Religions

[RedQueen.exe]

Christianity is large and diverse. This urge to define some set as "real Christians" and the rest as heretics (or unsaved or whatever term the true believer uses) harms both the religion itself and political life. But people like Santorum just can't help themselves. It's part of a long losing battle against modernity.

I am going to enjoy watch them finally give up their fight against the gays as it becomes as socially distasteful as it should be, in order to keep the religion palatable in the face of evolving morality. Then, you'll watch them suddenly discover new interpretations of the bible in order to make it fit their new stance. THEN, you'll watch them try to ignore how much the religion held progress back, and when pushed, pretend that it was just a bunch of fringe, kooky people interpreting the bible the wrong way - much as has been done after the abolition of slavery and the downfall of laws and bigotry preventing interracial marriage.

Kind of hard to take the idea that religion is required in order to have objective morality when people keep disagreeing and changing their minds about what it does and doesn't endorse, lol.

[Snickie]

I've never quite understood the whole "you can't marry that guy cause he's got a different melanin concentration than you" thing. We have very good friends at our church; they are married and have two kids; one's black and one's white (not the kids; the parents are). And socially, gay marriage isn't bad except for the fact that marriage is defined by the union of a man and a woman and not a man&man or woman&woman. It's wrong according to my morals, and the book of Leviticus doesn't exactly treat them well (it apparently doesn't treat women well, but I've yet to read that section for myself), but it's not up to us to deny them equal rights and judge their preferences and decisions.

[Chris]

[...]and the book of Leviticus doesn't exactly treat them well (it apparently doesn't treat women well, but I've yet to read that section for myself), but it's not up to us to deny them equal rights and judge their preferences and decisions.

Sure, the Bible was sexist, homophobic, ethnocentric, pro-slavery, etc., because the ancient Hebrews were. And so was everyone else of that era. But we don't have to be that way because societies have made moral progress since those times.

[Rebma]

but it's not up to us to deny them equal rights and judge their preferences and decisions.

I think this is what you should take away from what she said.

[RedQueen.exe]

It's wrong according to my morals, and the book of Leviticus doesn't exactly treat them well (it apparently doesn't treat women well, but I've yet to read that section for myself), but it's not up to us to deny them equal rights and judge their preferences and decisions.

To me, that's the only way to be consistent with the stance they take on economic conservatism, where they say that people should be giving their money to the poor, but it isn't up to the government to enforce - because taking the decision away from people robs them of the chance to do the right thing on their own.

If the church doesn't recognize gay marriage, they don't have to marry them in their church, and that church doesn't have to recognize their marriages - but the law should. Marriage has been one of those areas where religion and the government has become intertwined where it shouldn't be. I kind of liked the idea some people had put out that the government would only grant civil unions, which would have all the legal rights and benefits of marriage, then if you want a marriage, you go to the church. I just don't like the idea of calling it a civil union because civil unions are already something seen as having less benefits or not the same thing as marriage.

[Alladinsane]

If they make it legal in one state, then the 'full faith and credit clause' takes over and makes it legal in all states. Because of the court challenges, that hasn't happened yet.

But to live by the sword you have to die by the sword and I cannot wait, cannot wait, till concealed gun permits are given the same treatment. There is something good going to come out of this and we will be able to carry our little buddies anywhere we want. Goose/Gander is a sacrifice I am okay with I think.

[Chris]

Romney says Obama has 'fought against religion'

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Tuesday that President Barack Obama's administration has "fought against religion" and sought to substitute a "secular" agenda for one grounded in faith.

[....]

"Unfortunately, possibly because of the people the president hangs around with, and their agenda, their secular agenda — they have fought against religion," Romney said.

[....]

Romney implicitly invoked his own Mormon faith, also rare for the former Massachusetts governor. He said Tuesday that he cares about the issue because he is "someone who has understood very personally the significance of religious tolerance."

He also took questions on gay marriage, Supreme Court appointments and abortion — and when asked about whom he might select as his vice presidential running mate, he listed "pro-life" as the first credential he would look for.

So now Romney is playing catch-up with Santorum. It's funny that all those people for "religious liberty" were also in favor of banning a religion from building a place of worship in New York. I guess the "liberty" part is only for the politically correct religions, not for Islam or other religions that didn't make the cut. Guess what, Mitt? The Latter Day Saints (i.e., Mormons) aren't very popular. What happens when people raise a ruckus about them building an LDS temple somewhere?

