posted
I wouldn't call your addition a caveat as much as an expansion of what I said, but I agree with it as much as I agree with what I said.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
btw this is a really interesting source. (I'm not making "good" or "bad" value judgements, just that the information seems well researched and footnoted.) I'd be interested in what others think of it.
quote:Yes, I disagree with the religious position. So if I discuss my understanding of that position, of course I will try to discredit it.
As an ancillary issue: I think this is one of the major reasons people can get offended in this sort of discussion. It's too easy to spin a straw man when doing this sort of thing, and people perceive just enough of the truth in your straw man to recognize your distortion of their actual position.
Thanks for pointing this out Tom. I'll avoid doing this from now on, and I apologise to anyone I've offended (sorry rivka).
I suppose it is true that denouncing religion as false because it is not rational is a bit of a circular argument, since in most cases, it's meant to transcend this world and be beyond reason; and that is the only tool which an atheist such as myself has at hand.
But in many cases the religious selectively use reason, but backed up with premises not based on reason. And my question is, if thinking rationally is the only way we can survive, build airplanes, heal the sick or conduct psychoanalysis, why is there an exception for religion?
But that question is worded to accept only a rational answer.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In defense of hunches, BTW, I have to say this:
I believe they exist. In fact, there's strong evidence that they do exist, and are in fact far, far more reliable than "reason" in certain specific scenarios.
That's probably a valid point for religion. Like a complex physics problem to which a physicist has a theoretical unproven solution, it may be that the hunch is correct. But the thing with a physicist's hunch is, he works hard to find the equations to support his hypothesis, and until then his ideas are only theory. And as you point out later in that post, there can be a scalability issue with hunches - for example, when that hunch includes a very detailed and elaborate story explaining how the universe was created and how we should lead our lives. Also, Christianity doesn't have a better claim to being a true hunch than Islam does; because as far as I know, the only way to determine whether this or that hunch is better grounded is yes, through reason.
And in most cases, it's only a matter of time before we discover that the counter-intuitive hunch was right for a rational reason, and find that there was a gap in our prior observation or a flaw in our reasoning.
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: ... heebie jeebies (there's a nice rationally undefinable term for you) ...
n. a sense of nervousness, panic or anxiety, sometimes used in reference to fears which are unknown or unclear.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And I am Catholic - despite not being raised Catholic - because I spent 25 years thinking about my faith and trying different religions and studying them, then went through a year long course of study in order to be received into the Catholic Church.
I am not unique. Just because you don't give your faith a lot of thought, don't assume that is true for everyone else.
I apologise sincerely for the crude generalisation and I salute you for being so rigorous in your pursuit of truth.
But when I consider these facts: Most of the white colonists who came to America were Christian. Today, the US is 78% Christian (including Mormons). Similar comparisons can be made in other countries. Yet religions claim to be universal.
To me they seem to support the theory that typically, one's religion is determined by a mixture of one's culture (or sub-culture, e.g. for Mormons or other minority religions) and the values you inherit from your parents. Sadly, as Banna has said, I think you may be in the minority.
I have thought long and hard about my faith; only I came to a different conclusion to you, which is atheism. Please don't accuse me of being frivolous or apathetic about something that is very important to me. I can't say I've spent 25 years thinking about it, but that's only because I'm 18.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: But please don't make the mistake of thinking someone is merely religious because of the environment in which they were raised. People who consider themselves religious also consider their beliefs well-pondered.
I haven't leaped to that conclusion, though the environment certainly has a lot to do with devotedness, like it does with any aspect of psychology. In Japan, Buddhism and Shintoism (in which very few people sincerely believe) are an integrated part of our culture, which we treat more as an aspect of our lifestyle. When my grandfather tells me that kamisama or god is like this or will do that, I know he's not being completely serious. You'd be hard pressed to find many devout Buddhists in Tokyo. But come to Australia, people invest much more faith in their religion. When my school chaplain preached, I knew he was being entirely serious.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: About the wider issue, you are going to lose. Gay Marriage is going to become legal. It will take longer in some places than others, but it's going to happen. Think about it, the states where divorce is lowest are the ones who have allowed it or are moving towards it. It's the high divorce states that are most strong in fighting it.
