Honk if you suddenly want to dump your spouse and marry someone who uses the same public bathrooms you do.
PAD
107 comments on “New York Legalizes Same Sex Marriage”
Well same sex marriage would help me fulfill my life long goal of an in home urinal
There’s just so many things wrong with the construction of that sentence, the dirty jokes just about write themselves.
It was late, and I was pretty punchy…
HON-…..
Wait. I’m not married.
More seriously, I’m extremely happy about this happening. And it seems that they went about it in the right manner, too. I’m a strong supporter of Gay Rights, including same sex marriage, but I don’t believe a church should have to perform a ceremony. Separation of Church and State is a lovely concept, and people seem to miss in the argument that in this country you don’t NEED to be married in a church.
I was a bridesmaid in a friend’s wedding, and it was technically their second time marrying. They had already gotten married at city hall weeks before, but also wanted to have a ceremony for their loved ones. And that’s the piece folks seem to be missing right there. All this does is allow the state to grant marriage licenses to same sex couples, it doesn’t promise them a marriage ceremony in a church.
No, no church should be forced to perform a gay marriage if they do not want to.
.
But then, I’m not sure why any homosexual would want to be part of such a church who would discriminate against them in the first place.
.
Go New York!
Gays don’t have any interest in forcing the church to marry them. They just want the same legal marriage rights from the state as straight people.
Gays may not have an interest in “forcing a church to marry them,” but they may have an interest in suing such a church. And even if they don’t like the congregation, they might like the building, and I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that gays are any less litigious than any other demographic. Even if they exempt churches, what about a wedding photographer with religious qualms about working such a wedding? If we’ve chosen to define homosexuals as being no different from ethnic minorities, no wedding related business can deny services.
I have next to zero knowledge of law, but going from logic here, it’s my understanding that you must be a member of a church to be married in that church? Say, can a Muslim couple sue a Protestant Church because, for some crazy reason, the Muslim couple wants to marry there while keeping their Muslim faith?
.
Can you sue a Church into considering your sin not a sin? If a Protestant Church declares that anyone living in a gay relationship is in sin, what can a gay couple do, in court, to challenge that? I really don’t see how.
.
As for non-religious business, I’d say, let them refuse service. I don’t think that will be a problem for long. Unlike most Lefties, I really love Capitalism. Capitalism is the great equalizer. We will see a multitude of businessmen advertising themselves as gay-friendly to profit of a new market.
.
A funny story. I used to go out in drag in my wilder days. And I went to shop for clothes in a store that was ran by Protestant Christians and catered to a Christian clientele. Because I liked some of their clothes. They were very polite, even as I tried some of their clothes in the store.
.
Eventually, money will trump religion.
Does anybody have a legal right to a church wedding? The Catholic church doesn’t perform marriages for people who have been divorced unless they have also been able to obtain an annulment, in spite of the fact that it’s legal for divorced people to marry. As far as I am aware, religions that don’t approve of interfaith marriages can also refuse to perform them. So it seems to me that the right of churches to establish what they consider the qualifications for marriage in their church is pretty well established. The important thing is the access to legal protections – and the ceremony, if they so wish, can be held in a park, an art gallery, or any of the other secular neutral ground where even people who can have church weddings sometimes choose to have ceremonies because they like them, officiated over by anybody who’s legal to do so. Or of course in a church like the United Church of Christ, which approves of marriage equality and can now exercise that belief in NY.
Nice. The world becomes a little more rational.
.
And just this week, Brazilian Supreme Court legalized civil unions for same sex couples. Something’s in the air, no doubt.
.
It’s very exciting, witnessing civil rights history is being made.
.
On a personal level, it’s ironic. I am exclusively interested in women these days, and I even distanced myself a bit from the gay community here in my city. It’s just my luck, now that I can have a civil union with another guy, I’m not interested anymore.
Good. Let’s hope a lot of people get married before some bitter legal challenge.
New York isn’t California. There isn’t a mechanism that allows the public to overturn laws in the voting booth.
.
PAD
No, much like health care, there will eventually be lawsuits, etc. by individuals/states and the issue will finally go to the Supreme Court to be decided once and for all.
.
My thinking? Obamacare is doomed once it makes it to the Supreme Court, between numerous states’ lawsuits, and parts of the bill that can be challenged on a constitutional basis.
.
Gay marriage, on the other hand, I believe will be upheld in all likelihood. because there really is no legal precedent for the Supreme Court to overturn it. I have no heard many constitutional arguments against gay marriage, like I have Obamacare or abortion for example.
.
And if you believe is states rights and a basically libertarian point of view, you could not logically then cast on vote on the Supreme Court to overturn gay marriage.
.
The only way, the ONLY way I could see them overturning gay marriage laws would be if enough states – say Utah and Mississippi to start – say they don’t want to recognize gay marriage. Part of their lawsuit says that they don’t want to and shouldn’t have to pay for Social Security benefits, pensions, etc. for same-sex couples. In that case, the SC may have to either declare gay marriage a right, not to be infringed upon by the states – like Abortion – OR they decide that if this many states are against it they have no choice but to overturn it and void all gay marriages.
.
But I seriously doubt that’s going to happen.
Jerome, I direct your attention to the US Constitution, Article IV, Section 1:
.
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”
.
Marriage is certainly a public Act and Record, since the state issued a license (and collects a fee). Those laws passed in various states permitting them to ignore same-sex marriages from out of state? And the phrase in the so-called “Defense of Marriage” Act that permits that? If anyone were to challenge them before the USSC on the basis of Article IV Section 1, I don’t see any way they could be upheld. (Sadly, the only constitutional challenge I’ve seen so far is in reference to the 14th Amendment, which can be read as supporting their position – or can be read as still supplying all citizens with the same rights, as straight citizens can’t have same-sex marriages either.)
.
Incidentally, did I just see you use the phrase “believe in states’ rights” and “logically” in the same sentence? Because few of the people who use the phrase “states’ rights” in the current political climate have even a nodding acquaintance with logic or consistency…
I guess the question I have is, “Why were the normal rules for legislation suspended?”
.
As I understand it, NY law requires requires that legislation is posted 72 hours before a vote, while this bill was only posted a few hours before. Why was normal debate squashed? Was this truly a need so pressing that it could only be passed as emergency legislation?
Why was normal debate squashed?
.
This had been brought forth as a bill in 2007 and 2009. This latest version was introduced on June 14th. It was voted on by the state House and passed on June 15th. It was voted on and passed by the state Senate yesterday… with the help of Republicans, I might add.
.
So, where was the lack of debate again?
.
But then, let’s ask the Republican governor of Wisconsin about what he thinks about squashing debate.
Speaking from a country where it has been legal for some years now (oh, how smug I am sometimes) Id like to offer some hints:
.
-Men, beware of the roaming bands of lesbians (with pink pistols, just like Bill O warned) that will abduct your wives and daughters. Those are such a nuisance there is a segment alongside weather report predicting their movemennts so you can safely hide the mother of your children.
.
-Women, beware of the roamin… Aww, forget it, your husband probably was a closet case anyway and he is already engaged to a huge finnish guy called Hugo. Blame the law for not keeping your husband bitterly married for ever.
.
-Keep track of the cracks in the pavement. Hëll gates are known to open in the vincinity of a married same sex couple and swallow a few bystanders. Once open, though, these are not so bad and the influx of demons is not worse than beign visited by british tourists.
.
-Hire a lawyer; if you get invited to your gay co-worker wedding and you decline you will get sued for discrimination. If you attend but your gift is below par, you will get sued for harassment.
.
-But now seriously; prepare for the people that will say “I have nothing against them BUT….”. My favorite are the ones who claim that politicians should focus on more urgent, important matters. So basically they’d be fine with it if it was proposed while already living in an utopia.
.
We’ve had Same Sex Marriage for 6 years and the oposition party (that will probably win next year) have been hinting they will make it illegal again, so as with every right, we must remain vigilant to secure them.
You forgot to say how gay marriage paved the way for people to marry their dog, or their 9-year old kid.
.
Or how, after gay marriage was approved, all straight marriages in Spain were somehow devalued. Now their stock is worth just 75% as before.
I think this is a great occasion.
Having said that, WTF is wrong with Republicans that so few, drawing great ire from their Party, voted for this basic right.
I saw one on CNN who said what stopped him from voting was the carve outs did not go far enough. It wasn’t just Churches needed to be protected from being sued for not performing same sex marriages. He wanted all religious organizations, AND all employers who had religious based o0bnjections from being sued.
Basically, if an employer said “I won’t cover your spouse for any benefits I normally give, because they are the same sex” This Senator thought that should be part of the law.
But, thank you Gov. Cuomo.
Why should churches need protection? Has anyone yet sued, say, a Catholic church for refusing to perform a ceremony for a Jew and a Unitarian? Churches have long had every right to refuse to provide any sacrament you care to name to anyone who wasn’t a member of their own faith. Why should same-sex weddings be any different?
.
The key here, of course, is that the state can’t prohibit the marriage of the Jew and the Unitarian, because the state isn’t allowed to discriminate like that. By the same token, the state should not be permitted to prohibit the marriage of the man and the man, or the woman and the woman, for the same reason.
If I were to venture a guess, Jonathan, I’d say that it’s because a same-sex couple could, conceivably, be members of that church’s faith and/or a specific church in question.
.
–Daryl
Generally, however, if the church is of the sort to refuse to perform the ceremony, the mere fact that the participants are gay would probably be enough to get them drummed out of the church anyway. It’s hard to imagine, say, a Catholic priest or Southern Baptist minister who would let a couple he knows to be gay worship in his church, much less accept any of the church’s sacraments. And thus far at least, nobody has tried to claim that anyone has a Constitutional right to remain in a given congregation, or sued over being ousted…
That’s what I said too. I can’t see any grounds by which a gay couple could sue a church into accepting them. Homosexual acts are sins according to Christian doctrine and a court of secular law can’t change that. Churches can refuse anyone they want, and it’s an ecclesiatic matter.
.
It’s just the old tactic of turning things around and claiming they’re the ones in danger of being persecuted. In this way they can drum up some sympathy and justification.
.
The same things are said here in Brazil, with one key difference. We don’t have unrestricted freedom of speech. One can be prosecuted here for racist remarks (though one rarely is, we’re not as sue-happy as Americans). And there is law project to extend this restriction to homophobic remarks. THAT could affect churches here. But even here I can’t see how a church could be sued unto performing a ceremony they don’t want to.
It’s hard to imagine, say, a Catholic priest or Southern Baptist minister who would let a couple he knows to be gay worship in his church, much less accept any of the church’s sacraments.
.
And yet, a good friend, former co-worker, lesbian and practicing Catholic does indeed receive the church’s sacraments here in the heart of the so-called Bible Belt (Dallas).
.
I know…it’s always mystified me, too. Why would she subscribe to a religion that declares it a sin for her to love another woman, right? That’s just the way it is. Somehow, I doubt she’s the only one.
.
–Daryl
I know…it’s always mystified me, too. Why would she subscribe to a religion that declares it a sin for her to love another woman, right?
.
Being neither a Catholic nor lesbian (unless I’m to be considered a lesbian trapped in a man’s body) it’s purely conjecture on my part, but I would suppose that she firmly believes that her lord would actually accept her the way she is–after all, his dad made her that way–and that all the intolerance aimed at her comes not from God or His son, but instead from their all-too-fallible representatives. So basically she believes in the message, not the messengers.
.
PAD
Makes sense. To me, though, that falls into that distinction between “faith” and “religion.” Her faith may be in a just and merciful supreme being. But the religion she follows isn’t much about justice and mercy towards homosexuals.
.
Then again, I’m an atheist, myself, so it’s admittedly difficult for me to wrap my thought processes around most issues involving religion.
.
–Daryl
You don’t really have to be an atheist to feel that way.
.
I’m a pragmatic agnostic (or perhaps more accurately, just plain cynical: if there’s a god, he’s akin to the kid who likes to set ants on fire), but I firmly believe that organized religion is to blame for many of the world’s problems.
.
It’s one thing to have faith, it’s another to have somebody who claims to be speaking on behalf of a god demanding how you should have that faith.
PAD: I would suppose that she firmly believes that her lord would actually accept her the way she is–after all, his dad made her that way–and that all the intolerance aimed at her comes not from God or His son, but instead from their all-too-fallible representatives. So basically she believes in the message, not the messengers.
.
Your “pure conjecture” raises several excellent points. God does love all of His children, and calls on them to love each other with that same love. Unfortunately, so many of His children fall far short of that (myself included), because we are “all-too-fallible.” As a result, many believe the message to be unappealing because they find the messengers to be so. I am glad that you at least are able to appreciate that there is a distinction between the two.
.
Craig J. Ries: I firmly believe that organized religion is to blame for many of the world’s problems.
.
First, I’m reminded of Ben Kingsley’s line from “Sneakers”: Don’t kid yourself. It’s not that organized.
.
Second, I’ve seen these sentiment elsewhere, and I’d like to think I’m starting to understand where it is coming from. But perhaps you can help me understand it a little better. Is it a problem with the teachings themselves? Or is it that a number of religious leaders have turned out to be either misguided or genuinely ill-intentioned?
. It’s one thing to have faith, it’s another to have somebody who claims to be speaking on behalf of a god demanding how you should have that faith.
.
Phrased that way, the latter option clearly sounds undesirable. But I submit that plenty of what might be called as “organized religion” does not resemble your description at all. Certainly there have been instances of what you describe. But perhaps there is enough nuance to denounce those specific instances instead of the whole of existing faith traditions, no?
Organized religion has done a lot of good too. I had a very concrete example in my life. My brother had a drug problem that was tearing up my family. Then he spent one year in a farm managed by the Catholic Church. He came back a new man.
.
Yeah, I still hate their take on sex, the resulting self-loathing and neurosis, and all that šhìŧ.
Andy, speaking only for myself and not for Craig, it’s the proverbial “a little from Column A, and a little from Column B” situation.
.
For me, when you say, “the teachings themselves,” I say that the specific dogma of the different flavors of religion can certainly leave a lot to be desired, while many/most of the underlying basic concepts are fine. At its root, if one accepts the idea of a supreme being who wants us to do good things and all that goes with it, I would hope that – despite the “teachings themselves” – joining a specific Supreme Being Fan Club is not required for those good things to “count” (for want of a better term).
.
As far as the leaders, you pretty well hit the nail right on the head. Far too many appear to be less interested in genuinely helping their fellow man than in controlling their followers and/or amassing large piles of money.
.
–Daryl
Is it a problem with the teachings themselves? Or is it that a number of religious leaders have turned out to be either misguided or genuinely ill-intentioned?
.
It’s a bit of both, but it’s also people themselves. The teachings aren’t always bad, but they’re not always good. But they’re often cherry-picked, misread, and in some cases, they just don’t exist.
.
As for leaders, I think that if you believe in a higher power, the fewer people between you and him (or her), the better.
.
You look at what has gone on with the Catholic church these last few years, and you quickly realize that if you eliminated many of the upper management positions of the church, the message of Catholicism itself doesn’t change. Yet, it’s like many other big corporations now: top heavy, slow to change with the times, and you really wonder on who’s interest they’re working on behalf of.
.
The gist of it: nobody needs a pope, much less one who thinks a billion people shouldn’t use birth control, or who hides the crimes of his priests. Nobody needs these bishops and megachurch televangelists telling them how they should worship god (or where they should donate their money to, or who they should vote for in the next election).
Rene: Organized religion has done a lot of good too. I had a very concrete example in my life. My brother had a drug problem that was tearing up my family. Then he spent one year in a farm managed by the Catholic Church. He came back a new man.
.
I am glad to hear that Christians were able to be such a blessing to your brother, and by extension, you and your family.
.
And thank you for sharing this example. It is easy to become convinced that there are many problems when only negative results get attention.
Nytwyng: speaking only for myself and not for Craig
.
I would ask no more and no less, and so I thank you for doing exactly that.
. At its root, if one accepts the idea of a supreme being who wants us to do good things and all that goes with it, I would hope that – despite the “teachings themselves” – joining a specific Supreme Being Fan Club is not required for those good things to “count” (for want of a better term).
.
This seems to be a common notion, that all religions boil down to believing in a supreme being who wants us to do good. Therefore, if you stick with that basic notion, you’re covered. That certainly sounds nice, but does it really hold water? What about religions that teach that there isn’t a supreme being? How does one resolve ambiguities about which things are good to do? And what if none of those good things “count”?
. As far as the leaders, you pretty well hit the nail right on the head. Far too many appear to be less interested in genuinely helping their fellow man than in controlling their followers and/or amassing large piles of money.
.
You are right, since even one would be far too many and we all know there has been more than one such leader. On the other hand, there are plenty of religious leaders who are genuine about serving others; unfortunately, we tend to pay more attention to the ones who fall short.
Craig J. Ries: It’s a bit of both, but it’s also people themselves. The teachings aren’t always bad, but they’re not always good. But they’re often cherry-picked, misread, and in some cases, they just don’t exist.
.
I understand, and I suspect that you and I are largely in agreement on these points. In particular, I find it to be deeply saddening when the truth is twisted, hidden, or ignored.
. As for leaders, I think that if you believe in a higher power, the fewer people between you and him (or her), the better.
.
You look at what has gone on with the Catholic church these last few years, and you quickly realize that if you eliminated many of the upper management positions of the church, the message of Catholicism itself doesn’t change.
.
Sadly, this was the sentiment over 500 years ago; the more things change…
.
