| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks Rocketman!
I was perversely hoping that they actually had some kind of defensible point, just so I could enjoy tearing it apart and shoving it down their throats.
Still no advance in bigotry since I last looked then.
If people just contented themselves that there was a god, then I could be mildly amused but not really care. But the outline you gave shows why I despise organised religion.
I am a member of an organized religion. Does that mean you hate me?
Look, I know you're not targeting me. And you're not targeting people like me. But this broad use of language I find non-conducive to effective or productive discourse about these kind of issues.
Now, people use all kinds of ideologies to back up fear and hatred of the Other. Religious views are one of many. Political and philosophical ideologies can do as much damage. Various "communist" (note the quotes) revolutions banned religion but people were still persecuted and killed, out of other doctrines.
That there are religious people who use their beliefs to back up hateful behavior is a beyond-word horrible thing. And I find it especially painful that there are Christians, ostensibly members of a religion whose lord preached "go and love one another," amongst other admonitions against hatred and encouragements toward tolerance and peace, who cherry pick aspects of their particular church's teachings and poorly translated or poorly contexted segments of their scripture to be hateful toward LGTBQ persons. It's especially sad when you think of the history of Christianity and note that Christians once upon a time themselves were tortured and put to death for their faith, that their own persecution is forgotten by some of that faith and some now persecute others.
But I also know many Christians, and many members of other religions, who work hard--indeed, fueled by their faith--to foster equal treatment of all people and to Witness their religions' teachings about peace and respect.
I encourage you to follow whatever path of faith or non-faith (and faith can be in anything, not just a perceived divine entity) that works for you. I for one am not going to tell you what you should believe. If organized religion doesn't work for you, indeed, no reason for you to approach it.
But I also encourage you not to paint an extremely huge group of people in the world with such a very broad brush. Being religious by itself does not automatically make you anti-gay, anti-tolerance, or anti-anything else, and implying that ignores and undermines good works for justice and kindness done by many religious persons all over the world. And even if these people are in a minority--well, then all the more reason they ought not be overlooked.
Hope it goes well, Sir Weasel! Bring a good book.
+1. :)
|
Thanks Rocketman!
I was perversely hoping that they actually had some kind of defensible point, just so I could enjoy tearing it apart and shoving it down their throats.
Still no advance in bigotry since I last looked then.
If people just contented themselves that there was a god, then I could be mildly amused but not really care. But the outline you gave shows why I despise organised religion.
I am a member of an organized religion. Does that mean you hate me?
Look, I know you're not targeting me. And you're not targeting people like me. But this broad use of language I find non-conducive to effective or productive discourse about these kind of issues.
Now, people use all kinds of ideologies to back up fear and hatred of the Other. Religious views are one of many. Political and philosophical ideologies can do as much damage. Various "communist" (note the quotes) revolutions banned religion but people were still persecuted and killed, out of other doctrines.
That there are religious people who use their beliefs to back up hateful behavior is a beyond-word horrible thing. And I find it especially painful that there are Christians, ostensibly members of a religion whose lord preached "go and love one another," amongst other admonitions against hatred and encouragements toward tolerance and peace, who cherry pick aspects of their particular church's teachings and poorly translated or poorly contexted segments of their scripture to be hateful toward LGTBQ persons. It's especially sad when you think of the history of Christianity and note that Christians once upon a time themselves were tortured and put to death for their faith, that their own persecution is forgotten by some of that faith and some now persecute others.
But I also know many Christians, and many members of other religions, who work hard--indeed, fueled by their faith--to foster equal treatment of all people and to Witness their religions' teachings about peace and respect.
I...
Thanks DQ. What you wrote reflects my actual opinion.
My quote you posted was a reply to Rocketman's list of reasons why organised religion requires everyone to conform to a single dogma, no matter how hateful.
I hope that my comments weren't misconstrued. My personal hatred of organised religion does not translate to a hatred of individual religious people. It's not the sinner that I hate, but the sin.
