together.

But I do have to admit that some thoughts and posts on this Deck make me chuckle a little bit. You can't judge a person by their word, only by their action. Take Bret Calentine, although he and I disagree on many topics, I respect him fully for his devotion to his church and the community of Lakewood. When I see him in public, I don't hesitate to shake his hand.

Again, you agree to disagree; you recognize the other side of the arguement and you find a common ground.

People that do not want to listen to the other side are ignorant. Ignorance isn't as negative as it is portrayed in the world today. It's simply not knowing. We have to move forward together as neighbors, and learn. We need to learn the beliefs and customs of others, the morals the religions the differences. This will eliminate differences because they will be known and recognized, cherished and eventually accepted.

You don't know what it's like for a homosexual couple until you've walked in their shoes and been in their place. Until you can say "I understand and KNOW what it's like to be this person", you cannot slap any sort of label, especially negative, onto them.

It's like cancer. It's not until someone in your family becomes sick of cancer that you realize the impact it has. It has to be real, it has to impact you personally. It's not until a classmate gets killed in a drunk driving accident that students will stop engaging in dangerous behavior. Everything has to be personal nowadays.

That's the way society operates in 2007, and it's too bad. We all have to believe in working on a common ground and becoming a better community for ourselves and our neighbors.

In the end, a negative energy in the community becomes reality and it impacts everyone personally. We don't need that.

"The wave of the future is not the conquest of the world by a single dogmatic creed but the liberation of the diverse energies of free nations and free men."- John F. Kennedy

JMO

By the ammount of views and comments this thread has gotten I think this is a pretty big subject. Very touchy, too.

I hope my previous comments spark more debate, but more civilized and neighborly.

I'm not going to argue medical facts that I have learned in school.

Things like the Turner Syndrome, the Klinefelter Syndrome and the XYY syndrome which effect the sexuality, wiring, physical, emotional and mental development of a child.

Some people are truly born homosexual. Not by choice. Should they lose rights if they missed a single chromosome or received one too many? Personally I don't think anyone should lose any rights unless they are convicted of a crime and can legally lose rights.

Until someone can convince me that homosexuality will determine the end of the world then I stand for it because it signifies that people have a choice. Homosexuals should have a choice like the rest of us to live the life they want to live.

Mr.Salo,
just because Freddy Mercury was homosexual, had AIDS, wrote one of the most notorious ballads about committing suicide because of a mother being disappointed with her sons choice of being homosexual doesn't mean all homosexuals will end up that way.

You're making the same mistake the administration is making of labeling all muslims as terrorists and all pro-choice followers as unmoral murderers.

Why should a child be born into a situation where it will be sick, starve and be sentenced to poverty all of its life? In the end, if this childs life is spared and it becomes a homeless person on the streets of Cleveland it becomes the one thing Republicans hate; Freeloaders that suck up health care and welfare that your tax money pays for.

Sociology states that the movement in social class is horizontal 95% of the time, and vertical 5% of the time. The richest 50 million people in Europe and North America have the same income as 2.7 billion poor people. “The slice of the cake taken by 1% is the same size as that handed to the poorest 57%.â€Â￾

I'm not challenging you personally, Mr.Salo, and do not feel alarmed.

I am challenging everyone that reads this thread to get educated and to learn.

Knowledge is power. I am challenging everyone to become more familiar with the other side, and to open their eyes, minds and hearts to new ideas and the growth of society and mankind.

Ryan Salo wrote:There was to be no government religion but there is no phrase like the one many others use, in fact most came here specifically to worship a God and live in a moral nation (one that they defined even though I am sure there were some that disagreed).

Ryan the "religious persecution" time period in America pretty much ended with the Pilgrims. Since about the early 1700's most people came to America in search of wealth, were criminals, or just looking for adventure. And beginning with the wave of immigration in the 1850's and forward it was about the possibility of having a better life (a.k.a more money) that brought people and their families to America not religious persecution.

So while you are initially correct that people came here to avoid religious persecution, you are waaaaay over estimating that impact when the founding fathers wrote the constitution. Most of them weren't even true "Christians" as you'd define it today. In fact most were Masons (how does your faith look at that?) and Thomas Jefferson himself had some very interesting religious beliefs and his own version of the Bible.

This information is available in any US History book and many, many specials on The History Channel (one of my favorites).

Bryan Schwegler wrote:So while you are initially correct that people came here to avoid religious persecution, you are waaaaay over estimating that impact when the founding fathers wrote the constitution. Most of them weren't even true "Christians" as you'd define it today. In fact most were Masons (how does your faith look at that?)...

Bryan

Are you saying that Masons are not true Christians?

Just curious.


.

Bryan

I have to give you a strong second.

So while you are initially correct that people came here to avoid religious persecution, you are waaaaay over estimating that impact when the founding fathers wrote the constitution.

