Ideas for creating a better society in the US

[Ak47]

Speaks for itself. I'm looking for major changes that will affect large amounts of people in a positive way. Both broad and specific answers and ideas are welcomed. I'm just looking for some extra ideas to go into a personal project. Thanks.

[PianoManGidley]

I'd be happy if the US would stop treating me like a second-class citizen and give me the same rights that straight people have.

[Ak47]

Originally Posted by PianoManGidley

I'd be happy if the US would stop treating me like a second-class citizen and give me the same rights that straight people have.

understandable, but i'm looking for -methods- of making society better. any suggestions of how this could be done, even pertaining to your issue specifically?

[Ak47]

*correction i'm looking for both issues AND solutions. issues are great, but solutions are much more valuable obviously. even partial solutions are welcomed. thanks.

[Doku]

Problem / Solution

Illegal immigration from Mexico / deport them back... to the SOUTHERN TIP of Mexico.
Illegal immigration from Mexico / Send the deportation bill to the Mexican government.

War in Iraq (cost) / Pull out, let them kill themselves off, go back when there are fewer to worry about

Oil Crisis / Join the 21st century and work from home. Seriously, all the factory jobs went to China/India, why do most people NEED to be at a specific location? sales/support/etc.
Oil Crisis / Join the 21st century and start building more nuclear power plants.

Public Education / "No Child Left Behind" has got to go. It used to be that schools taught to the average kid, now they teach to the dumbest kid.
Public Education / Worst thing ever for "socialization". Homeschool works much better.

Racial divide / Get rid of hate crime laws. Why is it illegal to call a black man a ****** (which will likely be filtered by this forum as well), but not illegal to call a white man a cracker?
Racial divide / Get rid of "Affirmative action". All it is is a crutch. (although I can pretty much guarantee that they will get rid of it when the white man becomes a minority)

Class divide / Get rid of "part time employee" status. A company should not be able to hire 100 people as "part time" instead of 90 as "full time" and get around the mandatory breaks/benefits/...

Crime / Remove most "gun laws". Ever notice that crime goes UP in places where they make handguns illegal?
Crime / Take Penn Gilette's suggestion and arm all women.

... more to come.

[PianoManGidley]

Originally Posted by Ak47

understandable, but i'm looking for -methods- of making society better. any suggestions of how this could be done, even pertaining to your issue specifically?

1. Allow all legal applications of marriage to apply to any two consenting adults, regardless of either individual's gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation, on all government levels (local, state, federal).

2. Incorporate sexual orientation and gender identity as protected qualifiers from discrimination in the Equal Opportunity Employment Act.

3. Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

4. Repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

5. Continue encouraging broad-mindedness regarding sexual orienation, gender identity, and the GLBT community at large, but without going so far as to start treating such citizens any differently than straight citizens, be those differences more positive or more negative for the citizens in question.

6. Once this is all accomplished, encourage all citizens to put the issue to rest and treat one's sexual orientation or gender identity as no more important than one's hair color or the grain of wood constituting one's coffee table.

[Doku]

PianoManGidley,
I agree with you, except for points 2, 5, and somewhat 6. Sure, give homosexuals the same marriage rights. I'm fine with that, as long as you make divorce just as difficult. I do not, however, agree with giving them any different protective status or benefits or ... than the average citizen. I feel that a major part of why America is in the situation that it is in is BECAUSE of the creation of "laws of distinction."


And, for full disclosure, I am a member of the only group left that it is legal to make fun of, discriminate against, etc. I am a straight, white, middle aged, average height, average weight, non-religious, married male.

--Doku

[PianoManGidley]

2 is very important to me, because I don't like the idea that I could legally be fired from my job just because I'm gay. Keep in mind that the Equal Opportunity Employment Act already protects against discrimination based on issues such as race and religious beliefs, meaning that you can't be fired for being Black OR for being White (goodness knows I've had people be racist against me just because I'm White), and you can't be fired for being non-Christian OR for being Christian. I would hope that a sexual orientation and gender identity clause would make it so that people could not be fired for being gay, bisexual, asexual, lesbian, transgendered, OR straight. I'm not asking for special privelages--I'm asking for EQUAL RIGHTS.

