Religious Agreement in the USA

Hux · 26th November 2009, 05:14 AM

A recent agreement by the major players of USA Christianity (the name of which escapes me, sorry) has in effect supposed to suggest that civil disobedience might be necessary to protect the 'rights' of the religious (where they happen to agree of course).

http://blog.acton.org/archives/13068-manhattan-declaration-a-call-of-christian-conscience.html
It is the Manhattan declaration

Some of the subjects naturally relate to abortion, euthanasia, destructive embryonic studies et al. The participants assert that they will have no part of such things, want assurances they will not be funded by public money yada yada.

Does anyone view this statement as a strengthening of "Chruschyun' values" or is it a note left beside a corpse? Is the Christian right getting stronger and bolder or will this statement fall quicker than Falwell into his rubbish bin?

It was only Fox noise that reported it - so I believe. Gosh what a surprise. I didn't see it mentioned on the dirty liberal channels.

What do our American correspondents think of this?

Darat · 26th November 2009, 05:18 AM

Got a link to the actual agreement?

Hux · 26th November 2009, 05:20 AM

Nope. If I had a link I would know the name. Discussed two nights ago on Fox news. I thought it was something like the 'Manhattan agreement' but I see that's another thing.

Hux · 26th November 2009, 05:22 AM

Removed

Darat · 26th November 2009, 05:27 AM

Just read the declaration and it boils down to: "We are against abortion and the civil definition of marriage being extended to include same-sex couples."

Hux · 26th November 2009, 05:37 AM

The declaration in full suggested that 'civil disruption' and protest would be in order to establish these things. Well the latter is fine but what about the disobedience part? I have not seen it in full but 'Oreilly was asking a catholic Bishop if this was right and proper. And O'reilly is never wrong is he........

To be honest it could just be Christians pissing into the wind again and of no substance. I dont know. Thats why I asked of the American contingent.

grayman · 26th November 2009, 05:47 AM

I posted a link to Bill O'Reilly's column about it in the "Poor Persecuted Christians" thread.

Darat · 26th November 2009, 05:55 AM

Originally Posted by Hux

The declaration in full suggested that 'civil disruption' and protest would be in order to establish these things.

...snip...

To be fair to them it doesn't really, what they say is that they won't be forced to act against their religious beliefs even if that means "civil disobedience".

.... Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family....

Hux · 26th November 2009, 05:56 AM

Thank you for that Grayman; my apologies for my additional post.

Hux · 26th November 2009, 05:57 AM

Quote:

To be fair to them it doesn't really, what they say is that they won't be forced to act against their religious beliefs even if that means "civil disobedience".

What do You take that to mean and does the declaration mean anything at all?

Darat · 26th November 2009, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by Hux

What do You take that to mean and does the declaration mean anything at all?

I take it to mean that, as they give examples in the declaration, if the state says "you must marry these two men" they want "Christians" (in quotes as there are many Christians that do not support such a view) to refuse to do so.

It is a piss-poor "declaration" - indeed in the preamble they mention the likes of John Wesley and William Wilberforce, what would have served them better was to read the polemics and "declarations" authored by such people if they wanted to create a declaration that had some heat and passion.

grayman · 26th November 2009, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by Hux

Thank you for that Grayman; my apologies for my additional post.

No apologies necessary.

bokonon · 26th November 2009, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Got a link to the actual agreement?

http://manhattandeclaration.org/imag...eclaration.pdf

Ladewig · 26th November 2009, 09:02 AM

From the Marriage section:

Originally Posted by Manhattan Declaration

To strengthen families, we must stop glamorizing promiscuity and infidelity and restore among our people a sense of the profound beauty, mystery, and holiness of faithful marital love. We must reform ill-advised policies that contribute to the weakening of the institution of marriage, including the discredited idea of unilateral divorce.

That is certainly your right. Feel free to argue against depravity and for holiness.

Quote:

We must work in the legal, cultural, and religious domains to instill in young people a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it requires, and why it is worth the commitment and sacrifices that faithful spouses make.

OK, here's where my interest is piqued. You plan on working in the legal domain to instill in young people the sacrifices that faithful spouses make. What specific laws do you intend to pass?

Quote:

The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law

Ah, the gays didn't cause this immorality, they are merely a symptom of this immorality. I was wondering why Pat Robertson didn't sign this document; now I know - it didn't go far enough in assigning blame.

decojuicer · 26th November 2009, 09:28 AM

Quote:

We must work in the legal, cultural, and religious domains to instill in young people a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it requires, and why it is worth the commitment and sacrifices that faithful spouses make.