In fact, the Bible teaches that no person should come between you and God; this was a key point of the Protestant Reformation. The central component of Christianity is a direct, personal relationship with God, not obedience to a particular human hierarchy.
.
Thank you for elaborating, and helping me to understand your statement on organized religion. It turned out to be fairly easy to understand, since I share many of your underlying concerns!
As a Catholic, I’d like to clear up some confusion here.
.
1. It is not a sin to “be gay.” The current doctrine is that being gay is due to some unexplained physical quality. You cannot help how you feel. You can absolutely receive the sacrament while being homosexual.
.
2. At the same time, the actions which require gay people to be sexually active are considered to be sinful acts. These acts, like sodomy, are likewise improper for straight people to perform.
.
3. The Church also has no problem with people loving each other. It’s when, outside of the sacrament of marriage, it becomes sexualized that it becomes problematic for the Church. And, yes, this means that the Church believes that in your entire life you should only have sexual relations with one person after taking a vow that is considered the continuation of your evolution of a Christian (from your Baptism to Confirmation and so on).
.
4. People have been asking about litigation following Gay Marriage laws being passed in states. In every single state where they have been passed gay rights activists have sued the Church on the grounds that by refusing to marry same sex couples they are discriminating. This NY law was specifically written to try and avoid that from happening.
.
5. I also want to address what I feel are some anti-Catholic feelings or misconceptions. Chiefly, I want to address the oft-repeated concept that someone is “Between you and God.” The modern Catholic Church does not hold the view that you pray through a priest, to the Pope, to a saint, around a tree and up to God. When you pray, you are praying TO GOD. You might use the image of a saint to help you formulate the prayer in your mind and in your heart. In addition, the Pope (and the Church in general) is there to facilitate your understanding of God and help communicate his message to people. This is why, to any Catholic, saying that “Nobody needs a Pope” is striking at the heart of our religion.
.
I’m not here to change anyone’s mind on anything. I’m just trying to inform you guys on some details so you know what’s going on from the Church’s side.
It is not a sin to “be gay.” … At the same time, the actions which require gay people to be sexually active are considered to be sinful acts.
.
In other words, it’s OK to be gay as long as you don’t do anything about it? I would imagine that to a homosexual that would be a distinction without a difference.
. The Church also has no problem with people loving each other. It’s when, outside of the sacrament of marriage, it becomes sexualized that it becomes problematic for the Church.
.
According to Catholic doctrine, that’s because the purpose of sex is purely procreative and is only condoned in the context of marriage. (I used to be a Catholic myself, so I know a bit about Catholic doctrine.) That’s why the Church forbids contraception.
.
There’s a gap in the Church’s reasoning, though, and one which bears examination. The Church doesn’t condemn the sexual activity of married couples who are past child-bearing age, or who are sterile, does it? So one is left to wonder why homosexual behavior is sinful, other than that old standy that “the Bible says so.” Which isn’t good enough for many of us, myself included, as the Bible was written by fallible humans.
(I used to be a Catholic myself, so I know a bit about Catholic doctrine.
.
I was also baptized Catholic. And while I do not know enough of the doctrine as I probably should, nor have I personally attended a Catholic church since I was a little kid, I have nonetheless seen the church’s affect on both sides of my family over the years.
Why should churches need protection? Has anyone yet sued, say, a Catholic church for refusing to perform a ceremony for a Jew and a Unitarian?
.
They would need a sign that reads “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” sign. (Not that it would get them out of any trouble.)
.
And with the Protestants, the sign would be right below the “Some Assembly Required” sign.
.
Ba-dum-dum.
.
TAC
To paraphrase Winston, “I LOVE THIS STATE!”
.
Way to go, New York. May you be but the first in a new wave.
Just think…now Rictor and Shatterstar are that much closer to fulfilling their dream of having a marriage erased from continuity by Mephisto.
Congratulations Andy, you just got me to burst out laughing!
Me too, LOL!
Me three! “One More Day (gay edition)”
Mom will be so proud…
One More Gay
Well, they do meet the requirement of having one redhead in the relationship.
Is it OK to still hate the Yankees? Because I still hate the Yankees.
I’m glad to see New York become as forward-thinking as Iowa. (That’s a sentence you don’t see every day)
Yes, it is perfectly fine, acceptable, respected and expected to hate the Yankees.
.
They passed such a measure and the world, yet again, managed not to end or burst into flames of any sort. Imagine that.
.
Congratulations to the people in New York that can now be just as miserable as the rest of us. 🙂
.
I do have to say though, the reaction of much if the Right on TV and especially across the blogosphere has been spectacularly hilarious. The greatest comedy is certainly coming from the CliffsNotes Christians (and they are legion) out there quoting scripture without knowing what they’re actually saying or quoting and, as is typical, looking colossally stupid.
Examples of people quoting scripture without knowing what they’re talking saying or quoting, please.
. “Examples of people quoting scripture without knowing what they’re talking saying or quoting, please.”
.
Well, this one has been making the rounds as the bibles anti-gay marriage tract.
. “Jesus answered, “Don’t you know that in the beginning the Creator made a man and a woman? That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. He becomes like one person with his wife. Then they are no longer two people, but one.”
.
That’s been posted on websites, quoted on talk radio and circulated in emails on the subject since the New York decision went down (and a few times before now as well) as an anti-gay marriage line in the Bible since it discusses “man and woman.” The catch is, it’s not at all related to gay marriage. The complete bit is actually the Bible’s bit about Jesus discussing divorce.
.
…
. (Mark 10.1-12) 1When Jesus finished teaching, he left Galilee and went to the part of Judea that is east of the Jordan River. 2Large crowds followed him, and he healed their sick people.
. 3Some Pharisees wanted to test Jesus. They came up to him and asked, “Is it right for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
. 4Jesus answered, “Don’t you know that in the beginning the Creator made a man and a woman?5That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. He becomes like one person with his wife. 6Then they are no longer two people, but one. And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together.”
. 7The Pharisees asked Jesus, “Why did Moses say that a man could write out divorce papers and send his wife away?”
. 8Jesus replied, “You are so heartless! That’s why Moses allowed you to divorce your wife. But from the beginning God did not intend it to be that way. 9I say that if your wife has not committed some terrible sexual sin, [a] you must not divorce her to marry someone else. If you do, you are unfaithful.”10The disciples said, “If that’s how it is between a man and a woman, it’s better not to get married.”
. 11Jesus told them, “Only those people who have been given the gift of staying single can accept this teaching. 12Some people are unable to marry because of birth defects or because of what someone has done to their bodies. Others stay single for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Anyone who can accept this teaching should do so.”
.
…
.
What I find truly hilarious is that the cropped CliffsNotes version of the Bible quote is being thrown around by some people who have multiple divorces under their belt. One of those chain email senders with multiple divorces under her belt is an aunt of mine who didn’t take too kindly to my pointing out the full version of the quote and the actual meaning of it. Made me so happy. I’m off her chain email list for at least the rest of the year.
.
But, yeah, I’ve seen a lot of idiots who just do the Cliffsnotes version of the Bible quoting part of that passage and parts others that deal with things other than gay relationship, spit fire and brimstone at gay relationships while quoting the text and yet have no issue with the activity that the Bible is actually talking about in the full context of whatever bit they’re quoting from.
.
Cliffsnotes Christians I call them when I’m feeling charitable about it. F’n idiots is what I tell them that they are when I’m not feeling as kindly towards them.
Frigging hypocrites.
.
I don’t think religious people are evil, not even the ones that follow some very draconian religious dogma. At worst, they’re deluded.
.
But when they expect other people, even unbelievers, to make sacrifices in respect of their dogmas, while they themselves don’t live up to it? How fûçkëd up is that?
.
Hey, if you’re going to be a big mouth about your religious faith and urge strangers to cut off their fingers to please your God, then you should at least be willing to cut your whole hand or arm.
.
But it’s so frigging convenient to have other people doing all the sacrifices.
Jerry and Rene make two very salient points.
.
First, Christians as a group are in a difficult position when defending the sanctity of marriage. Statistically, they don’t seem any more committed to marriage than anyone else, and there are more than enough specific examples of marriage covenants being ignored among self-professing Christians. Given how central marriage is to the Bible, that is very disappointing and makes Christians look very hypocritical. (As an aside, one can read the entire Bible as a love story between a man and a woman which culminates in their marriage. Thus, according to the Bible, life is a comedy since it ends with a wedding.)
.
But beyond the specifics of marital fidelity, there is the larger issue which is that Christians can come across as only caring about making sure nobody else, especially non-Christians, is sinning. Or rather, that nobody else is committing particular sins. And that’s unfortunate, because it creates a couple of misconceptions. The first is that those are the only sins that matter and thus “real” Christians aren’t sinners – obviously not true. The second misconception, and the worse one, is that you need to earn your way into heaven by not committing those sins (and it might be too late for you anyway – I mean, look at how heinous you are!). Rather, the message we should be sending is that none of us can hack it, but that doesn’t matter because God loves us anyway and has worked out a way around that problem.
.
It’s a shame that so many people never hear that message because the messengers can’t quite get out of their own way. It’s a shame because I think it’s a rather good message.
.
Andy, I think most people hear the message. I think most people actually hear the message better than the loudest of the mouth fringe on the Right. Most people do try to live good lives and to not completely screw over everyone else around them. Most people do live lives where they try to not steal, lie, cheat or behave in ways that are counter to most religions finer points.
.
I think what most people just don’t care about that much any more is the bášŧárdìzëd versions of the various dogmas that have been corrupted by politics and money. I think that most people just don’t care about taking their faith and shoving down people’s throats. Most sane people realize that their faith, or their lack of any faith, is their personal choice and not something to bludgeon others over the head with.
.
The crap parts of the equation is that the noisy minority makes the silent, sane majority look bad and that the political power players would rather pander to the fringe more often than not. That hardcore conservative base out there is made up from of a lot hypocritical jáçkáššëš that fit my description of “CliffsNotes Christians” very well. Republicans are going to play to that base because they know that if they don’t it will be the other guy in the primary that gets their vote or it will be a loss of a much needed voter base in an election against a Democratic opponent.
.
But they are not the mainstream and they’re not even close to being a majority of the people out there. We sometimes get skewed pictures of what most Americans are like in these discussions because we’re usually reacting to or discussing the latest stupidity of the fringe on one side or the other or by one of their pet politicians. but the reality is that most people just ain’t that fringe and most people do get that message (or at least the most important parts of its core aspects.)
.
We see it all the time. When a natural disaster strikes, it’s the “regular people” who get out there and help their neighbors out. When things go really bad because of a disastrous event, it’s the “regular people” who do what they can to help each other out of the jams.
.
I get to see it all the time. Yeah, I take reports from people who have had bad things done to them by others, but I also have honest men and women walk up to me all the time and say, “I found this wallet on the ground over there.” And every time that has happened to me, I have found lots of cash and cards still in the wallet when doing inventory on them. Occasionally I’m on duty when the owner finally comes and gets their wallet and I have them check the things. 99% of the time, they tell me that nothing looks like it’s missing (even when there’s no cash in the wallet) and that they haven’t had any mysterious charges or attempted charges show up on their bank/credit cards in the week/two weeks that we had their wallet.
.
That’s not an uncommon thing. But we see only the sensational on the news and we talk about the extremes because that’s what makes the news and captures headlines and water cooler attention.
.
It really isn’t that bad out there. It just seems like it sometimes because we forget to step away from all the false picture and actually look at what’s going on.
Andy, I think most people hear the message. … Most people do try to live good lives and to not completely screw over everyone else around them. Most people do live lives where they try to not steal, lie, cheat or behave in ways that are counter to most religions finer points.
.
But my point is that, from a Biblical perspective, that is not the message.
. I think that most people just don’t care about taking their faith and shoving down people’s throats. Most sane people realize that their faith, or their lack of any faith, is their personal choice and not something to bludgeon others over the head with.
.
Yes, it is a personal choice. And certainly “shoving” and “bludgeoning” are distasteful. On the other hand, those sorts of descriptions are sometimes used to dismiss any and all attempts to encourage or persuade others of what one believes to be true. If I tell people that “X-Factor” is a good book and they should read it, I doubt anyone would object. If I tell people that the Bible is a good book and they should read it, is that shoving my faith down their throat?
. I think most people actually hear the message better than the loudest of the mouth fringe on the Right.
.
You talk a lot about politics, particularly American politics, which is understandable and natural since this thread has been largely political. A lot of people would like us to equate Christian with Republican or the Right. But just to be clear, I’m not trying to support or endorse any particular political view. I couldn’t care less about scoring points for either side. What I do care about is the Truth.
. “If I tell people that “X-Factor” is a good book and they should read it, I doubt anyone would object. If I tell people that the Bible is a good book and they should read it, is that shoving my faith down their throat?”
.
You tell someone that X-Factor is a cool book and they should give it a try. Not really a problem.
.
You tell someone that X-Factor is a good book and that they should try it and they then reply that superheroes aren’t their thing. This conversation gets repeated maybe four or five more times. Not really an issue, but some people might say that you’re being a bit stubborn about it.
.
You tell someone that X-Factor is a good book and that they should try it and they then reply that they’ve already read it for several issues and didn’t care for it. You then tell them that you think it;s a great book and that they should start reading it again anyhow. They tell you that they’re not interested. You push the issue. This conversation gets repeated two or three times a month for the next two years. That’s when you’re being an ášš about it.
.
it would be the same thing as me telling you to try my favorite food, you saying you have and don’t like it and me continuing to stick the food under your nose and telling you to try it anyhow. You wouldn’t like it too much after the first few times I would think.
.
Too many people won’t leave well enough alone when someone says that they’re not interested. Push the Bible in the same way that I described pushing X-Factor or food above and people will react badly. Unfortunately for you, you may not have done that, but you will get the response that someone who does gets if that person is getting that kind of treatment from others already.
. “You talk a lot about politics, particularly American politics, which is understandable and natural since this thread has been largely political. A lot of people would like us to equate Christian with Republican or the Right. But just to be clear, I’m not trying to support or endorse any particular political view. I couldn’t care less about scoring points for either side. What I do care about is the Truth.”
.
Well, in this case I would think that discussing the right and their love of shoving their beliefs down other people’s throats since it is the Right going batshit crazy over this right now.
You tell someone that X-Factor is a cool book and they should give it a try. Not really a problem.
.
You tell someone that X-Factor is a good book and that they should try it and they then reply that superheroes aren’t their thing. This conversation gets repeated maybe four or five more times. Not really an issue, but some people might say that you’re being a bit stubborn about it.
.
You tell someone that X-Factor is a good book and that they should try it and they then reply that they’ve already read it for several issues and didn’t care for it. You then tell them that you think it;s a great book and that they should start reading it again anyhow. They tell you that they’re not interested. You push the issue. This conversation gets repeated two or three times a month for the next two years. That’s when you’re being an ášš about it.
.
OK, but now instead of telling you that X-Factor is a good book that you should read, what if I’m telling you that your house is on fire? Or that you’ve won the multimillion dollar lottery jackpot? Or that there is a cure for some disease that you have? Would I still be “an ášš” if I kept on bringing it up, or does the content of the message justify my persistence?
Would I still be “an ášš” if I kept on bringing it up, or does the content of the message justify my persistence?
.
In the end, the content of the message doesn’t matter if the recipient doesn’t want to hear it.
.
And imo the problem begins at the governmental level with politicians who are just as often the ones trying to shove religion down our throats as it the people from the church down on the corner.
.
One of the most common justifications for banning gay-marriage is because the Bible/Western religions say it should be. Sorry, that never flies in my book, and goes to show that this country isn’t nearly secular enough.
. “OK, but now instead of telling you that X-Factor is a good book that you should read, what if I’m telling you that your house is on fire? Or that you’ve won the multimillion dollar lottery jackpot? Or that there is a cure for some disease that you have? Would I still be “an ášš” if I kept on bringing it up, or does the content of the message justify my persistence?”
.
See, that’s what kicks the argument of most people who just want to “share” their religion in the ášš, Andy. I have a number of good friends who are not of the Christian faith. Some are of other faiths entirely and a few are atheists. You know what? Their houses aren’t on fire and you being a part of a long line of people telling them to give up their beliefs to accept yours dámņëd sure ain’t the same as you telling them that they’ve got the winning lotto ticket from last week’s drawing or that the medical establishment has finally found the cure for their disease.
.
The simple fact that you would think to compare someone else’s faith, a faith different than your own, to a disease and compare the idea of your pushing them to give up their faith and accept yours and the one true one to curing them or making them one of life’s lottery winners says a hëll of a lot about your argument and your POV. This attitude is what annoys many about some Christians and, after dealing with long lines of folks holding this attitude, causes even well meaning Christians to get snapped at sometimes for bringing the idea up in a more polite way. This arrogance that says that you can say that your faith is a fact and that everyone else’s faith is wrong or bad is what puts an end to people wanting to deal with many Christians about it.
. Your faith is just that. It’s your faith. It works for you and it makes you happy, but it doesn’t work for everyone and it doesn’t make everyone else feel the way you do about it. At some point, those other people do finally reach a point where they’re entitled to tell people who equate their beliefs to being wrong or to a disease to stick it.
.
