Consider for a moment if US currency had "In Zeus we trust" printed on it. And someone decided that needed to go because of the whole separation of church and state thing. Is that an attack on Greek mythology?
is it just me or is it fair game to attack Christians and not so much other religous groups?
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Can i ask you, can you honestly say that you beleive the next president of the US could be an open atheist?
I think he meant in terms of beliefs.
Then surely he'd concede that Scientologists are fair game for attacks, far more than Christians?
No matter how I look at it, the question seems to me to be more a cry of "My beliefs should be the only ones free from any criticism!"
I think he meant in terms of beliefs.Then surely he'd concede that Scientologists are fair game for attacks, far more than Christians?
No matter how I look at it, the question seems to me to be more a cry of "My beliefs should be the only ones free from any criticism!"
I was going to point out that i have far more to say about Politicial islam, scientology and the section of christiansist most easily described as creationists than i ever do for christianist. Hell, the theocratic elements of isrial come higher up my list, along with conspiracy theorists.
Then surely he'd concede that Scientologists are seen by most people as fair game for attacks, far more than are Christians?Why?
|
I was going to point out that i have far more to say about Politicial islam, scientology and the section of christiansist most easily described as creationists than i ever do for christianist. Hell, the theocratic elements of isrial come higher up my list, along with conspiracy theorists.
Zombieneighbours -- I'm really curious if you could help me understand something. You are clearly smart. Possibly (probably?) college educated. Well read. But your spelling is pretty bad. You've mentioned before that you have dislexia and my knowledge of that is rather limited and looking it up on Wikipedia didn't seem to help me "get it" any better. Can you help me understand where the disconnect seems to be or how dislexia makes it rather difficult to spell? I don't mean any disrespect and am genuinely interested in understanding this better. (And I understand this probably doesn't belong on this thread, but didn't feel the need to start a whole new thread for it either.)
Dawkins? I don't find him terribly "reasonable" at all.Out of curiosity, have you read any of his books? He comes across a lot differently in person than on paper, and neither type of appearance very closely resembles his reputation.
That said, his logic in places has holes big enough to drive trucks through...
I didn't make any margin notes. nor did I observe more than a few assumptions and leaps(although there is this one big frickin' huge generalization about believers)--more than anything I find that his distraction by the need to constantly attack religious belief is rather off-putting.
More than more than anything though, I find that it is his followers who annoy me.
......I'm Dwayne Dibbley?.....
Back in the cage, kid.
I was going to point out that i have far more to say about Politicial islam, scientology and the section of christiansist most easily described as creationists than i ever do for christianist. Hell, the theocratic elements of isrial come higher up my list, along with conspiracy theorists.Zombieneighbours -- I'm really curious if you could help me understand something. You are clearly smart. Possibly (probably?) college educated. Well read. But your spelling is pretty bad. You've mentioned before that you have dislexia and my knowledge of that is rather limited and looking it up on Wikipedia didn't seem to help me "get it" any better. Can you help me understand where the disconnect seems to be or how dislexia makes it rather difficult to spell? I don't mean any disrespect and am genuinely interested in understanding this better. (And I understand this probably doesn't belong on this thread, but didn't feel the need to start a whole new thread for it either.)
Okay, this is going to be a difficult one. I will try to keep it brief, and if you want to know more, i will make a thread to deal with it. Everything that follows is from memory and outside my area of expertise
Dyslexia is a spectrum of related learning disabilities. I believe that it is currently considered to be part of Autism Spectrum Disorders, though this may be wrong, i don't keep up to date on the research regarding it.(I am actually unhappy with that association, regardless of it's accuracy because of the stigma associated with it.)
The disorder(s) is primerally diagnosed by comparing performance in different areas of IQ testing. And is characterised by
a statistically significiant difference between Full IQ score and predicted IQ score. The predicted IQ being the score one would expect to see if written language skills where in line with other skills tested by an IQ test. In my case, there is two standard devations difference between my actual and predicted IQ, with both being well above average, and my predicted being near genius level. Ofcause, IQ tests don't really mean a great deal, but they are useful diagnostic tool for identifying dyslexia.
