Jaxian,

A Christian would argue that intentions do matter (at least as far as his own immortal soul is concerned). I personally, do not have a big problem with what you've said here.

I figured you would respond to this. I meant it in all sincerity. Superiority is not a Christian virtue. Jesus - God incarnate - humbled himself to become human, suffer and die on a cross for OUR sins - not His (as He had none).

This is what Christians are called to do for each other. It is hardly a superior attitude. Now I do not deny that there are people who say and do things that come across as arrogant or superior - but they are not behaving in a truly Christian manner.

And yes, I do believe that Christianity (Catholicism specifically) treats homosexuals as equals.

I am not sure why you seem to think I don't know what a representive democracy is, but thank you for the patient explanation.

Regarding your quote, you say that the group should pick out an expert to make the decisions: What if the expert says "I know you wanted me to lead you to build a house for yourselves, but I think you need a potato farm." and proceeds to spend your money and resources developing a potato farm?

Would the people be within their rights to fire their expert and replace him with someone else who will build their house? (i.e. aren't we entitled to elect people who will do what we want?)

I'm afraid I disagree. If our government promotes a Christian worldview it is because the majority of its citizens agree with those precepts and it is no comment whatsoever on any other religion.

In fact, by allowing other religions to freely practice their faith, we would showing tremendous respect.

Superiority of persons has nothing to do with it. Superiority of ideas is the issue.

This is way off topic, but I don't belive "the people" have ever had any shred of power in any communist state.

OKgrannie,
I'm not sure why the hostility I perceive in your post. Here is what you said:

All I asked was, why do you advocate suspending Christian's rights? It is a Christian idea that murder is wrong. Should we strike that law from the books? What about stealing?

It comes across to me that what you are really saying is that "Anyone I don't agree with shouldn't be allowed to vote."

Maybe I am misunderstanding your post. If I am I apologize. If I am not, please explain why you believe that no Christian principle should ever see the light of legislative day.

I agree with you here. But when legislators are passing laws that have moral implications (abortion, fetal stem cell experimentation, pornography), why can't Christians lobby for their preference?

Okay, so we do agree that Christians can vote for whom they want to - for whatever reason. Yes?

Do you think that idea is exclusive to Christians? Murder and stealing disrupt order in society which is the only reason to legislate against them.





Some Christian principles coincide with maintaining order in society as above. No Christian principle should ever see the light of legislative day if it is EXCLUSIVE to Christianity and has NO SECULAR PURPOSE. In a secular government, laws should have a secular purpose. To protect freedom of religion, no law should be passed solely for a sectarian purpose or to protect a sectarian ideal.

If it is simply a matter of preference, not of disrupting society, then said Christians would be interfering with others' freedom of conscience. Christians, and others, should be able to show why laws concerning morals affect society by disrupting order or they should learn tolerance for differing moral standards. They, after all, remain free to set their own moral standards as high as they wish without interference from government.