A manifesto called "The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience" was recently published by a diverse collection of religious leaders. This seven-page document focuses on three aspects of America's descent into God-less immorality: the sanctity of life, the definition and meaning of marriage and religious freedom.
After reading the declaration, I was struck by its humility, civility and compassion. The signatories are self-admitted imperfect humans whose lives have fallen short of divine intentions. The writers obviously drafted the document within a framework of love (not hate, as a few cynics will claim) and a genuine concern for the common good (not prejudice, as a few cynics will claim).
At the same time, the positions contained in the declaration are unequivocal, including a call to civil disobedience when certain laws force us into doing things that violate our conscience.
All people of goodwill (believers and non-believers) should seriously consider supporting this declaration. If you care about the disintegration of our society and the tyranny we are slouching toward, give serious thought to adding your signature at manhattandeclaration.org.
Gordon L. Shadle
Albany
After reading the declaration, I was struck by its humility, civility and compassion. The signatories are self-admitted imperfect humans whose lives have fallen short of divine intentions. The writers obviously drafted the document within a framework of love (not hate, as a few cynics will claim) and a genuine concern for the common good (not prejudice, as a few cynics will claim).
At the same time, the positions contained in the declaration are unequivocal, including a call to civil disobedience when certain laws force us into doing things that violate our conscience.
All people of goodwill (believers and non-believers) should seriously consider supporting this declaration. If you care about the disintegration of our society and the tyranny we are slouching toward, give serious thought to adding your signature at manhattandeclaration.org.
Gordon L. Shadle
Albany
This is why I don't think these people represent Jesus Christ. With poverty, illness, and famine these peoples concerns are gay marriage and abortion?
ReplyDeleteBigotry dressed in flowery language is still bigotry.
Here's an excellent rebuttle of their marriage argument:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathaniel-frank/christian-leaders-scapego_b_370525.html
Their #2 and #3 are in conflict. I don't believe that they support the freedom of the Universal Unitarians' religion since they support same-sex marriage.
ReplyDeleteThe whole thing is designed to look like broad, loving ideals when, in fact, they are rigid, self-serving definitions.
Sanctity of life? How about a pregnant woman's life when she's been raped or a girl's life who will suffer abuse when her parent finds out she is pregnant because she is forced out of a choice?
And where do they stand on the sanctity of life regarding death-row inmates and innocent victims of war?
Some interesting comments on the thread. Good for you Ajai.
ReplyDeleteGuess I took the bait, good to test the old voice profile, anyways. I will now return to my regular policy of avoiding posting. I would say I had purposefully avoided discussion, but the truth is I'm not sure what everyone on that thread is getting at. Posters on that site are so unclear about the administrators posting policies, some are forced to be so vague that it makes discussion difficult.
ReplyDeleteGreat job, Ajai! You shouldn't feel bad about posting at all. Interesting that the discussion is about "choice" and not about "morality" which is what the letter was about.
ReplyDeleteIf it's been decided that being Gay is a choice, I wonder if anyone has told the Gay sheep at OSU and the researchers who are trying to figure out why.
By the way, an ad hominem argument is not, necessarily, a fallacious argument. Often, it's entirely appropriate. Joe is known to lie about things, Joe says he saw a ufo...Joe may not be a good source of information.
My Uncle was stationed in Idaho during WW2. He says he saved the state from the Nazis....reminds me of the guy who "cured" himself of gayness. Hard to disprove, but also hard to believe.
One other thing, an appeal to authority is an inverse ad hominem argument.
ReplyDeleteJust sayin'.....
Here's the link, as it's not on the most commented anymore.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gazettetimes.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_860075f2-dfd3-11de-8da1-001cc4c03286.html?mode=story
Oh but it's under Rebecca Stillwell's letter.
ReplyDeleteSorry I broke my boycott, guys!
ReplyDeleteNo prob. Always good to have VH1.
ReplyDeleteI had to re-register to post. Then it said my original username, VH was already taken...so I became a video channel...
ReplyDeleteI felt compelled to tell Barefoot, too. He said that he understands...that he has always said that TT is the most dishonest poster there.
ReplyDeleteI cannot post on the GT site for some reason, only on the DH site.
ReplyDeleteTT is an arrogant arse.