So what causes it; my knowledge of the neurological underpinning behind dyslexia is nearly two decades out of date (and i am 26, yeah, i understood what brain hemispheres and neurons where when i was six, along with why it got dark at night and why we have seasons, couldn't read until i was 12, if memory serves), but as i remember it, the working hyposis about the cause was that dyslexia is caused by connection 'damage' between left and right hemispheres of the brain. You'd really need to talk to a qualified educational psychologist or similar specialist to get a more up to date explination however.
As for how it manifests. Well, as I have already said, I couldn't read until i was 12ish, despite having had teaching most children can only dream to have (one school i went to had a 1:6 teacher:student ratio). To try to explain the spelling element it is easier to explain what my most common mistakes are, than explain why i make them, because i honestly cant put that into words.
homophonic errors are i think the most common, i only recently got there and their straight in my head, and even know i have trouble with them sometimes. I think it is because my spelling is intensely based upon phonic groups, rather than understanding of rules, or memorising of the spelling.
Another problem is that sometimes i just miss a word. I type away and the word drops out of the sentence, never appearing on the page, despite me having throught it and intended to type it. When i look back, often i wont even see that such a word is missing.
Those are just two examples, others are things like passive voice and other grammar issues. I know many of the rules, and i would never make the same mistakes in spoken discussion, yet they appear on the page.
There are thing i can do to help. Spell checkers, grammar checker, intensive proof reading, but all of these miss things and eat time. Not to mention the computer i have at the momment, while it has a spell checker, said checker is about five years out of date.
Even at my worst, i can usually express my meaning, in a way that others can understand, or so i am told, so I often let those cooping mechanisms, and the more rigerous ones i use when things are really important, fall to the way side.
All this is ofcause massively frustrating, as my arguments often loose a little finesse in the translation from my head to the screen. The frustration also sometimes shows in my posts, along side my passion, which is why i sometimes come off as rude, though i do not intend too.
I am also sorry about it, you guys perhapes shouldn't have to put up with my spelling and grammar, but my hope is that you don't mind to much and that the convosations can still be interesting. Oh, and that i can contribute something that has value to them occationally.
I do not see anyone petitioning to enforce coloring eggs in the springtime into the Constitution.Are you following atheism or anti-theism? Or selective anti-theism? ie - Anti-Christian ideals built into the framework of the founding fathers' documents?I believe it is unlikely there is a Judeo-Christian god.
Which label does that buy me?
LOL. I'm kinda in the same boat CF. I prefer the philosposhies of Deism or Panentheism they come closest to what I think. Of course, YMMV. It's hard to be a theist who doesn't hold with an organization.
I didn't make any margin notes. nor did I observe more than a few assumptions and leaps
One quick example: he talks about elephant tusk size as a function of (un)natural selection: an adaption forced by poaching, and provides as evidence a graph of tusk size of vs. time. The thing is, the graph is of tusks on elephants that die for reasons other than poaching. Imagine this (simplified) scenario:
Contrast with this scenario:
In other words, it's quite possible that mean tusk size in non-poached elephants seems to be getting smaller as an artifact of the fact that poachers are getting more aggressive -- in which case it's not an example of evolution at all.
By not correcting for poaching rates, Dawkins is guilty of sloppy tradecraft, that might be overlooked by most casual readers, but which makes any scientists who read his book wonder what in the hell he was thinking.
Zombieneighbors:
That thing about coming off as rude when you don't intend to. Pretty well almost everyone has had that at one point or another. I still do it regularly.
It's an internetz thing. The face-computer-face emotional disconnect, you know?
BTW, ZOmbieneighbors, if you're dyslexic, why did you pick an online alias that is so bloody hard to type. I mean "ie" then "ei" then anything with "gh" is a mess and "ors" or "ours"... that seems to me to be a dyslexic's nightmare word.