And if you're against distinction, why are you against 6?

Oh, and there aren't laws saying that people can't make fun of other groups. So, people can still legally make fun of anyone for anything, really. It may not be popular or "politically correct," but I'm against political correctness anyways--I believe in 100% free speech.

[Dan.Linehan]

PianoManGidley is spot on with his number two suggestion. Incorporating sexual orientation and gender identity as protected qualifiers from discrimination in the Equal Opportunity Employment Act is absolutely crucial.

I personally have had to be in the closet at multiple jobs over the years simply because I knew my employers could (and would) fire me with impunity if I didn't constantly lie about my personal life. Whenever I was really talking about my boyfriend Paul I would change it up and say I was talking about my girlfriend Stacy. I didn't go to holiday parties where significant others were invited. I couldn't play company sports where Stacy would be expected to show up. I couldn't go to company outings or picnics, etc. This was difficult. I was managing a couple hundred people at various times and was expected to come to these functions. Stacy was expected to come too.

Sometimes I hear the argument that personal lives should stay out of the workplace. Well great, if that notion is applied to everyone equally then I have no problem with it. But as it is, gay people have to play "don't ask don't tell" with their personal lives while their straight colleagues bare all and brag about whatever with impunity.

Having to pathologically hide one's sexual orientation in the workplace for fear of losing your income source is just no good at all. Companies should not be able to fire you for being gay, it's as simple as that. That's just basic equal rights, it has nothing to do with special or distinct treatment.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Doku

Illegal immigration from Mexico / deport them back... to the SOUTHERN TIP of Mexico.

Yep, the solution to this one is very, very simple. Deport non-citizens. How hard is that? The question I have is why did the INS cease to exist in 2003?

Originally Posted by Doku

War in Iraq (cost) / Pull out, let them kill themselves off, go back when there are fewer to worry about

Why go back? We need to worry about our infrastructure, not theirs. The amount of money we've blown on this illegal and unprecedented occupation is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Doku

Oil Crisis / Join the 21st century and work from home. Seriously, all the factory jobs went to China/India, why do most people NEED to be at a specific location? sales/support/etc.

Technology will fix this with solar dye cells and the aircar / electric.

Originally Posted by Doku

Public Education / Worst thing ever for "socialization". Homeschool works much better.

Parents wouldn't know what to do if schools didn't take their kids and watch after them while the parents worked. I'm all for standardized testing and homeschooling. Our public education system is a joke.

Originally Posted by Doku

Racial divide / Get rid of hate crime laws. Why is it illegal to call a black man a ****** (which will likely be filtered by this forum as well), but not illegal to call a white man a cracker?
Racial divide / Get rid of "Affirmative action". All it is is a crutch. (although I can pretty much guarantee that they will get rid of it when the white man becomes a minority)

I tend to agree. Let's call a spade a spade. No hate crimes, equality all around.

Originally Posted by Doku

Class divide / Get rid of "part time employee" status. A company should not be able to hire 100 people as "part time" instead of 90 as "full time" and get around the mandatory breaks/benefits/...

This won't even begin to solve this issue. Class divide is much more about skills and intelligence than people want to admit. It goes back to education.

[ragtag]

Disclaimer: I'm not from the US, nor have I ever been there. I've known a few Americans, and all (except one...he was a sociopath) were fine people.

That out of the way. Looking from the outside, it feels to me that the US needs to change the way it thinks. It seems very much built around the idea that you can make your own fortune, which you surely can, but this also means there is little or no support for those that fail. Which means that the divide between the rich and the poor becomes huge. This is neither good for the rich or the poor, it just means more people will turn to crime, making life unsafe for the rich. I believe, the strong opposition to things like social security and most state controlled social support for those who need it has it's roots in a fear/hatred for communism. I'm not saying communism is a great system, it has been tested and it has failed, but there is a middle ground between communism and a totally capitalistic society, and currently the US is a good bit to the right of this middle ground.