Seriously, how long would it take before you got fed up if I knocked on your door every day and told you that you were misguided, your religion was a sham, your belief would lead you to an eternity of pain and suffering and you needed to get with it and start worshipping the Great Yellow Shade Tree like all of the truly enlightened people do? Your faith is yours and it works for you. Their faith is theirs and works for them. If you can’t accept that simple fact without believing that they should be badgered into accepting your faith as “the real one” then, yeah, you are a part of the problem. and, yeah, you’re being an ášš about it.
Andy, there is also the matter that actions and results and emotions are a lot more important than words.
.
If someone is trying to convert me, I’d like to look at that someone. Do they seem like they have a joyful life? Do they act in a manner that is remotely similar to what they preach?
.
Why shoud I heed the words of dysfunctional passive-aggressive bullies?
.
The Christians I admire the most, the Christian that most tempted me to convert, are the ones that lead by example. The ones that you can look at them and see the transformative effect, the strength of character derived from the faith, the kindness.
.
I have at least a half-dozen family members and co-workers that I’d consider good Christians. They don’t preach, because they don’t need to. Their very lives and presences are enough.
.
I am too much of a free spirit (or an arrogant rebel if you’re not charitable) to genuinely convert to a religion that puts so great an emphasis in submission as Christianity. But if I’d convert, you can be sure that the example of a good Christian would coult more than the words of a hundred of áššhølë Christians.
Jerry Chandler: You know what? Their houses aren’t on fire and you being a part of a long line of people telling them to give up their beliefs to accept yours dámņëd sure ain’t the same as you telling them that they’ve got the winning lotto ticket from last week’s drawing or that the medical establishment has finally found the cure for their disease.
.
The simple fact that you would think to compare someone else’s faith, a faith different than your own, to a disease and compare the idea of your pushing them to give up their faith and accept yours and the one true one to curing them or making them one of life’s lottery winners says a hëll of a lot about your argument and your POV.
.
Whoa…I didn’t make any such comparisons. I simply asked a question. I was trying to understand if there were situations which might warrant persistence, and I offered a range of scenarios in an attempt to avoid getting hung up on the particulars of one scenario. I’m sorry if it seemed that I was making comparisons.
. This arrogance that says that you can say that your faith is a fact and that everyone else’s faith is wrong or bad is what puts an end to people wanting to deal with many Christians about it.
.
You are right to say that arrogance is off-putting. One of the points I was trying to make earlier (apparently unsuccessfully) is that Christians should always temper their words and actions with a measure of humility.
. Your faith is just that. It’s your faith. It works for you and it makes you happy, but it doesn’t work for everyone and it doesn’t make everyone else feel the way you do about it.
.
May I ask what you think makes a faith work for someone? Is happiness the primary criteria, or are there others? I would genuinely be interested in hearing your thoughts.
. Seriously, how long would it take before you got fed up if I knocked on your door every day and told you that you were misguided, your religion was a sham, your belief would lead you to an eternity of pain and suffering and you needed to get with it and start worshipping the Great Yellow Shade Tree like all of the truly enlightened people do?
.
I understand your point. At the same time, I personally have a high tolerance for that sort of thing. I am very interested in hearing the answers that other people have found to the central questions of life. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I believe in testing everything and holding on to what is true. Consequently, when people have come knocking on my door, I’ve invited them into my home to hear what they’ve had to say. Obviously, that’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but since you asked I’m trying to give you a sincere answer.
.
Finally, let me once again apologize if my earlier question gave the wrong impression. Communicating via text like this can be a little dicey sometimes. I generally try to compensate for that by being straightforward, but sometimes I’m not as clear as I should be and sometimes my words don’t always come across correctly. Thank you for being patient with me.
Craig: In the end, the content of the message doesn’t matter if the recipient doesn’t want to hear it.
.
Fair enough; thank you for answering my question.
. One of the most common justifications for banning gay-marriage is because the Bible/Western religions say it should be. Sorry, that never flies in my book, and goes to show that this country isn’t nearly secular enough.
.
Agreed that the U.S. government shouldn’t be in the business of legislating the teachings of a particular religion just because they are the teachings of a particular religion; likewise for the various state and local governments. That there is (or has historically been) some overlap between the interests of the State and the concerns of various religions does
not mean that there should be a one-to-one correspondence between the two.
.
Of course, individual citizens have the right to support or oppose particular measures as their conscience dictates. With
that right comes the duty to do so civilly, respectfully, and peaceably. And ideally they do so in consideration of what
is best for everyone, not just themselves or even the majority.
Rene: Andy, there is also the matter that actions and results and emotions are a lot more important than words.
.
If someone is trying to convert me, I’d like to look at that someone. Do they seem like they have a joyful life? Do they act in a manner that is remotely similar to what they preach?
.
An excellent point, which I was trying to acknowledge earlier. It’s only natural to consider these things, and unfortunately not everybody passes the test.
. Why shoud I heed the words of dysfunctional passive-aggressive bullies?
.
I wouldn’t expect you to. And, I sincerely hope that I would not fit that description.
. The Christians I admire the most, the Christian that most tempted me to convert, are the ones that lead by example. The ones that you can look at them and see the transformative effect, the strength of character derived from the faith, the kindness.
.
I have at least a half-dozen family members and co-workers that I’d consider good Christians. They don’t preach, because they don’t need to. Their very lives and presences are enough.
.
That’s wonderful, and I’m happy to hear that you have such lovely people in your life!
. I am too much of a free spirit (or an arrogant rebel if you’re not charitable) to genuinely convert to a religion that puts so great an emphasis in submission as Christianity.
.
Out of curiousity, to whom or what do you think Christianity emphasizes submission?
. But if I’d convert, you can be sure that the example of a good Christian would coult more than the words of a hundred of áššhølë Christians.
.
That seems perfectly reasonable.
Argue about the Bible all you guys want, but I just want to make sure: We’re all still on the same page about X-Factor being a good book, right?
.
PAD
PAD: Argue about the Bible all you guys want, but I just want to make sure: We’re all still on the same page about X-Factor being a good book, right?
.
🙂
.
I concur.
You look like a nice guy, Andy. I would never use the word bully to describe you. I will also admit that anti-religious folks can be major áššhølëš. There is some teenage fury going on sometimes. I try to moderate this urge in myself. I not always succeed.
.
As for Christianity and submission, I think submission is in most everything Christian. Kneeling, prayer, humility, obedience and faith in a supreme Father. I’ve went both to Catholic and Protestant church, and felt it in both, big time.
.
Now, I don’t say it’s a bad thing. All of humanity as brothers and sisters under God is a nice notion. The sense of community is glorious. It is also very comforting to believe that ultimately things will turn out all right because a loving God is taking care of you.
.
And it’s great for some people. My brother was a drug addict, and there is nothing more selfish and hopeless as a drug addict. A great injection of Christian humility and hope was just what he needed.
As for Christianity and submission, I think submission is in most everything Christian. Kneeling, prayer, humility, obedience and faith in a supreme Father.
.
The penitent man kneels before God. That’s because if he doesn’t, a giant circular saw will cut his head off. I saw that in a movie once.
.
PAD
Rene: You look like a nice guy, Andy. I would never use the word bully to describe you. I will also admit that anti-religious folks can be major áššhølëš. There is some teenage fury going on sometimes. I try to moderate this urge in myself. I not always succeed.
.
Thanks for the kind words, Rene. There’s a good chance my Internet persona was not as nice when I was a teenager; mercifully, Usenet has faded into obscurity and so I don’t have to worry too much about the evidence.
. As for Christianity and submission, I think submission is in most everything Christian. Kneeling, prayer, humility, obedience and faith in a supreme Father. I’ve went both to Catholic and Protestant church, and felt it in both, big time.
.
Yes, submission to God is a part of Christianity; there’s just no getting around it. I just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing. I will admit I still struggle with it plenty myself, so I can certainly understand the reluctance. I will say that, as paradoxical as it may sound, I do find a certain freedom in submission to God. And there are plenty of other things that people live in submission to, knowingly or otherwise, that aren’t nearly as forgiving or loving.
. Now, I don’t say it’s a bad thing. All of humanity as brothers and sisters under God is a nice notion. The sense of community is glorious. It is also very comforting to believe that ultimately things will turn out all right because a loving God is taking care of you.
.
Well said.
. And it’s great for some people. My brother was a drug addict, and there is nothing more selfish and hopeless as a drug addict. A great injection of Christian humility and hope was just what he needed.
.
Thank you for being vulnerable enough to share these very personal thoughts and experiences with some (relative) strangers on the Internet.
PAD: The penitent man kneels before God. That’s because if he doesn’t, a giant circular saw will cut his head off. I saw that in a movie once.
.
But in Latin, Jehovah starts with an I!
. “Communicating via text like this can be a little dicey sometimes. I generally try to compensate for that by being straightforward, but sometimes I’m not as clear as I should be and sometimes my words don’t always come across correctly. Thank you for being patient with me.”
.
Yeah, and I know that from experience and should have given the reading of your words a little more benefit of the doubt. My fault.
. “I simply asked a question. I was trying to understand if there were situations which might warrant persistence, and I offered a range of scenarios in an attempt to avoid getting hung up on the particulars of one scenario. I’m sorry if it seemed that I was making comparisons.”
.
I would think that persistence is warranted when it’s welcomed. That’s about it. If someone wants to learn more or wants to explore the ideas that you’re sharing, then that’s fine. In any other situation, you’re basically saying that you and your belief is right, they’re wrong in their belief and that you’re going to push and push until they do what you think they should do rather than what they think they should do.
. “May I ask what you think makes a faith work for someone? Is happiness the primary criteria, or are there others? I would genuinely be interested in hearing your thoughts.”
.
I wouldn’t say that it’s only happiness, but being brought a certain level of contentment and inner piece would certainly be a component of it. Other than that, I think it’s one of those things that people know when they find it. You obviously feel that you’re faith is right for you. If you can answer for yourself why it is with answers beyond simply saying that it’s right or it’s the one that you’re suppose to be following; you’ve just answered the question you asked of me.
Jerry: Yeah, and I know that from experience and should have given the reading of your words a little more benefit of the doubt. My fault.
.
No worries. One of the reasons I bother posting here is that actual conversations are possible; even the sporadic miscommunications get resolved instead of spiraling downward.
. I would think that persistence is warranted when it’s welcomed. That’s about it. If someone wants to learn more or wants to explore the ideas that you’re sharing, then that’s fine. In any other situation, you’re basically saying that you and your belief is right, they’re wrong in their belief and that you’re going to push and push until they do what you think they should do rather than what they think they should do.
.
And there, as they say, is the rub. Because as much as we’d all like it to be otherwise, some of us are right and some of us are wrong. I can certainly admit that I may be wrong, but it’s hard to imagine that we’re all 100% correct. To make it more complicated, we even disagree about the stakes. So for some, it doesn’t seem worth sharing their view with others because the stakes seem low. But if you think the stakes are high, it seems neglectful to not let everyone know it.
.
So that does create a tension, particularly for Christians and others who think the stakes are high. And we humans don’t always do well with tension and nuance, so we tend to stray to one side or the other. Thus you get people being offensive and controversial for the sake of being offensive and controversial, which is bad because no one wants to hear anything they have to say. And you get people never mentioning anything even when someone might be interested or receptive, because they’re worried that it’s not polite. And I don’t think that’s good either, because if the stakes are high then everyone should have a chance to consider the issues for themselves.
.
And I think that’s the point where what you are saying and what I would say converge: that everyone does have to make a decision for themselves. And perhaps that provides a useful guide for answering the question “Am I going too far?” – by looking at whether you are offering information to help someone make an informed decision, or just making the decision for them.
.
Thanks again for your comments; it’s given me a lot to think about. And thanks for your patience as I do some of that thinking by typing.
. I wouldn’t say that it’s only happiness, but being brought a certain level of contentment and inner piece would certainly be a component of it. Other than that, I think it’s one of those things that people know when they find it. You obviously feel that you’re faith is right for you. If you can answer for yourself why it is with answers beyond simply saying that it’s right or it’s the one that you’re suppose to be following; you’ve just answered the question you asked of me.
.
I certainly have my own criteria, but I am also curious about the criteria other people use. For me, it’s ultimately about providing a cohesive narrative for the world that is consistent with what I/we know about the world. I want to believe in what is true, and I’m willing to deal with some inner turmoil to get there.
. “And there, as they say, is the rub. Because as much as we’d all like it to be otherwise, some of us are right and some of us are wrong.”
.
I claim that WWII took place between 1823 and 1839. You state that this isn’t true, you give the correct dates and you cite credible sources showing that I am wrong. You are right and I am wrong.
.
You sate that you read in a history book that Winston Churchill was actually a woman named Maggie Wellington who disguised herself as a man to run the country. I point out loads of credible sources showing that this is wrong. I’m right and you’re wrong.
.
You sate that God is the one and only true God and that Christianity is the only true religion. My neighbor states that Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are the true Trimurti and that Hinduism is the true path.
.
You can both cite sources. You can both provide texts. You can both point to long histories of religious conviction. You can both point to historical figures as prophets. You can both discuss the history of the faith and how it’s interwoven into real world history.
.
Neither of you can present a single fact.
.
You’re dealing in faith here. The very definition of the word forbids it from being honestly called a fact. “Faith” simply is not “fact.”
.
Someone can have all the faith in the world in their ability to pass a test that they have to take. Doesn’t stop a lot of failing grades. Someone can have all the faith in the world in their ability to make it in Hollywood. Hasn’t stopped the large number of failed “stars” from adding to their ranks. Someone can have all the faith in the world in their ability to fly when they go off of that ledge. Doesn’t make it any easier on the guys who have to clean the mess off of the pavement.
. “Faith” simply isn’t “fact” and no amount of arguing or helpful intentions are going to change that. You can indeed have two people proclaiming that they hold two very different religious beliefs and neither one of them being wrong in the least.
.
Okay, maybe one can be wrong if his claimed faith is Scientology….
.
And that’s also, as I have touched on above, what gets many Christians heaps of grief by people. Sorry, but Christians don’t own the copyright and trademark on “The One True Path.” Christians don’t have the ability to walk into the discussion with with the “facts” and the “truth” automatically in their corner.
They may think they do, but then, if they think that, they are the one who qualifies as wrong here.
.
Christianity, like all of the other religions out there, is what we call a faith. It may be your faith, but that still does not make it a fact and it does not mean that anyone who chooses a different path to walk is wrong anymore than you are wrong for your personal choice in the matter.
I respect the freedom of speech of Christian missionaries, and the ones I met were very polite and pleasant. But I can’t say I appreciate their efforts.
.
I recently did the graphics for two missionary pamphlets / translations of the New Testament in Hebrew and Arabic (focused specifically on Druze). And I personally find the effort to convert Jews or Druze to Christianity to be in poor taste even if it is perfectly legitimate.
I’m sorry that I appear to have upset you again, Jerry. But I’d like to see if we can salvage something here and move forward.
.
First, there appears to be some confusion.
.
Jerry: It may be your faith, but that still does not make it a fact
.
I am not claiming that anything is made factual just because I, or anyone else, singly or collectively, believe it.
.
What I am claiming is that religions are, among other things, a set of beliefs or assertions about the existence and nature of a superhuman being or beings and their agency in the universe. In crude terms, the options for what may be true can be summarized thusly:
.
1) There is/are a superhuman being(s), and one particular world religion is correct about the nature of he/she/it/them.
.
2) There is/are a superhuman being(s), and all of the world religions are equivalently valid representations of her/it/them/him.
.
3) There is/are a superhuman being(s), and none of the world religions accurately represent it/them/her/him, but they/she/he/it is happy as long as we are good people.
.
4) There is/are a superhuman being(s), and none of the world religions accurately represent them/her/it/him; furthermore, she/they/him/it are none to pleased about that.
.
5) There are no superhuman being(s), but all humans/living things/things in general possess/contribute to/can achieve a level of divinity/enlightenment/higher existence.
.
6) There are no superhuman beings, but having some kind of religious belief is relatively harmless.
.
7) There are no superhuman beings, and having some kind of religious belief is explicitly harmful.
.
8) There is no objective reality; a superhuman being(s) may exist for some and not exist for others.
.
Again, those are fairly broad, crude categories, and I’m sure that despite (or because of) my attempts to be generic and all inclusive, I’ve forgotten or offended someone. And for that, I apologize in advance. But even so, that would only add options to the list.
.
So, when I say that some of us are right and some of us are wrong, what I mean is that all of these options cannot be true at the same time. Even further, it appears to me that only one of the options can be true, which means the people who believe in that one are right, and thus the other people are wrong. I am not, at this time, making a case for which one I think is correct; merely that only one of them can be. And again, whichever one it is, it’s true because that is the way the world is, not because people chose to have faith in it.
. You state that God is the one and only true God and that Christianity is the only true religion. My neighbor states that Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are the true Trimurti and that Hinduism is the true path.
…
You can indeed have two people proclaiming that they hold two very different religious beliefs and neither one of them being wrong in the least.
.
Can you elaborate on how someone who believes that Christianity is the only accurate description of the superhuman being(s) and someone who believes Hinduism is the only accurate description of the superhuman being(s) can be simultaneously correct?
. “Faith” simply is not “fact.”
.
True; I’ve never claimed otherwise. As you point out, they are different words meaning different things.
. Someone can have all the faith in the world in their ability to fly when they go off of that ledge. Doesn’t make it any easier on the guys who have to clean the mess off of the pavement.
.
Again, we agree. But just as your example illustrates that faith does not making something true, it also illustrates that there is a truth which can be known or discovered. And no matter how pessismistic one might be about what we can really know now, one way or the other the human race will ultimately find out which assertions about the universe and any possible superhuman being(s) are true and which ones aren’t.
