posted
Why not? Because you you've been in enough of these conversations that you know that those assumptions are not shared with your audience, you know that it's a loaded question, and you know that while it's great for rhetoric, it's unlikely to to lead to useful communication.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tresopax, would you feel the same way if the majority of voters had religious beliefs that were abhorant to you?
If that were the case, I'd think they should get a better religion.
And I'd think there should exist certain Constitutional rights that can't be easily changed for any reason, religious or nonreligious. If the majority passes some abhorant law, it really doesn't matter if their reasons are religious or nonreligious; it's abhorant either way.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB- I'm not making an argument that religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote. It seems like you interpreted my statement in that way.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:How is it not determining someone's life goal if someone's goal is to marry someone they love and have a family?
They can still have that goal - it will just be harder to achieve it. I suppose you could say it is discouraging them to have such a life goal though.
But that's the role of government in a democracy. It passes laws that restrict people's lives as the majority deem necessary, within the limits given to it. That does mean it is often in the business of influencing life goals, in a sense.
But it definitely can't say "Your goal in life is to marry someone of the opposite sex" or "Your goal in life is to buy fancy cars" or whatever. It can encourage or discourage options, but it doesn't get to make my choice for me.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If that were the case, I'd think they should get a better religion. "
Get a better religion. The one you have is making you believe that abhorrent voting patterns are acceptable.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: BB- I'm not making an argument that religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote. It seems like you interpreted my statement in that way.
No, but it seems that you are of the opinion that adding religion to the thought process is always to reasons' detriment.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: BB- I'm not making an argument that religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote. It seems like you interpreted my statement in that way.
No, but it seems that you are of the opinion that adding religion to the thought process is always to reasons' detriment.
Isn't this pretty much what every atheist thinks? If you're starting from false premises, you can never reach a logically valid conclusion.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"My religion does not make any claims about what voting patterns are acceptable.... "
I didn't say it did. I said that your religion is leading you to believe that the voting practice of banning gays from the institution of marriage is not abhorrent.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't say it did. I said that your religion is leading you to believe that the voting practice of banning gays from the institution of marriage is not abhorrent.
But again, it's not my religion that's leading me to believe that.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: BB- I'm not making an argument that religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote. It seems like you interpreted my statement in that way.
No, but it seems that you are of the opinion that adding religion to the thought process is always to reasons' detriment.
Isn't this pretty much what every atheist thinks? If you're starting from false premises, you can never reach a logically valid conclusion.
Good luck always starting from a completely sound premise then. Also the assumption that every religion in inherently false is probably a bolder statement than anything a SSM opponent has said in this thread.
---- Paul:
quote:Yes. Using un-reason in a reasoning process is always to the detriment of reason.
Until you can find a way out of "religion = unreasonable" you will be doomed to be religion's opponent. I can acknowledge that religions often ask strange things of its' followers and I do not believe all of them are good things, but even if I rejected Mormonism I would not be ready to say that all religions are fundamentally wrong, I just wouldn't know enough to say that. You could spend a lifetime and not know all religions that have ever existed. I can accept the idea, "I have simply not been exposed to a religion that impressed me as more reasonable than not" but it strikes me as unwise to say, "All religions make their followers less capable of reason."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also the assumption that every religion in inherently false is probably a bolder statement than anything a SSM opponent has said in this thread.
That's a non sequitur. Rather, the assertion is that using an argument which relies on non-rational (i.e. religious) premises is always less rational than using an argument that does not.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also the assumption that every religion in inherently false is probably a bolder statement than anything a SSM opponent has said in this thread.
That's a non sequitur. Rather, the assertion is that using an argument which relies on non-rational (i.e. religious) premises is always less rational than using an argument that does not.
Again you are making the assumption that religion is irrational, which to me is still a bolder statement than anything said by a SSM opponent.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"but even if I rejected Mormonism I would not be ready to say that all religions are fundamentally wrong,"
See, I am. ( Because there are two premises in all religions that is necessary for them to not be fundamentally wrong, and that is "God exists," and "God speaks to us."
Since I think the first premise is not true, I'm pretty comfortable saying that all religions are fundamentally wrong. (Granted, I could be wrong about god existing. I think thats a pretty slim possibility, though).
"but it strikes me as unwise to say, "All religions make their followers less capable of reason.""
I didn't say this. What I am saying is "Using religious reasoning means you are using a less reasoned process than if you excluded the religious reasoning," and by "religious reasoning," here I mean, more or less, "assuming that you have knowledge from god."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul: But to say simply "are" instead of "I believe are" is still quite a stretch. How can you pronounce a judgment over something as vast as religion when you yourself are not even mostly acquainted with it?