If you look at countries where people in general are more happy with their life, you'll see they have many things in common (Denmark, Switzerland, etc.). Reasonably good social security, low crime rates, free health care, good job market and solid rights for workers (high minimum wage, sick pay etc), solid civil rights and more. A country that takes good care of it's citizens, is a good place to live.

[Ak47]

A lot of these suggestions are good...

I don't personally consider illegal immigration a problem. In fact, they increase our economy since there are more people who are willing to do unskilled labor (less and less americans these days; people complain about outsourcing businesses and illegal immigration both, not realizing that illegal immigrant workers are a big reason we still have some of the business we do). Also, i don't think i can blame them for doing what they believe is best for themselves and their loved ones..., it's the same thing any other reasonable person on their position would do. If you can refute these arguements however, i'm willing to listen.

Anyway, thanks all for taking the time to reply. More ideas are welcome.

[Ak47]

Also, take note that i'm open to changes that could take up to 150 years to completely process. I'm not just thinking in the "here" or "now," but what "could be" so to speak.

[Jennihul]

Dude, you are named after a gun. Just in case you didn't realize.

So anyway, change the US for the better. Hmmmm.

I would build the concept directly off the quote by Ghandi:

~Be the change you wish to see in the world.

The idea is that change starts with one person at a time, convincing people that yes every action they take, every decision they make, affects the entire organism. Bring it to schools because for it to work, you'll have to start young and reinforce constantly. You can't count on churches to do it but they can be used to spread the message. Parents have to be taught not to thwart the process in their children even if they don't buy in to it and their own habitual idiocy has to be bred out over time, that it's still for the good of the world.

Respect is more important than anything. That would have to be hammered home. That includes self-respect.

That compassion is possible in a capitalistic world.

That if it's humanly possible to contribute, one should contribute. But people that are unable to contribute should be respected for the people that they are. Everyone has a place.

Jennifer

[Ak47]

Originally Posted by Jennihul

Dude, you are named after a gun. Just in case you didn't realize.

So anyway, change the US for the better. Hmmmm.

I would build the concept directly off the quote by Ghandi:

~Be the change you wish to see in the world.

The idea is that change starts with one person at a time, convincing people that yes every action they take, every decision they make, affects the entire organism. Bring it to schools because for it to work, you'll have to start young and reinforce constantly. You can't count on churches to do it but they can be used to spread the message. Parents have to be taught not to thwart the process in their children even if they don't buy in to it and their own habitual idiocy has to be bred out over time, that it's still for the good of the world.

Respect is more important than anything. That would have to be hammered home. That includes self-respect.

That compassion is possible in a capitalistic world.

That if it's humanly possible to contribute, one should contribute. But people that are unable to contribute should be respected for the people that they are. Everyone has a place.

Jennifer

What's wrong with having the name of a gun? Are you suggesting that i'm violent or uncaring just because of my screen name on some random online forum?

What if my name was Marquis de Sade, or Nuclear Waste; Cow or ComputerGeek? Does it really matter? A name is superficial, it has nothing to do with anything. My name could be Ak47 for 1000 different reasons that you'd never guess, good or bad. Personally, i don't think open stereotype is a very good method for promoting a positive social change. However, i do think that the absolutionism that is created in some people by symbolic interactionism is ridiculous. Props for pointing that out to me.

Otherwise, good points. I like your approach to the Ghandi quote with the mix of influence [convincing]; very unique.

[Brutha]

And, for full disclosure, I am a member of the only group left that it is legal to make fun of, discriminate against, etc. I am a straight, white, middle aged, average height, average weight, non-religious, married male.

I don't think that anyone is allowed to fire you for being an atheist. There might even be employers who would want to fire you for it.

Illegal immigration from Mexico / deport them back... to the SOUTHERN TIP of Mexico.
Illegal immigration from Mexico / Send the deportation bill to the Mexican government.

Why should the Mexican government pay that bill, because the US treadens to invade Mexico if it doesn't?
One issue is that money has to much influence on US policy.
Change Congress — Home is a nice movement by Larry Lessig (the guy behind Creative Commons), which tries to be webbased to fight this problem.

A name is superficial, it has nothing to do with anything.