My father is a priest, and I love him. He is also a doctor of theology, and we have great conversations on this subject, by phone these days since he moved to the States.
I personally know many religious people, and I like or dislike them on an individual basis. I like the vast majority of them. It doesn't stop me from debating them, but I don't berate them for being religious out of the debate arena; that wouldn't be fair.
Thanks for the clarification, Malachi. My main point was indeed that your statement could be misconstrued due to its very broad wording. I appreciate very much your openness to dialogue so I hope you don't mind some further commentary.
A note:
organised religion requires everyone to conform to a single dogma
Different religions have different "requirements" of what they want their members to conform to.
And while I know we're largely an exception, my community (Hicksite/liberal Quakers) very specifically insists upon having no dogma. We're probably on the far end of the spectrum, but there are many faiths where part of the journey is to some extent is to give enough leeway to figure things out for yourself, and that means not being strictly dogmatic.
You can say, "I hate it when a group forces its members to rigidly conform to a very narrow worldview and set of behaviors and condemn others who do not conform to the same principles." (And this could apply as easily to certain religions as it could to certain political parties or other organizations, but you could even say "I hate it when religious groups force...")
But your words can still be easily interpreted as, "I hate all religion because all religion forces people behave in this one specific way," when this is not true.
My request--to take or leave, obviously--is simply that you are careful about how you word your sentiments so that this kind of misunderstanding doesn't happen, in your own mind or anyone else. :) Lest it result in a divergent argument that ultimately gets away from the real point of the discussion.
It's not the sinner that I hate, but the sin.
That's a phrase I first heard from an anti-gay fundamentalist. Was that intended?
That phrase is as old as the tides and had been used in all sorts of ways over the years.
That phrase is as old as the tides and had been used in all sorts of ways over the years.
While it may be an old phrase, it is extremely frequently used by some people in the anti-TLGB movement. All I said was that the first time I heard the phrase, it was from one such person. Unless you are telepathic and thus privy to my personal experiences and memories and know differently, my statement, that the first time I heard such a phrase was from such a person, remains correct.
I was just wondering if he was meaning to evoke that--to twist their words to a new purpose--and if so, a clever twist in fact! It was an expression of curiosity, not an accusation or an argument, nor a suggestion that he had said anything wrong. While I realize you're not coming out and suggesting otherwise directly, I can't imagine why you'd nitpick at that unless you thought my intentions were less than simply, neutrally, asking a question, which is all they are.
I admit I could have defined "that" more clearly.
That phrase is as old as the tides and had been used in all sorts of ways over the years.While it may be an old phrase, it is extremely frequently used by some people in the anti-TLGB movement. All I said was that the first time I heard the phrase, it was from one such person. Unless you are telepathic and thus privy to my personal experiences and memories and know differently, my statement, that the first time I heard such a phrase was from such a person, remains correct.
I was just wondering if he was meaning to evoke that--to twist their words to a new purpose--and if so, a clever twist in fact! It was an expression of curiosity, not an accusation or an argument, nor a suggestion that he had said anything wrong. While I realize you're not coming out and suggesting otherwise directly, I can't imagine why you'd nitpick at that unless you thought my intentions were less than simply, neutrally, asking a question, which is all they are.
I admit I could have defined "that" more clearly.
you lost me there. That said, like a lot of old saws, it's been used to excuse all sorts of ugly thoughts and behavior.
And I was asking Malachi if he was therefore using the same phrasing to turn it around on the kind of people who usually use it. Understand?
[Rest of post deleted. I am not interested in derailing my own discussion nitpicking over semantics.]
I'm not malachi, but I doubt he meant it in a negative or insulting sense.
I'm not malachi, but I doubt he meant it in a negative or insulting sense.
And as I said in my first reply to you, I did not think he meant that either, and just wanted to know if he was playing on the phrase deliberately.
If so, for the record, I thought he was being clever.
As noted in my reply here (emphasis mine):
I was just wondering if he was meaning to evoke that--to twist their words to a new purpose--and if so, a clever twist in fact! It was an expression of curiosity, not an accusation or an argument, nor a suggestion that he had said anything wrong.