Tom: I don't quite follow what you are saying. Religion is irrational so that we can conveniently call something else philosophy?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh. I tend to classify religions as "Things which formalize the relationship with the divine, whatever the divine might be." I'm ok with my statement applying only to those belief structures that have a divine, and limiting it that way.
Edit: The above was to mucus, who seems to have deleted his post.
BB- Well, when something shows up that could reasonably be construed to be god, then I'll re-evaluate. But since there's nothing that we've found that exists that could reasonably construed to be god, I'm ok with my statement.
But in order to not just throw religion out as meaningless, the first thing we need to do is actually have a god.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Religion is irrational so that we can conveniently call something else philosophy?
No. Rather, religion is irrational for other reasons. It is those reasons which distinguish religion from philosophy. Note, by the way, that "irrational" is not synonymous with "wrong."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
(I deleted my post because I thought I was parsing PG's post improperly, but I think he might have answered before I deleted with the response on the divine. Sorry for any confusion)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I said that your religion is leading you to believe that the voting practice of banning gays from the institution of marriage is not abhorrent.
quote:So, on which non-religious grounds do you think that how we treat gays is not abhorrent?
You are changing your question. Are you asking about whether "the voting practice of banning gays from the institution of marriage" is abhorant? Or are you asking whether "how we treat gays" is not abhorrent?
In regards to voting practices, my view is based in philosophy and a fundamental belief in democracy. I'll give a very general outline of why: I think democracy functions best if people are well-informed and then vote for what they consider to be best, within rules defined by a constitution. "What they consider to be best" is something that factors in all sources of evidence according to their personal judgement. This is how democracies have always worked in modern times, for the most part, and I think they are generally successful. So, that means if someone thinks that banning gays from the institution of marriage is truly better for the country, they should vote for it, regardless of what kinds of evidence (religious or nonreligious) lead them to that conclusion. The rules of the constitution then exist to help protect the minority from any abhorrent foolishness on the part of the majority. My view is that history has shown this form of government to be effective - and I think that logic/philosophy seems to back it up.
In regards to whether "how we treat gays" is not abhorrent, I never said that. If you are talking specifically about the fact that gays can't get their marriages formally recognized by the government, I don't find that abhorrent because my personal observations have been that the harm caused by it doesn't rise to the level of "abhorrent". I'd reserve that word for more extreme things along the lines of murder, rape, lynchings, etc. I think not being able to legally marry poses a dilemma for gay couples, but I don't think it ruins their lives or prevents them from having a worthwhile relationship.
Regardless, neither of these has much to do with my religion. I can't remember homosexuality as a topic ever coming up at church, and I frankly don't see why it should be considered a significant issue in the Bible. Also, the Bible, my church, and Christianity has little-to-nothing to say about what form of government is best or how we should vote, as far as I'm concerned. If I were to attempt to form an opinion based entirely on my religion, and nothing else, I'd probably assume that Jesus would want gay couples to be married and would state that they are just as worthy as anyone else in the eyes of God.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also the assumption that every religion in inherently false is probably a bolder statement than anything a SSM opponent has said in this thread.
The assumption is not that all are false, but that none can be demonstrated to be true.
Right. So to use whatever religion to guide your own life, great. There should be a demonstration of why when you encode something into law and impose your beliefs on others.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's a non sequitur. Rather, the assertion is that using an argument which relies on non-rational (i.e. religious) premises is always less rational than using an argument that does not.
There's no such thing as non-rational premises. There's wrong premises and right premises, but rational applies to lines of reasoning, not to the premises that you start from.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, yes, we all know what I'm talking about. Are you of all people going to start caring about syntax? Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres- You don't think treating a class of people as second class citizens, in such a way that these people have higher suicide rates and higher rates of mental illness than the rest of the population, is abhorrent? What word would you use to classify it?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You don't think treating a class of people as second class citizens, in such a way that these people have higher suicide rates and higher rates of mental illness than the rest of the population, is abhorrent?
I do think that's abhorrent (unless there's a good reason for it.) I don't think that failing to recognize SSM necessarily makes gay people into second class citizens though. Gay people are often treated as second class citizens in other ways in our society that rise to the level of abhorrent, though.
