Charles Barkley Calls Out “Fake Christians”

NBA analyst and former player Charles Barkley called out “fake Christians” on CNN.

What are fake Christians?

BARKLEY: Well, I think they — they want to be judge and jury. Like, I’m for gay marriage. It’s none of my business if gay people want to get married. I’m pro-choice. And I think these Christians — first of all, they’re supposed to be — they’re not supposed to judge other people. But they’re the most hypocritical judge of people we have in this country. And it bugs the hell out of me. They act like their Christians. And they’re not forgiving at all.

WOLF BLITZER: But you can’t lump all these conservatives as being fake. A lot of them obviously — most of them are very, very sincere in their religious beliefs.

BARKLEY: Well, they should read the part about they’re not supposed to judge other people. They forget that one when it doesn’t fit what they want it to say. ”

Here’s the video:

Of course, the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission was quick to respond:

[Dr. Gary Cass, Chairman and CEO:] “We respect Barkley as an expert on basketball, but he is obviously not an expert on Christian moral theology. The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission calls on Barkley to apologize for his hateful remarks. We are hopeful that he will do the right thing.”

Yes, how dare that Barkley show love for women and gay people.

(via Pam’s House Blend)


[tags]atheist, atheism[/tags]

  • http://off-center.tatuskofam.com Drew

    So one is hateful when telling someone they are hypocrites because they judge other people against the will of their savior. Figure that one out. No don’t try, I don’t want to be responsible for an aneurysm…

  • http://gretachristina.typepad.com/ Greta Christina

    Wait.

    What?

    When Barkley calls people on their hatred and points out that it’s antithetical to one of the central teachings of their religion — and in fairly mild language, at that — suddenly he’s the one that’s hateful?

    These people need to re-read the “mote in your brother’s eye, beam in your own” bit again. (And they should also perhaps be a wee bit more careful about making their opponents’ arguments for them.)

    My head hurts. I need to go lie down now.

  • http://religiouscomics.net Jeff

    I’m impressed. Calling the hypocrites on the carpet. All the power to him!!! Good luck in 2014.

  • Korinthian

    Perhaps not as eloquent as some other “representative” atheists I could mention. I agree with what he is saying though.

  • Nancy

    Go, Charles!!!!! When you run for governor of Alabama you’ll have my vote!

  • http://brownjs.wordpress.com/ J.S.Brown

    What’s up with the menu of seemingly unrelated video clips at that end of this? I see women with excessively large breasts and body builders. LOL

  • Chris

    Wow, the gays have been getting enough trash talk from sports stars…so I appreciate this! Go Charles! How funny that Christians are calling him “hateful” when he’s only pointing out one of their fundamental errors! Figures.

  • Lysander

    They act like their Christians. And they’re not forgiving at all. [emphasis added)

    Okay, who wrote the transcript? I can't help but to read that as, "They act like [the] Christians [they own/who own them].” I always knew they didn’t mind slavery…

    Wait.

    What?

    When Barkley calls people on their hatred and points out that it’s antithetical to one of the central teachings of their religion — and in fairly mild language, at that — suddenly he’s the one that’s hateful?

    These people need to re-read the “mote in your brother’s eye, beam in your own” bit again. (And they should also perhaps be a wee bit more careful about making their opponents’ arguments for them.)

    Hey, now – are you trying to halve the double-standard? I mean, they readily, as you point out, balance their venemous overreaction by proving their opposition correct. No harm, no foul. ;)

  • julie marie

    oh my, I didn’t realize Christians needed an anti defamation league!

  • Darryl

    Chuck is right on. You find any bigger hypocrites than people who make it their business to dictate your personal choices. Christians, like any fundamentalists, never seem to see their own faults.

  • Claire

    Whatever happened to the good old days when the oppressors had the courage of their convictions and were open about how they were upholding whatever damn thing, and didn’t pretend to be the oppressed victims? I miss those days….

  • Dorsey

    Sounds like the response from the commission pretty well illustrates Barkley’s point.

  • I like tea

    oh my, I didn’t realize Christians needed an anti defamation league!

    Of course they do. Who else will stand up for them when some hateful, godless atheist tells them that they can’t dictate morals to everyone else, that their religion can’t be the sole basis of governance, and that the Constitution doesn’t mention God even once? Somebody has to speak out against such logic, er… oppression.

