Religon and the World Around It

Watch the Brian Lamb interview with Camile Paglia. Excellent stuff for anyone who is following the above "debate".

http://www.booktv.org/feature/index.asp?schedid=204&segid=3721

(and its ONLY 3 hours)

(and no, I am not a fan of hers, I don't know much about her other than what's in the interview)

Well, no one said the ministers opposing gay marraige need to marry gay couples. What bothers me is the church not allowing ministers who DO support gay marraige to marry gay couples.



Well, if that's all the homosexual couples are going for then fine, let it be. But, Bush banning gay marrige for people who perhaps do NOT believe in the Bible is what gets me.



Same as I said above, I'm not forcing the MINISTERS who don't want to marry gay couples, I just don't appreciate the CHURCH forcing MINISTERS who may actually believe in gay marraige.



Then talk about tolerance. Interesting. Well, if you want some facts, You're thought here is valid until proven otherwise. So, if you could find me a television station with Arianna Huffington's face on it and the words "Cultergeist" under it, PM me or IM me in world please.



Well, no, it really doesn't. But then again, just because it isn't a law, it doesn't mean the public likes it. The public, of course, being your "lump" (hem hem) of super-liberal paintbrush-toaters. Well it's damn true, I love to paint .



And belief I might add. Belief... in the bible? In what you believe to be a sin or not in the face of our Lord God, or Lord Joan Rivers or whatever you believe in. And if that's been twisted to mean that one public official can control the belief of many others...



Oh, and as long as we're on the subject, be sure to reffer to Mac's "lumping" post again. It's quite interesting, really.

Well, I hope my flames warmed your feet for the evening. Mine are feeling a little chilly right now, I must say, so I quite look forward to reading yours. Your opposing views and opinions are quite like the National Geographic channel; I don't agree with everything I see, but I certainly am entertained by it and I always find myself setting my TiVo for the next episode

ok only a couple of things.

1. Bush and religious references.
Yeah I dont care that he uses them. I may be lapsed, but I was raised Roman Catholic and even I find myself using the language that such a childhood instilled in me.
but....
Bush doesnt go before a crowd cold. he has speech writers and everything he is planning on saying is written out ahead of time - planned to target the audience, to provoke feelings, etc.. So.. when he uses religious references, it is premeditated.

let me repeat. premeditated. to what? to provoke feelings, and target the audience. So yes, in my eyes, he is using church as an influence on state.

2. gay marriages.
Hey I'm all for them. I dont even begin to see what the hassle is. Go bust more meth dealers, but were talking about honest citizens who want to express their love and devotion for one another. Does it matter what sex it is? should you not be able to buy a dog if it's your sex? come on. love is love. Give them the dignity of saying "yes, this is your life partner - we accept that choice even if it's not our view". They dont piss in the holy water, dont rain on their parade. As a side note, if a faith can elevate an openly gay priest to high office, what is the problem with marrying them? maybe not *every* faith - but hey I dont charm snakes either.

that is all, I now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast.

I believe it was Jon Stewart who said:

"I am TOTALLY against gay marraige. I mean really, why do they want to make me marry a gay man? My wife won't like that! I don't want them to make us marry gay people! And the reason I think it's manditory is because otherwise, what would all the fuss be about?

Hmm interesting thread, actually a few things were left out.

Before I go there, here is my experience:

Was raised in a split family (Divorce isn't that a sin?)
Father was a Lutheran
Mother was a Jehova's (spellin don't care) Witness.

I tried religion in my early of earliest adult years, learned a great deal of the bible and had many debates (as a christian)

And now I have debates as a nonchristian.

There were so many things I saw in the church and the bible that didn't sit right with me, also getting burned out after remembering how my parents were with their beliefs as I got more "into" the bible, just convinced me with my opinion of this is not the way.

Currently I have a more open belief that really doesn't fit into any one "religious" catagory.

My beliefs tend to stear towards my Indian heritage and the Stregan belief.

Now onto what I think was missed....

Firstly in christian beliefs Divorce is a sin, but accepted. No one is austrisized (spelling) anymore or as much as they used to for divorce.

One particular church I was in said yes it is a sin but sins can be forgivin. (isn't this supposed to be true for all "sins"?)

There are many "sins" that are done by every christian and if I remember right the bible says no one sin is great than another nor is no one person's sins to be considered worse.

But also I remember that the bible also says make something like 3 attempts to show the sinners the "way" than basically leave it alone. I definatly don't see this happening anywhere.

