posted
" A Jew who never once steps foot in any house of worship is no more or less a Jew than I am."
A gay man who never has sex is no less gay, a major point in the analogy.
"e. The majority of Jewish houses of worship are called synagogues (or shuls, if you prefer), not temples."
Here in the United States, at least, many synagogues use the title temple, including the largest one here in San Antonio (Temple Beth-El.) I don't know anything about it other than that.
I needed a good analogy and this one worked best. Judaism is far from unique in being both a religion and a culture, but it is unique as an ethnic origin/religion. As you point out, one never ceases to be a Jew, just as one never ceases to be gay.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I appreciate that you brought this up, Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Maybe if society was more accepting, they wouldn't have to worry about being stuck in what could be considered a damaging homosexual community.
When claims are made about negative aspects of homosexual life, I largely feel that negative aspects are CAUSED by those making them. Gays teenagers are more suicidal? Yeah, well when all family and "friends" disown you, that can happen.
Even with promiscuity: when one is told they are incapable of healthy relationships, they eventually adopt that outlook themselves (especially for the younger crowd, who hasn't even realized that a homophobic culture is teaching them that.
Regarding NARTH:
When I was attempting to de-gay myself, I attended NARTH sessions weekly for six months. The only tatics I could identify, were 2) attempts to scare me into thinking I'd be addicted to porn and promiscuous sex with endless amounts of men, and 2) complaining about my parents. I ran out of complaints eventually.
Posts: 17 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"And, for most western religions, being gay itself is not a sin. So what's your point?"
Because having sex is as related to being human as worshiping is to being Jewish, i.e. not everyone does it but one does flow naturally from the other.
As the the nomenclature of Jewish houses of worship, rivka, I am imminently aware of the Temple that was destroyed by the Romans under Vespasian and Titus in 70 A.D. This is well within the history of the Roman Republic and Empire from the time of the Grachi to the Five Good Emperors, the subject about which I am probably most knowledgeable.
As you did not contradict my point that many Synagogues call themselves Temples, I do not see your point.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I have to be blunt. Your attempts at marrying your particular brand of humanism and classic liberalism with western religion is really not working. That may be a valid belief system for yourself, but to tell others that in reality their beliefs are best described by what you are saying is absurd.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bao, I have relied extensively, almost exclusively, on other thinkers in the field, most notably Hans Küng and Paul Tillich, men who are widely considered the preëminent Christian thinkers of the later twentieth century (and, in Fr. Küng's case, the early 21st.)
My concept of religion as "being in the face of non-being" is directly taken from Tillich's work, which is, probably, the most generally agreed upon definition of religion there is.
I apreciate that neither Tillich nor Fr. Küng are well- thought of amoung the most conservative religious leaders, but I am not well-thought amoung the most conservative of religious people
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think ultimately that everyone has different views on the subject. We can debate using logical arguments and sorces, but attacking one another is not going to actually convince anyone. I was disappointed to read Mr. Card's quotes that someone brought forth, but no more so than when my father or a friend has a different philosophy than I do. I disagree with him that homosexual relationships will damage society more than the persecution and banning of them will. However, as far as politics go, people have to try to implement what they believe. Democracy works by rule of majority, thus everyone has to vote as they see fit. (Before anyone brings it up, I do understand all the many different facets to voting, and how our system doesn't always do a great job of expressing majority opinion, but since it's the best one we have, we use it.) Only in voting by our values can we create a society that works best for the majority of Americans. It is a compromise we all agree to every day by simply living in this country, or Canada, or whatever. I hope that our laws will continue to be tolerant in this respect, but by living here, I must accept the laws of the country, and do my best to change them if I disagree with them. However, attacking people NEVER works. I've done it myself when I get frustrated, sure, but I've never had it actually convince anyone of anything. This thread seems to be spiraling into alof of attacking which isn't going to do any good, and is just going to make alot of people angry and LESS tolerant of whatever the other side of the fence is for them.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pel, I'm a big fan of Tillich's writings myself, but to suggest that his work is "the most generally agreed upon definition of religion there is" is laughable. Also, have you read anything of his other than The Courage to Be?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tillich was by far the most influential religious thinker of the twentieth century. Sure, his works are not popular with ultraconservative groups like the Southern Baptist Conference or Opus Dei, but his work is probably more respected than any other theologian.