I didn't know that (about the relationship between divorce rates and SSM). Do you have a link?
Not sure what the relationship between the two is in Australia either - I should look for some statistics...
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Also, as I've said mulitple times on this thread, anti-gay marriage is the wrong place to focus on. If you are teaching and trying to convince people of a conception of marriage that is inconsistent with gay marriage, but is not defined by this opposition, you are both going to likely be more successful and to draw much less disapproval. Very, very few people have a problem with you doing this.
posted
I come from a very Protestant family. But at the same time, we're not too attached to any one denomination (as long as it isn't Catholic ). For me, there wasn't really pressure to stay in a certain religion (having spent a lot of time at a Southern Baptist church, I tend to separate Christian denominations more than others would, I think).
But my real point was that now that I'm in New Orleans, I see a definite separation between being culturally X faith, and actually BEING X faith. kmbboots is Catholic. Most of the people of New Orleans are culturally Catholic. Which isn't the same as simply adopting the faith. I see it more as the way that some people consider themselves culturally Jewish, but don't actually follow the Jewish faith. Granted, it's not exactly the same, but it's the closest comparison I can make. So the people who, say, are Catholic because their parents are Catholic are more likely culturally Catholic and not (for lack of a better term) Catholic-Catholic.
posted
I think it makes sense. That's exactly the issue I was referring to when I said that most people don't take the time to examine their faith. They just absorb it as part of the culture, values and falsehoods and all.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the values aren't always absorbed. The specific rules and such aren't always absorbed. That's the difference. My boyfriend, if you ask him, will say he's Catholic. But then he'll say that he's "spiritual." He doesn't go to mass or confession, he has no problem with birth control, but he won't eat meat on Fridays during Lent. That's a huge, huge difference from accepting all of the rules, rituals, and whatever else comes with being a certain religion.
Edit to add: And I also think there's a huge difference between not following the rules and simply accepting the culture vs. carefully considering the rules, sa kmbboots does, and disagreeing with some of them (as I think she also does, correct me if I'm wrong).
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I like your idea, Bob, insofar as it gets people to actually verbalize their specific fears. I disagree with most of the "escape clauses" listed so far.
1. I imagine a rise in recorded teen homosexuality is going to happen with our without SSM, and I'll even accept that it might be even more of an increase directly because of the acceptance of SSM. I don't think this is a bad thing for a few reasons. First and foremost, citing it as a negative assumes that homosexuality is inherently a bad, undesirable thing. I'm not saying it's good, or desirable, either. I think it, in and of itself, is morally neutral. Second, such an increase, in large part, is naturally going to be because the segment of gay teens who go "unrecorded" now do so in part because they're terrified of coming out. I'd like to see a comparison done 10 years after SSM is accepted nationally. I wouldn't be surprised to see an increase in "teen homosexuality" (whatever that means) and just as likely, a decrease in teen suicide.
2. As you've already noted, there is an increase in the divorce rate among certain groups already. You can't blame that on SSM at this point so I'm pretty sure it would be a mistake to base SSM's validity on whether or not the increase continued or even excellerated after acceptance.
3. Lawsuits against churches shouldn't be a factor. We live in such a litigious (sp?) society already that it's only a matter of time before someone tries to sue a church for this. If it is decided that such suits are a bad thing, then it seems the most logical step would be to pass legislation to protect churches in this area, not to shove a whole class of people back in the closet to stop lawsuits.
But yeah, I'd love to see some more fears actually expressed. I can address the specified. I can't be expected to defend myself against fears of a nebulous set of "things bad for society".
I'm sorry I missed responding to this earlier.
You are absolutely right, and especially in the last paragraph -- and that's what I dislike about all of the anti-SSM things I have ever heard. It's not that some (or even most) of it comes from a religious point of view. It's that it's all nebulous and can't be explained.