Good for you Vicky and Ajai!
Good to hear from you, momofthree.
ReplyDeleteI'm completely drained after that round with the Word-Sausage Maker.
That last post, the quote by Nathaniel Frank, was just beautiful.
ReplyDeleteTT says:
ReplyDelete"All that I am saying is this:
The government should stop legally recognizing marriages and start legally recognizing households (yes, ALL households).
What is so wrong with this idea?"
The answer is, by doing this you actually DO redefine the marriage contract which is and has always been a contract between TWO people.
If you change that contract to include "households" you will have to completely rewrite that contract in order to deal with how to deal with multiple people with regard to issues such as inheritance rights, social security benefits and visitation rights.
Sorry, still can't bring myself to post to that dumb rag. But you all are doing fantastic!
TT says;
ReplyDelete"It's bad enough that opposite-sex marriages have to be legally recognized, and opposite-sex couples need to work on getting the government completely out of the marriage business instead of working to INCREASE the amount of government involvement in marriage."
It is not at all difficult to get the government out of your marriage, it's called DIVORCE.
Just got to the end of the posts. You two did awesome! TT is aggravating and seems to have great interest in this particular subject, no matter what the original point of the discussion was.
ReplyDeleteVicky, I think you really hit the nail on the head when you attacked his motives for his argument. And, Ajai, you always bring wisdom to any discussion.
You are both awesome!
Thanks Tom.
ReplyDeleteI avoided getting into the head of household argument with TT because it is just an attempt by him to distract from the actual issue. Just as is his 'reason' for opposing same-sex marriage. The dishonesty is beyond belief.
I agree with you though. I did some thinking on this some time ago when we had this discussion on the GT. Think of the changes to the tax system...how many children would a polygamous marriage be able to write off on their tax return? For that matter, there would have to be a whole new category of filing, Married Filing Jointly, Jointly, Jointly,...
I've always got the impression that Kevin is LDS. I wonder if he is FLDS since he hints at polygamy.
I liked Kenny D's original post on Rebecca Stillwell's letter.
ReplyDeleteI had two of TT's posts removed for including my name in them.
ReplyDeleteHow did he know your name?
ReplyDeleteOk, just wanted to give a little support to Ajai, so I broke my rule and posted a comment.
ReplyDeleteI am done, but great job, Ajai!
"How did he know your name?"
ReplyDeleteI wrote a letter to the editor at one point responding to his slippery-slope letter regarding gay marriage leading to legalization of incest.
Yes, Ajai, you're doing quite well at keeping your cool amidst a wall of obstinacy.
ReplyDeleteGreat comment on the GT, Tom!
Thanks Vicky!
ReplyDeleteYou also did an excellent job using logic and evidence (spelled correctly here), to support your position.
I think getting out when you did was the way to go. That guy argues in circles and, at some point, seems to only post in order to read his own pompous retorts.
Better to leave such a sad person alone to wallow in their own filth. BF is right, TT is the most dishonest poster out there.
I like all the responses, though I did use Kevin's name once in a post, but now do not.
ReplyDeleteThanks, I am trying to veer my way out of the vortex, but I really do find some of his posts revealing, and not in the way he intends. I stopped taking him seriously after my first exchange with him, it makes me laugh to try, but yes, repetition grows stale.
Oh, hey, don't stop on my account! I've enjoyed reading you wipe the floor with his asinine arguments. I just wanted you to know that if you gave it up, no one would blame you.
ReplyDelete283 comments...that's pretty impressive.
I remember you used Kevin's name, but it made sense then. The topic was anonymity in the forum for which, I believe, Kevin was saying that people should sign their names to their posts, all the while posting as TT (I believe this was the case).
ReplyDeleteKevin used my name in his posts to be an asshole, that's completely different. For that, I had them removed.
I find it hilarious that every time TT doesn't like what a person says, he drudges up a logical fallacy, whether it fits or not, whether he commits them or not.
ReplyDeleteWeak...
It's a good thing I wasn't drinking milk when I read your last post regarding the ZING! one...
ReplyDeletefor some reason I am unable to post on the GT site, only the DH site.
ReplyDeletedunno why...
That's weird, you should contact Matt.
ReplyDelete