Its not about having to agree, its about when agreement/disagreement is tangetial to the point.

Calling everything and everyone and everyplace “common” this or that makes everything and everyone and everyplace equal. UTOPIA!

Can’t wait for the day, pass me the labeling machine.

I can feel her tensing whenever I have to lead the discussions because she knows I will use it. I can’t help it. It’s to much fun. Just rolls of the tongue.

True, Christ is Lord and Savior to Christians; that is, he’s the object of the faith of Christians. It’s not fair to say, however, that other belief systems and philosophies aren’t as committed to (“possessive of”) the objects of their faith, as it were. Most athiests I’ve encountered are pretty “possessive of” their disbelief in God, Buddhists are quite sure that their way is the path to Enlightenment (to the point of being “possessive of” it), and Democrats are “possessive of” their positions on issues and preferred policies. In each case, many people who espouse these belief systems will argue their positions with passion, intensity, and dare I say, zeal to rival any Christian. To sum up, people who adamantly hold to their belief system of choice (even to the point of attacking others who don’t share their beliefs) are not exclusive to Christianity. It’s unfair of you to state, either explicitly, implicitly, or by logical extension, that dogmatism is 1)inherent to Christianity and 2)found in Christians alone.

And you still haven’t addressed the logical fallacy of your statement, which seems to imply that people should only discuss topics with people with whom they agree. Consensus is not a prerequisite of reasonable discussion.

The PC crowd didn’t get coined ‘bleeding heart liberals’ for nothing. Their heart bleeds for any’one’ at the expense of the ‘Common Culture’ of America, to the point of the appearance of ‘Contempt’ for its heritage. In their ‘sensitivity gone wild’ behaviors, they are unwittingly(or on purpose)attempting to change the full, rich, spicy and unique ‘American Soup’ for a lite, poor, bland, and neutral ‘World Soup’.

In fact, if you look at the pattern(behavior), they have big problems with America in general. They don’t like its founders heritage, its religious heritage, its self-reliance heritage, its capitalistic heritage, its war heritage, its patriotic heritage, its moral heritage, etc, etc. If in doubt about this, don’t read their lips during an election, watch the behaviors between.

What they do like is the ‘freedom’ given to them by our founders and defended for them by our war dead; the freedom of assembly to desecrate our flag, the freedom of speech to desecrate our fighting men, the freedom of press to support our enemies and demoralize us during war, the separation of powers to remove ‘God’ (horrors) from everything including the Constitution (the goal post) via un-elected Justices, the freedom of speech to use our educational institutions to rail on our culture and our country before our children, etc, etc, etc.

I am not a Christian with a religious agenda nor am I advocating change of our freedoms wisely written into our great Constitution. I am just saying to those so ‘freely’ and ‘harshly’ accusing and abusing the country their freedoms derive from;

Where’s the Respect?
Where’s the Responsibility?
Where’s the Love?

I think the logical fallacy is in your analogy. Christ is the lord and savior to christians, something that’s not present in your other analogies. Its something christians are pretty possessive of.

Try replacing “christians” and “christ” with with signifiers of any other belief system (e.g. “Isn’t it a good idea for non-Buddhists to stay away from referencing Buddha?”, “Isn’t it a good idea for non-athiests to stay away from referencing athiesm?”, “Isn’t it a good idea for non-Democrats to stay away from referencing the Democratic Party?”, etc.), and the logical fallacy of your premise becomes readily apparent.

Christianity has impacted civilization more profoundly than any other movement, philosophy, religion, or event in history; its genesis is still the axis upon which history swings. The sign (names) may have changed, but the signifier remains the same. If it’s truly detrimental for non-Christians to reference Christ, and it’s subsequently beneficial for non-Christians to invent new names for BC and AD, would it not be even more beneficial to invent an entirely new calendar system altogether that doesn’t use Christ and the effects of Christianity as its referent?

A start to what? I always get in trouble with my more christian friends when I reference the bible.

But some will not be convinced until it is too late.

Isn’t it a good idea for non-christians to stay away from referencing christ?