Please read my posts more carefully before picking a fight with me over something on which there is in fact no argument to be had. I could have been clearer, yes, but I don't appreciate effectively being accused when I'm not guilty of something. In fact, you know what, I'll spare you by just not responding to you any further.
|
|
I am Malachi...well....kinda!
My deliberate use of the sin/sinner phrase was simply using a religious paradigm to criticise the intolerant aspects of religion.
I realise that certain phrases ring alarm bells for certain people, while remaining harmless to those unfamiliar with insulting uses of the phrase. I once was asked why I always sat in the same corner of the staff room. The reason was, while I didn't think I was really in any danger from an attack, the psychological effect of being in a secure place was subconsciously comforting. However, I didn't want a huge debate about it, so I chose a phrase that I had no reason to believe was anything but innocent, and was nice and brief. The phrase I chose was, 'I like to keep my back to a wall.'
A gay colleague who was in the room responded, 'What the Hell is THAT supposed to mean?' As soon as he said that I realised what that phrase must mean to him. Such thoughts were not in my head, though.
One of my friends was upset because a customer had said something to him in jest. At first I didn't realise why he was so upset over an unfunny comment, but he explained to me that 'He needs a good whipping' has connotations for black people that didn't occur to me until it was pointed out. Not using racist language myself, I'd never come across the phrase. I assure you that I'd never heard the sin/sinner thing being used in an anti-gay way; being straight and cool about others not being straight means that perjorative uses of some otherwise mundane phrases sometimes pass me by. I actually admire the sin/sinner phrase. I don't believe in 'sin', per se, but I can tell the difference between a person and a belief.
DQ is correct, I have been imprecise in my use of words. What I really can't stand is intolerance, in any form. : )
Religion specialises in this, so most intolerance seems to be rooted there. This is not universally true of all organised religions, it just seems to be true that most of the organised intolerance is 'excused' and organised by religion. I hope you can see the difference.
Permit my to indulge in an analogy. The Tooth Fairy. Doesn't really exist, and adults swiftly outgrow belief in her existence. Imagine for a moment that some sizable minority of adults retained a belief in her existence, against all reason. It seems harmless enough; they're not hurting anyone, after all!
Then they declare that modern dentistry is incompatible with their faith. Teeth are the Tooth Fairy's purview, after all! Well, weird, but it's their own business, right? What if enough of the 'faithful' were elected to office, and outlawed modern dentistry! Not just for themselves, but even for people who don't share their faith! Would it still be cute and harmless then?
As deliberately absurd as this example is, it's how those without a belief in any god feel a lot of the time. While broader society may think that Jehovah's Witnesses' are strange for not allowing blood transfusions based on one way of reading the Bible that isn't shared by the vast majority of those who have faith in the same book, trying to get a comprehensive sex education in America is hampered by those in some states who have allowed those of a certain faith to dictate to those without that faith what they can and cannot learn, resulting in huge rates of unwanted teenage pregnancy and STDs. This would not happen if those who believed a thing didn't try and impose the dogma of their religion on those who don't want it.
This doesn't mean that all religions are like that, but it does mean that this behaviour is carried out by religious people and allows to do so because religion has a protected status in law.
I hate injustice. In my zeal to put my case I may have been less than precise in my language, leading me to unjustly tar all religious individuals with the same brush. For that, I apologise.
All i can say is that i wasn't picking a fight. We may not agree on everything, but believe me, this is the last thing i would argue with you about. I think we really misunderstood each other-I was posting via phone en route to work and maybe was a bit short on explanations myself. I ask forgiveness.
At new york pony con woooooooooooooooooooo!
|
Hey mogwen,
I read in a news article about the riots in France that the anger against the same-sex marriage bill is actually more just people taking out their frustration with the President than them disagreeing with same-sex marriage in general. Do you think this is about right, or is an outsider's perspective of the situation?
I guess what I'm asking is... there isn't really a violet outcry against LGBT folk over there, is there?