------
Incidently, I'd like to add that if I were to take religion entirely out of the equation, I'd probably feel considerably less concerned about the treatment of gay couples in our country. My religion entails the idea that we are supposed to help those who are treated poorly. That leads me to want to support measures that help gay couples not suffer. If I were to take that religious view entirely out of the equation, as some are suggesting, I'd probably be left with a much more apathetic view toward the suffering that minorities undergo. It's much easier to justify not caring about or hating a group of people from a secular viewpoint than from the viewpoint of how I'd interpret Christianity.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I were to take that religious view entirely out of the equation, as some are suggesting, I'd probably be left with a much more apathetic view toward the suffering that minorities undergo.
Really? Why? Do you really think you wouldn't care about strangers unless God told you to? I don't believe that.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Really? Why? Do you really think you wouldn't care about strangers unless God told you to? I don't believe that.
I didn't say I definitely wouldn't care about strangers; I just think it would be easier to justify not caring about strangers. In my view of Christianity, "care about strangers" is basically written in bold at the top of page #1 on the list of things to do. That makes it tough to ignore. From a secular viewpoint, there's not really any list given, and there's no scientific evidence telling us we always should care about people. I assume I'd still care, if only because it'd feel like the right thing to do, and because I suspect one could logically derive it with a bit of introspection. But if I wanted to rationalize not caring about someone, I'd think it'd be easier since it would just require altering a few assumptions of my moral calculus.
I'm generally amazed at Christians who say things like "God hates gays" because in my view, it seems to require basically ignoring the whole focus of the religion.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I'm copping out? Pot, meet kettle. How about you list the ways you've hurt people with your well intentioned support for SSM.
Sure. Here's my list:
1. I've told people on the internet what I think of them.
2. Nope. Just the one.
Now will you answer my questions? As a remiinder:
quote: Yes, you, like many other parents, have to discuss with your children that not everyone agrees with your views. Can you for a moment imagine the conversations that SS couple have to have with their children?
Have they taken away your legal right to have a family?
And to return to my original point, do you really think that the "incivility" that people have suffered (and, again, I wish that were not so) has come anywhere near the "incivility" shown to homosexuals? Really?
Yes. No. Yes. Yes.
If you want to answer my question more thoughtfully I will be glad to do the same for yours.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you have any statistics on the number of people brutally killed for opposing SSM? I can give you some for people who have been brutally killed for being homosexual. I think that's a pretty high level of incivility.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure how opposition to Prop 8 gets transformed into brutal killing.
Lots of Mormons were brutally killed in the 1830s. I wouldn't lay those crimes at the feet of people who opposed polygamy politically.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And to return to my original point, do you really think that the "incivility" that people have suffered (and, again, I wish that were not so) has come anywhere near the "incivility" shown to homosexuals? Really?
(where 'people' in this context is the same as the people hurt by support for SSM).
You answered Yes and Yes.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Do you have any statistics on the number of people brutally killed for opposing SSM? I can give you some for people who have been brutally killed for being homosexual. I think that's a pretty high level of incivility.
Here are some statistics:
The FBI reported 7,722 incidents of hate crimes in 2006, of which 16 percent were because of their sexual orientation.
In 2007 the FBI reported 7,624 hate crime incidents (involving 9006 offences). 16.6% were motivated from a sexual orientation basis.
A partial list of people murdered in the US last year because of their sexual orientation - or suspected orientation:
Duanna Johnson Lawrence King (15) Steven Parrish (180 Tony Hunter (27) Lateisha Green Romel Sucuzhanya, (31) – not gay, just suspected of being gay Durval Martin (35) Avery Elzy and Michael Hunt (along with their dog)
(edit - one of them - Michael Causer was not in the US)
posted
I am saddened that people have been murdered. I know it would be a better world if murders didn't occur. But I don't recognize how these murders can substantively be argued to be a result of opposition to the legalization of SSM.
Mormons were murdered by people. The people who murdered Mormons probably supported efforts to outlaw polygamy. But to say that support for outlawing polygamy created the harm of Mormons being killed is incorrect.
Similarly, homosexuals have (among other things) been murdered. People who have murdered homosexuals probably also oppose legalizing SSM. However I don't see how the political effort to prevent the legalization of SSM can be shown in any meaningful way to lead to the harms suggested.
Glenn's example of suicide is much stronger, but I still reject it (inasmuch as "social approval" consists of much more than the recognition by the state of your sexual relationship).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't say I definitely wouldn't care about strangers; I just think it would be easier to justify not caring about strangers. In my view of Christianity, "care about strangers" is basically written in bold at the top of page #1 on the list of things to do. That makes it tough to ignore. From a secular viewpoint, there's not really any list given, and there's no scientific evidence telling us we always should care about people. I assume I'd still care, if only because it'd feel like the right thing to do, and because I suspect one could logically derive it with a bit of introspection. But if I wanted to rationalize not caring about someone, I'd think it'd be easier since it would just require altering a few assumptions of my moral calculus.
quote:When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I was not a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
I was first read this in elementary school. While I've done a lot of introspection and study of objective morality since then, I don't think I'd ever need anything more than that poem to tell me to care about other people.