In point of fact, the Pilgrims, because of the persecution that they suffered, were VERY aware of the need for a separation of church and state. The idea that we were founded as a "Christian Nation" is a conclusion that is not born out by any reasonable inquiry into the the lives, writings and beliefs of the founding fathers, many of whom dabbled in all forms of religion, studying and inquiring. Franklin and Jefferson, among others, were more likely to question religious dogma than to accept it. The revisionist history that tends to be accepted by the religious right without actual study or inquiry into the reality while having a certain simplistic appeal is not well rooted in reality.

Jeff

To clarify I never said we were a Christian nation I said they made it a moral country based on what thought to be moral even though people disagreed at the time. It just so happens that a lot of the laws were Biblical based.

Ivor,

Don't be alarmed but please do not assume that by taking one sociology class in HIGH SCHOOL you know more than most. There has been a lot more written on the subject than the one book you are reading, just remember that every author and publishing company typically has a slanted view one way or the other.

Always read up on both sides and then make decisions, if you just accept what high school and college teaches you will be missing a lot of truth.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Bryan

Are you saying that Masons are not true Christians?

Just curious.


.

Absolutely not, that's not what I'm saying. My implication was that a majority of conservative Christians don't consider them Christian and often view them as a "secret cult" or something else unholy.

So to those conservative Christians who consistently are trying to enforce conservative Christian orthodoxy and moral standards on America, it's simply an interesting point to note that the founding fathers would most likely not be considered true "Christians" by their denomonations.

In my view the country was founded more the morality of Enlightenment thinking rather than religious orthodxy.

As for Masons, I think they do a ton of good in society and are just as capabable of being any faith they desire.

Ryan Salo wrote:To clarify I never said we were a Christian nation I said they made it a moral country based on what thought to be moral even though people disagreed at the time. It just so happens that a lot of the laws were Biblical based.

But alot of Biblical law can be traced back to other faiths or civil codes even earlier than the writing of the Bible. The founding fathers never intended the Bible to be the rule of law in the United States and I would venture to say that Washington, Jefferson, Madison, et. al. are rolling over in their graves at the concept of that.

As for accepting the "truth" and reading up on both sides of the issue, that's definitely good advice.

I would point out though that throughout history when it's come to science or the running of society, the church as by far been more wrong than it's been right and that is more than well enough documented for the last 5000 years or so.

Church is about faith, hope, love, and spirituality. It's not about running a government or defining science.

Bryan,

I am glad that you didn't leave this discussion. I have a question for you that I really want to know, do you believe that lust is morally wrong? If so, what do you base it on?

I will not be continuing to post after this question, it is amazing how much time it takes! I appreciate everyones input on this topic, and I am sure that this will continue in the future.

Have a great day and God Bless!

I won't bother to comment on the general idea of this thread because if you disagree with certain liberal agendas you have either fallen prey to revisionist history or you are a part of the Christian Taliban. Just wanted to make a quick comment to Ivor.

I took four sociology classes in college and consider one of my sociology professors to be a friend to this day. However, there is usually more manure packed into one sociology textbook than you could find at Northfield Park. Just remember the same people who gave us sociology, gave us socialism and we see how well that worked.

In my view the country was founded more the morality of Enlightenment thinking rather than religious orthodxy

Absolutely. To state

It just so happens that a lot of the laws were Biblical based.

diminishes the impact of all the other religious writings with which the founders were well versed, included the Koran, the Torah, the eastern religions, Hindu and Buddha, all of which contain many of the same "moral principals" which found their way into our laws. But, making the assumption of a singular biblical foundation, despite the historical realities involved, is a necessary element of setting forth the "foundation" of a CHRISTIAN morality.

Jeff

Ryan Salo wrote:Bryan,

I am glad that you didn't leave this discussion. I have a question for you that I really want to know, do you believe that lust is morally wrong? If so, what do you base it on?

I will not be continuing to post after this question, it is amazing how much time it takes! I appreciate everyones input on this topic, and I am sure that this will continue in the future.

Have a great day and God Bless!

If you're implying that morality comes from the Bible, I would challenge that it's deeper than that. Every culture on this earth has the same general moral principles when it comes to dealing with each other:

- Murder is wrong
- Stealing is wrong
- Respect for each other is good

It doesn't matter which religion, which race, or which continent someone lives on, those principles are the same. It's innate in human nature.

I would challenge that even if the Bible or Christianity never existed, our moral laws would still be similar to what they are today.

Bryan:

I applaud you for your generous engagement with Ryan on this thread.

I don’t think it is accurate to say:

“Every culture on this earth has the same general moral principles when it comes to dealing with each other:

- Murder is wrong
- Stealing is wrong
- Respect for each other is goodâ€Â￾

The diverse universe of human culture, especially when it comes to relationships to the gods, is more complex and violent than that.