  • http://skepticsplay.blogspot.com/ miller

    While I agree with the general sentiment of Barkley, I disagree with the statement that they are fake Christians. I think that’s too similar to how some fundamentalists would say Catholics and liberals are not real Christians. The definition of “Christian” is not “people who are good”, nor is it “people who are bad”. Being a Christian does not guarantee that you are forgiving. “Fake” is not the right word to describe them. “Hypocritical” and “hateful” are more on target.

  • I like tea

    While I agree with the general sentiment of Barkley, I disagree with the statement that they are fake Christians.

    I’m with you. Christians like to make distinctions about who’s a “true” Christian, but as far as I’m concerned, anyone who says they’re a Christian is a Christian. There’s no other objective way to decide it. You certainly can’t determine it based on who follows the tenets of Christianity, because whoops, the worldwide population of “true” Christians would be zero.

  • http://www.SecularDignity.net Secular Dignity

    WOLF BLITZER: But you can’t lump all these conservatives as being fake.

    Why not? They have no problem lumping everybody else into categories.

  • julie marie

    Who else will stand up for them when some hateful…

    oh, of course. I remember reading about how Jesus had an anti defamation league stand up for him…oh, wait a minute…

  • http://emergingpensees.com MikeClawson

    Running in 2014? Man, and I thought this election season started too early!

  • Tolga K.

    I think Wolf was a little surprised in hearing a potential governor criticize Christianity so openly.

    The first thing he must have thought was: “This guy just lost the election.”

    We need someone like Barkley as president. A guy who’s willing to take a no bullshit stance on every issue.

  • J Myers

    “We respect Barkley as an expert on basketball, but he is obviously not an expert on Christian moral theology.”

    Oh – and how many Christians are such experts?

    As to the issue of demarcation (“fake” vs “true” Christians), I can only conclude that a Christian is one who believes that Jesus lived and was both the “Son of God” and the Messiah prophesied in the OT. The condition of being a Christian is not determined by one’s actions or proclamations, but by one’s beliefs. You might be a “bad” Christian in the context of the value system commonly associated with Christianity, but that does not alter the fact that you are a Christian. If you don’t actually believe that Jesus was the Son of God and the Messiah, then you are not a Christian, no matter how badly you might wish to be.

    They [conservatives] have no problem lumping everybody else into categories.

    Tu quoque.

  • Maria

    Go Charles!

  • Pingback: Charles Barkley blasts the Christian Right, calling them “fake Christians” « The Frame Problem

  • Pingback: The Sirens Chronicles » Dizzy’s Ten Post Round-Up

  • GJ

    J. Myers said,

    “We respect Barkley as an expert on basketball, but he is obviously not an expert on Christian moral theology.”

    You know what they say:

    A theologian is like a blind person in a dark room searching for a black cat which isn’t there… and finding it!
    -(Anonymous?)

  • http://off-center.tatuskofam.com Drew

    “I didn’t realize Christians needed an anti defamation league!” Good point. It’s actually quite offensive give the impetus for the Anti-Defamation League. Clear majorities do not need such groups. And I am not sure who this Commission really speaks for. Until I found the link. Bill O’Reilly is mentioned numerous times on the site. And the focus is overwhelmingly on the United States as well. The focus is clearly not on areas where Christians are a minority and are being persecuted for their beliefs but being tossed into jail and beaten senseless. Regardless of the beliefs that are in question, this is the kind of thing that should be fought against. What’s also disturbing is that this Commission does not get it that when a Christian tells an atheist they are going to hell or if Phelps and his lemmings tell someone they are damned for being gay and hated by God that this is hate speech and requires their attention as well. The group is a farce and an offense.

    http://www.christianadc.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=23299

  • Pingback: Quick Links for Feb. 19, 2008 « What Up JT?

  • chancelikely

    Well, that settles it. Whatever state I’m living in in 2014, I’m voting for the Round Mound of Rebound.

  • J Myers

    GJ, sounds about right to me! I was wondering by what criteria one might qualify as an expert on Christian moral theology…

  • Susan

    J Myers

    I’ve met several people who believe they fit the criteria to qualify as an expert on Christian moral theology. For the most part, you have to be absolutely sure that the other person is going to burn in hell because of their (perceived) imperfections. The next step is to inform them of this “fact.” If they tell you to f-off, then your smugness and sense of superiority assures your qualification as an expert.

  • Siamang

    I don’t know Barkley’s beliefs, but I will point out a (possible) contradiction. He says that Christians shouldn’t judge, but then he goes on to say judgemental things about these “fake Christians”.