I didn't make any margin notes. nor did I observe more than a few assumptions and leapsOne quick example: he talks about elephant tusk size as a function of adaption forced by poaching, and provides a graph of tusk size of vs. time. The thing is, the graph is of tusks on elephants that die for reasons other than poaching. Imagine this scenario:
10 elephants, 6 have small tusks, one of the others is killed by poachers. 3/10 have large tusks for that year. Contrast with this scenario:
10 elephants, 6 have small tusks, all of the others are killed by poachers. 0/10 have large tusks for that year. By not correcting for poaching rates, Dawkins is guilty of sloppy tradecraft. It's quite possible that mean tusk size in non-poached elephants seems to be getting smaller as an artifact of the fact that poachers are getting more aggressive -- in which case it's not an example of evolution at all.
Okay that is pretty sloppy. There are other explinations for why that graph may have made it into the book, ofcause none of them really play strongly for dawkins or his editors.
BTW, ZOmbieneighbors, if you're dyslexic, why did you pick an online alias that is so bloody hard to type. I mean "ie" then "ei" then anything with "gh" is a mess and "ors" or "ours"... that seems to me to be a dyslexic's nightmare word.
It is a long and boring story.
Okay that is pretty sloppy. There are other explinations for why that graph may have made it into the book, ofcause none of them really play strongly for dawkins or his editors.
The sad thing is, those kind of sloppy errors play directly into the hands of evolution-deniers, whose favorite mantra is that "evolutionists assume that evolution must be occurring, then fit the data to that conclusion." Unfortunately, that's exactly what Dawkins seems to be doing in this case -- or if not, he should have at least shown his corrections for poaching rates. It's not like he didn't have the space to do so -- wasps pollinating flowers got seemingly a hundred pages.
Back in the cage, kid.
I can be on this thread. Druids use my teeth as a place of worship!
... It's not like he didn't have the space to do so -- wasps pollinating flowers got seemingly a hundred pages.
And that's my objection to him. My general take on the two or three Dawkins books I read was that he seems to use space to swipe at religion that would be better used for science.
I wonder. If Dawkins didn't feel it necessary to constantly defend evolution from religion by attacking religion then is it possible that a few more people might actually read his arguments?
Back in the cage, kid.I can be on this thread. Druids use my teeth as a place of worship!
I could make some more space for the druids.
Back in the cage, kid.I can be on this thread. Druids use my teeth as a place of worship!I could make some more space for the druids.
There's a bodybag out there with that scudball's name on it, and I'm doing up the zip. Anyone who gets in my way gets a napalm enema.
Okay that is pretty sloppy. There are other explinations for why that graph may have made it into the book, ofcause none of them really play strongly for dawkins or his editors.The sad thing is, those kind of sloppy errors play directly into the hands of evolution-deniers, whose favorite mantra is that "evolutionists assume that evolution must be occurring, then fit the data to that conclusion." Unfortunately, that's exactly what Dawkins seems to be doing in this case -- or if not, he should have at least shown his corrections for poaching rates. It's not like he didn't have the space to do so -- wasps pollinating flowers got seemingly a hundred pages.
I helped a little bit on a house mates dissertation on homosexual behaviour amongst Callosbruchus maculatus, so i can forgive drawn out discussions of insects ;) Anyone who has enjoyed time spent in an insect room, proably can.
Do you really think that the vast majority of the denighers would go for that. The ones who are schooled and trying to win an academic argument have higher targets, such as 'proving' natural selection cant work, and the popularists seem, from what i have seen, to have shifted focus to 'teach the controversy' tactics. Do they still really try to find new quote mines?
I wonder. If Dawkins didn't feel it necessary to constantly defend evolution from religion by attacking religion then is it possible that a few more people might actually read his arguments?
Can i ask you this. Why should the fact that he has said something against religion, mean that you should not read his arguments?
PS. It isn't funny, i can't actually bring myself to go back to 'Has "balance" ruined D&D flavor?'. Since when did 'hey, look we clearly have different styles of play and different oppinions about whats important in a game, but thats okay. Now please try to alter a game i like, despite the fact you have a game you much prefer.' become such a lynching worth offence?
|
Thank you all for your replies. I see now that my perception is not such much that Christians are the most attacted but that in this country they are perhaps the most vocal about being attacked. Or that is at least my take on it at this time.
Random factoid of relevance from here;
"For instance, in the FBI's hate-crime statistics for 2007, some 1,400 of the nation's 7,600 or so reported bias crimes were of the "anti-religion" category; of those, some 118 were varieties of anti-Christian bias."