I am a person of faith (or whatever catch-phrase one wishes to use). But I dislike it when reasons of faith over-ride what (to me) are clearly issues of social justice. As a Christian, I get VERY worried when Christianity is cited as a reason for denying someone fair treatment under the law. And I see the disparity between official treatment of heterosexual and homosexual couples as a social justice issue, first and foremost.
I think we should have concrete reasons for denying a group of people rights and privileges that our society freely extends to some of its members. If we have trouble articulating the reasons for such denial, then I think we need to have good reasons like the democratic principles of our country to serve as a guide to what we should be doing.
quote: I dislike it when reasons of faith over-ride what (to me) are clearly issues of social justice.
quote:If we have trouble articulating the reasons for such denial, then I think we need to have good reasons like the democratic principles of our country to serve as a guide to what we should be doing.
Hmmm... Is this a variation of 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's?'
While I understand what you're saying, Bob, it's not something I'm going to agree with. If I were to try to adopt your philosophy then I'd be forced to recognize that I'm putting human ideas of social justice ahead of what I believe is God's will for the human family.
quote:It's that it's all nebulous and can't be explained.
I don't think I've been nebulous at all in my explanation of my opposition to homosexual unions. Obviously, I can't speak of your discussion with other religious people...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm disturbed any time Christian ideals are at odds with social justice. I think that when that happens it's the human application of Christian ideals that is flawed.
Scott, I think you have been nebulous in describing any fears of what might happen if SSM were legal. I think it's impossible not to be nebulous in describing those fears.
edit to add: However, if you feel that you have been clear, maybe you could articulate a set of clauses you would think appropriate in a law that provisionally allowed SSM? Those things that, were they to happen in society, you would want us to conclude that SSM was bad afterall.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you have been nebulous in describing any fears of what might happen if SSM were legal. I think it's impossible not to be nebulous in describing those fears.
I said:
quote:I don't know that homosexual marriage WILL damage society. I think it will make sin more accessible.
I differentiate between discernible, widely recognized 'damage,' and sin.
And:
quote: Social approbation of homosexuality and homosexual unions can be a hinderance to the plan of our Heavenly Parents by influencing us to participate in a lifestyle and form habits and characterizations that are not beneficial to our eternal goal.
Now:
quote:I'm disturbed any time Christian ideals are at odds with social justice. I think that when that happens it's the human application of Christian ideals that is flawed.
To me, this still puts man's ideals of social justice ahead of God's ideals of human destiny.
quote:maybe you could articulate a set of clauses you would think appropriate in a law that provisionally allowed SSM?
Honestly, I'm really uncomfortable with your idea of a sunset clause for marriage rights laws. How in the world do you say to someone, "Eh...we were wrong. So sorry, but we're going to strip away your marital privileges now."
When SSM is approved, I expect it to stay around.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I were to try to adopt your philosophy then I'd be forced to recognize that I'm putting human ideas of social justice ahead of what I believe is God's will for the human family.
Why can't you do that? Seriously, aren't many of our laws already non-optimal from a Mormon point of view, but reflect compromises among groups which do not necessarily share points of view?
Law is really the lowest common denominator, isn't it?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob only asked about a sunset clause as a hypothetical, to encourage people to articulate the anti-SSM argument. Of course, sin can't be scientifically measured, so that's why the question doesn't seem to be much use at the moment.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Put human ideas ahead of my religious beliefs?
Specifically, put human ideas of social justice ahead of your religious beliefs, at least when dealing with human legislation.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm disturbed any time Christian ideals are at odds with social justice. I think that when that happens it's the human application of Christian ideals that is flawed.
Like Scott, I am not comfortable adopting such an attitude. To me, it would be saying that man's current ideas of social justice are superior to God's knowledge.
Or at the least, that I place more confidence in man's current ideas of social justice more than in man's ability to know God's will.
I couldn't agree with either one.