. Christians don’t have the ability to walk into the discussion with with the “facts” and the “truth” automatically in their corner.
.
You’re right. Christianity is not true a priori, or automatically. But neither is it false a priori. That is why there is a discussion. Shouldn’t Christians therefore be allowed to bring whatever evidence they have to that discussion?
. You can both cite sources. You can both provide texts. You can both point to long histories of religious conviction. You can both point to historical figures as prophets. You can both discuss the history of the faith and how it’s interwoven into real world history.
.
Neither of you can present a single fact.
.
Why do you consider sources and texts valid for learning about WWII or Winston Churchill, but invalid for assessing the claims of various religions?
Well, that was an unfortunate bit of auto emoticon insertion. Since we treading sensitive ground, I want to be clear that the 8) above was an innocent 8 followed by a ‘)’ when I typed it.
. “I’m sorry that I appear to have upset you again, Jerry. But I’d like to see if we can salvage something here and move forward.”
.
We’re cool. Not upset at all. Just responding to what you said and commenting on the particular phrasing you used and how that’s often what does get a lot of Christians a lot of grief.
. “I am not claiming that anything is made factual just because I, or anyone else, singly or collectively, believe it.”
.
That may not be what you were trying to do, but your opening to you last series of points looked as if you were framing the discussion in a manner where there is a right and a wrong answer.
. “And there, as they say, is the rub. Because as much as we’d all like it to be otherwise, some of us are right and some of us are wrong.”
.
Most of what I was writing was simply pointing out that there is no right or wrong answer that can be proven here. There is only one way to discover what the truth is, and I’m not about to die just so I can come back and haunt people with a pestering series of arguments about who was right and who was wrong. But that’s just about the only way any of us will know the rightness or wrongness of the various religious beliefs out there.
.
There is no rub here and there is not a provable right or wrong here. That’s what I was responding to.
. “So, when I say that some of us are right and some of us are wrong, what I mean is that all of these options cannot be true at the same time. Even further, it appears to me that only one of the options can be true, which means the people who believe in that one are right, and thus the other people are wrong. I am not, at this time, making a case for which one I think is correct; merely that only one of them can be. And again, whichever one it is, it’s true because that is the way the world is, not because people chose to have faith in it.”
. And…
. “Can you elaborate on how someone who believes that Christianity is the only accurate description of the superhuman being(s) and someone who believes Hinduism is the only accurate description of the superhuman being(s) can be simultaneously correct?”
.
You and I want to go from Georgia to California next month. We’re also going to be accompanied by six other people. We have two weeks of time between the day we all meet down in Georgia and the time we have to be in California. We all discuss how we want to do this thing and it finally comes down to an issue of four people wanting one option and four people wanting to go with a different option.
.
Option 1 – Enjoy the time we have and take a nice road trip. Follow the old path of Route 66 and see some of the country. We easily get there in a week plus a few days and have at least four days of a safety buffer. We see the open road, see some nice places that we would never get to see otherwise and have a time of it.
.
Option 2 – Take a plane out to the coast and spend the two weeks getting settled out in California. Any extra time we will have can be used hanging out on the beach or checking out famous clubs and such in L.A. and up and down the coast.
.
You’re in one group and I’m in the other group. Now, which option is right?
.
We’re both talking about starting out in the same place and ending the trip in the same place. Which is the best way to get there though? There really is no “right” answer here. If you’re a beach and club person, you’re going to like option #2 and declare that it’s the right one. However, if you like seeing things and exploring places that you wouldn’t normally get to see, you’ll probably go for #1. It’s strictly a call based on the individual making the call. Neither option is actually right or wrong, they just seem right or wrong based on each person’s desires to follow the path that they like best.
.
Same here really. The follower of Christianity and Hinduism can debate their choice of path with the other until they’re both blue in the face, but neither one is any more right or wrong than the other for the simple reason that there is no quantifiable way to measure those words here. The same can be said for the atheist that walks up to the two of them while they’re catching their breath and tells them that they’re both full of it and once we die our little spark goes *poof* and we cease to be in any and every way other than as rotting meat. There is simply no way to determine truth, right or wrong here. It cannot be done by any single living being on Earth.
.
Two people can argue about something that can be quantifiably proven and you can step in and point to a right or wrong position. Two people arguing religion are no different than two people arguing about which food tastes best.
.
Unless one of them is a Scientologist. Scientologists are just wrong no matter what; even if they’re just arguing about food and not actually arguing for their religion.
. “You’re right. Christianity is not true a priori, or automatically. But neither is it false a priori. That is why there is a discussion. Shouldn’t Christians therefore be allowed to bring whatever evidence they have to that discussion?”
.
Absolutely. They can and should bring whatever they want to into the discussion. However, once the other party says that they have decided on their path and no longer wish to be pressed on the issue, well, now you stop bringing anything to the discussion if you have any respect for the other person and their right to choose that very important personal path for themselves. Once the other person says that they have a path that they want to follow and they would like it if you stopped pushing the issue and you decide that you’re going to push it anyhow… Well, you’re in the wrong. You are now crossing that line from polite discussion to pestering and being the negative stereotype that many Christians complain about being broad brushed with.
.
Again, as I said way above, once you tell me that you don’t like the taste of my favorite food, that’s when I should stop shoving it under your nose. Constantly putting plates of it in front of you or slipping bits of it onto your dinner plate is not going to get you to change your mind about liking it. All it’s likely to actually do is piss you off.
Been away from the Intertubes, but I’m enjoying this conversation. I’ll understand if everyone else has moved on.
.
Jerry (quoting me): “I am not claiming that anything is made factual just because I, or anyone else, singly or collectively, believe it.”
.
That may not be what you were trying to do, but your opening to you last series of points looked as if you were framing the discussion in a manner where there is a right and a wrong answer.
.
Well, now, there is a distinction here. One the one hand, we have the reality that belief in something has no bearing on whether it is true or not. However, that does not exclude the possibility that what some people have faith in is true, and what some people have faith in is not.
. You and I want to go from Georgia to California next month.
…
We’re both talking about starting out in the same place and ending the trip in the same place. Which is the best way to get there though? There really is no “right” answer here.
.
Fair enough; there are multiple routes between Georgia and California, and thus it is possible, in some cases, to take different paths and get to the same place. But now let’s suppose we’re traveling east through Pennsylvania. You take I-76 and I take I-70; they’re both interstates that run east-west through southwestern PA. In fact for a certain stretch they are the same road — surely they wind up in the same place. So imagine the confusion when, at the end of the road, I’m in Baltimore and you’re in Camden, NJ. The point being, the journey metaphor sounds nice, but you still need to know whether the paths actually lead to the same place or not.
. Same here really. The follower of Christianity and Hinduism can debate their choice of path with the other until they’re both blue in the face, but neither one is any more right or wrong than the other for the simple reason that there is no quantifiable way to measure those words here. The same can be said for the atheist that walks up to the two of them while they’re catching their breath and tells them that they’re both full of it and once we die our little spark goes *poof* and we cease to be in any and every way other than as rotting meat. There is simply no way to determine truth, right or wrong here. It cannot be done by any single living being on Earth.
.
Let’s accept your premise, at least for now, that that there is no possible way to know the truth in this life. How does that affect the truth? It still is what it is, no? And doesn’t that mean that the people who believe in the the truth are right and those who do not are wrong, even if they can’t know it (at least, not yet)?
. Unless one of them is a Scientologist. Scientologists are just wrong no matter what; even if they’re just arguing about food and not actually arguing for their religion.
.
How do you know this, if nothing about religion can be quantified in any way? You have apparently used some criteria to assess the truth of Scientology’s claims; perhaps we can apply those criteria to the claims of other religions, as well.
BTW, Jerry.. I love the CliffsNotes Christians bit.
.
I actually was raised to know scripture fairly well, so it drives me up the wall when people take it out of context. (Even though I am not a believer in that).
.
Feel sorry for the bûggër who had to do the Cliffs Notes on Numbers or Deuteronomy though.
.
TAC
Andy: OK, but now instead of telling you that X-Factor is a good book that you should read, what if I’m telling you that your house is on fire? Or that you’ve won the multimillion dollar lottery jackpot? Or that there is a cure for some disease that you have? Would I still be “an ášš” if I kept on bringing it up, or does the content of the message justify my persistence?
Luigi Novi: The quality of X-Factor and the nature of one’s religious beliefs are not empirical. Those other things, however, are.
Luigi Novi: The quality of X-Factor and the nature of one’s religious beliefs are not empirical. Those other things, however, are.
.
You are right that those other things I mentioned can be verified empirically – which is to say, they can be directly observed or confirmed by experimentation. One may directly observe a fire (or lack thereof), compare a lottery ticket with the winning numbers (or just try to collect the prize and see if the money is actually transferred to you), and submit to the treatment to see if it works.
.
Arguably, the quality of X-Factor can be determined empirically as well. One can read the book and decide whether or not it is good, or at the very least know whether or not you enjoyed it. The real problem is that your empirical assessment is at least partially subjective. Thus different readers can come to different conclusions about whether it is is good. This can even occur in science; scientists may make the same empirical observations but interpret the results differently.
.
Now, when you say “the nature of one’s religious beliefs” are not empirical, I take that to mean the truth of various religious beliefs cannot be determined empirically. (An alternate reading is that the question “what are a particular person’s religious beliefs?” cannot be answered empirically, but since that is a less interesting question and one that can be answered empirically by asking the person, I’ll assume that’s not what you mean.) And on that subject, I would say “it depends.” Certain claims of various religions can be verified empirically, such as assertions about the nature of the world or how human beings (in aggregate) will behave. To give an example, many religions claim that the observable universe had a finite beginning. Current observations of the cosmic background radiation and other phenomena are consistent with that notion and inconsistent with the idea that the observable universe always existed (a notion favored by many before the empirical evidence was available).
.
However, many religious claims are not empirically verifiable, as you say. But that’s not such a bad thing. Plenty of other truths aren’t verifiable empirically either. Many mathematics theorems cannot be verified empirically, but can be proven deductively from a set of axioms (some of which may also not be empirically verifiable). Historical truths cannot be verified empirically; they rely on archeology, examination of primary sources, forensics, and other techniques for verification. I can’t think of many religious claims that can be deductively proven, but many are historical claims that can be confirmed or refuted by the tools described above. Therefore, just because they can’t be verified empirically does not mean they are not true, nor does it mean we cannot know if they are true or not.
.
Thanks for raising such an interesting topic!
Religious people like to present certain historical events, scientific phenomena and quotations from the bible (and other texts) as proofs supporting their beliefs. But this is usually a matter of interpretation rather than fact. And the interpretation usually fits the faith. Historical research is guilt sometimes of being influenced by faith, but it aspires to go through more rigorous scrutiny than that.
Micha: Religious people like to present certain historical events, scientific phenomena and quotations from the bible (and other texts) as proofs supporting their beliefs. But this is usually a matter of interpretation rather than fact. And the interpretation usually fits the faith.
.
Atheists like to present certain historical events, scientific phenomena and quotations from the bible (and other texts) as proofs supporting their beliefs (or lack thereof, if you prefer). And they often have to interpret those events, phenomena, and quotes. And their interpretation is generally consistent with atheism.
.
What I find interesting is that many folks criticize religious people for not doing those things, and instead making unsupported assertions and appealing to authority. You seem to be criticizing them for the opposite. Am I understanding your position correctly?
.
Along those lines, I’m curious how it is that you would prefer that religious people behave.
. “What I find interesting is that many folks criticize religious people for not doing those things, and instead making unsupported assertions and appealing to authority. You seem to be criticizing them for the opposite. Am I understanding your position correctly?”
.
Except that people do criticize atheists for their bad behavior as well. Atheists who will not accept that some people hold some form of faith and have to badmouth them or belittle them for their beliefs do get criticized by many of the same people who criticize the religious person who won’t respect the wishes of someone who holds a different faith or who insults and belittles the beliefs of that person. Hëll, Micha and I both have done it on this blog in the past, so at the very least we’re both being consistent here.
.
No one likes the person who decides that they know what’s right for everyone else and people like even less the person who says that they know the “truth” and what is “right” for people to think or believe and insists on pushing that point even after they’ve been politely asked to back off. That’s true whether the person in question is pushing a faith or pushing the absence of faith.
[B]”Atheists like to present certain historical events, scientific phenomena and quotations from the bible (and other texts) as proofs supporting their beliefs (or lack thereof, if you prefer). And they often have to interpret those events, phenomena, and quotes. And their interpretation is generally consistent with atheism.”[/B]
.
Historical events, scientific phenomena and quotations from the bible can no more prove atheism than they can prove any religion. At best atheists or religious people can present philosophical-like arguments to justify their opinions — which may be either convincing to you or not. However, philosophical arguments rarely have a definitive conclusion.
.
[B]”What I find interesting is that many folks criticize religious people for not doing those things, and instead making unsupported assertions and appealing to authority. You seem to be criticizing them for the opposite. Am I understanding your position correctly?”[/B]
.
[B]”Why do you consider sources and texts valid for learning about WWII or Winston Churchill, but invalid for assessing the claims of various religions?”[/B]
.
The problem here is twofold. (1) the kind of claims religion makes vs. the kind of claims history (or other social sciences) claims. (2) The methodology used by religion and by historical study.
.
Using the methods of history you might be able to find a document or an archeological relic that will suggest something that matters to religion. For example a reference to the existence of an actual person named Jesus living in Nazareth at the relevant time (although it would be very unlikely to find something like that). However, history cannot answer the metaphysical or the ethical questions that are associated with Jesus. Moreover, since history is not an exact science, different historians are likely to draw very different conclusions based on the available evidence, and debate it for years and change their minds quite often.
.
And this leads to the 2nd problem. History approaches the question in a completely different way. It doesn’t have the certainty or the reverence toward the material. While the religious person views the biblical text (for example) as a divine and immutable source of authority, the historian will look at it in a way that the religious person will not like and reach conclusions that will not fit with the perception of the text as divine or authoritative.
.
As a secular person, I don’t recognize religious authority in either historical, metaphysical or ethical issues. So I approach sources like the bible from a skeptical secular POV. I suppose I could criticize religion for not doing that — for accepting religious authority. But I think it is better and nicer to simply respect religion and just agree to keep the methodologies separate. Thus religion should not encroach on the realms of history and science, but science and history should not be used to promote atheism.
.
In the missionary pamphlet I was working on, the intro included a list of historical events and biblical quotations from the OT that are viewed by Christians as proving Christianity. Needless to say, Jews view the same sources differently. So I found the attempt pretty silly.
.
[B]”Along those lines, I’m curious how it is that you would prefer that religious people behave.”[/B]
.
Ideally, I’d prefer that religious people don’t make any effort to convert me, and that they respect my own choices/culture. But I am aware that proselytizing is a major part of Christianity. So the important thing is not to be too pushy about it. I have to admit that as a Jew — even if a secular one — the efforts of Christians to continue to convert Jews after so many years has a certain bitter taste to it.
Micha: Just FYI, when you wish to boldface, don’t use brackets. That does nothing. You want to use the symbol with the B and /B enclosed.
.
PAD
Thanks
Micha: The problem here is twofold. (1) the kind of claims religion makes vs. the kind of claims history (or other social sciences) claims. (2) The methodology used by religion and by historical study.
.
Using the methods of history you might be able to find a document or an archeological relic that will suggest something that matters to religion. For example a reference to the existence of an actual person named Jesus living in Nazareth at the relevant time (although it would be very unlikely to find something like that).
.
Well, firstly, I think it’s interesting that you say one is unlikely to find references to a man named Jesus living in Nazareth, since I can think of several that have been found.
.
Second, I would propose that statements about the existence of a man named Jesus who lived in Nazareth at a certain time are precisely historical claims, just as statements about the existence of a man named Julius Caesar who lived in Rome at a certain time are historical claims. Why should they be treated any differently? True, not all religious claims are historical in nature, but why not start with the historical ones, since we have a methodology for assessing them?
. However, history cannot answer the metaphysical or the ethical questions that are associated with Jesus.
.
True.
. Moreover, since history is not an exact science, different historians are likely to draw very different conclusions based on the available evidence, and debate it for years and change their minds quite often.
.
Also true, but that same criticism could be applied to all historical inquiry. And yet that doesn’t stop us from trying to understand history, nor does it stop us from believing certain truths about history.
. And this leads to the 2nd problem. History approaches the question in a completely different way. It doesn’t have the certainty or the reverence toward the material. While the religious person views the biblical text (for example) as a divine and immutable source of authority, the historian will look at it in a way that the religious person will not like and reach conclusions that will not fit with the perception of the text as divine or authoritative.
.
While I would agree that many religious people do approach particular texts as unquestionable and unassailable, some including myself are in favor of taking a different approach. Namely, to hold them to the same scrutiny that is applied to other historical writings and see how they hold up. I would not be terribly interested in a religion that didn’t provide a sufficient level of intellectual rigor. After all, why would we have brains if we aren’t meant to use them?
. As a secular person, I don’t recognize religious authority in either historical, metaphysical or ethical issues. So I approach sources like the bible from a skeptical secular POV. I suppose I could criticize religion for not doing that — for accepting religious authority.
.
As I mentioned, I think that’s actually a perfectly reasonable POV to come from, and to some extent many religious folks should be criticized for not doing the same.