Some people in this thread have advocated to increase consciousness. Part of being conscious is to make choices that don't have "nothing to do with anything".

[Doku]

I disagree with the "equal opportunity employment act" on principal. Nobody should be to force me to hire someone for any reason.

Some examples: If I were running a gay strip club... Should I be forced to put a chick on stage? One could easily argue that she is just as capable at taking her clothes off. There is equal opportunity for the sexes, you know.

How about "Doku's Japanese Massage Parlor" Should I be forced to hire the 6'4" 320lb black guy that just retired from the Cowboys football team? He's perfectly capable of giving someone a massage. There is equal opportunity for race.

How about Father Bob's Catholic traveling minestry? Should he be forced to hire a Hare Krishna? There is protection for religion as well.

As to why the Mexican government should pay, not only does their government do nothing to prevent it, they go so far as to teach people how to invade this country! And how do we force them to pay? Embargos do wonders.

[PianoManGidley]

Originally Posted by Doku

I disagree with the "equal opportunity employment act" on principal. Nobody should be to force me to hire someone for any reason.

Some examples: If I were running a gay strip club... Should I be forced to put a chick on stage? One could easily argue that she is just as capable at taking her clothes off. There is equal opportunity for the sexes, you know.

How about "Doku's Japanese Massage Parlor" Should I be forced to hire the 6'4" 320lb black guy that just retired from the Cowboys football team? He's perfectly capable of giving someone a massage. There is equal opportunity for race.

How about Father Bob's Catholic traveling minestry? Should he be forced to hire a Hare Krishna? There is protection for religion as well.

There's a difference between not hiring someone based on realistic business principals and not hiring someone JUST because of their race, sex, or religion. The gay strip club (assuming you mean a gay MALE strip club) would not make money from hiring a female stripper, and any woman wanting to be hired to strip for gay men should seek psychiatric help, IMO.

Father Bob's Catholic Traveling Ministry is not a business, but a church, and is therefore exempt from the Equal Opportunity Employment Act.

As for the Japanese massage parlor--my boyfriend is currently finishing up his degree in massotherapy. He is a White Jewish male, 5'11" and roughly 300 lbs.--fat, not muscle. And yet he, as well as men larger than him, can be trained in the alternative medicine of massage therapy, including all its unique practices--which includes the technique of standing and applying pressure on the client's back (I'll have to ask him what the name of that specific technique is again)--just as easily as a petite 4'9" 85-lb. Japanese woman. As long as your retired football player has proper training in the practices the Japanese massage parlor commonly employs and meets all other business-specific criteria (such as, potentially, the requirement to speak Japanese as a second language, in case enough clientele speak exclusively Japanese to warrant such a requirement), then he should be considered for the job.

Your examples include reasons outside of sex, religion, or race as to why an employer would not want to hire a prospective employee. The EOEA was established so an employer couldn't say "I'm not hiring you JUST because of your race/religion/sex/other qualifying factor." And it is my belief that sexual orientation and gender identity should be included in that. The EOEA wasn't created to say that business HAVE to hire so many men, women, Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Pagans, etc....you're confusing the EOEA with Affirmative Action, which is an ideal I personally feel is archaic and no longer needed. Hopefully, soon, the EOEA won't be needed, either.

[Ak47]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Some people in this thread have advocated to increase consciousness. Part of being conscious is to make choices that don't have "nothing to do with anything".

Well, syllogisms are great. They are how you think most logically, and are absolutely necessary for survival. People tend to put opinion in them though when a key element is fact, however, and when it comes to people... this is how prejudice, descrimination, etc happens.

Consciousness is realization, which is not necessarily conclusive by nature. Might i be so bold to say that being successful in realization is understanding that many things are not conclusive at all. Which, in itself, is a realization; that you should be conscious enough to realize that not all things are conclusive. Realizing that you don't know any thing (in my opinion) is one of the best things for someone to be conscious of.

[Ak47]

Originally Posted by Doku

I disagree with the "equal opportunity employment act" on principal. Nobody should be to force me to hire someone for any reason.