    Now, if Barkley isn’t Christian, it’s not hypocritical for him to judge them.

    Now, what I’d like to talk about is that the idea “you shouldn’t judge others” is actually an attempt to shut down conversations that I think we should have.

    I think that people who don’t think that consenting adults should be able to marry their partner, and that the government has the right to look down your pants before telling you if you can get married or not… that’s actually a conversation I think we should have. I’d love…. LOVE to get some of these Christians to justify themselves on this. Not get them to shut up and tell them they shouldn’t judge… because I hold no such rules upon myself… I’m GOING to judge them for their behavior… they need to justify their behavior.

    I’d LOVE to get the Christian establishment to have to justify its behavior. I’d love them to justify it based on the Bible, then we can cross-examine them on that thing and see if they think we should stone adulterers (including divorcees).

    That is a conversation I think America needs to have. Enough of this stuff that’s beyond the scope of polite conversation. This uglyness lives in the shadows if we don’t discuss it. That’s where the uglyness wants to stay.

    Kudos to Barkley at least for bringing up the subject matter.

  • Ed

    Many have asked what does it mean to be a Christian, and an expert on Christian moral theology. Being a Christian, means heeding Christ’s words. Most especially, this means obeying the two most important commandments of God: to worship God, with no other gods before Him, and to love your neighbor as yourself, doing unto your neighbors as you would have them do unto yourselves. “Forgiveness” follows, given that we should forgive every wrong done to us, whether great or small. Christians therefore believe in God, and in Jesus Christ, and in their infinite love and mercy toward us all. Every commandment of God, you see, is issued out of love. God loves us all and He wants us to be happy, and loving to one another. “Christian moral theology” means the morality we gain from Christianity as a religion. Part of this entails seeing that what God defines as sin, is morally wrong. God is absolutely correct, even though it is undoubtedly true that every one of us will sin. We must try to trust in God, and heed Christ’s words to be saved. Jesus Christ is our savior, and we all can have a personal relationship to Him. Charles Barkley said he was “pro-gay marriage” and “pro-choice”. The Bible explicitly states that homosexuality is wrong. Homosexual marriage, or “relations” is explicitly wrong and could have been punished with death. Life begins at conception, so abortion is certainly “murder”, and nothing short of this; but rather more heinous given the innocence of the unborn, and the violation of the sanctity of the womb, wherein the child is nourished and safe. Where we are not to act as judges of our neighbors, is not ever that we shouldn’t reprove them for their immoral actions. Only the Lord can judge, but we can encourage and outright implore our neighbors to obey the Lord “as we would do”. If we are being hypocritical, a big issue may be our reluctance or lethargy to go out of our way to help others come to God. Charity, forgiveness, peace, and respectfulness towards others, are all components of Christian moral theology. Someone might say “Only God knows why a homosexual is a homosexual,” as to the examples of homosexuals who believe they really “are that way”, rather than simply choosing one thing or another. The homosexual is a child of God, who should be shown help and acceptance. If a homosexual feels he can’t shake being so, he simply needs to build a relationship with God and ask God to forgive “tendencies” or “interests”. Sex itself is bound for marriage alone, so a homosexual never should have any sexual relations. If a homosexual is in need of my help, compassion, acceptance, or understanding, I’d be nonjudgmental yet warning and encouraging that the homosexual’s judgment is subordinate to that of the Lord, in whom the homosexual should place more trust. All of us have problems, and are unique. It is very difficult for us as men to advise our neighbors, but religion is a central area in which we have a duty to counsel the doubtful, teach the ignorant, and admonish sinners in such a way as to both welcome and warn.
    Abortion is practically an insane phenomenon today. Any expectant mother, you see, at any stage of her pregnancy, knows she is carrying “a child”, who will die if she doesn’t carry him or her and give birth. Anyone’s decision to get an abortion therefore is necessarily a decision to kill the offspring. There is no question about the lack of compassion or consideration for the unborn child, besides any considerations about what God says about this. For a woman to actually want to kill her offspring is a case where she is knowingly going against nature and that new life, sacrificing love and that new life because she is pressured enough by factors in her life to consider this. I think we have an obligation to protect unborn children, and women from ever wanting to get an abortion. This is a terrible decision.

