On CNN Political Ticker's posting in regards to the Evangelics view on Fred Thompson, some people left interesting comments which I'm going to paste down here, as an example of how intolerant and self-righteous Christian bigots take Freedom of Religion in the USA as their chance to baptize the whole world. And yes, Dubya said that the war on Iraq was a "Crusade", so go figure.
Let's start with a William Pruett, who says:
I do not understand what issue they have with Fred's stance on gay marriage. Since Fred is a professed Federalist, meaning that the issue should be left up to the individual states to decide, based upon popular public opinion, and the fact that he has already stated that the constitution should protect everyones rights, what are you not clear on. He believes in the sanctaty of marriage as between one man and one woman, and has already indicated that Judges that inturprit the constatution based upon the intent of the founding fathers, instead of ther own political views, should be nominated, and if he was president, he would do so. The problem with the gay rights movement, as I see it, is that the homosexual community is no longer satisfied with the don't ask, don't tell staus quo, and they now wish to educate our children on there alternative life style, that God's word says is an abomination. As a christian, I am not willing to have my children taught about a life style
that God teaches is not right. What these people do , in the sanctaty of there own homes, is there own business,
and they will have to stand in judgment
before God on it. Of all the other candadates that I have listened to and
studied, Fred's position makes the most since. It leaves the ultamate decision up to each and everyone of us
who is willing to cast our vote and be heard. Since many states have already
had a vote on this position and have passed state amendmates by 60-85% of the popular vote, it is clear to me, that under such a scenario, the bilical view on this issue would win out.
Answers to this comment include those of Steven in SC:
To William Pruett:
So if I understand your position clearly, it's not enough that you can teach your children whatever you believe to be true, but you also want the government to prevent them from being exposed to any contrary position (i.e. that being gay is ok)?
What if I didn't want MY children exposed to Asians, realtors, or ignorant, bigoted christians? Should we make those people adhere to "don't ask, don't tell" and hide in the closet as well?
We are ALL entitled to the protections afforded by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and that includes the right to live honesty and openly — it's called "Liberty". If you don't like a particular behavior, then you certainly shouldn't participate in it, and you have every right to teach your children that you believe it is wrong. You do NOT, however, have the right to require everyone else to live according to your personal moral code.
And David R in San Francisco:
William Pruett needs to get his story straight. As a gay man, I'm not interested in turning his kids gay. Some of them may already be, without our help. With 10% of the population being gay, there's a 1 in 10 chance that there is at least one in his family. The more kids you have, the better the odds (keep that in mind as you rail against condom use, abortion, and family planning). I'm also not interested in being accepted by anyone. Gay marriage for me is about equality in taxation (I'm actually saving money by not being "married" to my partner), hospital visitation rights, inheritance, immigration, and the over 1,000 other federal rights allowed married persons. All I want is to make sure all my family members are protected under the law…equally. Otherwise, you can keep your misguided interpretation of the Bible to yourselves, and be happy living as a Jew for Jesus (Old Testament over New, with little regard for Jesus' actual message of tolerance). Any presidential candidate that doesn't get that won't get elected. Especially in this modern day as the younger generation gets it, and the older generation is dying.
Followed by a last comment by one Ayveel in Dallas:
To David R. and Steven:
Stop trying to equate being gay with everything else. You talk about homosexuality as if you enjoy living in sin. Okay, I'll give you that one.
Liberty, the ability to live freely. That is what you want. You want liberty. So if I wanted to marry my brother, should I? Liberty right. If I wanted to marry my sister or mother, should I? Liberty right. If a 12 year old girl says it is okay if I a 25 year old man have sex with her, should I? Liberty right.
Okay. Should I be able to marry 3 women and afforded the rights of a man and woman? Liberty right. What about just walking around with everything exposed? Liberty right. Why not? To hell with all the laws and rules. That is what a true democracy is anyways.
So you will get the Jesus message right. In the Bible there is this story about this man who had been crippled or paralzyed that Jesus saw. The man laid there for decades. Jesus asked the man, "Do you want to be healed?" The man came up with a lot of reasons why he had not dipped in the pool of healing. Jesus asked him again forcing him to stop his complaining about why his condition had not changed. "Do you want to be healed?"
Jesus i not about tolerances as you submitted. Jesus is about changing what we called a life or way of life. He didn't die for the sins of the world so that you would make a "committment" to sinning. (Committment, such as like marriage) But that was a bonus for reading.
Don't mistake Jesus for God in flesh who looks at every situation and says, "I understand." That ain't Jesus. That is the enemy who does what he does to make sure you are not connected with God.
I fully support your right to fight for whatever rights you want. I fight for some things that others don't believe in to. But I don't get angry and say, "Well all of them are going to hell." Everybody has a position. You have a position and I have a position. We are both fighting for our position.
But as a Christian, I can't see there and just allow something like this to happen. If it happens where man and man can get married or woman and woman get married, then it happens. What matters is that I was on the Biblical side of the equation instead of the Satan (hell here I come) side.
Personally I think that whether faith we might choose to follow, if we choose any, that should belong to the realms of private life. Christian right is managing to take the debate to grounds they can control: the Bible and its teachings, with all the exegesis made throughout the centuries. However the debate on gay marriage should not be based on biblical terms, but in the civil, non-religious marriage. As if muslims, buddhists, shintoists, taoists, jews and all other faith-followers couldn't get married because marriage is a biblical definition, sure.
So we have to clearly reject a debate biased from the beginning, and take it to where it really belongs: out of religions.