Some examples: If I were running a gay strip club... Should I be forced to put a chick on stage? One could easily argue that she is just as capable at taking her clothes off. There is equal opportunity for the sexes, you know.

How about "Doku's Japanese Massage Parlor" Should I be forced to hire the 6'4" 320lb black guy that just retired from the Cowboys football team? He's perfectly capable of giving someone a massage. There is equal opportunity for race.

How about Father Bob's Catholic traveling minestry? Should he be forced to hire a Hare Krishna? There is protection for religion as well.

As to why the Mexican government should pay, not only does their government do nothing to prevent it, they go so far as to teach people how to invade this country! And how do we force them to pay? Embargos do wonders.

I see your point, and it is reasonable. I also understand what the piano fellow is saying. I agree, equal opportunity is not the best way to fix things. However, it is a means to an end. Example:

minorities in poverty => minorities can't get jobs just because of their race (or whatever else) => minorities are still in poverty => minorities become detatched from society since they cannot participate and interact with the majority => right back where we started.

if you throw it the "equal opportunity employment act"... this gives minorities the chance to interact with the majority. if they can interact with the majority as their equals... then it's more likley that, over time, both groups will consider themselves equals. it's not a permenant answer, but it gives the minorities a better chance of becoming accepted by society... hopefully enough that eventually they wont need it anymore. you can't say that the racial divide hasn't closed up some since this act was implemented. i might agree that it is definately not the best, or only answer to our racial problem; it does help though.

[SmartAlx]

I have but one word that should solve all problems in society: God. Not religion, but a relationship with Christ. Not rules that say what we can/can't do, but a relationship with a superior being who encourages us from within on how to act. Like it or not, we started as a Christian nation and when we lost our relationship with Him and started to question His authority, we started losing it with each other.

[PianoManGidley]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

I have but one word that should solve all problems in society: God. Not religion, but a relationship with Christ. Not rules that say what we can/can't do, but a relationship with a superior being who encourages us from within on how to act. Like it or not, we started as a Christian nation and when we lost our relationship with Him and started to question His authority, we started losing it with each other.

This is precisely what we DON'T need. Christians that butt into politics typically hold a holier-than-thou attitude. Many of the founding fathers of the USA were Deist, not Christian. And the ideals of freedom of religion and seperation of church and state should continue to be enforced. If you want a Christian nation, secede and go start your own.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by PianoManGidley

This is precisely what we DON'T need. Christians that butt into politics typically hold a holier-than-thou attitude. Many of the founding fathers of the USA were Deist, not Christian. And the ideals of freedom of religion and seperation of church and state should continue to be enforced. If you want a Christian nation, secede and go start your own.

Sorry to disagree, but you misread my post. I expected it, since there is soooo much bitterness against the Christian religion. And I don't blame you because they have been so utterly awful. Please reread my post with this in mind.

I specifically said "Not religion, but a relationship with Christ." "Christians" with a holier-than-thou attitude do not have a relationship with Christ. They have a relationship with judgment. True Christians treat everybody with love and respect. Jesus wouldn't bomb an abortion clinic. He wouldn't murder gay people. He would befriend them. Look at the people he associated with: prostitutes and lepers. He is our example. If everybody in America tried to be like Jesus, then all of society's problems would go away. A relationship with Him helps us to become more like Him. That was my point.

Some might not have been, but most of the founding fathers were Christian. If they were deist, then what deity did they worship?

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Just for clarity:

Founding Fathers of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And SmartAlx Deism is:

Deism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think it can be limited to relationship with Christ. If our country was full of conscious people regardless of their religious leaning, I think it would be a better place.

[PianoManGidley]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

"Christians" with a holier-than-thou attitude do not have a relationship with Christ. They have a relationship with judgment. True Christians treat everybody with love and respect.

No True Scotsman Fallacy

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by PianoManGidley

No True Scotsman Fallacy

I'm sorry PianoMan, I'm failing to see where I committed that fallacy. I see the similarity, but I point you here:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Errors in usage

In situations where the subject's status is determined by specific behaviors, the fallacy does not apply. For example, it is perfectly justified to say, "No true vegetarian eats meat," because not eating meat is what defines a person as a vegetarian. Similarly, claiming that "no true doctor practices without a medical degree" is not a fallacy because, in fact, a medical degree is required to be legitimately designated as a practicing medical doctor...