Sounds to me like they are are saying that they are going to become actively involved in politics. If that is the case, then every church that signs this declaration should have it's tax exempt status revoked immediately,

shadron · 26th November 2009, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

I take it to mean that, as they give examples in the declaration, if the state says "you must marry these two men" they want "Christians" (in quotes as there are many Christians that do not support such a view) to refuse to do so.

I imagine that it will fight against requirements that religious medical institutions perform forbidden procedures such as abortions, voluntary sterilizations, euthanasia or anything else they or any of their providers believe to be immoral. That is one of the sticking points over here with respect to universal medical coverage: they want to participate in the coverage, but they don't want to have to perform the procedures that the ungodly want done.

Sledge · 26th November 2009, 09:47 AM

It's so nice to see religions coming together thanks to their shared intolerance. Why stop at just Christian groups, though? I'm sure they could get some Muslims onboard if they were willing to stretch a point and oppress women as well.

bokonon · 26th November 2009, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

You plan on working in the legal domain to instill in young people the sacrifices that faithful spouses make. What specific laws do you intend to pass?

I imagine this translates into some form of "outlaw divorce".

Originally Posted by decojuicer

Sounds to me like they are are saying that they are going to become actively involved in politics. If that is the case, then every church that signs this declaration should have it's tax exempt status revoked immediately,

I doubt that churches sign, and individuals aren't tax-exempt today.

26th November 2009, 05:14 AM	#1
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	Religious Agreement in the USA A recent agreement by the major players of USA Christianity (the name of which escapes me, sorry) has in effect supposed to suggest that civil disobedience might be necessary to protect the 'rights' of the religious (where they happen to agree of course). http://blog.acton.org/archives/13068-manhattan-declaration-a-call-of-christian-conscience.html It is the Manhattan declaration Some of the subjects naturally relate to abortion, euthanasia, destructive embryonic studies et al. The participants assert that they will have no part of such things, want assurances they will not be funded by public money yada yada. Does anyone view this statement as a strengthening of "Chruschyun' values" or is it a note left beside a corpse? Is the Christian right getting stronger and bolder or will this statement fall quicker than Falwell into his rubbish bin? It was only Fox noise that reported it - so I believe. Gosh what a surprise. I didn't see it mentioned on the dirty liberal channels. What do our American correspondents think of this?
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	__________________ *...people of faith who are that intelligent they've only managed to fool themselves* - MARDUK Last edited by Hux; 26th November 2009 at 05:23 AM.

26th November 2009, 05:18 AM	#2
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 47,685	Got a link to the actual agreement?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

26th November 2009, 05:20 AM	#3
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	Nope. If I had a link I would know the name. Discussed two nights ago on Fox news. I thought it was something like the 'Manhattan agreement' but I see that's another thing.
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	__________________ *...people of faith who are that intelligent they've only managed to fool themselves* - MARDUK

26th November 2009, 05:22 AM	#4
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	Removed
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	__________________ *...people of faith who are that intelligent they've only managed to fool themselves* - MARDUK Last edited by Hux; 26th November 2009 at 05:24 AM.

26th November 2009, 05:27 AM	#5
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 47,685	Just read the declaration and it boils down to: "We are against abortion and the civil definition of marriage being extended to include same-sex couples."
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

26th November 2009, 05:37 AM	#6
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	The declaration in full suggested that 'civil disruption' and protest would be in order to establish these things. Well the latter is fine but what about the disobedience part? I have not seen it in full but 'Oreilly was asking a catholic Bishop if this was right and proper. And O'reilly is never wrong is he........ To be honest it could just be Christians pissing into the wind again and of no substance. I dont know. Thats why I asked of the American contingent.
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	__________________ *...people of faith who are that intelligent they've only managed to fool themselves* - MARDUK Last edited by Hux; 26th November 2009 at 05:39 AM.

26th November 2009, 05:47 AM	#7
grayman Happy-go-lucky Heretic Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Casa del Whacko Posts: 5,650	I posted a link to Bill O'Reilly's column about it in the "Poor Persecuted Christians" thread.
	__________________ Stupidity is a condition. Ignorance is a choice. - Wiley All great truths begin as blasphemies. - George Bernard Shaw The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. - George Bernard Shaw

26th November 2009, 05:55 AM	#8
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 47,685	Originally Posted by Hux The declaration in full suggested that 'civil disruption' and protest would be in order to establish these things. ...snip... To be fair to them it doesn't really, what they say is that they won't be forced to act against their religious beliefs even if that means "civil disobedience". .... Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family....
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