Take Kali and the Hindu Thugs, for example:

From Time “Killing for 'Mother' Kaliâ€Â￾ by Alex Perry Atapur:

“Human sacrifice has always been an anomaly in India. Even 200 years ago, when a boy was killed every day at a Kali temple in Calcutta, blood cults were at odds with a benign Hindu spiritualism that celebrates abstinence and vegetarianism. But Kali is different. A ferocious slayer of evil in Hindu mythology, the goddess is said to have an insatiable appetite for blood. With the law on killing people more strictly enforced today, ersatz substitutes now stand in for humans when sacrifice is required. Most Kali temples have settled on large pumpkins to represent a human body; other followers slit the throats of two-meter-tall human effigies made of flour, or of animals such as goats.

In secret ceremonies, however, the grizzly practice lives on. Quite simply, say the faithful�known as tantrics�Kali looks after those who look after her, bringing riches to the poor, revenge to the oppressed and newborn joy to the childless. So far this year, police have recorded at least one case of ritual killing a month. In January, in the southern state of Andhra Pradesh, a 24-year-old woman hacked her three-year-old son to death after a tantric sorcerer supposedly promised unlimited earthly riches. In February, two men in the eastern state of Tripura beheaded a woman on the instructions of a deity they said appeared in their dreams promising hidden treasures. Karmakar killed Manju in Atapur village in Jharkhand state in April. The following month, police dug up the remains of two sisters, aged 18 and 13, in Bihar, dismembered with a ceremonial sword and offered to Kali by their father. Last week on the outskirts of Bombay, maize seller Anil Lakshmikant Singh, 33, beheaded his neighbor's nine-year-old son to save his marriage on the advice of a tantric. Said Singh: "He promised that a human sacrifice would end all my miseries."

For more:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 73,00.html

Kenneth Warren

With all due respect I would like your answer, I answered all of your questions, even the ones where you thought you were being a "smart you know what" to put it in your terms.

In regards to your comment on if the Bible or Christianity never existed, are you saying the God did not create morality? I am very curious, when you call yourself a Christian what EXACTLY does that mean?

I have to say that I've enjoyed this particular interchange very much!

Particularly the constructive dialogue!

I'd like to contribute a few of my own thoughts, admittedly while sitting here under the influence of just having a molar removed by the excellent and utterly awesome Dr. Brian Smith (DDS/MD); here in Lakewood, of course.

Great Job, Dr. Smith!

As a sidebar: Although I currently go to Tom Leatherman, another dentist on Marlowe; Tom Kavanaugh, is outstanding too and has helped my family and I many times, as well.

Now, as for Masons.

Most Freemasons are probably Christians in this country. The Fraternity asks only for belief in monotheistic Deity (one God). They discuss neither politics or religion in their lodges, although they honor God (referred to as the Great Architect of the Universe) and their country.

They are tolerant to a fault. This tolerance is often misunderstood by churches, and has been referred to as the heresy of relativism. (no one faith therefore, being superior to the other) Masonry does not teach that at all, however. The Craft simply sidesteps the issue of particular faith to support that faith upon which, all right-thinking humanity can agree. There is a Christian branch; the Knights Templar.

Masons are often found in positions of philanthropic and societal leadership roles, as befitting an organization that believes in serving God and helping their fellow human beings. Each branch of Freemasonry has it's own philanthropic activities, from serving Special Olympics, to the Shrine Hospitals for Children.

All Shriners are in fact Masons, although technically the Shrine is not a Masonic group.

It is well know that George Washington, Ben Franklin, and many other founding fathers were Masons. So were both Roosevelts and a host of other presidents.

It is true that a number of churches do not to want their members to be Masons, for a variety of reasons of their own.

Back to the thread: (and tying this all together)

A certain number of people in every society will probably be homosexual. As much as I know about it, they do not choose their orientation, although they can, of course, choose whether to act on it. A number of the faiths that I am aware of, are as hostile towards "practicing" homosexuals, as they are, Freemasonry. They may tolerate non-practitioners of either, but bottom line? Homosexuals and Freemasons may have a lot in common.....

Like Auschwicz, Buchenwald, and Mauthausen for example...

Thousands of people were sent to the concentration camps, among them Jews, Gypsies (Roma) Freemasons, freethinkers, and Bible worshippers. (this category might include everyone from Jehovah's Witnesses, to pacifists)

People whom in conscience or faith, could not go along with the Nazi crowd.

In World War II Germany, Masons secretly identified themselves by wearing Forget-Me-Not pins in their lapels.

I guess it comes down to this point. Either you learn to live with those different than you are, or you won't. If you won't, then that road can lead to the concentration camps, and the killing fields.

Or in the worst case? Perhaps a future Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

It might be well, for those of us claiming to be religious, to remember the words of that old Spiritual:

God gave ol' Noah, that rainbow sign.
No mo' water, but the fire next time.....

Kumbayah....It's now or never...