Now on this note if gay's are "sinning" and in the churchs' eye they are wrong. And the church treats them as they do, Than why is there still christians that still smoke, drink, and any other thing that harms (as the bible puts it) "god's temple" (the body)?

Why is there still christian's beating their wives and children, cheating on their spouses, giving into gluttony (spelling), and lust?

You know the thing I found odd is that there are soo many things wrong with the way people are in the world (christian's call it sinning) why should one person or group be looked down on so much and treated so badly when there are people doing just as bad in the church?

I could go on and on and on but this is just a basic observation based on experience and a few of my thoughts on those experiences, definatly not intended to offend anyone, but on one last note. I remember that while in the church I heard a term used called convictions (not criminally)
Its that gut feeling that you get when something said or done by someone else makes you feel not so great about things you have done, kinda like what they say or do stands out to you because you been there too.

Convictions to me are not nessessarily religious but they are a funny thing, they cause all kinds of stirs and bad feelings.
Especially when that conviction is something you don't like and you take out your aggression on that person doing or saying what started making you think of that conviction in the first place.....Yes they may be saying or doing something wrong, but its not your place to correct them if you did the same <<<<Just a thought here not directed to anyone>>>>

Interesting Charlie.

I know what you mean. Sins are just something that one person or group of people considers to be wrong. Not neccasarily something we all consider to be wrong. But I've overemphisized that already.

Here's something Bill Mahr said on Real Time (perhaps this is a good example of 'liberal communist crap,' mentioned earlier) on the topic of the new makeover show "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy":

"If I want a bunch of gay people dressed in funny clothes telling me how to live, I'll go to church!"

Hmm, just something interesting and fun Discuss.

Well, so far i agree 99% with everything said here - and I feel compelled to throw in my tuppence-worth.

Let gay people marry! They are not preventng anyone from practicing their religious beliefs, unless your belief involves in-tolerance and hatred... in which case you may be preventing OTHERS from practicing THEIR beliefs.

Ultimately, if/when gay marriage is accepted, I think religious leaders will find their flocks increase in number. Are they not just shooting themselves in the foot?

(Eddie Escher is a spiritual atheist, who believes a pokemon is just as likely to have created the Earth as any reveared being. It may just have happened by accident though)

Well, I don't agree with that, smacks of censorship. We aren't free to discuss what we choose?

I have enjoyed this thread, this is the only forum I am exposed to so a little variety of opinion is welcome.

Just sign me,
A convert to Catholicism, liberal Democrat (go figure)

Great to see some other people jumping into the thread, and no flames. I love this community

Some thoughts on sin...

I don't understand why religious people believe their faith puts them a rung above non-believers or people of other faiths when it comes to morality. To me it seems the opposite is true. Religion is used like a "get out of sin free" card. As long as they accept the faith and ask forgiveness, it's off to the afterlife they go. Mother Theresa, had she been an atheist, wouldn't get in to heaven... but Hitler as long as he asked forgiveness would go. Uhhhhhh, hello? Let's pretend for a moment that I actually believed there was an afterlife, if that's the way it works I'm pretty sure I don't want to go. If blind acceptance of something that can't be proven is more important than actually being responsible for your own actions and being good to the people you share the planet with... well what exactly is that supposed to encourage?

So let's say we have two people, both of whom are extremely ethical people... good to their neighbors, generous, compassionate, moral... and one of them is devoutly religious while the other is an atheist. The atheist has no ulterior motive for living his life that way other than a common sense belief that it's the most logical way to peacefully coexist. The religious person, on the other hand, has a system of reward and punishment behind his actions. He believes if he doesn't comply he'll be punished by god and if he conforms well he'll be rewarded. Who is the better person? Who has the least selfish motive? I'm not suggesting that all religious people are selfish. I just think it's an interesting philosophical question.

Many times I've had religious people ask me how I can feel that my life has meaning and purpose if there is no God. In my view, not believing in an afterlife makes the one life we do get a lot more meaninful and important. Not believing that someone can wave a magic wand and absolve me of my wrongs against humanity means that I believe that I'm soley responsible and accountable for my own actions. And what more purpose do I need other than curiosity?

That's how I see the world anyway... your mileage may vary

Well Chip, there's a reason it's called a "faith based religon." In my opinion, science and your own personal philosophy is a religion all it's own, and there's no need to just classify yourself among all the others if you don't feel it fit.

claps for chip, great way of explaining things. This guy is a smart dude. I again agree 100% with chip on this one.