Meh, another protest letter against civilian partnerships from catholic fanatics signed by 72 thousands of people... "They (civilian partnerships) will open the way to homosexual marriage with the right to adoption", "They will be grave immorality", "They will rape the god's law!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's outrageous. There will be grave immorality in the form of masses of marriages where people live the way the catholic church has been preaching for more than a thousand years. And when people see that there was no sensible reason to make a fuss about it, there will be children who get caring homes!
This is horrible! Because... uh...
um...
It's bad because...
...
Go grave immorality!
Meh, another protest letter against civilian partnerships from catholic fanatics signed by 72 thousands of people... "They (civilian partnerships) will open the way to homosexual marriage with the right to adoption",
Me, when some Conservatives made this argument back in school*: "Yes, and that's bad, because?"
They: Mumbled something and looked shocked that not everyone shared their world-view, which was quite impressive since that was long enough ago that they'd not been in any peace-time government for more than 9 of the last 61 years at that time. These days most of them seem to be fine with gay marriage and adoption, both, though.
*Which would've been in 1994 - they obviously didn't send their top people.
Meh, another protest letter against civilian partnerships from catholic fanatics signed by 72 thousands of people... "They (civilian partnerships) will open the way to homosexual marriage with the right to adoption",Me, when some Conservatives made this argument back in school*: "Yes, and that's bad, because?"
They: Mumbled something and looked shocked that not everyone shared their world-view, which was quite impressive since that was long enough ago that they'd not been in any peace-time government for more than 9 of the last 61 years at that time. These days most of them seem to be fine with gay marriage and adoption, both, though.
*Which would've been in 1994 - they obviously didn't send their top people.
Is this Moderaterna or Kristdemokraterna? In 1994, neither had ANY top people to send.
Moderaterna. KD remains a bit behind on the issue, it seems.
AND on the top people issue. =)
How is that US Supreme Court hearing going by the way?
|
|
It only lasts about an hour and they probably won't have a decision until June.
Based on the statements of the justices, it sounds like on today's case they may be inclined to allow the lower court's decision to stand without taking any broader stance. That would mean same-sex marriage would be legalized in the state of California, while other states would continue to have their own laws on the matter. Anything can happen, though, when it comes time for those written decisions in the summer.
Tomorrow's case is a challenge to federal laws that declare that the US government does not have to recognize same-sex marriages legally issued by individual states. That one is likely to be more black-and-white, since the law as written poses some significant conflicts with other laws that cannot coexist with it. Many observers think that law will be struck down handily, meaning couples legally married in states with same-sex marriage will have their unions recognized by the US government, and that is a pretty big deal. We will have to see how those arguments go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Misery and arguements for everyone!!!!
How is that US Supreme Court hearing going by the way?
Most of the substantive ones end up being theater. The justices already know more or less how they'll vote. That may not be so on hyper-technical cases that don't have many obvious policy implications, but not on the big ticket items that interest news crews. Later this week they will vote in private and know the outcome. From then it's just writing the opinions. The people outside their staffs will not know until June. Occasionally justices do switch during the writing process, but it appears to be mostly a tactical maneuver to steer the development of the opinions.
|
|
I find it fascinating that the endeavour to create a separation of government and the judiciary has led to a supreme court filled with political appointees who vote along party lines.
I'm also fascinated that the endeavour to create a separation of church and state has led to the U.S. being the only country in the top 20 most developed nations to be mainly religious, whereas the other 19 had established churches and are now mostly secular.
I find it fascinating that the endeavour to create a separation of government and the judiciary has led to a supreme court filled with political appointees who vote along party lines.
Some of the more recent decisions have had some strange voting arrangements that certainly don't fall along the often assumed 5-4 conservative/liberal lines on the court. A decision this week on drug dogs and needing warrants had Scalia and Ginsberg on the side side of the decision for instance.
I find it fascinating that the endeavour to create a separation of government and the judiciary has led to a supreme court filled with political appointees who vote along party lines.