  • Carry On

    Barkley has a way of cutting through that very stupid idea that everyone should be respectful of any or all religious beliefs. By calling some Christians “fake”, he is saying that not every Christian belief is worthy of respect.

    People who want to control behaviors use whatever thay can to heap abuse on those behaviors. And we all help (more or less) by thinking they have some higher moral compass as Christians or are above criticism by virtue of their religious conviction.

    Not sure why they care what other people do, but the religious aspect is not their major motivation. It’s just used that way. Very “fake”, indeed.

  • J Myers

    Being a Christian, means heeding Christ’s words.

    No, it doesn’t – you might argue that being a “good” Christian means that you heed (what you believe to be) Christ’s instructions, but to simply be a Christian, you need only believe as I described above (how could it be otherwise?). You’ve outlined a value system (some of which I agree with, some of which I find appalling) which many would consider representatively Christian. And yet, there are Christians who would not agree with every value you endorse. Are they not “true” Christians? Why not?

  • http://www.thechristianmanifesto.wordpress.com C.E. Moore

    First, marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution. The state has laws and whatnot that sanction or don’t sanction them. But, marriage is religious in nature, even if you don’t consider yourself to be religious. So, for the church to sanction gay marriage would be–I don’t know–HYPOCRITICAL. The Bible calls it sin, but you’re all for Christians who sanction it. It seems alright to be hypocritical so long as it corresponds with homosexual or atheistic beliefs. Makes sense.

    As for loving women? Give me a break. I understand murder is a sensitive issue for some, but I STILL don’t know why. Forgive me if i’m more concerned with the fact millions babies have been killed over the emotional well-being of women who made a mistake and want to finish college but a baby will ruin their plans.

    Charles Barkley can talk about basketball all day. As for Christian morality, he needs to shut up. Especially given the context of the verses in question. There is a great difference between saying, “The Bible says this is wrong, we agree with Bible, so we do not support it,” and “Because you’re doing something the Bible says is wrong, I hate you and condemn you to hell.” Jesus condemns people to hell at the Judgment. Not Christians in the here and now.

  • AxeGrrl

    Ed said: “Sex itself is bound for marriage alone, so a homosexual never should have any sexual relations. If a homosexual is in need of my help, compassion, acceptance, or understanding, I’d be nonjudgmental yet warning and encouraging that the homosexual’s judgment is subordinate to that of the Lord, in whom the homosexual should place more trust. “

    How would you, as a Christian, feel if a Jewish person told you that you really shouldn’t be worshipping Jesus because he isn’t the real Messiah and your judgement is subordinate to the REAL God, in whom you should place more trust (rather than Jesus) ?

    See the ‘problem’ with what you suggested?

    Just as it would be incredibly disrespectful (and rather arrogant) for a Jewish person to tell a gentile that he/she ‘should’ only eat kosher foods, it’s incredibly disrespectful for a Christian to tell non-Christians to follow Christian rules/commandments. (when you mentioned Christians’ relationship to their ‘neighbors’, I assumed you meant whether those neighbors are Christian or not. If I was mistaken, my apologies)

    Also, in this 21st century, same-sex couples do get MARRIED (here in Canada and many other countries). Not the ‘separate-but-equal’ civil unions, but marriage.

    So, I guess the old ‘celibacy only’ thing for homosexuals is moot :)

  • Siamang

    First, marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution.

    Putting it in all-caps doesn’t make it so.

    The state has laws and whatnot that sanction or don’t sanction them.

    Yeah, and we have to fight tooth and nail against people whose only argument is that gay marriage is against some poem in an old moldy book.

    Hey, if you don’t want gay marriage in your church, don’t have it. But people get married by judges, by ships captains and by non-religious officients. What we’re talking about here is the civil institution of marriage. If marriage was solely religious, I’d get divorced tomorrow. I want nothing to do with it in that case. Either we’re all free, or none of us are.

    Tell me, CE, why do you think the Government has a right to look down a couple’s pants before they are allowed to marry? Just because the bible is against it?

    Here’s a question, why do people who don’t believe your religion still have to follow your religious rules?

    Jesus condemns people to hell at the Judgment. Not Christians in the here and now.

    Christians make this world hell for everyone not in their tribe. Hell is not being allowed, by a supposedly secular government, to marry the love of your life because it contradicts the ancient superstitions of a bigoted majority. Hell is a teenager being thrown out of their home to live on the streets because they’re gay and their parents are “loving Christians doing it for their own good.” Hell is the rift that divides families, nations and the world because everyone so fucking busy fighting over whose invisible friend can beat up whose. Hell is what religion has caused in this world… hatred, division, scorn and the chest-thumping self-superiority of people who appoint themselves the messengers of God’s will.