Humanity's in this together. I don't need God to tell me that.
Not to mention Exhibit B:
quote:I'm generally amazed at Christians who say things like "God hates gays" because in my view, it seems to require basically ignoring the whole focus of the religion.
I have not seen any indication that religion by itself makes anyone more moral. There will always be people ignoring the truths found in religion and secular ethics and the "First they came" poem (which I realize was written by a pastor, but does not rely on you having any religious background to understand). Those people are capable of mangling religious definitions just as well as they are at avoiding secular ethical thought.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I don't recognize how these murders can substantively be argued to be a result of opposition to the legalization of SSM.
Because opposition to SSM is one facet of discrimination towards gays. It's an implicit societal nod to the idea that gays are "other" and "other" people are the ones that get murdered.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
To expand on what Matt said - legalizing gay marriage will not end all hate crimes against gays and eliminate all suicides, but it would certainly help.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You weren't asked if opposition and support for SSM had generated similar levels of incivility, you were asked if incivility to people opposed to SSM and incivility to homosexual people were of similar levels. Was your response a misunderstanding over what the question was?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have not seen any indication that religion by itself makes anyone more moral. There will always be people ignoring the truths found in religion and secular ethics and the "First they came" poem (which I realize was written by a pastor, but does not rely on you having any religious background to understand). Those people are capable of mangling religious definitions just as well as they are at avoiding secular ethical thought.
quote:Gallup Polls conducted in more than 140 countries worldwide between 2006 and 2008 show that those whose responses identify them as highly religious are more likely than less religious respondents to report that they have engaged in each of three "helping behaviors" in the past month. In all four major global regions, for example, highly religious people are more likely than those who report being less religious to report having donated money to a charity in that time.
The pattern is similar when Gallup asked respondents whether they had volunteered their time to an organization in the month prior to being surveyed. Though the overall numbers are lower here in all regions except Africa, highly religious respondents are again more likely to say "yes" than those who are less religious.
One question these findings raise is the degree to which highly religious people reserve their charitable activities for members of their own religious communities. After all, many religions encourage -- or even require -- members to donate their time or money to their local faith-based organizations. Are highly religious people also more likely than those who are less religious to say they've helped a stranger in the past month? The answer is yes -- though the differences are smaller in this case.
The "religion effects" we see in these questions are consistent not only across the major global regions, but also consistent across the world's largest faith traditions, including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism. Among respondents who identified with each of these major religions, those who fall into the highly religious category are more likely than those who are less religious to say they've engaged in all three helping behaviors, with differences for helping a stranger ranging from 7 percentage points among Buddhists to 15 points among Jews.
This does not show that religions make people more moral, but it does suggest that religion correlates to caring about others.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
I parsed the question that way first, but then assumed she meant incivility generated as a result of the measure. If what she means is incivility in general then I don't understand the question's relevance.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: This does not show that religions make people more moral, but it does suggest that religion correlates to caring about others.
Actually, it suggests that being a highly motivated member of a religious group correlates to working with that religious group. Not exactly surprising.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't donating to one's church count as a charitable donation? Likewise volunteering at a church function presumably counts as volunteering time to an organization.
It's not surprising that people who have elected to join a particular community are active in the community. Unfortunately, I can't count money donated to my rec league soccer team as a charitable donation.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note the third paragraph: "One question these findings raise is the degree to which highly religious people reserve their charitable activities for members of their own religious communities. After all, many religions encourage -- or even require -- members to donate their time or money to their local faith-based organizations. Are highly religious people also more likely than those who are less religious to say they've helped a stranger in the past month? The answer is yes -- though the differences are smaller in this case."
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. Fair enough. (That's certainly more evidence than I was aware of)
However, a major qualm I have with this is that it separates "high motivated religion" from everything else. I think "highly motivated community group" would give you roughly the same numbers. (I do suspect that there's more community groups based around religion than secular ones, mostly because religion as a driving force has more inertia).
It also limits the choices to a few specific ways of being a "good person." I maintain a vegetarian lifestyle and conserve energy as much as I can, which I consider to be extremely important. This probably wouldn't count for purposes of that poll, but I'd consider that a form of "donating" to the environment. (I suppose I could justify it as "helping a random stranger," although I did do that recently)
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