. But I think it is better and nicer to simply respect religion and just agree to keep the methodologies separate. Thus religion should not encroach on the realms of history and science, but science and history should not be used to promote atheism.
.
Interesting. I’ve not met many people who would say that history & science should not be used to promote atheism; in fact, those seem to be the primary reasons most people cite for being atheists. Would you mind elaborating on how you’ve decided on atheism apart from those things?
As a former New Yorker (had to move for financial reasons), hearing the news last night made me proud of New York. I’m a supporter of gay equality in both marriage and the workplace; after that, let ’em slug it out on a (somewhat) level playing ground with us breeders.
Will this erase homophobia ovcernight? No. Will it be debated and discussed ad nauseum? Yes. But I’m thrilled the question has moved from “Will gay couples ever be able to get married?” to “What’s the next step in gay marriage?”
Albany did something right…how is this possible?
I just feel sorry for the city clerks. In 29 days, they are gonna be swamped.
Actually, a more useful analogy here would be divorce. Divorce is generally considered a sin by Christianity, despite being legal in the US.
.
Is there any case of a church forced into or sued into marrying divorcees?
None of which I’m aware, although I do have an uncle (Unitarian by persuasion) who married a former nun. (And given that nuns are supposed to be “brides of Christ”, I can only imagine how comparisons to her ex work out…) The local Catholic church refused to do the ceremony, so his Unitarian minister officiated, incorporating as much of the Catholic ceremony as possible on her behalf (Unitarians are pretty flexible that way).
OTOH, my first marriage was performed by a Justice of the Peace, because at the time I was pretty much agnostic and she was a wannabe pagan (didn’t actually study any naturalistic faiths, but liked to mouth parts of the philosophy. Sometimes I wonder how the Threefold Law is working out for her these days…). No religious folks of any bent were involved, but it didn’t seem to make our marriage any less valid in the eyes of the law.
Funny about that nun… While nuns and priests are not allowed to marry, they are perfectly allowed to leave the vows and marry. I had plenty of teachers who were ex-nuns and priests and left the vows to marry, this in a catholic school and some even keeping status within their order (Sacred Heart, a “liberal” order). There is nothing in dogma against nuns leaving, specially if it is to marry.
They didn’t refuse because of her status – they refused because he was a Unitarian, and wouldn’t convert to Catholicism. You see, it’s long been okay for churches to discriminate about how their sacraments are handed out. That’s the other side of the whole “separation of church and state” thing; just as churches aren’t supposed to tell the government how to operate, so the government isn’t supposed to tell churches how to operate. (With exceptions for things like those religious schools that accept federal funding, of course…)
That’s different… You’d find many priests against interconfesional marriage. Most would be content with just a half hearted conversion but others would be very adamant about it and require some kind of proof. These days, many conservative priests turn their pre-nuptial interview with the couple into a series of exams that involve not only them but also friends as “witness of character”. This becomes harder and more ridiculous in churches with long waiting lists (usually old and picturesque ones).
.
A couple years ago a friend of mine, liberal but also devoutly catholic (dedicating over 50hrs of work every month to many church programs and charities) was asked by a couple to speak to a priest as a “witness of character” and say that the soon-to-marry had kept the celibate even tho they had been living together for 5+ years. He was so torn over this that he agonized for a week before the interview, even considered asking me (the allways useful friendly heathen) to impersonate him and lie. In the end he decided it was better to do the lying himself as it was for a good cause than to be an hypocrite or a pharisee.
Actually, I’m disappointed that when the media announces “[Insert state here] legalizes Gay Marriage,” Nobody mentions the state also legalized the Gay Prenup and the Gay Divorce.
(Too)Slowly, but surely, marriage rights are being equalized.
Have they started rounding up straight people in New York to force them into gay marriage yet?
And kudos to Republican Senator Roy McDonald for bucking his party and doing the right thing! When they call him The Honorable Roy McDonald he can know he earned that title.
Maybe McDonald’s decided that gays deserve a break today.
.
PAD
As it seems many of the debate aspects of this conversation have played out and built up to a point where I’m not sure I can include anything brilliant or insightful, I’ll restrict my comments to saying I’ve amazingly happy about this and for all my gay & lesbian friends.
It’s a rare occasion when I have cause to be proud of my state’s government. But today I can say, “Way to go, Albany!”
Is it wrong to not care? I mean, about gay folks getting married. I kind of consider myself liberal on several fronts, even as a Catholic, and I find myself utterly indifferent to this issue. Does that make me a bad liberal? A bad Catholic? That I don’t care one way or the other?
I guess what it really boils down to is that I have a young daughter. I really dislike the idea of paying for a wedding. Since we live in Georgia, I’m secretly hoping she becomes a lesbian, because the rednecks down here don’t cotton to that whole ‘gay marriage’ thing, consequently I won’t have to pay for anything.
Of course, if she moves, my plan goes to pieces.
Nice to see you have your priorities in order. 😉
I did a bit more reading on the subject.
.
Initially, I thought the exceptions in the law regarding religious institutions made sense, even if they were redundant. Now I’m not so sure, and I feel like the religious people disappointed me yet again.
.
The argument that wicked gays could sue churches into allowing them the use of facilities and personell to celebrate a sinful union seemed iffy to me, but okay. Supposedly it could happen.
.
But there were cases of gay couples in other states that allow gay marriage that sued a religious org, like the Salvation Army, because one of them was an employee and the organization refused to pay benefits appropriate to a married employee.
.
This is where religious freedom morphs into bigotry. Suppose I am a straight guy that has divorced seven times. I wonder if the Salvation Army would refuse to pay me benefits for my eighth wife? Because I’d be a bigger sinner than any gay couple, according to what Jesus said.
.
No law can force you to regard a married gay couple as joined by God. That is religion. But the law should be able to force you to regard a gay person as owed certain completely secular benefits, like payments and hospital visits, even if the organization is religious.
Oh yeah, totally. But alas, because I’m Australian – and not married anyway -, my marriage wouldn’t be regocnised by my government when I get back, so. *shrug*
• 
Well same sex marriage would help me fulfill my life long goal of an in home urinal
There’s just so many things wrong with the construction of that sentence, the dirty jokes just about write themselves.
It was late, and I was pretty punchy…
HON-…..
Wait. I’m not married.
More seriously, I’m extremely happy about this happening. And it seems that they went about it in the right manner, too. I’m a strong supporter of Gay Rights, including same sex marriage, but I don’t believe a church should have to perform a ceremony. Separation of Church and State is a lovely concept, and people seem to miss in the argument that in this country you don’t NEED to be married in a church.
I was a bridesmaid in a friend’s wedding, and it was technically their second time marrying. They had already gotten married at city hall weeks before, but also wanted to have a ceremony for their loved ones. And that’s the piece folks seem to be missing right there. All this does is allow the state to grant marriage licenses to same sex couples, it doesn’t promise them a marriage ceremony in a church.
No, no church should be forced to perform a gay marriage if they do not want to.
.
But then, I’m not sure why any homosexual would want to be part of such a church who would discriminate against them in the first place.
.
Go New York!
Gays don’t have any interest in forcing the church to marry them. They just want the same legal marriage rights from the state as straight people.
Gays may not have an interest in “forcing a church to marry them,” but they may have an interest in suing such a church. And even if they don’t like the congregation, they might like the building, and I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that gays are any less litigious than any other demographic. Even if they exempt churches, what about a wedding photographer with religious qualms about working such a wedding? If we’ve chosen to define homosexuals as being no different from ethnic minorities, no wedding related business can deny services.
I have next to zero knowledge of law, but going from logic here, it’s my understanding that you must be a member of a church to be married in that church? Say, can a Muslim couple sue a Protestant Church because, for some crazy reason, the Muslim couple wants to marry there while keeping their Muslim faith?
.
Can you sue a Church into considering your sin not a sin? If a Protestant Church declares that anyone living in a gay relationship is in sin, what can a gay couple do, in court, to challenge that? I really don’t see how.
.
As for non-religious business, I’d say, let them refuse service. I don’t think that will be a problem for long. Unlike most Lefties, I really love Capitalism. Capitalism is the great equalizer. We will see a multitude of businessmen advertising themselves as gay-friendly to profit of a new market.
.
A funny story. I used to go out in drag in my wilder days. And I went to shop for clothes in a store that was ran by Protestant Christians and catered to a Christian clientele. Because I liked some of their clothes. They were very polite, even as I tried some of their clothes in the store.
.
Eventually, money will trump religion.
Does anybody have a legal right to a church wedding? The Catholic church doesn’t perform marriages for people who have been divorced unless they have also been able to obtain an annulment, in spite of the fact that it’s legal for divorced people to marry. As far as I am aware, religions that don’t approve of interfaith marriages can also refuse to perform them. So it seems to me that the right of churches to establish what they consider the qualifications for marriage in their church is pretty well established. The important thing is the access to legal protections – and the ceremony, if they so wish, can be held in a park, an art gallery, or any of the other secular neutral ground where even people who can have church weddings sometimes choose to have ceremonies because they like them, officiated over by anybody who’s legal to do so. Or of course in a church like the United Church of Christ, which approves of marriage equality and can now exercise that belief in NY.
Nice. The world becomes a little more rational.
.
And just this week, Brazilian Supreme Court legalized civil unions for same sex couples. Something’s in the air, no doubt.
.
It’s very exciting, witnessing civil rights history is being made.
.
On a personal level, it’s ironic. I am exclusively interested in women these days, and I even distanced myself a bit from the gay community here in my city. It’s just my luck, now that I can have a civil union with another guy, I’m not interested anymore.
Good. Let’s hope a lot of people get married before some bitter legal challenge.
New York isn’t California. There isn’t a mechanism that allows the public to overturn laws in the voting booth.
.
PAD
No, much like health care, there will eventually be lawsuits, etc. by individuals/states and the issue will finally go to the Supreme Court to be decided once and for all.
.
My thinking? Obamacare is doomed once it makes it to the Supreme Court, between numerous states’ lawsuits, and parts of the bill that can be challenged on a constitutional basis.
.
Gay marriage, on the other hand, I believe will be upheld in all likelihood. because there really is no legal precedent for the Supreme Court to overturn it. I have no heard many constitutional arguments against gay marriage, like I have Obamacare or abortion for example.
.
And if you believe is states rights and a basically libertarian point of view, you could not logically then cast on vote on the Supreme Court to overturn gay marriage.
.
The only way, the ONLY way I could see them overturning gay marriage laws would be if enough states – say Utah and Mississippi to start – say they don’t want to recognize gay marriage. Part of their lawsuit says that they don’t want to and shouldn’t have to pay for Social Security benefits, pensions, etc. for same-sex couples. In that case, the SC may have to either declare gay marriage a right, not to be infringed upon by the states – like Abortion – OR they decide that if this many states are against it they have no choice but to overturn it and void all gay marriages.
.
But I seriously doubt that’s going to happen.
Jerome, I direct your attention to the US Constitution, Article IV, Section 1:
.
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”
.
Marriage is certainly a public Act and Record, since the state issued a license (and collects a fee). Those laws passed in various states permitting them to ignore same-sex marriages from out of state? And the phrase in the so-called “Defense of Marriage” Act that permits that? If anyone were to challenge them before the USSC on the basis of Article IV Section 1, I don’t see any way they could be upheld. (Sadly, the only constitutional challenge I’ve seen so far is in reference to the 14th Amendment, which can be read as supporting their position – or can be read as still supplying all citizens with the same rights, as straight citizens can’t have same-sex marriages either.)
.
Incidentally, did I just see you use the phrase “believe in states’ rights” and “logically” in the same sentence? Because few of the people who use the phrase “states’ rights” in the current political climate have even a nodding acquaintance with logic or consistency…
I guess the question I have is, “Why were the normal rules for legislation suspended?”
.
As I understand it, NY law requires requires that legislation is posted 72 hours before a vote, while this bill was only posted a few hours before. Why was normal debate squashed? Was this truly a need so pressing that it could only be passed as emergency legislation?
Why was normal debate squashed?
.
This had been brought forth as a bill in 2007 and 2009. This latest version was introduced on June 14th. It was voted on by the state House and passed on June 15th. It was voted on and passed by the state Senate yesterday… with the help of Republicans, I might add.
.
So, where was the lack of debate again?
.
But then, let’s ask the Republican governor of Wisconsin about what he thinks about squashing debate.
Speaking from a country where it has been legal for some years now (oh, how smug I am sometimes) Id like to offer some hints:
.
-Men, beware of the roaming bands of lesbians (with pink pistols, just like Bill O warned) that will abduct your wives and daughters. Those are such a nuisance there is a segment alongside weather report predicting their movemennts so you can safely hide the mother of your children.
.
-Women, beware of the roamin… Aww, forget it, your husband probably was a closet case anyway and he is already engaged to a huge finnish guy called Hugo. Blame the law for not keeping your husband bitterly married for ever.
.
-Keep track of the cracks in the pavement. Hëll gates are known to open in the vincinity of a married same sex couple and swallow a few bystanders. Once open, though, these are not so bad and the influx of demons is not worse than beign visited by british tourists.
.
-Hire a lawyer; if you get invited to your gay co-worker wedding and you decline you will get sued for discrimination. If you attend but your gift is below par, you will get sued for harassment.
.
-But now seriously; prepare for the people that will say “I have nothing against them BUT….”. My favorite are the ones who claim that politicians should focus on more urgent, important matters. So basically they’d be fine with it if it was proposed while already living in an utopia.
.
We’ve had Same Sex Marriage for 6 years and the oposition party (that will probably win next year) have been hinting they will make it illegal again, so as with every right, we must remain vigilant to secure them.
You forgot to say how gay marriage paved the way for people to marry their dog, or their 9-year old kid.
.
Or how, after gay marriage was approved, all straight marriages in Spain were somehow devalued. Now their stock is worth just 75% as before.
I think this is a great occasion.
Having said that, WTF is wrong with Republicans that so few, drawing great ire from their Party, voted for this basic right.
I saw one on CNN who said what stopped him from voting was the carve outs did not go far enough. It wasn’t just Churches needed to be protected from being sued for not performing same sex marriages. He wanted all religious organizations, AND all employers who had religious based o0bnjections from being sued.
Basically, if an employer said “I won’t cover your spouse for any benefits I normally give, because they are the same sex” This Senator thought that should be part of the law.
But, thank you Gov. Cuomo.
Why should churches need protection? Has anyone yet sued, say, a Catholic church for refusing to perform a ceremony for a Jew and a Unitarian? Churches have long had every right to refuse to provide any sacrament you care to name to anyone who wasn’t a member of their own faith. Why should same-sex weddings be any different?
.
The key here, of course, is that the state can’t prohibit the marriage of the Jew and the Unitarian, because the state isn’t allowed to discriminate like that. By the same token, the state should not be permitted to prohibit the marriage of the man and the man, or the woman and the woman, for the same reason.
If I were to venture a guess, Jonathan, I’d say that it’s because a same-sex couple could, conceivably, be members of that church’s faith and/or a specific church in question.
.
–Daryl
Generally, however, if the church is of the sort to refuse to perform the ceremony, the mere fact that the participants are gay would probably be enough to get them drummed out of the church anyway. It’s hard to imagine, say, a Catholic priest or Southern Baptist minister who would let a couple he knows to be gay worship in his church, much less accept any of the church’s sacraments. And thus far at least, nobody has tried to claim that anyone has a Constitutional right to remain in a given congregation, or sued over being ousted…
That’s what I said too. I can’t see any grounds by which a gay couple could sue a church into accepting them. Homosexual acts are sins according to Christian doctrine and a court of secular law can’t change that. Churches can refuse anyone they want, and it’s an ecclesiatic matter.
.
It’s just the old tactic of turning things around and claiming they’re the ones in danger of being persecuted. In this way they can drum up some sympathy and justification.
.
The same things are said here in Brazil, with one key difference. We don’t have unrestricted freedom of speech. One can be prosecuted here for racist remarks (though one rarely is, we’re not as sue-happy as Americans). And there is law project to extend this restriction to homophobic remarks. THAT could affect churches here. But even here I can’t see how a church could be sued unto performing a ceremony they don’t want to.
It’s hard to imagine, say, a Catholic priest or Southern Baptist minister who would let a couple he knows to be gay worship in his church, much less accept any of the church’s sacraments.
.
And yet, a good friend, former co-worker, lesbian and practicing Catholic does indeed receive the church’s sacraments here in the heart of the so-called Bible Belt (Dallas).
.
I know…it’s always mystified me, too. Why would she subscribe to a religion that declares it a sin for her to love another woman, right? That’s just the way it is. Somehow, I doubt she’s the only one.
.
–Daryl
I know…it’s always mystified me, too. Why would she subscribe to a religion that declares it a sin for her to love another woman, right?
.
Being neither a Catholic nor lesbian (unless I’m to be considered a lesbian trapped in a man’s body) it’s purely conjecture on my part, but I would suppose that she firmly believes that her lord would actually accept her the way she is–after all, his dad made her that way–and that all the intolerance aimed at her comes not from God or His son, but instead from their all-too-fallible representatives. So basically she believes in the message, not the messengers.
.
PAD
Makes sense. To me, though, that falls into that distinction between “faith” and “religion.” Her faith may be in a just and merciful supreme being. But the religion she follows isn’t much about justice and mercy towards homosexuals.
.
Then again, I’m an atheist, myself, so it’s admittedly difficult for me to wrap my thought processes around most issues involving religion.
.
–Daryl
You don’t really have to be an atheist to feel that way.
.