    Christians judge… you better believe they do. They judge nonbelievers unfit to make decisions for themselves. They claim to own marriage.. to own morality… to own the beginning of life and the end of life…

    Well, sorry, but unless you can give good reasons… good, non-magical reasons that don’t reference your invisible friend…. then you don’t get any more say than anyone else in the matter. And it’s time that people stand up like Charles Barkley and say “enough.” Religious people can’t hide behind “these are my sincere beliefs” anymore. They can’t say “God said it, i believe it, that settles it” and expect that that ends the conversation. It’s time that Americans stop getting steamrolled by people who presume to speak with any greater authority than merely another hairless ape on this tiny speck of dust in the darkness.

    You have an opinion, I have an opinion. We’re merely equals. If you can’t support your argument except by appeal to the supernatural, your argument will be defeated.

    It’s time the human race took the planet back from the invisible imaginary deities which have been making hell on earth. Earth is for the living, it’s high time we took it back from the formless fears concocted by stone-age witch-doctors.

  • http://www.thechristianmanifesto.wordpress.com C.E. Moore

    Siamang–

    If atheists, gays, and abortionists are accepting Charles Barkley as their spokeperson, there is no hope for your cause.

    First, marriage is a religious institution–all caps or not. But, here is my PERSONAL take on it. If the state were to say, “Fine. Gay people can get married,” I wouldn’t care. Why? Because I do not believe the government can actually marry a person. Marriage is religious, not political. If the CHURCH sanctioned it, I’d have a problem. But, currently, I support the government’s stance on the issue. If that stance changes, I will not support it, but I will not attempt to hold the government to my standard of living either. Because of the current interpretation of church and state, I’d really have no say. I can write a letter to my government representatives and exercise my right to vote for someone who supports my religious view. But, I’m not going to go crazy over it. But, you better believe if churches started marrying gay people left and right, they’d be using God’s name in vain by attaching it to something he doesn’t support.

    But, if you’d like practical, non-religious reasons for not allowing it, there are issues of gender identity that need to be considered, sexual dysfunction that stems from homosexual activity, greater risk of loss of a parent (in a male homosexual relationship), and pyschosocial difficulties that are prevalent in homosexual relationships to an alarming degree. Divorce would be an issue. Not the frequency, but how it would be handled. The adoption process would need to be retooled. It would financially damage the economy if it were done enmass. (However, this is the same excuse that was used to prolong slavery, so I will concede that this is NOT the best point.) It would also force companies that are owned and run by those who disagree with the lifestyle to provide benefits to homosexual couples.

    Now, here is where you will tell me that my non-religious considerations are not enough. But, as someone who has studied history, societal construction, psychology, and the economy ad nauseum, I assure you that when the government says, “No gay marriage,” it is not doing so for wholly Christian reasons. In fact, I think making it that simple is just giving the government a scapegoat, rather than having to explain to society the bad news that something like what they’re asking for would take nearly 100 years to effectively implement without crippling the country that allows it. Sure, you can GET married, but expect the cost of living to skyrocket IMMEDIATELY and we will have to pay you less.

    Trust me, gay marriage will become a reality. The government is making moves to assure that it will, so they are certainly not on my side.

  • Claire

    Ed said;

    I think we have an obligation to protect unborn children, and women from ever wanting to get an abortion. This is a terrible decision.

    How perceptive of you to realize that women are just like little children that need to be protected from dangers they can’t handle. So very kind of you to take care of that for us….

    Sarcasm aside – you were right that it is a terrible decision, but so many are – do you really think women are that stupid and irresponsible that they can’t be allowed to make their own decisions? You can’t protect people from making their own decisions without diminishing them.

    Your obsession with other people’s wombs is unhealthy. Please, get over it, for your sake and everyone else’s.

  • Claire

    C.E. Moore said,

    First, marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution.

    And again, crapspackle! It’s a HUMAN institution, it’s a CULTURAL institution, one that religion has hijacked as they try to do with everything important. Sure, there is usually a religious official at the wedding and that’s the end of it. What does the couple do before the wedding? They get a license from the government. When the couple decides to get divorced, where do they go? A government office to file, then the decision is made by a government official. If there are questions over the children, also decided by the government. If one person in a marriage dies without a will, the government decides who inherits.