I'm reminded of a related argument I observed between two classmates in high school. One said something along the lines of "God says it's a sin." The other one said "Then God is wrong."
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:aren't many of our laws already non-optimal from a Mormon point of view, but reflect compromises among groups which do not necessarily share points of view?
Law is really the lowest common denominator, isn't it?
I'm not sure what that has to do with my objections, Tom.
Laws that are in place-- abortion, laws permitting the consumption of alcohol, etc-- are much more difficult to fight after they actually become law. I imagine that legal struggles by Mormons against SSM will drop off sharply after measures institutionalizing it.
At that point, society (or activist judges, or whomever) has made the choice, and Mormons have stood up for what they believed. This all I believe God requires of Mo's, in a general sense.
quote:put human ideas of social justice ahead of your religious beliefs, at least when dealing with human legislation.
Because I don't believe that doing so would be right.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:At that point, society (or activist judges, or whomever) has made the choice, and Mormons have stood up for what they believed.
But let's be clear about that: what Mormons then believe, by that logic, is that no one, no matter whether they're a Mormon or not, no matter whether they're religious in any way, should be able to marry someone of the same sex.
There are very few laws which deny that sort of freedom to people regardless of ethical code. Those that do exist are either a) outmoded and largely ignored relics, like Blue Laws; or b) intended to protect individuals and societies from instances of clearly demonstrable harm.
The thing is, Mormons -- and other SSM advocates -- are saying, "Believe us! There's harm! We just can't prove it!"
I'm not saying they don't have the right to do this, but it's pretty indescribably rude and presumptive -- especially to, say, those churches which already perform same-sex marriages.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The thing is, Mormons -- and other SSM advocates -- are saying, "Believe us! There's harm! We just can't prove it!"
I haven't said this... but I understand your point.
quote:it's pretty indescribably rude and presumptive -- especially to, say, those churches which already perform same-sex marriages.
Those other churches aren't asking me for my opinion when they perform those ceremonies. I think it'd be rude of me to storm in, unasked, and shout it.
But when it's asked of me, in a poll, in a general-vote-your-conscience-type-referendum? Well, you've already got my answer.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But when it's asked of me, in a poll, in a general-vote-your-conscience-type-referendum?
Are you resentful, then, of the fact that it's now been asked of you in what may wind up a legally-binding referendum? Or are you grateful that conservatives have forced this issue on you, thus giving you no choice but to be rude?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you resentful, then, of the fact that it's now been asked of you in what may wind up a legally-binding referendum? Or are you grateful that conservatives have forced this issue on you, thus giving you no choice but to be rude?
I am resentful of the GOP's manipulation of this issue. I haven't decided whether or not to vote for or against Virginia's FOURTH marriage amendment; it seems like overkill, to me.
I don't mind being considered rude, Tom. Heck, IIRC, I didn't even object when Leto called everyone opposed to SSM a bigot. I understand the sentiment.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: But I dislike it when reasons of faith over-ride what (to me) are clearly issues of social justice.
This (and the reiterations of this in subsequent posts) made me smile because social justice is such a central tenet of Christianity for me that it is like looking at an Escher print.
"I dislike it when reasons of faith override reasons of faith override reasons of faith..."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The thing is, Mormons -- and other SSM advocates -- are saying, "Believe us! There's harm! We just can't prove it!"
I'm not saying they don't have the right to do this, but it's pretty indescribably rude and presumptive -- especially to, say, those churches which already perform same-sex marriages.
It may be rude and presumptive, but it also may be completely necessary. Parents tell their kids the same sort of thing all the time - don't do X even though you don't understand why X is wrong. Parents do this because it is necessary to protect their children; the consequences of doing X are worse than the presumptiveness needed to speak out against it.
I think this is one of the most fundamental common mistaken assumptions within liberal poltical thinking: the idea that we should do whatever we can rationally deduce is best. The reason this assumption is mistaken is because human beings, especially the average person in a democracy, are not good at rationally deducing what is best. Sometimes it ends up better to follow traditional rules.