[Alladinsane]

Islam is the politically correct religion actually. I have seen not a single post on this forum denigrating such. But I think it might take more courage than some of us have...I wouldn't either.

Funny that Obama refuses to endorse Gay marriage also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gX8g_cA_Jg&feature=fvst
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxPKrwisfvI

Here he says that marriage is between one man and one woman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=criiu2h3ZAk

I am not trying to endorse one side over the other, thats a personal and private decision. Both parties use religion to advance their cause. I am just demonstrating that if -you- pick one side over the other... you fill in the blank, we are all hypocrites in some manner. In the day of the net and you tube...every word you say and every picture you take can stick with you all of your life. Look at Krystal Ball (its really her name) and some of the college pictures she had taken. She is now running for governor of Virginia... you think those pictures are going to end up on a billboard or fifty?

But be careful, I can easily see this thread going the way of the rant threads. So far, with one or two exceptions, it has kept respectful. I hope it remains so. Few, if any, minds will be changed. We can try on both sides of the fence, but ultimately being happy and content is the most prudent path of the wizened.

[RedQueen.exe]

Islam is the politically correct religion actually. I have seen not a single post on this forum denigrating such. But I think it might take more courage than some of us have...I wouldn't either.

No, it isn't. I know a number of atheists (Hitchens and Myers for two pop right to mind) that have no trouble criticizing Islam. You just don't hear it as often because it doesn't wield anywhere near as much power here as christianity does, and isn't capable of influencing legislation and school boards here to anywhere near the degree that christianity does.

Not to mention, since far more atheists here are former christians rather than former muslims. It is a lot easier to criticize the one you are more familiar with. Same reason you don't see much mention of islam in this thread, I suspect. Another reason is that no one here has taken a stance on islam, so a person attacking it would just be talking to themselves, out of the blue, lol.

In some countries, like England, it is given more deference than is deserved - such as in the case of allowing sharia courts. Were there any indication of something like that being a real danger over here, I'd quickly be on your side in fighting it.

[Chris]

Islam is the politically correct religion actually. I have seen not a single post on this forum denigrating such. But I think it might take more courage than some of us have...I wouldn't either.

In the US, it's not Muslim lawmakers who are injecting religion into politics, saying that Obama is a tool of Satan, etc. It's conservative Christians. The Presidency is not and should not be a religious office; same with Congress and state and local offices. If American Muslims ever have the political strength to implement their own version of theocracy in the US, I will oppose them too. But right now, it is conservative Christian theocrats who dominate one major party.

[Snickie]

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=8766

I think that another reason we don't see either side of Islam argued is because there aren't really anymore active players on the forum who are Muslims whopost here. If a Muslim were to come on and post all the reasons why their religion is correct or whetever it is they decide to argue, I'm sure we'd jump all over them just like we're jumping all over each other now.

On that note, I give Islam as much credit as I do Mormonism. The dude claimed to have received visions when he was alone in a cave. That alone should tell you something's up. Christianity has witnesses. At least 500 people saw Jesus after he had clearly been dead. One of the biggest issues with disbelief is because of the Roman soldiers who had guarded the tomb and witnessed the angel rolling the stone away; they were later paid, in silver I believe, to go around saying the disciples had stolen the body. I'm pretty sure it was by the Pharisees, too, because enough of them had a problem with Jesus.

[RedQueen.exe]

baleeted - blarg!

[Henkie]

Atleast 500 people SAY they saw him, just like the soldiers said it were the desciples... These kinds of arguments are thrown all the time, from both sides, and it just isn't proof. Even if you have 1 milion people saying they saw him after he died... It just doesn't prove it.

[RedQueen.exe]

I think what Henkie is saying, is that eyewitness testimony isn't sufficient for a claim that extraordinary. How many people claim they've seen elvis? On how many occasions has eyewitness testimony shown to be unreliable in court?

It's not hard to imagine how, once a handful of people have claimed to have seen jesus after his death, that many people who look similar enough are then considered to be jesus by people who already have the idea planted in their head - even people who don't originally believe.

It does seem a little odd to me, why if god really wanted to prove to people that he existed, he would choose to reveal himself to people in a hardly literate time and place. Why not, after all the waiting he already did, wait another 2,000 years when claims of miraculous healing and resurrection could be properly tested?

If I had to defend my case at the pearly gates, I think the first or second thing I would state is that he never made his case for the value of faith, along with the fact that I was never asked to trust him, I was asked to trust the claims of people who claimed to know him.

[Snickie]

Then how about you try trusting in God?
Give Him complete control of your life for awhile, and see what happens.