    Marriage, a permanent bond with the person you love, is a human birthright for everyone lucky enough to make it work. Religion needs to back off and quit trying to co-opt what isn’t theirs.

    Forgive me if i’m more concerned with the fact millions babies have been killed over the emotional well-being of women who made a mistake and want to finish college but a baby will ruin their plans.

    How dare you characterize every woman who has an abortion as a moral lightweight only concerned with her personal convenience? I’m sure pregnant rape victims will appreciate that, you jackass. And like the other guy above, your obsession with other people’s wombs is unhealthy. Get over it. Get your own damn womb if it’s so freaking important to you (and you don’t already have one), but leave everyone else’s ALONE, jerk.

    But, if you’d like practical, non-religious reasons for not allowing it, there are issues of gender identity that need to be considered, sexual dysfunction that stems from homosexual activity, greater risk of loss of a parent (in a male homosexual relationship), and pyschosocial difficulties that are prevalent in homosexual relationships to an alarming degree.

    So, gays are also like little children or developmentally-disabled people who shouldn’t be allowed to make their own decisions? So good of you to take up that burden for them. I’m sure they’ll be grateful.

    I assure you that when the government says, “No gay marriage,” it is not doing so for wholly Christian reasons.

    Ok, so you aren’t just bullshitting us, you are bullshitting yourself. It’s a bunch of powerful people, right wing christian people, abusing their power, and they are SO not doing it for anyone else’s good. How naive do you think we are? How naive are you?

  • Darryl

    I can only conclude that a Christian is one who believes that Jesus lived and was both the “Son of God” and the Messiah prophesied in the OT. The condition of being a Christian is not determined by one’s actions or proclamations, but by one’s beliefs.

    Ed is right, you are wrong: being a Christian is about behavior more than affirmation. Jesus said “By their fruits you shall know them.” Reread his condemnation of the Scribes and Pharisees. He also said: “Not everyone that says to me ‘Lord, Lord” shall enter into heaven . . .” etc., etc.

    Charles Barkley can talk about basketball all day. As for Christian morality, he needs to shut up.

    Remember C.E., Less is Moore.

  • Tolga K.

    If marriage is an entirely religious institution:

    1) It has no business being regulated by law.
    2) The government cannot give benefits to married couples.
    3) If a religion allowed it, then there’s no reason to deny them permission to marry any couple.

    I would prefer that stance. Some of the happiest (and most devoted) couples I know aren’t married. They also have sex and have a kid.

    I’ve also known kids born to (through artificial insemination) or adopted by gay parents, and their only tendency is to be less religious. Could that be what you’re trying to prevent?

  • J Myers

    Darryl: Ed is right, you are wrong: being a Christian is about behavior more than affirmation.

    It should be glaringly obvious how wrong this is — it is the very definition of a No True Scotsman fallacy. If I live in accord with your Christian values but reject the divinity of Jesus, am I then a Christian? Which set of Christian values is the precise set that one can follow to ensure that they are indeed Christian? It’s not as though every (supposed) Christian reaches the exact same conclusion for every ethical consideration — who’s correct? And whoever it is, everyone sins anyway, right? So how can anyone really be a Christian, if everyone fails at some point to exhibit the requisite behavior? Or does one cease to be a Christian after their transgression, but regain their status after they ask for forgiveness (at least until the next time)? You’d better be really good between your last repentance and your death, in that case…. And what if one believes that Jesus lived and was divine, but that the bible as it exists today is a corruption of his teachings resulting from centuries of miscopying and deliberate modification by man? What of all the incipient Christian sects who were stamped out or irreparably marginalized by what later came to be known as orthodox Christianity? A Christian is, by definition, one who believes in the divinity of Jesus. Arguing to exclude people from this category on the basis of their behavior is fallacious.

    C.E.Moore: Charles Barkley can talk about basketball all day. As for Christian morality, he needs to shut up.

    Sorry, everyone is entitled to express their opinion about “Christian morality” or any other set of moral values. You’re welcome to make an argument for your moral system, and while it may be more convenient for you if your ideological opponents simply shut up, you have no right to expect them to do so. Cheer up, though — this means you can talk about basketball if you like, even if you happen to disagree with Sir Charles on that topic, as well.