The problem, of course, is that most people do not think about religion, just as they don't think about anything.
Religion without theology is brain dead, and yet that is how most people live their spiritual lives.
Even amongst the most educated, clappy-happy books by people like Max Lucado (whom I know and am no more impressed in by knowing) or blatant apologetics by people like Peter Kreeft. And, God forbid, the past two Popes have insisted on writing books which have been far more popular than they deserved to be.
I am not a theologian, I did not finish either Tillich's "The Courage to Be" or Fr. Küng's "On Being a Christian," but even I can tell scholarly theology from the masses of "inspirational" books sold daily.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tillich is certainly one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century, but he doesn't stand alone in that company.
I'm not suggesting you compare him with "inspirational" writers, I'm talking about strictly academic theology. Even if you limit yourself to influences on "liberal" theology you would need to add Barth, Bultmann, the Niebuhrs, Moltmann, Bonhoeffer, Wink, Gutiérrez, Brueggemann, Hauerwas, Yoder, Schweitzer . . . just to name a few off the top of my head.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a lot of famous and influential names, but I would argue that Tillich has been more influential than any of them. Bonhoeffer and Schweitzer are certainly amoung the most influential, but their main influence is not philosophical per se. If Schweitzer had not been a humanitarian and Bohoeffer an anti-Nazi, their names would not be as well known as Tillich's.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And you argue this from having started, but not finished, reading one of his books? And, incidentally, the one written for a popular audience, not his systematic theology?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whenever I overhear a debate over whether one individual or another was more influential, my first question is always "influential to which people?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: As you did not contradict my point that many Synagogues call themselves Temples, I do not see your point.
The custom of calling synagogues "temples" was started by a Jewish sect called "Reform", which adopted the practice explicitly in order to deny any connection with the Jewish tradition of praying that the Temple will be rebuilt. Over the decades, this intentional slur/heresy has become an unconscious usage by Jews who don't know any better.
So when a Jew who does know better (that'd be Rivka) points out that you're using the term improperly, the correct response is, "Thank you, Rivka, for educating me. I hadn't known that, and now that you've explained it to me, I won't use the offensive term any more."
D'ya think you can manage that?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope tojump in on this conversation, probably much later than I probably should. Let's look at the logic of disliking Card for his homosexuality views:
a) Christian/Muslim based religions condemn homosexuality, with the exception of some modern liberal Christian branches. b) Card believes homosexuality is wrong because he follows a version of a Christian/Muslim based religion. c) Card is wrong for disagreeing with homosexuality.
To connect the dots: one should not believe in the tenants of one's religion if they are against some said moral principle (in this case, homosexuality). But, by definition, these religions require full obedience: one can't follow only the doctrines he/should chooses. Which means, basically: you think Card has no right to believe in his religion, wholeheartedly and fully, without being criticized.
Believe that if you wish. I actually don't have a problem if someone says, "the fact you completely devote yourself to this religion is wrong." In fact, at one point, I used to believe that. But please don't say, "Card can follow his religion, but shouldn't criticize homosexuality": it's an oxymoron. It's like saying "I think it's totally feasible to believe in all the tenants of the Republican Party. And, on a separate note, I think anyone who cricizes modern abortion laws is a dolt."
As a Christian myself, I believe homosexuality is a choice, whether conscious or not. Just like we choose with whom we fall in love, whether we realize it or not (a lot of people don't: they think it's something that just happens). And I think it's wrong. But I don't have a problem with any homosexual that thinks that Christians are wrong. Where I have a problem is with people who call anyone who disagrees with homosexuality "bigots": we don't hate homosexuals, but we do think what they're doing is wrong. Just like, ideally, homosexuals shouldn't hate religious followers, just disagree with them and their lifestyle. Calling people names, in fact, is just as bad in either direction: whether it's "bigot" for anyone of a religious persuasion (unless it's true, and they really do hate, in which case it's OK), or "fag".