Yeah I did use the word 'bash', it certainly looked like that's how this thing was heading, but thankfully it's pretty level-headed so far.
I would like to say something else edgewise if there was anything else to say i could think of. People like Chip make it hard to do. =)

Cheers, Zeb (now Uyeshiba)

Um, this is probly a mistake to get into this, but Jesus Christ is NEVER quoted on the subject of homosexuality. St Paul was, but I think we can all agree that he must have been quite an asshole - for the most part. If you go looking to the Old Testament as a guide to daily life - which is kinda strange for non-Jews anyway, just remember that it makes a "kosher" diet, short hair, circumcisions and strict avoidance of menstruating women as imperatives for all men, and prohibits the use of facial makeup, earrings and tatoos for women. Nowhere in either testament does God say that men or women cannot be married for any reason outside reasons of consanguinity (or incest). If you're gonna live one law, live them all...
I believe that people have the right to band together and say:
"Not in our Church". Freedom of Association, even when it is abused by racist groups, is a basic right that we should fight to defend.
Our Constitution, as well as the spirit of the Declaration of Independence prevents people from saying: "Not in this Country". Anyone who does say that about something that would do them no harm - would in fact probably help stabilize our society - is an enemy of Freedom and the Constitution.

Right on David! I couldn't agree with that more.

Kudos to you, David.

Just a couple of thoughts.

1. Not all Christian denominations consider divorce a sin.

2. On 'being' Christian. Not all those who claim to be Christian, are practicing Christians. Same with any other religion. Showing up for services on Christmas and Easter does NOT make a person a practicing Christian. And guess what? We Christians are NOT better, holier, or more special than non-christians. Christians CAN go to hell. We can sin, and do all kinds of 'bad' stuff. There are also those who claim to be Christian, preach the "Holy Word", and then do the very thing they tell others not to. These Christians are also known as "Hypocrites". That said, there are tons of people out there who are good honest people. Some of these people are Christians, some are not. Same with 'bad' people.

3. Yes, many if not most Christians feel homosexuality is a sin. Not BEING gay, but practicing homosexual acts. However, not all people who don't accept homosexuality are christians. Some people believe it to be wrong because evolution apparently didn't intend for that kind of behavior. Personally, I don't care. If someone elses behavior doesn't hurt others...leave them the hell alone.

Sorry if this stuff is a little disjointed I am 95% asleep. And sorry if you didn't understand which previous points I may have been addressing. I was too lazy to copy quotes.

That's definitely true Devlin. No argument at all. There are good and bad people of all stripes. Seeing as how atheism is such a minority (mostly because a majority of them are closet atheists who fear losing their jobs or social status if they "out" themselves), most of my friends have a religious faith of one kind or another. Some of the greatest people I know are quite religious. There's no question that religion does a lot of good for people from giving a sense of community to providing needed social services. That said, I still think religion is the most divisive and destructive force at work in the world today and throughout history, and those good deeds that come from religion tend to be outweighed by all the wars, bloodshed, persecution, and bigotry that exist in god's name. I believe the time will come when in order to move forward and prosper we'll have to leave it behind and see ourselves as all siblings in the family of man rather than keep arguing about who god's chosen people are. Religion prevents its followers from seeing all people as equals, and because of that it will become increasingly at odds with where humanity needs to go in this century and beyond. As an atheist I don't have a book that tells me I shouldn't associate with christians. But that book that christians can't seem to get over specifically states that I shouldn't be associated with or married (lest a poor xian end up unequally yoked). Nice. How very comforting to know the leader of the free world agrees with that.

less than 5 years ago, i thought it generally accepted that it was taboo to be a racist, biggot or sexist (or discriminate against someone for any reason really....)

all of a sudden its ok to be a biggot? what gives! if you can spell well or remember facts with great detail, does this make it ok or something?

Devlin good points, I really don't have anything against christians or any other religion's followers until they force their will upon me and the people I am close to, and on others that I don't know who obviously don't need it forced upon.

I have christiian friends as well, I even have a muslim friend, but they don't "cram" their beliefs down my throat. Therefore I consider them as treating me equal no better or worse than them, if only everyone of every belief or nonbelief would do the same it would me a mute point to even discuss this in any form

Yes ia have seen some christian groups who don't outright consider divorce a sin, but that in itself is not following the book they base their belief on, I steared clear of theat church because they obviously pick what they want to follow and ignore the rest, but thats a whole other can'o'worms discussion I really wish not to get into

And yes I agree that there are bad and good in all groups, just like there is bad and good in every person.