So, of reported religious-based attacks that constituted 'hate crimes' in 2007, 118 of 1400 were perpetrated against Christians, as opposed to Jews, Moslems, etc. Less than 10 percent. That's just a number, obviously, and doesn't count unreported hate crimes, so it's a datum, not 'proof' of anything in particular, although it is suggestive that it's far better to be a member of the Christian majority in this country than a member of a smaller faith.
|
|
It's hard to be a theist who doesn't hold with an organization.
People who have a church tend to assume that I am an atheist or freak of some sort, in my experience, but the tithes are low and nobody takes the place of my own personal responsibility, so I think it's worth the occasional frustrating conversation with people who just don't get the idea that you can be religious / spiritual without having a tax-exempt political-action committee.
My reading of the Bible doesn't always agree with others, but I interpret the fall of the Temple and the deliberate choice to not rebuild it, Jesus's admonition to be shepherds of men and example of a churchless ministry, to put not faith in temples of stone or icons of gold, to be a repudiation of the priestly heirarchy and grand temples of times past (and present), in favor of a more intimate and personal faith. The heavy use of parables, choosing to impart information in a way that a person must decipher it internally, instead of just dryly reciting commandments (similarly to the eastern tradition of imparting lessons through koans, instead of fact sheets), also tends to support my own belief that we are meant to discover God for ourselves, within ourselves, and not just uncritically eat whatever is scooped onto our plates. To me, at least, faith (and patriotism, for that matter) means more if it is chosen by an individual, not merely inherited and accepted out of inertia.
|
|
(Especially considering Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are usually thrown in with "Christian" in addition to other considerably loose groups.)
You know what is really funny? You call yourself Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, or something else and everyone goes along with you being Christians, no problem. You call yourself the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and everyone says you are either not Christian or only loosly Christian. If you believe in Christ you are a Christian plain and simple. Any other definition is like writing a definition of a duck that includes female mallards but not male mallards.
Female mallards are mallardettes.
is it just me or is it fair game to attack Christians and not so much other religous groups?Speaking only for myself, I do not feel 'attacked' by other religious groups…except for maybe militant muslims.
I realize the question's been answered and we've moved on, but gosh darnit I wanted to contribute. :)
I do, but I'm gay on top of being an atheist. In fact, I feel mostly attacked by Christians of various stripes. Certainly not the Moff Rimmer types, but the LDS church and the Catholic church are very major offenders here. I don't feel attacked by militant Muslims because, well, it's not 9/11 anymore. Also they're vastly outnumbered by the ill-behaved Christians in my present experience. If I lived in a Muslim-majority country (or just an area) I'd instead probably get more attacks from them. It's the same stuff in different wrappers.
Not all attacks are equal, of course. The notion that atheists don't (and can't) have morals, are not worthy of citizenship, etc, is among the most pervasive I encounter but it's not quite on the level of flying planes into buildings or beating me up, tying me to a fence, and leaving me to die of exposure. (Or, I suppose, accusing me of child molestation.) But it's still an attack, and a wrongheaded one. I don't mind honest criticism for a moment (well I might get annoyed, but then I'm as human as anybody else), but these aren't that. Nor is denial of free and equal rights because someone's religion doesn't like that.
I do, but I'm gay on top of being an atheist. In fact, I feel mostly attacked by Christians of various stripes. Certainly not the Moff Rimmer types, but the LDS church and the Catholic church are very major offenders here. I don't feel attacked by militant Muslims because, well, it's not 9/11 anymore. Also they're vastly outnumbered by the ill-behaved Christians in my present experience. If I lived in a Muslim-majority country (or just an area) I'd instead probably get more attacks from them. It's the same stuff in different wrappers.
Actually, Samnell, despite the many hurdles you face, living in a Muslim majority country could be a lot worse for you than a Christian one:
Sharia laws dealing with homosexuality
Discussion of apostasy in Sharia judicial thought
Despite the many hurdles you face (and I do sympathize, having many family members who are gay and others who are atheists), our legal system is set up to protect you, rather than persecute you. The attacks you suffer would be much worse if they had legal backing by the State.
|
So what constitutes Christianity in the US?