Posts: 11 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
You don't speak for all Christians, just as I don't speak for all secular humanists, and Lisa and rivka don't speak for all Jews, and OSC doesn't speak for all LDS.
Therefore when you say "we don't hate homosexuals" you aren't speaking for everyone. This is evidenced by the fact that around the country, hate crimes have left homosexuals dead, multiple times, for no reason other than their sexual orientation. I won't even go into abortion clinic protestors, bombers, and that vein of thought with Christianity, we all know it's there. I think it is very fair to say that SOME Christians really DO hate homosexuals.
My real problem with organized religions, is that they change over time. That might sound silly, but really, why is homosexuality such a big deal to a religion that used to believe wholeheartedly in summary executions, stonings, slavery, and a litany of the most ridiculous rules I've ever seen. But now all these things are not supported. Christians abhor capital punishment, even as the Bible condones it (the Bible, to be fair, is full of contradiction).
My real problem with Christianity is that they spend more time denouncing homosexuals and women who have abortions, calling them murderers and home wreckers, yet where is that same outrage over the divorce rate of this country? of the number of orphans in this country? of the problems with child abuse, and drugs, and a hundred other things that REALLY destroy families? It is almost laughably ridiculous that they spend their time and millions of their dollars railing against people making private decisions in homes that effect no one but themselves, whilst a hundred other things are going on, unfought by them (at least nowhere near the same level as the Big Two), that really are destroying the families of the nation, and are tearing at the fabric of the nation.
How can they expect me to take them and their issues seriously with all that out in front of them? Maybe they don't, maybe they don't care about what anyone thinks of them, hooray for the nobility of that, but they lose a lot of respect, and all support from me when their behavior is so ridiculously illogical for their stated goals, and considering their history.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My real problem with Christianity is that they spend more time denouncing homosexuals and women who have abortions, calling them murderers and home wreckers, yet where is that same outrage over the divorce rate of this country?
There is plenty of outrage over the divorce rate in this country, but I don't know how or where you would hear about it, since at the moment, it isn't part of a huge, nationally-publicized debate. When you don't belong to a community, you tend to hear what they think about the big conflicts, and not so much what they say to each other about everything else. That doesn't mean they are unconcerned ... only that you are uninformed.
And incidentally, didn't we hear a couple of years ago that worries about the divorce rate had prompted some places to adopt a second tier of marriage that is much harder to sever than a standard marriage? It seems to me that the action you're looking for IS happening. But what else, really, do you expect people to do to lower the divorce rate? Make divorce illegal? I don't think anyone imagines that THAT would be a good idea ...
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My real problem with Christianity is that they spend more time denouncing homosexuals and women who have abortions, calling them murderers and home wreckers, yet where is that same outrage over the divorce rate of this country?
There is plenty of outrage over the divorce rate in this country, but I don't know how or where you would hear about it, since at the moment, it isn't part of a huge, nationally-publicized debate. When you don't belong to a community, you tend to hear what they think about the big conflicts, and not so much what they say to each other about everything else. That doesn't mean they are unconcerned ... only that you are uninformed.
And incidentally, didn't we hear a couple of years ago that worries about the divorce rate had prompted some places to adopt a second tier of marriage that is much harder to sever than a standard marriage? It seems to me that the action you're looking for IS happening. But what else, really, do you expect people to do to lower the divorce rate? Make divorce illegal? I don't think anyone imagines that THAT would be a good idea ...
Why not? Lots of people consider divorce to be a sin. Would you be okay with them forcing their religious take on that issue on the American public?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My real problem with Christianity is that they spend more time denouncing ...women who have abortions, calling them murderers and home wreckers, yet where is that same outrage over the divorce rate of this country?
That's half your "real" problem with Christianity? That some people who call themselves Christian have more outrage about what they consider to be murder than about divorce?
quote:The custom of calling synagogues "temples" was started by a Jewish sect called "Reform", which adopted the practice explicitly in order to deny any connection with the Jewish tradition of praying that the Temple will be rebuilt. Over the decades, this intentional slur/heresy has become an unconscious usage by Jews who don't know any better.