26th November 2009, 05:56 AM	#9
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	Thank you for that Grayman; my apologies for my additional post.
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	__________________ *...people of faith who are that intelligent they've only managed to fool themselves* - MARDUK

26th November 2009, 05:57 AM	#10
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	Quote: To be fair to them it doesn't really, what they say is that they won't be forced to act against their religious beliefs even if that means "civil disobedience". What do You take that to mean and does the declaration mean anything at all?
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	__________________ *...people of faith who are that intelligent they've only managed to fool themselves* - MARDUK

26th November 2009, 06:01 AM	#11
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 47,685	Originally Posted by Hux What do You take that to mean and does the declaration mean anything at all? I take it to mean that, as they give examples in the declaration, if the state says "you must marry these two men" they want "Christians" (in quotes as there are many Christians that do not support such a view) to refuse to do so. It is a piss-poor "declaration" - indeed in the preamble they mention the likes of John Wesley and William Wilberforce, what would have served them better was to read the polemics and "declarations" authored by such people if they wanted to create a declaration that had some heat and passion.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

26th November 2009, 06:11 AM	#12
grayman Happy-go-lucky Heretic Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Casa del Whacko Posts: 5,650	Originally Posted by Hux Thank you for that Grayman; my apologies for my additional post. No apologies necessary.
	__________________ Stupidity is a condition. Ignorance is a choice. - Wiley All great truths begin as blasphemies. - George Bernard Shaw The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. - George Bernard Shaw

26th November 2009, 07:23 AM	#13
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,224	Originally Posted by Darat Got a link to the actual agreement? http://manhattandeclaration.org/imag...eclaration.pdf
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,224	__________________ Laugh while you can, monkey boy.

26th November 2009, 09:02 AM	#14
Ladewig Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 8,958	From the Marriage section: Originally Posted by Manhattan Declaration To strengthen families, we must stop glamorizing promiscuity and infidelity and restore among our people a sense of the profound beauty, mystery, and holiness of faithful marital love. We must reform ill-advised policies that contribute to the weakening of the institution of marriage, including the discredited idea of unilateral divorce. That is certainly your right. Feel free to argue against depravity and for holiness. Quote: We must work in the legal, cultural, and religious domains to instill in young people a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it requires, and why it is worth the commitment and sacrifices that faithful spouses make. OK, here's where my interest is piqued. You plan on working in the legal domain to instill in young people the sacrifices that faithful spouses make. What specific laws do you intend to pass? Quote: The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law Ah, the gays didn't cause this immorality, they are merely a symptom of this immorality. I was wondering why Pat Robertson didn't sign this document; now I know - it didn't go far enough in assigning blame.
	__________________ When I see all the kooky things posted on the JREF forums, I can't help but think of Max Bialystock's lament: "They come here, they all come here, how do they find us?"

26th November 2009, 09:28 AM	#15
decojuicer Student Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 41	Quote: We must work in the legal, cultural, and religious domains to instill in young people a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it requires, and why it is worth the commitment and sacrifices that faithful spouses make. Sounds to me like they are are saying that they are going to become actively involved in politics. If that is the case, then every church that signs this declaration should have it's tax exempt status revoked immediately,
decojuicer Student Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 41

26th November 2009, 09:39 AM	#16
shadron Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 3,856	Originally Posted by Darat I take it to mean that, as they give examples in the declaration, if the state says "you must marry these two men" they want "Christians" (in quotes as there are many Christians that do not support such a view) to refuse to do so. I imagine that it will fight against requirements that religious medical institutions perform forbidden procedures such as abortions, voluntary sterilizations, euthanasia or anything else they or any of their providers believe to be immoral. That is one of the sticking points over here with respect to universal medical coverage: they want to participate in the coverage, but they don't want to have to perform the procedures that the ungodly want done.

26th November 2009, 09:47 AM	#17
Sledge Muse Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Coming to you live from the Sledge cave Posts: 901	It's so nice to see religions coming together thanks to their shared intolerance. Why stop at just Christian groups, though? I'm sure they could get some Muslims onboard if they were willing to stretch a point and oppress women as well.
	__________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.

26th November 2009, 10:38 AM	#18
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,224	Originally Posted by Ladewig You plan on working in the legal domain to instill in young people the sacrifices that faithful spouses make. What specific laws do you intend to pass? I imagine this translates into some form of "outlaw divorce". Originally Posted by decojuicer Sounds to me like they are are saying that they are going to become actively involved in politics. If that is the case, then every church that signs this declaration should have it's tax exempt status revoked immediately, I doubt that churches sign, and individuals aren't tax-exempt today.
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,224	__________________ Laugh while you can, monkey boy.