78.4% of the US is listed as believers. But do you lump every group in the same category? Just Protestants? Then that’s 51.3%. How about just the Evangelical churches then? 26.3%. But if you don’t count all those churches as one, and they don’t count themselves as a single group then you are left with the majority religion being Catholic at 23.9%. But many Evangelical Churches do not count Catholics as Christians. I myself spoke with a neighbor once who when she found out I was Catholic said, “oh but I thought you were a Christian.” And did not know that Catholics were considered by most as being a majority part of that title.
This gets into even more confusion when you add in groups such as Mormons 1.7% Or J.W. at 0.7% and then find out there are splinter groups in that category, which each group does not believe is part of the whole.
This does not even get into smaller groups many, if not all of whom do not actually fit into the grouping that they are given. 16.1% are Unaffiliated. But that covers the gamut of atheist 1.6% and Agnostic 2.4% (which can include believers who have an aversion to organized religion, which if you ask me seems to be on the rise) to 12.1% who are “nothing in particular”
Now this is just one survey and I have seen others. They all run about the same numbers. So I ask again what constitutes Christianity, or just a Christian in your view?
|
So what constitutes Christianity in the US?
78.4% of the US is listed as believers. But do you lump every group in the same category? Just Protestants? Then that’s 51.3%. How about just the Evangelical churches then? 26.3%. But if you don’t count all those churches as one, and they don’t count themselves as a single group then you are left with the majority religion being Catholic at 23.9%. But many Evangelical Churches do not count Catholics as Christians. I myself spoke with a neighbor once who when she found out I was Catholic said, “oh but I thought you were a Christian.” And did not know that Catholics were considered by most as being a majority part of that title.This gets into even more confusion when you add in groups such as Mormons 1.7% Or J.W. at 0.7% and then find out there are splinter groups in that category, which each group does not believe is part of the whole.
This does not even get into smaller groups many, if not all of whom do not actually fit into the grouping that they are given. 16.1% are Unaffiliated. But that covers the gamut of atheist 1.6% and Agnostic 2.4% (which can include believers who have an aversion to organized religion, which if you ask me seems to be on the rise) to 12.1% who are “nothing in particular”
Now this is just one survey and I have seen others. They all run about the same numbers. So I ask again what constitutes Christianity, or just a Christian in your view?
If you believe that salvation (however you define it) is to be found through Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God, then you're a Christian. You might be Catholic or Protestant, but you're still a Christian, just as you can be Sunni or Shia but are stil a Muslim. This seems fairly obvious to me. Why do you ask?
|
I do, but I'm gay on top of being an atheist. In fact, I feel mostly attacked by Christians of various stripes. Certainly not the Moff Rimmer types, but the LDS church and the Catholic church are very major offenders here. I don't feel attacked by militant Muslims because, well, it's not 9/11 anymore. Also they're vastly outnumbered by the ill-behaved Christians in my present experience. If I lived in a Muslim-majority country (or just an area) I'd instead probably get more attacks from them. It's the same stuff in different wrappers.Actually, Samnell, despite the many hurdles you face, living in a Muslim majority country could be a lot worse for you than a Christian one:
Sharia laws dealing with homosexuality
Discussion of apostasy in Sharia judicial thought
Despite the many hurdles you face (and I do sympathize, having many family members who are gay and others who are atheists), our legal system is set up to protect you, rather than persecute you. The attacks you suffer would be much worse if they had legal backing by the State.
Naturally, the fact that it could be worse doens't make it okay (and I know that's not what you are suggesting at all, Patrick, just making the point that it IS an issue.)
But I have a friend who I have fallen out of touch with who is gay and is from Kuwait, and he has to walk a delicate line there. Because he's from a very high caste, the law has to give him the "benefit of the doubt" so to speak, so there can be a lot of nudge-nudge/common knowledge sort of thing going on, but if he says the wrong thing in front of the wrong people, he could be in all sorts of legal trouble, and a lower caste person would generally be executed.
It's good to remember that, while we want things to be better, there are also places where they're worse.
|
|
Just so you know, this is the LDS Churches official position on gay rights.