So when a Jew who does know better (that'd be Rivka) points out that you're using the term improperly, the correct response is, "Thank you, Rivka, for educating me. I hadn't known that, and now that you've explained it to me, I won't use the offensive term any more."
D'ya think you can manage that?
Lisa, a large number of people use the word "temple" to refer to their own places of worship. It's not your place to tell Pel - especially if you're going to be so snarky and mean about it - that he shouldn't accomodate their wishes instead of yours.
Information about the different usages of "temple" is certainly welcome. Snark, condescension, and an insistence that someone not involved in the dispute over usage of the term choose one side over the other is not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Lisa, a large number of people use the word "temple" to refer to their own places of worship. It's not your place to tell Pel - especially if you're going to be so snarky and mean about it - that he shouldn't accomodate their wishes instead of yours.
Information about the different usages of "temple" is certainly welcome. Snark, condescension, and an insistence that someone not involved in the dispute over usage of the term choose one side over the other is not.
I disagree. "Synagogue" is acceptable to everyone. "Temple" is not. So when Rivka objected to his use of the word temple, he could have just said, "Okay, got it." Instead, he decided to stand on ceremony and be a jerk about it. I responded to his jerkiness jerkily. More verbosely than Rivka, because in my experience, Rivka doesn't bother wasting time arguing with people who aren't going to listen. I do.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There was a Temple (two, actually), and we await the building of the next one. The majority of Jewish houses of worship are called synagogues (or shuls, if you prefer), not temples
Pel (and his statement is factually true):
quote:Here in the United States, at least, many synagogues use the title temple, including the largest one here in San Antonio (Temple Beth-El.) I don't know anything about it other than that.
Rivka (referring only to the last sentence):
quote:Precisely.
Pel:
quote:As the the nomenclature of Jewish houses of worship, rivka, I am imminently aware of the Temple that was destroyed by the Romans under Vespasian and Titus in 70 A.D. This is well within the history of the Roman Republic and Empire from the time of the Grachi to the Five Good Emperors, the subject about which I am probably most knowledgeable.
As you did not contradict my point that many Synagogues call themselves Temples, I do not see your point.
First, I'd be interested to see where he's being a "jerk" about it. Rivka didn't state that the term was "offensive,: despite your implications to the contrary.
There was a point raised about language usage. Pel stated his reasons for his usage.
Perhaps had someone bothered to say, "Pel, many people consider that usage offensive" you're rudeness would have been called for. But no one said that until you decided that you could tell Pel what the "correct" response was.
The fact that the "correct" response you posed wasn't actually correct (due to an unreasonable expectation that Rivka's two-sentence challenge to his usage should have informed him that some find it offensive) only makes your attempt laughable. It doesn't excuse it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was under the impression that I did imply it. Had I any expectation that stating outright that it was offensive would have been in any way helpful, I would have done so.
But Lisa is correct about what I am willing to spend my time on, and I had no such expectation.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was under the impression that I did imply it.
I wasn't, and it doesn't appear that Pel was. To me it looked like a quibble over language and a dismissal when he stated his side of a linguistic discussion.
quote:Had I any expectation that stating outright that it was offensive would have been in any way helpful, I would have done so.
It depends on what you wanted to help. If you wanted him and others to realize you found it offensive, then it would have been helpful. If you wanted to change his word usage, we have no way of knowing if it would have helped.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Possibly Pel's (well-earned) reputation for being an insufferably condescending and often poorly informed ***** contributed to the reaction. Which isn't unreasonable, as far as I'm concerned.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My real problem with Christianity is that they spend more time denouncing homosexuals and women who have abortions, calling them murderers and home wreckers, yet where is that same outrage over the divorce rate of this country?
There is plenty of outrage over the divorce rate in this country, but I don't know how or where you would hear about it, since at the moment, it isn't part of a huge, nationally-publicized debate. When you don't belong to a community, you tend to hear what they think about the big conflicts, and not so much what they say to each other about everything else. That doesn't mean they are unconcerned ... only that you are uninformed.