I’m a pragmatic agnostic (or perhaps more accurately, just plain cynical: if there’s a god, he’s akin to the kid who likes to set ants on fire), but I firmly believe that organized religion is to blame for many of the world’s problems.
.
It’s one thing to have faith, it’s another to have somebody who claims to be speaking on behalf of a god demanding how you should have that faith.
PAD: I would suppose that she firmly believes that her lord would actually accept her the way she is–after all, his dad made her that way–and that all the intolerance aimed at her comes not from God or His son, but instead from their all-too-fallible representatives. So basically she believes in the message, not the messengers.
.
Your “pure conjecture” raises several excellent points. God does love all of His children, and calls on them to love each other with that same love. Unfortunately, so many of His children fall far short of that (myself included), because we are “all-too-fallible.” As a result, many believe the message to be unappealing because they find the messengers to be so. I am glad that you at least are able to appreciate that there is a distinction between the two.
.
Craig J. Ries: I firmly believe that organized religion is to blame for many of the world’s problems.
.
First, I’m reminded of Ben Kingsley’s line from “Sneakers”: Don’t kid yourself. It’s not that organized.
.
Second, I’ve seen these sentiment elsewhere, and I’d like to think I’m starting to understand where it is coming from. But perhaps you can help me understand it a little better. Is it a problem with the teachings themselves? Or is it that a number of religious leaders have turned out to be either misguided or genuinely ill-intentioned?
.
It’s one thing to have faith, it’s another to have somebody who claims to be speaking on behalf of a god demanding how you should have that faith.
.
Phrased that way, the latter option clearly sounds undesirable. But I submit that plenty of what might be called as “organized religion” does not resemble your description at all. Certainly there have been instances of what you describe. But perhaps there is enough nuance to denounce those specific instances instead of the whole of existing faith traditions, no?
Organized religion has done a lot of good too. I had a very concrete example in my life. My brother had a drug problem that was tearing up my family. Then he spent one year in a farm managed by the Catholic Church. He came back a new man.
.
Yeah, I still hate their take on sex, the resulting self-loathing and neurosis, and all that šhìŧ.
Andy, speaking only for myself and not for Craig, it’s the proverbial “a little from Column A, and a little from Column B” situation.
.
For me, when you say, “the teachings themselves,” I say that the specific dogma of the different flavors of religion can certainly leave a lot to be desired, while many/most of the underlying basic concepts are fine. At its root, if one accepts the idea of a supreme being who wants us to do good things and all that goes with it, I would hope that – despite the “teachings themselves” – joining a specific Supreme Being Fan Club is not required for those good things to “count” (for want of a better term).
.
As far as the leaders, you pretty well hit the nail right on the head. Far too many appear to be less interested in genuinely helping their fellow man than in controlling their followers and/or amassing large piles of money.
.
–Daryl
Is it a problem with the teachings themselves? Or is it that a number of religious leaders have turned out to be either misguided or genuinely ill-intentioned?
.
It’s a bit of both, but it’s also people themselves. The teachings aren’t always bad, but they’re not always good. But they’re often cherry-picked, misread, and in some cases, they just don’t exist.
.
As for leaders, I think that if you believe in a higher power, the fewer people between you and him (or her), the better.
.
You look at what has gone on with the Catholic church these last few years, and you quickly realize that if you eliminated many of the upper management positions of the church, the message of Catholicism itself doesn’t change. Yet, it’s like many other big corporations now: top heavy, slow to change with the times, and you really wonder on who’s interest they’re working on behalf of.
.
The gist of it: nobody needs a pope, much less one who thinks a billion people shouldn’t use birth control, or who hides the crimes of his priests. Nobody needs these bishops and megachurch televangelists telling them how they should worship god (or where they should donate their money to, or who they should vote for in the next election).
Rene: Organized religion has done a lot of good too. I had a very concrete example in my life. My brother had a drug problem that was tearing up my family. Then he spent one year in a farm managed by the Catholic Church. He came back a new man.
.
I am glad to hear that Christians were able to be such a blessing to your brother, and by extension, you and your family.
.
And thank you for sharing this example. It is easy to become convinced that there are many problems when only negative results get attention.
Nytwyng: speaking only for myself and not for Craig
.
I would ask no more and no less, and so I thank you for doing exactly that.
.
At its root, if one accepts the idea of a supreme being who wants us to do good things and all that goes with it, I would hope that – despite the “teachings themselves” – joining a specific Supreme Being Fan Club is not required for those good things to “count” (for want of a better term).
.
This seems to be a common notion, that all religions boil down to believing in a supreme being who wants us to do good. Therefore, if you stick with that basic notion, you’re covered. That certainly sounds nice, but does it really hold water? What about religions that teach that there isn’t a supreme being? How does one resolve ambiguities about which things are good to do? And what if none of those good things “count”?
.
As far as the leaders, you pretty well hit the nail right on the head. Far too many appear to be less interested in genuinely helping their fellow man than in controlling their followers and/or amassing large piles of money.
.
You are right, since even one would be far too many and we all know there has been more than one such leader. On the other hand, there are plenty of religious leaders who are genuine about serving others; unfortunately, we tend to pay more attention to the ones who fall short.
Craig J. Ries: It’s a bit of both, but it’s also people themselves. The teachings aren’t always bad, but they’re not always good. But they’re often cherry-picked, misread, and in some cases, they just don’t exist.
.
I understand, and I suspect that you and I are largely in agreement on these points. In particular, I find it to be deeply saddening when the truth is twisted, hidden, or ignored.
.
As for leaders, I think that if you believe in a higher power, the fewer people between you and him (or her), the better.
.
You look at what has gone on with the Catholic church these last few years, and you quickly realize that if you eliminated many of the upper management positions of the church, the message of Catholicism itself doesn’t change.
.
Sadly, this was the sentiment over 500 years ago; the more things change…
.
In fact, the Bible teaches that no person should come between you and God; this was a key point of the Protestant Reformation. The central component of Christianity is a direct, personal relationship with God, not obedience to a particular human hierarchy.
.
Thank you for elaborating, and helping me to understand your statement on organized religion. It turned out to be fairly easy to understand, since I share many of your underlying concerns!
As a Catholic, I’d like to clear up some confusion here.
.
1. It is not a sin to “be gay.” The current doctrine is that being gay is due to some unexplained physical quality. You cannot help how you feel. You can absolutely receive the sacrament while being homosexual.
.
2. At the same time, the actions which require gay people to be sexually active are considered to be sinful acts. These acts, like sodomy, are likewise improper for straight people to perform.
.
3. The Church also has no problem with people loving each other. It’s when, outside of the sacrament of marriage, it becomes sexualized that it becomes problematic for the Church. And, yes, this means that the Church believes that in your entire life you should only have sexual relations with one person after taking a vow that is considered the continuation of your evolution of a Christian (from your Baptism to Confirmation and so on).
.
4. People have been asking about litigation following Gay Marriage laws being passed in states. In every single state where they have been passed gay rights activists have sued the Church on the grounds that by refusing to marry same sex couples they are discriminating. This NY law was specifically written to try and avoid that from happening.
.
5. I also want to address what I feel are some anti-Catholic feelings or misconceptions. Chiefly, I want to address the oft-repeated concept that someone is “Between you and God.” The modern Catholic Church does not hold the view that you pray through a priest, to the Pope, to a saint, around a tree and up to God. When you pray, you are praying TO GOD. You might use the image of a saint to help you formulate the prayer in your mind and in your heart. In addition, the Pope (and the Church in general) is there to facilitate your understanding of God and help communicate his message to people. This is why, to any Catholic, saying that “Nobody needs a Pope” is striking at the heart of our religion.
.
I’m not here to change anyone’s mind on anything. I’m just trying to inform you guys on some details so you know what’s going on from the Church’s side.
It is not a sin to “be gay.” … At the same time, the actions which require gay people to be sexually active are considered to be sinful acts.
.
In other words, it’s OK to be gay as long as you don’t do anything about it? I would imagine that to a homosexual that would be a distinction without a difference.
.
The Church also has no problem with people loving each other. It’s when, outside of the sacrament of marriage, it becomes sexualized that it becomes problematic for the Church.
.
According to Catholic doctrine, that’s because the purpose of sex is purely procreative and is only condoned in the context of marriage. (I used to be a Catholic myself, so I know a bit about Catholic doctrine.) That’s why the Church forbids contraception.
.
There’s a gap in the Church’s reasoning, though, and one which bears examination. The Church doesn’t condemn the sexual activity of married couples who are past child-bearing age, or who are sterile, does it? So one is left to wonder why homosexual behavior is sinful, other than that old standy that “the Bible says so.” Which isn’t good enough for many of us, myself included, as the Bible was written by fallible humans.
(I used to be a Catholic myself, so I know a bit about Catholic doctrine.
.
I was also baptized Catholic. And while I do not know enough of the doctrine as I probably should, nor have I personally attended a Catholic church since I was a little kid, I have nonetheless seen the church’s affect on both sides of my family over the years.
Why should churches need protection? Has anyone yet sued, say, a Catholic church for refusing to perform a ceremony for a Jew and a Unitarian?
.
They would need a sign that reads “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” sign. (Not that it would get them out of any trouble.)
.
And with the Protestants, the sign would be right below the “Some Assembly Required” sign.
.
Ba-dum-dum.
.
TAC
To paraphrase Winston, “I LOVE THIS STATE!”
.
Way to go, New York. May you be but the first in a new wave.
Just think…now Rictor and Shatterstar are that much closer to fulfilling their dream of having a marriage erased from continuity by Mephisto.
Congratulations Andy, you just got me to burst out laughing!
Me too, LOL!
Me three! “One More Day (gay edition)”
Mom will be so proud…
One More Gay
Well, they do meet the requirement of having one redhead in the relationship.
Is it OK to still hate the Yankees? Because I still hate the Yankees.
I’m glad to see New York become as forward-thinking as Iowa. (That’s a sentence you don’t see every day)
Yes, it is perfectly fine, acceptable, respected and expected to hate the Yankees.
Bordering on required!
Consequences of Gay Marriage as a Pie Chart.
http://egotvonline.com/2010/12/30/the-simplicity-and-humor-of-the-pie-chart/6a00d83452358069e20105360e8997970b-800wi/
.
They passed such a measure and the world, yet again, managed not to end or burst into flames of any sort. Imagine that.
.
Congratulations to the people in New York that can now be just as miserable as the rest of us. 🙂
.
I do have to say though, the reaction of much if the Right on TV and especially across the blogosphere has been spectacularly hilarious. The greatest comedy is certainly coming from the CliffsNotes Christians (and they are legion) out there quoting scripture without knowing what they’re actually saying or quoting and, as is typical, looking colossally stupid.
Examples of people quoting scripture without knowing what they’re talking saying or quoting, please.
.
“Examples of people quoting scripture without knowing what they’re talking saying or quoting, please.”
.
Well, this one has been making the rounds as the bibles anti-gay marriage tract.
.
“Jesus answered, “Don’t you know that in the beginning the Creator made a man and a woman? That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. He becomes like one person with his wife. Then they are no longer two people, but one.”
.
That’s been posted on websites, quoted on talk radio and circulated in emails on the subject since the New York decision went down (and a few times before now as well) as an anti-gay marriage line in the Bible since it discusses “man and woman.” The catch is, it’s not at all related to gay marriage. The complete bit is actually the Bible’s bit about Jesus discussing divorce.
.
…
.
(Mark 10.1-12) 1When Jesus finished teaching, he left Galilee and went to the part of Judea that is east of the Jordan River. 2Large crowds followed him, and he healed their sick people.
.
3Some Pharisees wanted to test Jesus. They came up to him and asked, “Is it right for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
.
4Jesus answered, “Don’t you know that in the beginning the Creator made a man and a woman?5That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. He becomes like one person with his wife. 6Then they are no longer two people, but one. And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together.”
.
7The Pharisees asked Jesus, “Why did Moses say that a man could write out divorce papers and send his wife away?”
.
8Jesus replied, “You are so heartless! That’s why Moses allowed you to divorce your wife. But from the beginning God did not intend it to be that way. 9I say that if your wife has not committed some terrible sexual sin, [a] you must not divorce her to marry someone else. If you do, you are unfaithful.”10The disciples said, “If that’s how it is between a man and a woman, it’s better not to get married.”
.
11Jesus told them, “Only those people who have been given the gift of staying single can accept this teaching. 12Some people are unable to marry because of birth defects or because of what someone has done to their bodies. Others stay single for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Anyone who can accept this teaching should do so.”
.
…
.
What I find truly hilarious is that the cropped CliffsNotes version of the Bible quote is being thrown around by some people who have multiple divorces under their belt. One of those chain email senders with multiple divorces under her belt is an aunt of mine who didn’t take too kindly to my pointing out the full version of the quote and the actual meaning of it. Made me so happy. I’m off her chain email list for at least the rest of the year.
.
But, yeah, I’ve seen a lot of idiots who just do the Cliffsnotes version of the Bible quoting part of that passage and parts others that deal with things other than gay relationship, spit fire and brimstone at gay relationships while quoting the text and yet have no issue with the activity that the Bible is actually talking about in the full context of whatever bit they’re quoting from.
.
Cliffsnotes Christians I call them when I’m feeling charitable about it. F’n idiots is what I tell them that they are when I’m not feeling as kindly towards them.
Frigging hypocrites.
.
I don’t think religious people are evil, not even the ones that follow some very draconian religious dogma. At worst, they’re deluded.
.
But when they expect other people, even unbelievers, to make sacrifices in respect of their dogmas, while they themselves don’t live up to it? How fûçkëd up is that?
.
Hey, if you’re going to be a big mouth about your religious faith and urge strangers to cut off their fingers to please your God, then you should at least be willing to cut your whole hand or arm.
.
But it’s so frigging convenient to have other people doing all the sacrifices.
Jerry and Rene make two very salient points.
.
First, Christians as a group are in a difficult position when defending the sanctity of marriage. Statistically, they don’t seem any more committed to marriage than anyone else, and there are more than enough specific examples of marriage covenants being ignored among self-professing Christians. Given how central marriage is to the Bible, that is very disappointing and makes Christians look very hypocritical. (As an aside, one can read the entire Bible as a love story between a man and a woman which culminates in their marriage. Thus, according to the Bible, life is a comedy since it ends with a wedding.)
.
But beyond the specifics of marital fidelity, there is the larger issue which is that Christians can come across as only caring about making sure nobody else, especially non-Christians, is sinning. Or rather, that nobody else is committing particular sins. And that’s unfortunate, because it creates a couple of misconceptions. The first is that those are the only sins that matter and thus “real” Christians aren’t sinners – obviously not true. The second misconception, and the worse one, is that you need to earn your way into heaven by not committing those sins (and it might be too late for you anyway – I mean, look at how heinous you are!). Rather, the message we should be sending is that none of us can hack it, but that doesn’t matter because God loves us anyway and has worked out a way around that problem.
.
It’s a shame that so many people never hear that message because the messengers can’t quite get out of their own way. It’s a shame because I think it’s a rather good message.
.
Andy, I think most people hear the message. I think most people actually hear the message better than the loudest of the mouth fringe on the Right. Most people do try to live good lives and to not completely screw over everyone else around them. Most people do live lives where they try to not steal, lie, cheat or behave in ways that are counter to most religions finer points.
.
I think what most people just don’t care about that much any more is the bášŧárdìzëd versions of the various dogmas that have been corrupted by politics and money. I think that most people just don’t care about taking their faith and shoving down people’s throats. Most sane people realize that their faith, or their lack of any faith, is their personal choice and not something to bludgeon others over the head with.
.
The crap parts of the equation is that the noisy minority makes the silent, sane majority look bad and that the political power players would rather pander to the fringe more often than not. That hardcore conservative base out there is made up from of a lot hypocritical jáçkáššëš that fit my description of “CliffsNotes Christians” very well. Republicans are going to play to that base because they know that if they don’t it will be the other guy in the primary that gets their vote or it will be a loss of a much needed voter base in an election against a Democratic opponent.
.
But they are not the mainstream and they’re not even close to being a majority of the people out there. We sometimes get skewed pictures of what most Americans are like in these discussions because we’re usually reacting to or discussing the latest stupidity of the fringe on one side or the other or by one of their pet politicians. but the reality is that most people just ain’t that fringe and most people do get that message (or at least the most important parts of its core aspects.)
.
We see it all the time. When a natural disaster strikes, it’s the “regular people” who get out there and help their neighbors out. When things go really bad because of a disastrous event, it’s the “regular people” who do what they can to help each other out of the jams.
.
I get to see it all the time. Yeah, I take reports from people who have had bad things done to them by others, but I also have honest men and women walk up to me all the time and say, “I found this wallet on the ground over there.” And every time that has happened to me, I have found lots of cash and cards still in the wallet when doing inventory on them. Occasionally I’m on duty when the owner finally comes and gets their wallet and I have them check the things. 99% of the time, they tell me that nothing looks like it’s missing (even when there’s no cash in the wallet) and that they haven’t had any mysterious charges or attempted charges show up on their bank/credit cards in the week/two weeks that we had their wallet.
.
That’s not an uncommon thing. But we see only the sensational on the news and we talk about the extremes because that’s what makes the news and captures headlines and water cooler attention.
.
It really isn’t that bad out there. It just seems like it sometimes because we forget to step away from all the false picture and actually look at what’s going on.