And also good points Chip, its funny how people have to live in fear of their belifs or practices being trampled on or their life in jeapordy because of it. We are definatly lucky in this country that it hasn't gone as far as some countries where they torture and kill people for their beliefs and it is widely accepted but the country's people.

There are many minorities in this country as far as belifs in religion I agree if you have an athiest lifestyle and you have a Devout Catholic boss, it would be not so good an idea to let it be known.

Also in the same boat is the nice catagory that my belifs are placed in as being considered Pagan.

I like how (sarcasim here) they put so many different types of religious beliefs in this catagory.

Then consider us all sinners for having this "Catagory" belief.

Strega, Wicca, supernatural(esp types), naturism, etc....there are many many more that seem to fit this "catagory" are also a minority where you really have to watch who and where you tell your beliefs.

I get a weird look from some people that have the same beliefs as I when I am open with what I believe. They get nervous for me lol. Like I should be afraid of telling people I have the beliefs I do.

I just reply with that as a "If they don't like it they can kiss my Ars" lol

I'm not goona hide for no one just to satisfy them, while I feel closed in and not allowed to speak, hell with that.

I usually will try to get along with anyone, I give many chances to most people regardless of their sexual orientation, practices, beliefs, etc...

All because of what
Devlin basically said "there are good and bad of every group or person" I summed it up here but thats what I got out if it.

And if someone don't like me, hey thats their right, who am I to try to force them too? I wouldn't want that done to me so why shouyd I do it to anyone else ?

Id like to toss in on this thread. I know its old discussion, but hey Im an SL noob! (which means you have to be nice. BTW: When I say “society” I suppose I mean “American Society”

The thing about “gay marriage” that is confusing people is the “gay” part. The focus on “sex” is misleading many into thinking this is some sort of individual rights issue. I don’t believe that to be the case at all. Let me elaborate. There are many wonderful relationships that we enjoy as humans, such as brother and sister, father and daughter, student and teacher. However none of these have the impact on future society as the relationship of “husband and wife.” (NOTE: I will be heavily generalizing, however I think that this is appropriate as we are talking societal wide issues, the “edge” cases have little impact on the overall point.) There is no other relationship that binds one generation to the next as fully as marriage between male and female. The marriage of a man and woman does not “diminish” the relationship between best friends, or old lovers, nor does it diminish the relationship of gay couples. What it DOES do is place a greater social “importance” on the relationship that is most likely to affect the society as a whole. Though many gay people have had great impact on our society, this impact pales in comparison to the daily impact of billions of average families, living average lives, paying average taxes. Society has deemed that marriage between male and female is most likely to produce a stabilizing and revenue (taxes) generating force, from which ALL of society benefits. The use of tax breaks and other incentives for male/female marriage is one way society can encourage this desired behavior. Extending the rights and privilege of marriage to any other “relationship” is not in “societies” best interest, as these other relationships (not just gay couples BTW), generally do not produce behaviors that will result in as high a societal return on investment. As a married man and a father I can attest that much of my energy and resources are directed to the future society by way of investing in my children.

So you see, its not about “sex” its about numbers and return on investment, not to be crude, but gay marriage just doesn’t pay off (generally speaking of course) nearly as well as Male/Female marriage.

That said, the increasing divorce rate, and decreasing birth rate will likely make this a moot issue.

Took me a little bit to understand your point, Wheatgrinder. You are talking about gov't prefering male/female marriages because that relashinship ends up creating more taxpayers (thus the tax breaks offered), and a gay marriage doesn't. Is that right?

It's an interesting point, and I think it talks a bit to the separation of church and state arguement. Are all gays simply after the tax breaks? Most likely no, not primarily; they want some publicly recognised symbol of their love (etc). Currently a 'marriage' is both a state AND a religiously recognised. Maybe its time for gov't recognised 'marriages' (for tax breaks, child benefits) and religious 'marriages' (for expressing love) to be seperated.

Yes I think you have my point, I would add that I believe it goes beyond tax breaks into many other aspects of society. For example, consider that the “engine” of commerce, in general, is the effort of individuals acquiring resources to provide for their individual needs. Now, if we consider “families” then we have an increased effort to acquire resources, i.e. kids aren’t cheap. This increased effort fuels much of our economy.