And incidentally, didn't we hear a couple of years ago that worries about the divorce rate had prompted some places to adopt a second tier of marriage that is much harder to sever than a standard marriage? It seems to me that the action you're looking for IS happening. But what else, really, do you expect people to do to lower the divorce rate? Make divorce illegal? I don't think anyone imagines that THAT would be a good idea ...
I shrug my shoulders at you.
Those same people think that making marriage for some illegal is perfectly okay, why does it stand to reason that they'd believe making divorce illegal is unreasonable? And they are the ones making a national issue of it, they are leading the national opposition to it, why don't they make a national issue of other problems?
See, I don't have a problem with an insular community discussing issues amongst themselves, regardless of what they are. But when they venture into the national public sphere, then I'm allowed to have opinions on them. And my opinion of a portion of these people is that they are highly hypocritical, and I have little respect for their issues with the blinders they have on. There's more of a push to make laws that effect non-Christians, than to make laws that effect only Christians. I think my problem with their methods and hypocrisy are valid.
Their outrage isn't the same, when was the last time a Christian PAC put out an ad over national television about divorce? or pushing for national laws that punish people who don't honor their fathers? or national laws that make polygamy legal? or national laws or constitutional amendments that force people to honor no other god but that of the Christian bible as demanded by the first commandment?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My real problem with Christianity is that they spend more time denouncing ...women who have abortions, calling them murderers and home wreckers, yet where is that same outrage over the divorce rate of this country?
That's half your "real" problem with Christianity? That some people who call themselves Christian have more outrage about what they consider to be murder than about divorce?
Just because I listed two of my problems doesn't mean that's all it is, or that half of what I wrote is really half my problem. Truth be told, I agree with a grand majority of people against abortion, but you ignored a rather large chunk of my argument. Drugs kill, child abuse could be almost called a form of abortion of the child is killed (though that really is legal murder, which negates my point anyway, but some could make the argument anyway). Taking the lightest of my issues, and pairing it with the heaviest of theirs I think was a little dishonest Dag, the paragraph you're referencing had a lot more in it than just divorce and abortion.
But if that is the crux of your argument then I'll retract abortion from that part of my argument is pair it back with a minority of Christians who choose to protest abortion by blowing up abortion clinics, and abusing women who have or want to have abortions. Very Christian of them, to say nothing of those that don't care about the life of the mother.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those same people think that making marriage for some illegal is perfectly okay
Technically, those same people think that not changing civil marriage laws so that they recognize a different relationship as marriage is perfectly OK.
It might seem like a very small difference, but it goes a long way to explaining the different treatment.
The effort to change the marriage laws is one that will change an institution many see as fundamental to society. None of your other examples do that.
Accusing someone of hypocrisy based on their attempt to use the law to protect one particular religious value quite ignores the hundreds of ways in which these issues all differ from each other.
It's the equivalent of accusing a pro-choice person of hypocrisy for not favoring choice in infanticide or a pro-life person of hypocrisy for eating eggs.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Taking the lightest of my issues, and pairing it with the heaviest of theirs I think was a little dishonest Dag,
Bull. It's not like I hid your post - it's right there on the page.
quote:But if that is the crux of your argument then I'll retract abortion from that part of my argument
The crux of my argument is that someone who can't understand why some people experience more outrage at what they consider to be a little less than 1 million intentionally caused human deaths a year than each of the things you mentioned is trying not to understand the other side.
I'm not sure what the rest of your post means (" is pair it back with a minority of Christians who choose to protest abortion by blowing up abortion clinics, and abusing women who have or want to have abortions. Very Christian of them, to say nothing of those that don't care about the life of the mother"). You can make all the claims about people who blow up abortion clinics not acting very Christian all you like.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It depends on what you wanted to help. If you wanted him and others to realize you found it offensive, then it would have been helpful.
Since I, and others, have stated previously (and not so very long ago) that this was the case, I beg to differ.