The trouble is... many people get offended when one person tries to tell another their judgement is poor and that they should follow some religious rule instead. People find it rude to be treated like children, even if doing so might ultimately be for the greater good.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: But I dislike it when reasons of faith over-ride what (to me) are clearly issues of social justice.
This (and the reiterations of this in subsequent posts) made me smile because social justice is such a central tenet of Christianity for me that it is like looking at an Escher print.
"I dislike it when reasons of faith override reasons of faith override reasons of faith..."
When I was in high school, our US History teacher questioned my Mo friend and I if we were REALLY REALLY TRULY Christians. He looked at her and said, "Yeah, but we're in the closet."
I wrote a number of truly terrible stories called the 'Closet Christian Chronicles' that got me into a great deal of trouble with my bishop and young men's leader.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The reason this assumption is mistaken is because human beings, especially the average person in a democracy, are not good at rationally deducing what is best. Sometimes it ends up better to follow traditional rules.
Can you provide some evidence for this?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
An omnipotent god is not a basic Christian principle.
It shouldn't be a shock that there is some difference in doctrine. What does it take to be Christian? If you want to list things that don't have to do with Christ, then you'll find all sorts of people suddenly don't fit.
It means there's something wrong with your definition.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure what I think anymore. And I don't exactly want to put an asterisk beside "christians" when talking about Mormons...
If I'm using the word "Christian," typically I'm using it with a meaning that does not include Mormons - not as an explicit part of the definition, but rather my definition includes beliefs that Mormons just don't hold. "One in Being with the Father..." for example.
There's a broader meaning of "Christian" that does include Mormons (and several other groups), and I will use that meaning sometimes.
Just like "Church" has two different meanings, one of my faith and one of common usage, I recognize both as valid uses of the word. Just as I don't tell someone "you didn't go to church on sunday," I don't tell Mormons "you aren't Christian."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: I wouldn't typically, but it came up in conversation and it's something that's been bugging me for a few days.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was basically agreeing with you, Pix, both about acknowledging the differences and generally referring to Mormons as Christians.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: It may be rude and presumptive, but it also may be completely necessary. Parents tell their kids the same sort of thing all the time - don't do X even though you don't understand why X is wrong. Parents do this because it is necessary to protect their children; the consequences of doing X are worse than the presumptiveness needed to speak out against it.
I think this is one of the most fundamental common mistaken assumptions within liberal poltical thinking: the idea that we should do whatever we can rationally deduce is best. The reason this assumption is mistaken is because human beings, especially the average person in a democracy, are not good at rationally deducing what is best. Sometimes it ends up better to follow traditional rules.
I'll take my chances with democracy, thanks.
Also, the paternal analogy is cliched and flawed. Parents tell their children not to do 'X' because there's a rational reason not to do it, and often they explain it to their children (because 'Y' will happen. You don't want 'Y' to happen, do you?). The rule forbidding 'X' may seem counter-intuitive, but the parent forces it on the child because the child's ability to reason through what they are about to do and weigh the consequences is not sufficiently developed. Even if the child is capable of doing these things, its still the parents prerogative to exercise their jurisdiction over their children (until they are 18).
The jurisdiction of a parent over a child is incomparable with the jurisdiction of the government over its people.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I made a grievous error in my earlier post and since I don't visit Hatrack during the workday, I didn't realize it until I saw the reactions and kmbboots' excellent (and correct) objection.
Here's what (I think) it should have said:
quote:When claims are made that Christian principles are at odds with things that I believe are obvious social justice issues, I begin to question the speaker's understanding of what God wants. In my experience, it's usually the speaker who got it wrong, not God.
I obviously left something out in my earlier post and made it sound like I don't believe in God's primacy in these matters. I do.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
for mph![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). For me, there wasn't really pressure to stay in a certain religion (having spent a lot of time at a Southern Baptist church, I tend to separate Christian denominations more than others would, I think).![[Smile]](smile.gif)