Marriage as it is now, IS NOT a religious issue. It is only relevant as a state institution. I see no relation between church and state on this issue. The civic contract of marriage (it is a license after all) can only be affirmed by the state. (This is true, you can be married by a preacher, but you must get the “official” marriage license form the government)

A “preacher” can be anybody, who pays the fee; they are not really invested by the state to do anything other than sign a marriage certificate. The state may chose to honor or ignore this certification. Now a state employee, such as a justice-o-the peace IS empowered by the state to grant the marriage license. That is why the “gay” marriage issue is a LEGAL one.

You mention the “separation of church and state” topic. Please understand I mean no offense, but I hope you understand that “congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion” to make a new law saying that “churches MUST allow" gay marriage would be doing precisely what the separation of church and state is supposed to prevent. As I already said this is NOT a religious issue, government has NO business in the business of religion, as guaranteed by the constitution.

There are thousands of churches in this country who will perform a gay marriage, however this is not a state recognized contract and therefore has no binding in civil matters.

Your suggestions is in actuality the current status quo, gays can have any religious ceremony and call it what ever they want, they can where wedding rings or what ever, they are not limited in expressing there “union” in any way. However, this contract is not honored by the state, and as I stated I don’t think it should be, for the simple dollars and cents reason as society benefits MORE from heterosexual marriage than from any other relationship, regardless of how otherwise worthy that relationship may be.

Thanks

Interesting points Wheatgrinder, but I think the argument against civil marriage for gays still comes down to bias, not economic concerns. Most gay couples would be thrilled to be able to adpot a child, thus freeing the government for having to pay for its care. That would drive the exact same consumer needs that a male/female couple with a child would have, plus have the added benefit of removing someone from the dole. In that respect the your argument doesn't hold up. The only objections that anyone could have to a gay couple raising a child (and incurring all the related expensises) are based on a bias against them, not financial merit.

Thanks for you comments.

Committed gay couples can adopt, its completely legal and state supported. So can a brother and a sister, a mother and a daughter, again, these are all good relationships, however they do not have the overarching impact that female/male marriage has.

Additionally, in respects to your argument, the numbers don’t add up. Most relationships that aren’t centered on a male and female marriage do NOT result in “adopting” orphans. The numbers are below statistical relevance. Meaning, sure it “can happen” but it almost never does, so no true societal benefit will ever be/has ever been realized, my argument holds. To suggest otherwise is to say that gay couples are somehow “superior” to unmarried, but “committed” heterosexual couples. This is obviously not true; they are equals and should be treated as such.

Your logic, though sound, is focusing on the “edge” or “corner” cases and does not deal with the real issue.

If I may make a suggestion, remove ALL bias from this discussion, including the supposition that “any” argument against gay marriage must be biased. This is not a sex issue, this is not a religious issue, it is a civil issue, and as members of the society we should endeavor to let logic and sound judgment be our guide. If society in general can be improved by extending the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage, to other “types” of relationships, then I fully support it. Please respond with logical examples of how our society will be improved.

Thanks
Wheatgrinder

ok so first let me admit I've only read the last 3 posts before commenting here (I care but I have a splitting headache) so if I get something out of context, dont bite my head off... or.. maybe that'd help. hmm..


Anyway. The idea that gay couples want a tax break for being married.. or want publicity is really quite silly. I'm not married so do not know, but to my understanding married couples dont get tax breaks.. do they? I somehow think this is a misconception (correct me if I'm wrong, please!). As far as publicity, unless the couple are activists, I think most don't want a glaring light on them. The gay persons I know have lived under the scrutiny of others enough. Why add to it? Unless of course you're at a parade with a hundred thousand of your friends and family because then you wont need to worry about if the people looking will be kind or cruel.

Ever had your tires slashed? Eggs & bottles thrown at your house? The spotlight isnt always kind.

I think the point most people miss is the things that gay persons dont get certain rights because they are not married.

----

In many cases, even carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude gay partners from a funeral or deny partners the right to visit a partner's grave. As survivors, they can even sieze a real estate property that the couple may have been buying together for years, quickly sell it at a huge loss and stick us with the remaining debt on a property we no longer own.

If partners are arrested, they can be compelled to testify against the other or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do.

Unless there is some forsight and legal paperwork submitted in advance, they cannot make medical decisions for their partners in an emergency.

There's a lot more too, it doesnt stop here. It's all thats coming to me at the moment though.

----

there's really so much more to it than people think. It's not an "in your face" thing. It isnt about religion either. It's not about money or publicity. Its about civil (NOT SPECIAL) rights and equality.