JT's point also had something to do with my response.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Therefore when you say "we don't hate homosexuals" you aren't speaking for everyone... I think it is very fair to say that SOME Christians really DO hate homosexuals.
I tried to point that out. I said that any Christians that did hate homosexuals ought to be called bigots. And vice versa of course.
quote:My real problem with organized religions...
As long as you admit that you have a problem with people following organized religion, that's OK with me. No joke. See my post above. As long as you admit it, which you have.
quote:My real problem with organized religions, is that they change over time.
OK I have like 18000 arguments against this, but I honestly don't want to go on for too long or be rude, so I'll keep it to two brief ones - 1) secular humanism has changed quite a bit too. and 2)non-organized religions change much more readily to society than organized one.
quote:My real problem with Christianity is that they spend more time denouncing homosexuals and women who have abortions, calling them murderers and home wreckers, yet where is that same outrage over the divorce rate of this country?
I'm quite willing to denounce these things too. But one has to be wise; it's important to show two parts of sin: 1) that it's sin, and we must forsake it 2) that God will forgive us afterwards. If, as a Christian, I found a way to denounce all these sins all the time, then I would not be a pleasant person. So I do denounce these things, but it's important to do so in a proper manner.
Posts: 11 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those same people think that making marriage for some illegal is perfectly okay
Technically, those same people think that not changing civil marriage laws so that they recognize a different relationship as marriage is perfectly OK.
It might seem like a very small difference, but it goes a long way to explaining the different treatment.
The effort to change the marriage laws is one that will change an institution many see as fundamental to society. None of your other examples do that.
Accusing someone of hypocrisy based on their attempt to use the law to protect one particular religious value quite ignores the hundreds of ways in which these issues all differ from each other.
It's the equivalent of accusing a pro-choice person of hypocrisy for not favoring choice in infanticide or a pro-life person of hypocrisy for eating eggs.
I reject this argument because marriage has NOT been static for the last 2,000 years, since the birth of Christianity. It has gone through many changes, the man isn't the ruler of the household anymore, what is expected of children is different, what is expected of the parents is different, what actually happens is different. You aren't talking about modern day Christians trying to protect a 2,000 year old, unchanging institution. If that were the case, I wouldn't have quite so many objections to their cause (well, other than the fact that I fundamentally disagree with it, and I think it violates the Constitution), but at least I would respect their aims.
This is part of what I was talking about before which religion's changing. Marriage has changed. I don't in any way support forcing churches to perform ceremonies or confer marriage status on homosexual couples if they don't want to. But some of the legal protections that marriage affords didn't exist before America did, so why all the religious uproar over something we invented in a secular state to begin with?
I can understand why they THINK they should be doing this. But scrutiny erodes their logic as far as I can see. Gay couples are still going to live together, and they are still going to raise children together. All illegalizing their actions is going to do is punish them, which again, isn't very Christian. "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord." Revenge is not Christian. So I guess that makes that violates secular and religious principles, not to mention common sense.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Taking the lightest of my issues, and pairing it with the heaviest of theirs I think was a little dishonest Dag,
Bull. It's not like I hid your post - it's right there on the page.
quote:But if that is the crux of your argument then I'll retract abortion from that part of my argument
The crux of my argument is that someone who can't understand why some people experience more outrage at what they consider to be a little less than 1 million intentionally caused human deaths a year than each of the things you mentioned is trying not to understand the other side.
I'm not sure what the rest of your post means (" is pair it back with a minority of Christians who choose to protest abortion by blowing up abortion clinics, and abusing women who have or want to have abortions. Very Christian of them, to say nothing of those that don't care about the life of the mother"). You can make all the claims about people who blow up abortion clinics not acting very Christian all you like.
Alright, I'll change dishonest to annoying, if you prefer. And the reason you don't know what that means is that I mucked it up. But you seem to have gotten the overall point anyway.
And I'm not "trying not to understand the other side." I AGREE with the other side (mostly). And I offerred to remove abortion from the argument entirely, which in hindsight makes sense anyway, it's not a religious issue, at least, it isn't solely a religious issue, which is at least evidenced by the fact that I'm not super religious and I agree with many who are on this specific topic.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My real problem with organized religions, is that they change over time.