The greatest commandment as stated by Jesus Christ Himself is to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. and to Love your neighbor as yourself. It's in the Bible, here Matthew 22:34-40 and here: Mark 12:28-34.
The entire Bible is full of instructions on how to live. We don't expect non-Christians to read it (although they would read a lot of good advice if they did) but Christians do read the Bible. Some of the most important of those instructions are how to treat one another. Jesus' entire ministry was the opposite of what these judgmental "christians" do. It's almost as if His life was a warning to those that would follow after Him.


Thank you for the lesson though. I will be careful about making similar statements in the future without having evidence to back it up. Although I am never one to make statements like this unless they are in fact true. I am always eager to learn more about logic and fallacious arguments, so if you see me making one, I will be most interested to hear about it. I like the way you did it too. Very good: Just state the fallacy, and give me a location where I can look it up. Excellent.

[PianoManGidley]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

I'm sorry PianoMan, I'm failing to see where I committed that fallacy. I see the similarity, but I point you here:

The greatest commandment as stated by Jesus Christ Himself is to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. and to Love your neighbor as yourself. It's in the Bible, here Matthew 22:34-40 and here: Mark 12:28-34.
The entire Bible is full of instructions on how to live. We don't expect non-Christians to read it (although they would read a lot of good advice if they did) but Christians do read the Bible. Some of the most important of those instructions are how to treat one another. Jesus' entire ministry was the opposite of what these judgmental "christians" do. It's almost as if His life was a warning to those that would follow after Him.


Thank you for the lesson though. I will be careful about making similar statements in the future without having evidence to back it up. Although I am never one to make statements like this unless they are in fact true. I am always eager to learn more about logic and fallacious arguments, so if you see me making one, I will be most interested to hear about it. I like the way you did it too. Very good: Just state the fallacy, and give me a location where I can look it up. Excellent.

Like it or not, your judgemental Christians are still Christians--just because they interpret the Bible differently than you do and behave differently from you doesn't mean that they're not Christian, or any less Christian. Christianity is a religion that comes with it a text that is VERY open to interpretation. Jesus also said "I have not come to bring peace but the sword," and there's plenty of instruction in the Bible about violent punishments and appalling acts such as animal slaughter for sacrifice, selling one's daughters into slavery, and stoning sinners. So I still stand by my statement that yes, you committed the No True Scotsman fallacy, because you're essentially saying that YOUR interpretation of the religion and its related texts are valid, or at least more valid than those differing interpretations of others--but what makes YOU such an authority? What makes YOU more right than your Christian brethren of a different opinion?

I may not be Christian now, but I grew up being essentially forced to believe in Christianity because of societal and familial pressures, so I know about a lot of this stuff. You'd be surprised how much more non-Christians know about Christianity than Christians themselves.

Bottom line: We non-Christians are sick and tired of you Christians trying to dictate to us how we should live and what we should think all the time. Okay, so you think you're religion is great--WE GET IT. We got it the first 8 million times you told us. We don't need to keep hearing about it. If we wanted to switch, we would have a long time ago. YOU may think your beliefs are great, but to many of us, they're just another religion, no more or less valid than any others that we feel are incorrect--or at least, incorrect for our individual selves. And the sooner you Christians realize that, the better.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

Just for clarity:

Founding Fathers of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And SmartAlx Deism is:

Deism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, I see. That's what I get for assuming.

I don't think it can be limited to relationship with Christ. If our country was full of conscious people regardless of their religious leaning, I think it would be a better place.

Granted, to a certain extent. Most every religion (pretty much) teaches goodness. However, since I'm a Christian, and I have done some study on other religions, I tend to think that other Religions' methodologies don't work with human psychology. I think the problem with many Christians is that they get too lazy to read the Bible for themselves and they just take the word of other not so nice religious leaders as gospel. (Whoops. Sorry. Pun not intended. LOL)

Sorry if my beliefs don't sit right with all of you. This is my what? 10th post here. I'm sure I sound like a know-it-all "my belief is better than yours" type. I hope to show you in time how open-minded I can be. And I hope you all actually live up to the name of this forum and you have open minds too.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by PianoManGidley

Like it or not, your judgemental Christians are still Christians--just because they interpret the Bible differently than you do and behave differently from you doesn't mean that they're not Christian, or any less Christian.