Andy, I think most people hear the message. … Most people do try to live good lives and to not completely screw over everyone else around them. Most people do live lives where they try to not steal, lie, cheat or behave in ways that are counter to most religions finer points.
.
But my point is that, from a Biblical perspective, that is not the message.
.
I think that most people just don’t care about taking their faith and shoving down people’s throats. Most sane people realize that their faith, or their lack of any faith, is their personal choice and not something to bludgeon others over the head with.
.
Yes, it is a personal choice. And certainly “shoving” and “bludgeoning” are distasteful. On the other hand, those sorts of descriptions are sometimes used to dismiss any and all attempts to encourage or persuade others of what one believes to be true. If I tell people that “X-Factor” is a good book and they should read it, I doubt anyone would object. If I tell people that the Bible is a good book and they should read it, is that shoving my faith down their throat?
.
I think most people actually hear the message better than the loudest of the mouth fringe on the Right.
.
You talk a lot about politics, particularly American politics, which is understandable and natural since this thread has been largely political. A lot of people would like us to equate Christian with Republican or the Right. But just to be clear, I’m not trying to support or endorse any particular political view. I couldn’t care less about scoring points for either side. What I do care about is the Truth.
.
“If I tell people that “X-Factor” is a good book and they should read it, I doubt anyone would object. If I tell people that the Bible is a good book and they should read it, is that shoving my faith down their throat?”
.
You tell someone that X-Factor is a cool book and they should give it a try. Not really a problem.
.
You tell someone that X-Factor is a good book and that they should try it and they then reply that superheroes aren’t their thing. This conversation gets repeated maybe four or five more times. Not really an issue, but some people might say that you’re being a bit stubborn about it.
.
You tell someone that X-Factor is a good book and that they should try it and they then reply that they’ve already read it for several issues and didn’t care for it. You then tell them that you think it;s a great book and that they should start reading it again anyhow. They tell you that they’re not interested. You push the issue. This conversation gets repeated two or three times a month for the next two years. That’s when you’re being an ášš about it.
.
it would be the same thing as me telling you to try my favorite food, you saying you have and don’t like it and me continuing to stick the food under your nose and telling you to try it anyhow. You wouldn’t like it too much after the first few times I would think.
.
Too many people won’t leave well enough alone when someone says that they’re not interested. Push the Bible in the same way that I described pushing X-Factor or food above and people will react badly. Unfortunately for you, you may not have done that, but you will get the response that someone who does gets if that person is getting that kind of treatment from others already.
.
“You talk a lot about politics, particularly American politics, which is understandable and natural since this thread has been largely political. A lot of people would like us to equate Christian with Republican or the Right. But just to be clear, I’m not trying to support or endorse any particular political view. I couldn’t care less about scoring points for either side. What I do care about is the Truth.”
.
Well, in this case I would think that discussing the right and their love of shoving their beliefs down other people’s throats since it is the Right going batshit crazy over this right now.
You tell someone that X-Factor is a cool book and they should give it a try. Not really a problem.
.
You tell someone that X-Factor is a good book and that they should try it and they then reply that superheroes aren’t their thing. This conversation gets repeated maybe four or five more times. Not really an issue, but some people might say that you’re being a bit stubborn about it.
.
You tell someone that X-Factor is a good book and that they should try it and they then reply that they’ve already read it for several issues and didn’t care for it. You then tell them that you think it;s a great book and that they should start reading it again anyhow. They tell you that they’re not interested. You push the issue. This conversation gets repeated two or three times a month for the next two years. That’s when you’re being an ášš about it.
.
OK, but now instead of telling you that X-Factor is a good book that you should read, what if I’m telling you that your house is on fire? Or that you’ve won the multimillion dollar lottery jackpot? Or that there is a cure for some disease that you have? Would I still be “an ášš” if I kept on bringing it up, or does the content of the message justify my persistence?
Would I still be “an ášš” if I kept on bringing it up, or does the content of the message justify my persistence?
.
In the end, the content of the message doesn’t matter if the recipient doesn’t want to hear it.
.
And imo the problem begins at the governmental level with politicians who are just as often the ones trying to shove religion down our throats as it the people from the church down on the corner.
.
One of the most common justifications for banning gay-marriage is because the Bible/Western religions say it should be. Sorry, that never flies in my book, and goes to show that this country isn’t nearly secular enough.
.
“OK, but now instead of telling you that X-Factor is a good book that you should read, what if I’m telling you that your house is on fire? Or that you’ve won the multimillion dollar lottery jackpot? Or that there is a cure for some disease that you have? Would I still be “an ášš” if I kept on bringing it up, or does the content of the message justify my persistence?”
.
See, that’s what kicks the argument of most people who just want to “share” their religion in the ášš, Andy. I have a number of good friends who are not of the Christian faith. Some are of other faiths entirely and a few are atheists. You know what? Their houses aren’t on fire and you being a part of a long line of people telling them to give up their beliefs to accept yours dámņëd sure ain’t the same as you telling them that they’ve got the winning lotto ticket from last week’s drawing or that the medical establishment has finally found the cure for their disease.
.
The simple fact that you would think to compare someone else’s faith, a faith different than your own, to a disease and compare the idea of your pushing them to give up their faith and accept yours and the one true one to curing them or making them one of life’s lottery winners says a hëll of a lot about your argument and your POV. This attitude is what annoys many about some Christians and, after dealing with long lines of folks holding this attitude, causes even well meaning Christians to get snapped at sometimes for bringing the idea up in a more polite way. This arrogance that says that you can say that your faith is a fact and that everyone else’s faith is wrong or bad is what puts an end to people wanting to deal with many Christians about it.
.
Your faith is just that. It’s your faith. It works for you and it makes you happy, but it doesn’t work for everyone and it doesn’t make everyone else feel the way you do about it. At some point, those other people do finally reach a point where they’re entitled to tell people who equate their beliefs to being wrong or to a disease to stick it.
.
Seriously, how long would it take before you got fed up if I knocked on your door every day and told you that you were misguided, your religion was a sham, your belief would lead you to an eternity of pain and suffering and you needed to get with it and start worshipping the Great Yellow Shade Tree like all of the truly enlightened people do? Your faith is yours and it works for you. Their faith is theirs and works for them. If you can’t accept that simple fact without believing that they should be badgered into accepting your faith as “the real one” then, yeah, you are a part of the problem. and, yeah, you’re being an ášš about it.
Andy, there is also the matter that actions and results and emotions are a lot more important than words.
.
If someone is trying to convert me, I’d like to look at that someone. Do they seem like they have a joyful life? Do they act in a manner that is remotely similar to what they preach?
.
Why shoud I heed the words of dysfunctional passive-aggressive bullies?
.
The Christians I admire the most, the Christian that most tempted me to convert, are the ones that lead by example. The ones that you can look at them and see the transformative effect, the strength of character derived from the faith, the kindness.
.
I have at least a half-dozen family members and co-workers that I’d consider good Christians. They don’t preach, because they don’t need to. Their very lives and presences are enough.
.
I am too much of a free spirit (or an arrogant rebel if you’re not charitable) to genuinely convert to a religion that puts so great an emphasis in submission as Christianity. But if I’d convert, you can be sure that the example of a good Christian would coult more than the words of a hundred of áššhølë Christians.
Jerry Chandler: You know what? Their houses aren’t on fire and you being a part of a long line of people telling them to give up their beliefs to accept yours dámņëd sure ain’t the same as you telling them that they’ve got the winning lotto ticket from last week’s drawing or that the medical establishment has finally found the cure for their disease.
.
The simple fact that you would think to compare someone else’s faith, a faith different than your own, to a disease and compare the idea of your pushing them to give up their faith and accept yours and the one true one to curing them or making them one of life’s lottery winners says a hëll of a lot about your argument and your POV.
.
Whoa…I didn’t make any such comparisons. I simply asked a question. I was trying to understand if there were situations which might warrant persistence, and I offered a range of scenarios in an attempt to avoid getting hung up on the particulars of one scenario. I’m sorry if it seemed that I was making comparisons.
.
This arrogance that says that you can say that your faith is a fact and that everyone else’s faith is wrong or bad is what puts an end to people wanting to deal with many Christians about it.
.
You are right to say that arrogance is off-putting. One of the points I was trying to make earlier (apparently unsuccessfully) is that Christians should always temper their words and actions with a measure of humility.
.
Your faith is just that. It’s your faith. It works for you and it makes you happy, but it doesn’t work for everyone and it doesn’t make everyone else feel the way you do about it.
.
May I ask what you think makes a faith work for someone? Is happiness the primary criteria, or are there others? I would genuinely be interested in hearing your thoughts.
.
Seriously, how long would it take before you got fed up if I knocked on your door every day and told you that you were misguided, your religion was a sham, your belief would lead you to an eternity of pain and suffering and you needed to get with it and start worshipping the Great Yellow Shade Tree like all of the truly enlightened people do?
.
I understand your point. At the same time, I personally have a high tolerance for that sort of thing. I am very interested in hearing the answers that other people have found to the central questions of life. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I believe in testing everything and holding on to what is true. Consequently, when people have come knocking on my door, I’ve invited them into my home to hear what they’ve had to say. Obviously, that’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but since you asked I’m trying to give you a sincere answer.
.
Finally, let me once again apologize if my earlier question gave the wrong impression. Communicating via text like this can be a little dicey sometimes. I generally try to compensate for that by being straightforward, but sometimes I’m not as clear as I should be and sometimes my words don’t always come across correctly. Thank you for being patient with me.
Craig: In the end, the content of the message doesn’t matter if the recipient doesn’t want to hear it.
.
Fair enough; thank you for answering my question.
.
One of the most common justifications for banning gay-marriage is because the Bible/Western religions say it should be. Sorry, that never flies in my book, and goes to show that this country isn’t nearly secular enough.
.
Agreed that the U.S. government shouldn’t be in the business of legislating the teachings of a particular religion just because they are the teachings of a particular religion; likewise for the various state and local governments. That there is (or has historically been) some overlap between the interests of the State and the concerns of various religions does
not mean that there should be a one-to-one correspondence between the two.
.
Of course, individual citizens have the right to support or oppose particular measures as their conscience dictates. With
that right comes the duty to do so civilly, respectfully, and peaceably. And ideally they do so in consideration of what
is best for everyone, not just themselves or even the majority.
Rene: Andy, there is also the matter that actions and results and emotions are a lot more important than words.
.
If someone is trying to convert me, I’d like to look at that someone. Do they seem like they have a joyful life? Do they act in a manner that is remotely similar to what they preach?
.
An excellent point, which I was trying to acknowledge earlier. It’s only natural to consider these things, and unfortunately not everybody passes the test.
.
Why shoud I heed the words of dysfunctional passive-aggressive bullies?
.
I wouldn’t expect you to. And, I sincerely hope that I would not fit that description.
.
The Christians I admire the most, the Christian that most tempted me to convert, are the ones that lead by example. The ones that you can look at them and see the transformative effect, the strength of character derived from the faith, the kindness.
.
I have at least a half-dozen family members and co-workers that I’d consider good Christians. They don’t preach, because they don’t need to. Their very lives and presences are enough.
.
That’s wonderful, and I’m happy to hear that you have such lovely people in your life!
.
I am too much of a free spirit (or an arrogant rebel if you’re not charitable) to genuinely convert to a religion that puts so great an emphasis in submission as Christianity.
.
Out of curiousity, to whom or what do you think Christianity emphasizes submission?
.
But if I’d convert, you can be sure that the example of a good Christian would coult more than the words of a hundred of áššhølë Christians.
.
That seems perfectly reasonable.
Argue about the Bible all you guys want, but I just want to make sure: We’re all still on the same page about X-Factor being a good book, right?
.
PAD
PAD: Argue about the Bible all you guys want, but I just want to make sure: We’re all still on the same page about X-Factor being a good book, right?
.
🙂
.
I concur.
You look like a nice guy, Andy. I would never use the word bully to describe you. I will also admit that anti-religious folks can be major áššhølëš. There is some teenage fury going on sometimes. I try to moderate this urge in myself. I not always succeed.
.
As for Christianity and submission, I think submission is in most everything Christian. Kneeling, prayer, humility, obedience and faith in a supreme Father. I’ve went both to Catholic and Protestant church, and felt it in both, big time.
.
Now, I don’t say it’s a bad thing. All of humanity as brothers and sisters under God is a nice notion. The sense of community is glorious. It is also very comforting to believe that ultimately things will turn out all right because a loving God is taking care of you.
.
And it’s great for some people. My brother was a drug addict, and there is nothing more selfish and hopeless as a drug addict. A great injection of Christian humility and hope was just what he needed.
As for Christianity and submission, I think submission is in most everything Christian. Kneeling, prayer, humility, obedience and faith in a supreme Father.
.
The penitent man kneels before God. That’s because if he doesn’t, a giant circular saw will cut his head off. I saw that in a movie once.
.
PAD
Rene: You look like a nice guy, Andy. I would never use the word bully to describe you. I will also admit that anti-religious folks can be major áššhølëš. There is some teenage fury going on sometimes. I try to moderate this urge in myself. I not always succeed.
.
Thanks for the kind words, Rene. There’s a good chance my Internet persona was not as nice when I was a teenager; mercifully, Usenet has faded into obscurity and so I don’t have to worry too much about the evidence.
.
As for Christianity and submission, I think submission is in most everything Christian. Kneeling, prayer, humility, obedience and faith in a supreme Father. I’ve went both to Catholic and Protestant church, and felt it in both, big time.
.
Yes, submission to God is a part of Christianity; there’s just no getting around it. I just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing. I will admit I still struggle with it plenty myself, so I can certainly understand the reluctance. I will say that, as paradoxical as it may sound, I do find a certain freedom in submission to God. And there are plenty of other things that people live in submission to, knowingly or otherwise, that aren’t nearly as forgiving or loving.
.
Now, I don’t say it’s a bad thing. All of humanity as brothers and sisters under God is a nice notion. The sense of community is glorious. It is also very comforting to believe that ultimately things will turn out all right because a loving God is taking care of you.
.
Well said.
.
And it’s great for some people. My brother was a drug addict, and there is nothing more selfish and hopeless as a drug addict. A great injection of Christian humility and hope was just what he needed.
.
Thank you for being vulnerable enough to share these very personal thoughts and experiences with some (relative) strangers on the Internet.
PAD: The penitent man kneels before God. That’s because if he doesn’t, a giant circular saw will cut his head off. I saw that in a movie once.
.
But in Latin, Jehovah starts with an I!
.
“Communicating via text like this can be a little dicey sometimes. I generally try to compensate for that by being straightforward, but sometimes I’m not as clear as I should be and sometimes my words don’t always come across correctly. Thank you for being patient with me.”
.
Yeah, and I know that from experience and should have given the reading of your words a little more benefit of the doubt. My fault.
.
“I simply asked a question. I was trying to understand if there were situations which might warrant persistence, and I offered a range of scenarios in an attempt to avoid getting hung up on the particulars of one scenario. I’m sorry if it seemed that I was making comparisons.”
.
I would think that persistence is warranted when it’s welcomed. That’s about it. If someone wants to learn more or wants to explore the ideas that you’re sharing, then that’s fine. In any other situation, you’re basically saying that you and your belief is right, they’re wrong in their belief and that you’re going to push and push until they do what you think they should do rather than what they think they should do.
.
“May I ask what you think makes a faith work for someone? Is happiness the primary criteria, or are there others? I would genuinely be interested in hearing your thoughts.”
.
I wouldn’t say that it’s only happiness, but being brought a certain level of contentment and inner piece would certainly be a component of it. Other than that, I think it’s one of those things that people know when they find it. You obviously feel that you’re faith is right for you. If you can answer for yourself why it is with answers beyond simply saying that it’s right or it’s the one that you’re suppose to be following; you’ve just answered the question you asked of me.
Jerry: Yeah, and I know that from experience and should have given the reading of your words a little more benefit of the doubt. My fault.
.
No worries. One of the reasons I bother posting here is that actual conversations are possible; even the sporadic miscommunications get resolved instead of spiraling downward.
.
I would think that persistence is warranted when it’s welcomed. That’s about it. If someone wants to learn more or wants to explore the ideas that you’re sharing, then that’s fine. In any other situation, you’re basically saying that you and your belief is right, they’re wrong in their belief and that you’re going to push and push until they do what you think they should do rather than what they think they should do.
.
And there, as they say, is the rub. Because as much as we’d all like it to be otherwise, some of us are right and some of us are wrong. I can certainly admit that I may be wrong, but it’s hard to imagine that we’re all 100% correct. To make it more complicated, we even disagree about the stakes. So for some, it doesn’t seem worth sharing their view with others because the stakes seem low. But if you think the stakes are high, it seems neglectful to not let everyone know it.
.
So that does create a tension, particularly for Christians and others who think the stakes are high. And we humans don’t always do well with tension and nuance, so we tend to stray to one side or the other. Thus you get people being offensive and controversial for the sake of being offensive and controversial, which is bad because no one wants to hear anything they have to say. And you get people never mentioning anything even when someone might be interested or receptive, because they’re worried that it’s not polite. And I don’t think that’s good either, because if the stakes are high then everyone should have a chance to consider the issues for themselves.
.
And I think that’s the point where what you are saying and what I would say converge: that everyone does have to make a decision for themselves. And perhaps that provides a useful guide for answering the question “Am I going too far?” – by looking at whether you are offering information to help someone make an informed decision, or just making the decision for them.
.
Thanks again for your comments; it’s given me a lot to think about. And thanks for your patience as I do some of that thinking by typing.