OK I have like 18000 arguments against this, but I honestly don't want to go on for too long or be rude, so I'll keep it to two brief ones - 1) secular humanism has changed quite a bit too. and 2)non-organized religions change much more readily to society than organized one.
quote:My real problem with Christianity is that they spend more time denouncing homosexuals and women who have abortions, calling them murderers and home wreckers, yet where is that same outrage over the divorce rate of this country?
I'm quite willing to denounce these things too. But one has to be wise; it's important to show two parts of sin: 1) that it's sin, and we must forsake it 2) that God will forgive us afterwards. If, as a Christian, I found a way to denounce all these sins all the time, then I would not be a pleasant person. So I do denounce these things, but it's important to do so in a proper manner.
I wasn't aware secular humanism really even was an organized religion, it has no doctrine, no clergy, no religious text...all things, or at least some of the thigns you need to call something an organized religion. And I didn't state any problems with non-organized religions. Though I'm not sure how many non-organized ones can even be called religions. I wouldn't mind hearing a couple other of your objections, but I don't want to derail the thread that much.
If only everyone felt the way you do about your second point.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pen, I can't help but suspect that you were talking about me with this:
quote:Let's look at the logic of disliking Card for his homosexuality views:
a) Christian/Muslim based religions condemn homosexuality, with the exception of some modern liberal Christian branches. b) Card believes homosexuality is wrong because he follows a version of a Christian/Muslim based religion. c) Card is wrong for disagreeing with homosexuality.
To connect the dots: one should not believe in the tenants of one's religion if they are against some said moral principle (in this case, homosexuality). But, by definition, these religions require full obedience: one can't follow only the doctrines he/should chooses. Which means, basically: you think Card has no right to believe in his religion, wholeheartedly and fully, without being criticized.
I am, after all, just about the most consistently critical and outspoken poster on OSC's expressed views on homosexuality.
With that as a supposition, could you explain to me how the quotes I provided fit into your analysis of OSC talking about his religious beliefs and me saying he shouldn't do that?
quote: Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.
quote: And we all know the course this thing will follow. Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot; any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for "hate speech." The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill.
quote: So if my friends insist on calling what they do "marriage," they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is.
Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage.
They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won't be married. They'll just be playing dress-up in their parents' clothes.
quote: The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.
quote:"I'm amused that you think it doesn't hurt anyone. The homosexuals that I've known well, I have found none who were actually made happier by performing homosexual acts. Or by withdrawing, which is what they do, from the mainline of human life. The separation is there and is, in fact, celebrated within the homosexual community."
quote:But what else, really, do you expect people to do to lower the divorce rate? Make divorce illegal? I don't think anyone imagines that THAT would be a good idea ...
Do you know what I would say to this? We have had this conversation before.
That they go directly to "making divorce illegal" betrays, to me, a fundamental weakness in many groups views of the problems with marriage.
First, the most obvious thing Christian groups could do to lower the divorce rate is stop getting divorced at significantly higher rates than most other groups. You look at the group that is pretty much the most outspoken ond politically active against gays - evangelical Christians - and see that they have one of the highest rates of divorce in the country and I think it is a pretty reasonable assumption that they don't care about divorce anywhere near as much as they care about gays.
Second, marriages fail for many reasons. On a list of these reasons ranked by order of importance "Because divorce is available" doesn't even crack the top 10. What you get if you outlaw divorce is a lot of people getting trapped in crappy marriages. You'd lower the divorce rate, but ultimately I don't know that we'd be better off.