I do, but I'm gay on top of being an atheist. In fact, I feel mostly attacked by Christians of various stripes. Certainly not the Moff Rimmer types, but the LDS church and the Catholic church are very major offenders here. I don't feel attacked by militant Muslims because, well, it's not 9/11 anymore. Also they're vastly outnumbered by the ill-behaved Christians in my present experience. If I lived in a Muslim-majority country (or just an area) I'd instead probably get more attacks from them. It's the same stuff in different wrappers.
The Church does not object to rights regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.
The LDS Church's position is that you, as a gay athiest, should have the same rights as every other citizen. We support civil unions, but we believe that force anyone to recognize as marriage something that is contrary to their personal or religious beliefs is not tolerance but tyranny.
|
|
If you believe that salvation (however you define it) is to be found through Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God, then you're a Christian. You might be Catholic or Protestant, but you're still a Christian, just as you can be Sunni or Shia but are stil a Muslim. This seems fairly obvious to me. Why do you ask?
Because as was pointed out by a couple of other posters here. One group does not consider another as part of that Group. Because of a difference of beliefs or semantics some groups do not believe say the LDS church as a Christian organization. Which obviously distresses many since that is part and parcel of their belief structure.
Even some prominent members of the LDS group says that if you stick with a very strict mainstream interpretation of what is and is not a Christian that they are then not Christians and as such the mainstream interpretation should change.
As I pointed out some evangelical groups do not consider Catholic as Christian either.
So I wanted to know what others opinions on the matter were.
|
|
Just so you know, this is the LDS Churches official position on gay rights.
I do, but I'm gay on top of being an atheist. In fact, I feel mostly attacked by Christians of various stripes. Certainly not the Moff Rimmer types, but the LDS church and the Catholic church are very major offenders here. I don't feel attacked by militant Muslims because, well, it's not 9/11 anymore. Also they're vastly outnumbered by the ill-behaved Christians in my present experience. If I lived in a Muslim-majority country (or just an area) I'd instead probably get more attacks from them. It's the same stuff in different wrappers.
The Church does not object to rights regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.The LDS Church's position is that you, as a gay athiest, should have the same rights as every other citizen. We support civil unions, but we believe that force anyone to recognize as marriage something that is contrary to their personal or religious beliefs is not tolerance but tyranny.
The Catholic belief is the long standing quote of "Love the sinner, not the sin." So we do not agree with state sponsered same sex marriage. Does disagreement equate to attack? If the state allows for Gay marriage should a catholic preist then be forced to perform said marriage as some proponents suggest? or should the government just offer civil unions which is not a religous function and then drop the subject?
|
|
If you believe that salvation (however you define it) is to be found through Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God, then you're a Christian. You might be Catholic or Protestant, but you're still a Christian, just as you can be Sunni or Shia but are stil a Muslim. This seems fairly obvious to me. Why do you ask?Because as was pointed out by a couple of other posters here. One group does not consider another as part of that Group. Because of a difference of beliefs or semantics some groups do not believe say the LDS church as a Christian organization. Which obviously distresses many since that is part and parcel of their belief structure.
Even some prominent members of the LDS group says that if you stick with a very strict mainstream interpretation of what is and is not a Christian that they are then not Christians and as such the mainstream interpretation should change.
As I pointed out some evangelical groups do not consider Catholic as Christian either.
So I wanted to know what others opinions on the matter were.
Well, to be fair, I'm completely outside the groups as an agnostic tending towards atheism. But it's common with religions that have different sects that each sect believes itself to be the one, true representation of the religion. I'd guess people like the little old lady you cited are just extreme versions of that, in that if you don't believe their brand of Christianity, you're not good enough to be a 'proper' Christian.
|
|
Just so you know, this is the LDS Churches official position on gay rights.
I do, but I'm gay on top of being an atheist. In fact, I feel mostly attacked by Christians of various stripes. Certainly not the Moff Rimmer types, but the LDS church and the Catholic church are very major offenders here. I don't feel attacked by militant Muslims because, well, it's not 9/11 anymore. Also they're vastly outnumbered by the ill-behaved Christians in my present experience. If I lived in a Muslim-majority country (or just an area) I'd instead probably get more attacks from them. It's the same stuff in different wrappers.