You know what? You're right. Anyone who accepts Jesus' gift of salvation receives it. They are Christian. However, Judgmental Christians sure don't act Christian, do they. And that was kind of my point. They aren't following the Bible.

Christianity is a religion that comes with it a text that is VERY open to interpretation. Jesus also said "I have not come to bring peace but the sword," and there's plenty of instruction in the Bible about violent punishments and appalling acts such as animal slaughter for sacrifice, selling one's daughters into slavery, and stoning sinners.

We are living under the new covenant, but I understand your point.

I may not be Christian now, but I grew up being essentially forced to believe in Christianity because of societal and familial pressures.

I'm sorry that you weren't brought up in an environment that nurtured a questioning heart. I learned more about my faith by questioning my faith and having those questions answered honestly than I did by having biblical dogma pounded on my head. I don't blame you one bit for doubting God.

Bottom line: We non-Christians are sick and tired of you Christians trying to dictate to us how we should live and what we should think all the time. Okay, so you think you're religion is great--WE GET IT. We got it the first 8 million times you told us. We don't need to keep hearing about it. If we wanted to switch, we would have a long time ago. YOU may think your beliefs are great, but to many of us, they're just another religion, no more or less valid than any others that we feel are incorrect--or at least, incorrect for our individual selves. And the sooner you Christians realize that, the better.

You're talking to the wrong fella here. I'm not like those jerks. I'm not trying to tell you how to live. 'course I am saying that IF you and everybody lived the way the Bible proscribes, society would work better. But everybody has their ideas about what would make for a better society. That's what the OP is about after all, right? So I'll not apologize for contradicting myself, saying that you should live Biblically in that moment. In general, it's not my intention to force you do do things my way. My original reply was specific to the question. It was as much directed towards judgmental Christians as it was towards non-Christians. It wasn't to convert anyone. It was to show a Christian's answer to the question. It wasn't to try to force you to change your mind. Just open it to the idea that we Christians believe that our way, done properly, would work wonders on society. I wanted you to understand that the Bible isn't about judgment and condemning other people. It's just about a personal relationship with God and each other, and that anything more than that goes against Jesus' ministry.

Let's just agree to disagree for the time being and shake hands. Shall we?

I apologize to the OP for my original reply taking this thread off-topic. I didn't mean to get into a religious debate.
[/hijack]

[Ak47]

whoa whoa whoa, how did this turn into a reigious debate? smartals is allowed to give his opinion.

personally, i don't think having everyone become christian would work, because it would obviously go against the idea of freedom of religion, which can't be had, okay. besides, given the number of christians who "aren't good christians" they're obviously the majority in the group now (unfortunately; yes, it does make the "good" christians look bad)... but what makes anyone think they wouldn't still be the majority just because numbers of total christians are greater?

honestly, i think there is just as much, if not more good, logical reason for being a "good person" as the devine law (scripture) suggests. so, teaching people how to think positively in a logical way could be just as, if not more valuable than forcing people to study scripture. also, it doesn't infringe on peoples freedom of choice as much --a very important freedom indeed.

let's face it, religion requires faith in one way or another. you can't force faith on people, and even if you could... should you? if it's not the way they want to live their life, who are you to challenge the way they want to? i just don't see a good reason behind forcing people to take a guess (which lets face it, faith is a guess). if someone isn't harming anyone, i don't see any point in challenging their views... and whether someone harms others or not doesn't have anything to do with whether they're religious or not. i created this thread, obviously with a good intent... i am completely and utterly neutral when it comes to religion. does that mean i'm a bad person, or that someone elses views should be forced onto me? i should hope not...

just my opinion... and what you speak could be a solution, but this isn't a dictatorship, and we have to give people the ability to make t heir own decisions.