On the other hand, there are dozens of things that you can do to strengthen marriage and people's commitment to it such that people no longer would choose to get divorced even if it were an option. As I've said many, many times when this topic has come up, I'd be a happy man if the programs that exist to further this goal got a tenth as much money, support, and attention as the anti-gay groups do. But, that doesn't seem to be where people's values lie.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: than I do. I disagree with him that homosexual relationships will damage society more than the persecution and banning of them will. However, as far as politics go, people have to try to implement what they believe. Democracy works by rule of majority, thus everyone has to vote as they see fit. (Before anyone brings it up, I do understand all the many different facets to voting, and how our system doesn't always do a great job of expressing majority opinion, but since it's the best one we have, we use it.) Only in voting by our values can we create a society that works best for the majority of Americans. It is a compromise we all agree to every day by simply living in this country, or Canada, or whatever. I hope that our laws will continue to be tolerant in this respect, but by living here, I must accept the laws of the country, and do my best to change them if I disagree with them.
No, I don't agree. You've demonstrated why strict democracy is an awful, awful system. The philosophical basis for our society and, to a lesser extent, its structure is set up specifically against this mob rule idea that "might makes right".
As things stand, I've yet to see a thread on Hatrack where an opponent of gay marriage has put forth reasons for their positions that doesn't boil down to personal or religious prejudice or false information.
It is no more legitimate for a large segment of a population to force its prejudices on another, smaller segment than it is for one group with all th guns to do the same to people without guns. As it stands, this debate is not about whether or not Christians are going to be allowed to live according to their values. It is about whether they should to be allowed to force other people to live according to these values.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is about whether they should to be allowed to force other people to live according to these values.
No, it's not. Even if I grant that their goals amount to "forc[ing] other people to live according to these values," which I don't and I'm not going to discuss with you, the issue is about whether they will or should force other people.
There's no question that they are allowed to. It doesn't take much more than a majority to amend most state constitutions, and the only judicial interpretations that have instituted gay marriage have been based on state provisions, not federal.
It's almost inconceivable that SCOTUS would find a federal right to gay marriage. However, even if they did, a small minority, properly distributed, could amend the constitution to override that decision. In practice, it would require a majority, but not one as large as the 3/4 state requirement suggests.
So it's clear that the majority is "allowed" to force people. Nor is there any mechanism available to prevent that - there must be some final stopping point for government. In this country it's the people, and it's not at all clear this is a bad thing.
We've made it very difficult for the people to override some particular types of decisions - those that limit government in some way - but it is always possible within the framework of our government.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As things stand, I've yet to see a thread on Hatrack where an opponent of gay marriage has put forth reasons for their positions that doesn't boil down to personal or religious prejudice or false information.
This has been done several times. The fact that YOU choose to categorize them as "personal or religious prejudice" doesn't change that fact.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not going to do it again, Squick. Every time I do, you simply call the other arguments prejudiced. It's not worth my time to do anything but challenge the factual assertion.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are other people who are reading this and involved in the conversation besides you and I. I didn't challenge your assertion with the expectation that it would directly benefit you or I, but rather to either have you back it up, with me challenging, so that they could decide for themselves, or to make it clear that you are either unwilling or unable to back up your assertion.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am unwilling to back up my assertion. (edit: to be more precise, I am unwilling to spend the time necessary to back up my assertion. This is a leisure activity for me.) Therefore, two assertions exist. I have given those other people the significant piece of information that your assertion is not generally accepted by at least one other member who has participated in a great many of these threads. That's useful information.
As of now, our two assertions stand equally backed up.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly, although we are in two very different positions. I've made a categorical assertion of a negative. You've presented an objection to this assertion. It would be terribly difficult, if not impossible to really back up what I've said, i.e. prove a negative, in an affirmative matter. The best I could do is to show all past discussions that we've had (here's the latest, where I was specifically pressing for articulated reasons that didn't boil down to prejudice and was met with none by any anti-SSM people). You, on the other hand, need only show a single case where what I said wasn't true. I think, if you're going to call someone's honesty into question, that's the least we should expect of you. But you have, in the past, show a very different approach to honesty than I work from, so you probably disagree.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think, if you're going to call someone's honesty into question, that's the least we should expect of you.[quote]
I think, if you're going to make unsupported assertions that call into question the motives of those you disagree with, you should not expect someone else to have to support their denial.
[quote]But you have, in the past, show a very different approach to honesty than I work from, so you probably disagree.
Well, my approach values honesty. If yours is different than mine, that's nothing I'm going to get to upset about.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