The Church does not object to rights regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.The LDS Church's position is that you, as a gay athiest, should have the same rights as every other citizen. We support civil unions, but we believe that force anyone to recognize as marriage something that is contrary to their personal or religious beliefs is not tolerance but tyranny.The Catholic belief is the long standing quote of "Love the sinner, not the sin." So we do not agree with state sponsered same sex marriage. Does disagreement equate to attack? If the state allows for Gay marriage should a catholic preist then be forced to perform said marriage as some proponents suggest? or should the government just offer civil unions which is not a religous function and then drop the subject?
Hmm. My Unitarian church does marry same-sex couples, even though it's not legal. Should the government not recognize the marriages of one church because another church does not agree? That smacks of favoritism to me.
As a side note, anyone who thinks that the clergy of a church should perform weddings for couples that are inconsistent with the dogma of their church has a screw loose. But as far as marriage as a legal institution is concerned, separate is not equal.
|
Just so you know, this is the LDS Churches official position on gay rights.
I do, but I'm gay on top of being an atheist. In fact, I feel mostly attacked by Christians of various stripes. Certainly not the Moff Rimmer types, but the LDS church and the Catholic church are very major offenders here. I don't feel attacked by militant Muslims because, well, it's not 9/11 anymore. Also they're vastly outnumbered by the ill-behaved Christians in my present experience. If I lived in a Muslim-majority country (or just an area) I'd instead probably get more attacks from them. It's the same stuff in different wrappers.
The Church does not object to rights regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.The LDS Church's position is that you, as a gay athiest, should have the same rights as every other citizen. We support civil unions, but we believe that force anyone to recognize as marriage something that is contrary to their personal or religious beliefs is not tolerance but tyranny.
And yet, on the 'Interracial Couples denied Marriage License', you said.
"That is utter crap. The judge should not have a job any more."
Surely it's the judges personal and religious belief that an interracial couple shouldn't be married, so why is that so unacceptable that you'd want him to lose his job, yet saying that a gay couple should be married is a tyrannical act?
Surely it's the judges personal and religious belief that an interracial couple shouldn't be married, so why is that so unacceptable that you'd want him to lose his job, yet saying that a gay couple should be married is a tyrannical act?
Because organized religions get a free pass?
|
|
Just so you know, this is the LDS Churches official position on gay rights.
I do, but I'm gay on top of being an atheist. In fact, I feel mostly attacked by Christians of various stripes. Certainly not the Moff Rimmer types, but the LDS church and the Catholic church are very major offenders here. I don't feel attacked by militant Muslims because, well, it's not 9/11 anymore. Also they're vastly outnumbered by the ill-behaved Christians in my present experience. If I lived in a Muslim-majority country (or just an area) I'd instead probably get more attacks from them. It's the same stuff in different wrappers.
The Church does not object to rights regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.The LDS Church's position is that you, as a gay athiest, should have the same rights as every other citizen. We support civil unions, but we believe that force anyone to recognize as marriage something that is contrary to their personal or religious beliefs is not tolerance but tyranny.And yet, on the 'Interracial Couples denied Marriage License', you said.
"That is utter crap. The judge should not have a job any more."
Surely it's the judges personal and religious belief that an interracial couple shouldn't be married, so why is that so unacceptable that you'd want him to lose his job, yet saying that a gay couple should be married is a tyrannical act?
The Supreme Court has ruled that interracial marriage is legal in the United States. Furthermore, the judge did not have to become a judge. Upon taking the oath of office he swore to uphold and defend the laws and the Constitution of the United States. I am not aware of any religion that teachs that interracial marriage is a sin. So there is no real disagrement in my statements. A judge has a duty to uphold and enforce the laws. It is his mandate. A priest's mandate is to uphold the doctrines of his church. You can not apply the same standard here, because they two bodies are not equal in power or stature.
|
|
Surely it's the judges personal and religious belief that an interracial couple shouldn't be married, so why is that so unacceptable that you'd want him to lose his job, yet saying that a gay couple should be married is a tyrannical act?Because organized religions get a free pass?
Because the First Ammendment is there to protect religion from government. That is something that too many people don't understand.