An interesting point. I wonder how else they could be appointed. But then, I think the founders of the nation didn't imagine the party system would "evolve" (heavy emphasis on use of quotes) into what it did. IIRC (it's too early to look up facts) Washington hated the very idea of political parties, and he probably had the right of it.
I'm also fascinated that the endeavour to create a separation of church and state has led to the U.S. being the only country in the top 20 most developed nations to be mainly religious, whereas the other 19 had established churches and are now mostly secular.
Pardoning my extreme oversimplification of the matter (again, it's early, and I am not a historian), but it was a nation settled and founded by a) Puritans, b) other religious exiles/zealots/pilgrims, and c) businessmen and statesmen who wanted to profit from the land's resources. The founders were largely c and then then realized they gave the vote to a and b (though originally only white male landowners), and would have to appeal to a and b to keep the vote. (There were of course also criminals, indentured servants, and slaves, but they weren't considered "part of the process" at the time.)
And honestly, a, b, and c (in mutated form) still rather predominate what goes on in this country to this day, or try to at least.
Stupid democracy. ;)
I'm not defending, applauding, or condemning anything btw just noting.
Well, my date was a good one. We went and saw Jack the Giant Slayer. Turns out 3D isn't as good as I remembered though.
awright!!!!!
(...) the party system would "evolve" (heavy emphasis on use of quotes) into (...)
Mutate?
IIRC (it's too early to look up facts) Washington hated the very idea of political parties, and he probably had the right of it.
Parties are so often threat to working democracy...
Parties do not evolve. They do not think, consider, want, or change. What they do is things like spawn, slither, ooze, engulf, devour, infect, consume, threaten, smother, putrefy and mangle.
Parties do not evolve. They do not think, consider, want, or change. What they do is things like spawn, slither, ooze, engulf, devour, infect, consume, threaten, smother, putrefy and mangle.
So they are oozes then. Mindless, often corrosive, and yet hard to kill. Yeah, that sounds about right.
Parties do not evolve. They do not think, consider, want, or change. What they do is things like spawn, slither, ooze, engulf, devour, infect, consume, threaten, smother, putrefy and mangle.
I'd respectfully disagree with that. They do evolve, or perhaps devolve would be a better term (I'm thinking particularly about the (British) Labour party)
I'm not sure that parties are a threat to democracy, either - direct democracy isn't workable in the form of society we have at the moment, and democracy without parties tends to be even more of a popularity contest than democracy with parties.
Apologies for potential derailment - polisquabbles will be taken care of elsewhere in future :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So when do we meet this young man and decide whether he is good enough for our DB3?Back you! I don't want all you crazies scaring him away! :P
Hey, if he can stand us he's a keeper!
By the judiciary?I find it fascinating that the endeavour to create a separation of government and the judiciary has led to a supreme court filled with political appointees who vote along party lines.An interesting point. I wonder how else they could be appointed.
If you mean by judges from lower courts, many of them are elected, so...
I find it fascinating that the endeavour to create a separation of government and the judiciary has led to a supreme court filled with political appointees who vote along party lines.An interesting point. I wonder how else they could be appointed. But then, I think the founders of the nation didn't imagine the party system would "evolve" (heavy emphasis on use of quotes) into what it did. IIRC (it's too early to look up facts) Washington hated the very idea of political parties, and he probably had the right of it.
Washington was a bog-standard federalist, really. He just didn't think the presidency should be perceived as political and preferred to crack his skulls behind the scenes when he could. Rather like the British monarchy of the century prior often did, when the butt on the throne could be bothered to speak English. He aimed for a public image one part Roman statesman and one part marble statue of a Roman statesman.
|
|
If you mean by judges from lower courts, many of them are elected, so...By the judiciary?I find it fascinating that the endeavour to create a separation of government and the judiciary has led to a supreme court filled with political appointees who vote along party lines.An interesting point. I wonder how else they could be appointed.
In Britain, judges are trained and qualified, rather than elected by untrained and unqualified laymen, or appointed by politicians.