    As for a “spokesperson” – who said Barkley is anyone’s spokesperson? He’s just a guy with an opinion. Please keep in mind that atheists generally do not have the command structure fetish so often exhibited by dogmatic theists.

  • http://www.thechristianmanifesto.wordpress.com C.E. Moore

    Claire,

    First, marriage IS a religious institution that has societal implications. It is always surrounded by ritual and religious practice, whether one acknowledges that fact or not. It is inherently religious in nature.

    You have railed against my points but you have not said a thing of substance. I was asked for considerations, non-religious ones, and I gave them. You told me to get a womb. It seems anyone can comment on Christianity, but you can only comment on abortion if you have a vagina and a womb. Unless, of course, you’re a man who AGREES with abortion. Then you can talk all you want. Well, so long as we’re being sexist, there are a million and one things women need to shut their traps on then. It’s a human issue lady. They’re killing baby humans. And, no, not every woman who has an abortion does so for selfish reasons. Just a majority of them, statistically speaking. And I know a number of people who are either victims of rape or the product of rape. Some made the decision to have an abortion. Though I disagree with that, I am still compassionate. But, obviously, those who are the product of rape and were allowed to live and have a unique disposition about the matter. Who are YOU to tell them they have no right to life? What makes you any more valuable than another human life?

    Finally, while there are plenty of people in government who are Christians, there are a great number of them who are not who are pushing for gay marriage. Even more, there are Christians who are violating their own beliefs and pushing for it, also. If this were not an issue, it would not constantly be before the House of Reps and the Senate. But it is, A LOT. And gays have made great strides in local, state, and national government to have their agenda met. So, you can tell me I’m bullshitting myself because they haven’t gotten everything they want. But, I bullshit you not that this country is headed towards the legalization of gay marriage within the next 50 years.

  • Claire

    C.E. Moore said,

    It is inherently religious in nature.

    You have railed against my points but you have not said a thing of substance.

    On the contrary, I made several points regarding the secular nature of marriage – I don’t see you refuting them or offering anything ‘of substance’, as you put it, except restating, without any support, that marriage is somehow ‘religious’ in nature.

    They’re killing baby humans.

    No, they aren’t. That’s just your opinion, not a fact. Even what little religious tradition there is on the matter says that life begins with the first breath, not before. This ‘life begins at conception’ is a new idea and has no foundation in either science or religion.

    Who are YOU to tell them they have no right to life?

    There is no ‘right to life’ for any of us. We all die.

    What makes you any more valuable than another human life?

    The underlying, false assumption that fetuses are human life is behind that question. Leaving out fetuses, the answer is: nothing in particular.

  • Claire

    C.E. Moore said,

    So, you can tell me I’m bullshitting myself because they haven’t gotten everything they want.

    Did you ever read what I wrote? Your bullshit involved WHY the people in power are fighting it, that it’s somehow for gay people’s own good and everyone’s good. Yeah, right….

  • Pingback: blacksundae » Blog Archive » Pretty cool for a jock

  • Jen

    First, marriage IS a religious institution that has societal implications. It is always surrounded by ritual and religious practice, whether one acknowledges that fact or not. It is inherently religious in nature.

    So, if and when you decide to get married/got married, you will not/didn’t register with the state?

    Well, so long as we’re being sexist, there are a million and one things women need to shut their traps on then. It’s a human issue lady.

    The one good thing here is it is clear this man will never had sex with a woman. Ergo, his position on abortion doesn’t matter.

    But, obviously, those who are the product of rape and were allowed to live and have a unique disposition about the matter. Who are YOU to tell them they have no right to life? What makes you any more valuable than another human life?

    Children of rape are allowed to go on living, because they were actually born and all. But no fetus has a right to live; I certainly didn’t. Had my mother aborted me, that would be fine- no one would even notice I was missing. On the other hand, my mother was in her late twenties when I was born, and it is possible that at some point in her life prior to me, she had an abortion (I don’t know if she did as it is NONE OF MY FUCKING BUSINESS). If she had an abortion in the past, it is part of the reason I ended up being born- had my parents had sex at any other point other than that one time I was conceived, I, Jen, would not be who I am today.

    I bullshit you not that this country is headed towards the legalization of gay marriage within the next 50 years.

    YAY!

  • Pingback: Christian Anti-Defamation Commission? | Notes From Off-Center

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/3G3SLXNQMTXFUGPML2V32NVXDU Baron

    So what you are saying is that by hating Christians you show love for women and gays!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X