.
I wouldn’t say that it’s only happiness, but being brought a certain level of contentment and inner piece would certainly be a component of it. Other than that, I think it’s one of those things that people know when they find it. You obviously feel that you’re faith is right for you. If you can answer for yourself why it is with answers beyond simply saying that it’s right or it’s the one that you’re suppose to be following; you’ve just answered the question you asked of me.
.
I certainly have my own criteria, but I am also curious about the criteria other people use. For me, it’s ultimately about providing a cohesive narrative for the world that is consistent with what I/we know about the world. I want to believe in what is true, and I’m willing to deal with some inner turmoil to get there.
.
“And there, as they say, is the rub. Because as much as we’d all like it to be otherwise, some of us are right and some of us are wrong.”
.
I claim that WWII took place between 1823 and 1839. You state that this isn’t true, you give the correct dates and you cite credible sources showing that I am wrong. You are right and I am wrong.
.
You sate that you read in a history book that Winston Churchill was actually a woman named Maggie Wellington who disguised herself as a man to run the country. I point out loads of credible sources showing that this is wrong. I’m right and you’re wrong.
.
You sate that God is the one and only true God and that Christianity is the only true religion. My neighbor states that Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are the true Trimurti and that Hinduism is the true path.
.
You can both cite sources. You can both provide texts. You can both point to long histories of religious conviction. You can both point to historical figures as prophets. You can both discuss the history of the faith and how it’s interwoven into real world history.
.
Neither of you can present a single fact.
.
You’re dealing in faith here. The very definition of the word forbids it from being honestly called a fact. “Faith” simply is not “fact.”
.
Someone can have all the faith in the world in their ability to pass a test that they have to take. Doesn’t stop a lot of failing grades. Someone can have all the faith in the world in their ability to make it in Hollywood. Hasn’t stopped the large number of failed “stars” from adding to their ranks. Someone can have all the faith in the world in their ability to fly when they go off of that ledge. Doesn’t make it any easier on the guys who have to clean the mess off of the pavement.
.
“Faith” simply isn’t “fact” and no amount of arguing or helpful intentions are going to change that. You can indeed have two people proclaiming that they hold two very different religious beliefs and neither one of them being wrong in the least.
.
Okay, maybe one can be wrong if his claimed faith is Scientology….
.
And that’s also, as I have touched on above, what gets many Christians heaps of grief by people. Sorry, but Christians don’t own the copyright and trademark on “The One True Path.” Christians don’t have the ability to walk into the discussion with with the “facts” and the “truth” automatically in their corner.
They may think they do, but then, if they think that, they are the one who qualifies as wrong here.
.
Christianity, like all of the other religions out there, is what we call a faith. It may be your faith, but that still does not make it a fact and it does not mean that anyone who chooses a different path to walk is wrong anymore than you are wrong for your personal choice in the matter.
I respect the freedom of speech of Christian missionaries, and the ones I met were very polite and pleasant. But I can’t say I appreciate their efforts.
.
I recently did the graphics for two missionary pamphlets / translations of the New Testament in Hebrew and Arabic (focused specifically on Druze). And I personally find the effort to convert Jews or Druze to Christianity to be in poor taste even if it is perfectly legitimate.
I’m sorry that I appear to have upset you again, Jerry. But I’d like to see if we can salvage something here and move forward.
.
First, there appears to be some confusion.
.
Jerry: It may be your faith, but that still does not make it a fact
.
I am not claiming that anything is made factual just because I, or anyone else, singly or collectively, believe it.
.
What I am claiming is that religions are, among other things, a set of beliefs or assertions about the existence and nature of a superhuman being or beings and their agency in the universe. In crude terms, the options for what may be true can be summarized thusly:
.
1) There is/are a superhuman being(s), and one particular world religion is correct about the nature of he/she/it/them.
.
2) There is/are a superhuman being(s), and all of the world religions are equivalently valid representations of her/it/them/him.
.
3) There is/are a superhuman being(s), and none of the world religions accurately represent it/them/her/him, but they/she/he/it is happy as long as we are good people.
.
4) There is/are a superhuman being(s), and none of the world religions accurately represent them/her/it/him; furthermore, she/they/him/it are none to pleased about that.
.
5) There are no superhuman being(s), but all humans/living things/things in general possess/contribute to/can achieve a level of divinity/enlightenment/higher existence.
.
6) There are no superhuman beings, but having some kind of religious belief is relatively harmless.
.
7) There are no superhuman beings, and having some kind of religious belief is explicitly harmful.
.
8) There is no objective reality; a superhuman being(s) may exist for some and not exist for others.
.
Again, those are fairly broad, crude categories, and I’m sure that despite (or because of) my attempts to be generic and all inclusive, I’ve forgotten or offended someone. And for that, I apologize in advance. But even so, that would only add options to the list.
.
So, when I say that some of us are right and some of us are wrong, what I mean is that all of these options cannot be true at the same time. Even further, it appears to me that only one of the options can be true, which means the people who believe in that one are right, and thus the other people are wrong. I am not, at this time, making a case for which one I think is correct; merely that only one of them can be. And again, whichever one it is, it’s true because that is the way the world is, not because people chose to have faith in it.
.
You state that God is the one and only true God and that Christianity is the only true religion. My neighbor states that Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are the true Trimurti and that Hinduism is the true path.
…
You can indeed have two people proclaiming that they hold two very different religious beliefs and neither one of them being wrong in the least.
.
Can you elaborate on how someone who believes that Christianity is the only accurate description of the superhuman being(s) and someone who believes Hinduism is the only accurate description of the superhuman being(s) can be simultaneously correct?
.
“Faith” simply is not “fact.”
.
True; I’ve never claimed otherwise. As you point out, they are different words meaning different things.
.
Someone can have all the faith in the world in their ability to fly when they go off of that ledge. Doesn’t make it any easier on the guys who have to clean the mess off of the pavement.
.
Again, we agree. But just as your example illustrates that faith does not making something true, it also illustrates that there is a truth which can be known or discovered. And no matter how pessismistic one might be about what we can really know now, one way or the other the human race will ultimately find out which assertions about the universe and any possible superhuman being(s) are true and which ones aren’t.
.
Christians don’t have the ability to walk into the discussion with with the “facts” and the “truth” automatically in their corner.
.
You’re right. Christianity is not true a priori, or automatically. But neither is it false a priori. That is why there is a discussion. Shouldn’t Christians therefore be allowed to bring whatever evidence they have to that discussion?
.
You can both cite sources. You can both provide texts. You can both point to long histories of religious conviction. You can both point to historical figures as prophets. You can both discuss the history of the faith and how it’s interwoven into real world history.
.
Neither of you can present a single fact.
.
Why do you consider sources and texts valid for learning about WWII or Winston Churchill, but invalid for assessing the claims of various religions?
Well, that was an unfortunate bit of auto emoticon insertion. Since we treading sensitive ground, I want to be clear that the 8) above was an innocent 8 followed by a ‘)’ when I typed it.
.
“I’m sorry that I appear to have upset you again, Jerry. But I’d like to see if we can salvage something here and move forward.”
.
We’re cool. Not upset at all. Just responding to what you said and commenting on the particular phrasing you used and how that’s often what does get a lot of Christians a lot of grief.
.
“I am not claiming that anything is made factual just because I, or anyone else, singly or collectively, believe it.”
.
That may not be what you were trying to do, but your opening to you last series of points looked as if you were framing the discussion in a manner where there is a right and a wrong answer.
.
“And there, as they say, is the rub. Because as much as we’d all like it to be otherwise, some of us are right and some of us are wrong.”
.
Most of what I was writing was simply pointing out that there is no right or wrong answer that can be proven here. There is only one way to discover what the truth is, and I’m not about to die just so I can come back and haunt people with a pestering series of arguments about who was right and who was wrong. But that’s just about the only way any of us will know the rightness or wrongness of the various religious beliefs out there.
.
There is no rub here and there is not a provable right or wrong here. That’s what I was responding to.
.
“So, when I say that some of us are right and some of us are wrong, what I mean is that all of these options cannot be true at the same time. Even further, it appears to me that only one of the options can be true, which means the people who believe in that one are right, and thus the other people are wrong. I am not, at this time, making a case for which one I think is correct; merely that only one of them can be. And again, whichever one it is, it’s true because that is the way the world is, not because people chose to have faith in it.”
.
And…
.
“Can you elaborate on how someone who believes that Christianity is the only accurate description of the superhuman being(s) and someone who believes Hinduism is the only accurate description of the superhuman being(s) can be simultaneously correct?”
.
You and I want to go from Georgia to California next month. We’re also going to be accompanied by six other people. We have two weeks of time between the day we all meet down in Georgia and the time we have to be in California. We all discuss how we want to do this thing and it finally comes down to an issue of four people wanting one option and four people wanting to go with a different option.
.
Option 1 – Enjoy the time we have and take a nice road trip. Follow the old path of Route 66 and see some of the country. We easily get there in a week plus a few days and have at least four days of a safety buffer. We see the open road, see some nice places that we would never get to see otherwise and have a time of it.
.
Option 2 – Take a plane out to the coast and spend the two weeks getting settled out in California. Any extra time we will have can be used hanging out on the beach or checking out famous clubs and such in L.A. and up and down the coast.
.
You’re in one group and I’m in the other group. Now, which option is right?
.
We’re both talking about starting out in the same place and ending the trip in the same place. Which is the best way to get there though? There really is no “right” answer here. If you’re a beach and club person, you’re going to like option #2 and declare that it’s the right one. However, if you like seeing things and exploring places that you wouldn’t normally get to see, you’ll probably go for #1. It’s strictly a call based on the individual making the call. Neither option is actually right or wrong, they just seem right or wrong based on each person’s desires to follow the path that they like best.
.
Same here really. The follower of Christianity and Hinduism can debate their choice of path with the other until they’re both blue in the face, but neither one is any more right or wrong than the other for the simple reason that there is no quantifiable way to measure those words here. The same can be said for the atheist that walks up to the two of them while they’re catching their breath and tells them that they’re both full of it and once we die our little spark goes *poof* and we cease to be in any and every way other than as rotting meat. There is simply no way to determine truth, right or wrong here. It cannot be done by any single living being on Earth.
.
Two people can argue about something that can be quantifiably proven and you can step in and point to a right or wrong position. Two people arguing religion are no different than two people arguing about which food tastes best.
.
Unless one of them is a Scientologist. Scientologists are just wrong no matter what; even if they’re just arguing about food and not actually arguing for their religion.
.
“You’re right. Christianity is not true a priori, or automatically. But neither is it false a priori. That is why there is a discussion. Shouldn’t Christians therefore be allowed to bring whatever evidence they have to that discussion?”
.
Absolutely. They can and should bring whatever they want to into the discussion. However, once the other party says that they have decided on their path and no longer wish to be pressed on the issue, well, now you stop bringing anything to the discussion if you have any respect for the other person and their right to choose that very important personal path for themselves. Once the other person says that they have a path that they want to follow and they would like it if you stopped pushing the issue and you decide that you’re going to push it anyhow… Well, you’re in the wrong. You are now crossing that line from polite discussion to pestering and being the negative stereotype that many Christians complain about being broad brushed with.
.
Again, as I said way above, once you tell me that you don’t like the taste of my favorite food, that’s when I should stop shoving it under your nose. Constantly putting plates of it in front of you or slipping bits of it onto your dinner plate is not going to get you to change your mind about liking it. All it’s likely to actually do is piss you off.
Been away from the Intertubes, but I’m enjoying this conversation. I’ll understand if everyone else has moved on.
.
Jerry (quoting me): “I am not claiming that anything is made factual just because I, or anyone else, singly or collectively, believe it.”
.
That may not be what you were trying to do, but your opening to you last series of points looked as if you were framing the discussion in a manner where there is a right and a wrong answer.
.
Well, now, there is a distinction here. One the one hand, we have the reality that belief in something has no bearing on whether it is true or not. However, that does not exclude the possibility that what some people have faith in is true, and what some people have faith in is not.
.
You and I want to go from Georgia to California next month.
…
We’re both talking about starting out in the same place and ending the trip in the same place. Which is the best way to get there though? There really is no “right” answer here.
.
Fair enough; there are multiple routes between Georgia and California, and thus it is possible, in some cases, to take different paths and get to the same place. But now let’s suppose we’re traveling east through Pennsylvania. You take I-76 and I take I-70; they’re both interstates that run east-west through southwestern PA. In fact for a certain stretch they are the same road — surely they wind up in the same place. So imagine the confusion when, at the end of the road, I’m in Baltimore and you’re in Camden, NJ. The point being, the journey metaphor sounds nice, but you still need to know whether the paths actually lead to the same place or not.
.
Same here really. The follower of Christianity and Hinduism can debate their choice of path with the other until they’re both blue in the face, but neither one is any more right or wrong than the other for the simple reason that there is no quantifiable way to measure those words here. The same can be said for the atheist that walks up to the two of them while they’re catching their breath and tells them that they’re both full of it and once we die our little spark goes *poof* and we cease to be in any and every way other than as rotting meat. There is simply no way to determine truth, right or wrong here. It cannot be done by any single living being on Earth.
.
Let’s accept your premise, at least for now, that that there is no possible way to know the truth in this life. How does that affect the truth? It still is what it is, no? And doesn’t that mean that the people who believe in the the truth are right and those who do not are wrong, even if they can’t know it (at least, not yet)?
.
Unless one of them is a Scientologist. Scientologists are just wrong no matter what; even if they’re just arguing about food and not actually arguing for their religion.
.
How do you know this, if nothing about religion can be quantified in any way? You have apparently used some criteria to assess the truth of Scientology’s claims; perhaps we can apply those criteria to the claims of other religions, as well.
BTW, Jerry.. I love the CliffsNotes Christians bit.
.
I actually was raised to know scripture fairly well, so it drives me up the wall when people take it out of context. (Even though I am not a believer in that).
.
Feel sorry for the bûggër who had to do the Cliffs Notes on Numbers or Deuteronomy though.
.
TAC
Andy: OK, but now instead of telling you that X-Factor is a good book that you should read, what if I’m telling you that your house is on fire? Or that you’ve won the multimillion dollar lottery jackpot? Or that there is a cure for some disease that you have? Would I still be “an ášš” if I kept on bringing it up, or does the content of the message justify my persistence?
Luigi Novi: The quality of X-Factor and the nature of one’s religious beliefs are not empirical. Those other things, however, are.
Luigi Novi: The quality of X-Factor and the nature of one’s religious beliefs are not empirical. Those other things, however, are.
.
You are right that those other things I mentioned can be verified empirically – which is to say, they can be directly observed or confirmed by experimentation. One may directly observe a fire (or lack thereof), compare a lottery ticket with the winning numbers (or just try to collect the prize and see if the money is actually transferred to you), and submit to the treatment to see if it works.
.
Arguably, the quality of X-Factor can be determined empirically as well. One can read the book and decide whether or not it is good, or at the very least know whether or not you enjoyed it. The real problem is that your empirical assessment is at least partially subjective. Thus different readers can come to different conclusions about whether it is is good. This can even occur in science; scientists may make the same empirical observations but interpret the results differently.
.
Now, when you say “the nature of one’s religious beliefs” are not empirical, I take that to mean the truth of various religious beliefs cannot be determined empirically. (An alternate reading is that the question “what are a particular person’s religious beliefs?” cannot be answered empirically, but since that is a less interesting question and one that can be answered empirically by asking the person, I’ll assume that’s not what you mean.) And on that subject, I would say “it depends.” Certain claims of various religions can be verified empirically, such as assertions about the nature of the world or how human beings (in aggregate) will behave. To give an example, many religions claim that the observable universe had a finite beginning. Current observations of the cosmic background radiation and other phenomena are consistent with that notion and inconsistent with the idea that the observable universe always existed (a notion favored by many before the empirical evidence was available).
.
However, many religious claims are not empirically verifiable, as you say. But that’s not such a bad thing. Plenty of other truths aren’t verifiable empirically either. Many mathematics theorems cannot be verified empirically, but can be proven deductively from a set of axioms (some of which may also not be empirically verifiable). Historical truths cannot be verified empirically; they rely on archeology, examination of primary sources, forensics, and other techniques for verification. I can’t think of many religious claims that can be deductively proven, but many are historical claims that can be confirmed or refuted by the tools described above. Therefore, just because they can’t be verified empirically does not mean they are not true, nor does it mean we cannot know if they are true or not.
.
Thanks for raising such an interesting topic!
Religious people like to present certain historical events, scientific phenomena and quotations from the bible (and other texts) as proofs supporting their beliefs. But this is usually a matter of interpretation rather than fact. And the interpretation usually fits the faith. Historical research is guilt sometimes of being influenced by faith, but it aspires to go through more rigorous scrutiny than that.
Micha: Religious people like to present certain historical events, scientific phenomena and quotations from the bible (and other texts) as proofs supporting their beliefs. But this is usually a matter of interpretation rather than fact. And the interpretation usually fits the faith.
.
Atheists like to present certain historical events, scientific phenomena and quotations from the bible (and other texts) as proofs supporting their beliefs (or lack thereof, if you prefer). And they often have to interpret those events, phenomena, and quotes. And their interpretation is generally consistent with atheism.
.
What I find interesting is that many folks criticize religious people for not doing those things, and instead making unsupported assertions and appealing to authority. You seem to be criticizing them for the opposite. Am I understanding your position correctly?
.
Along those lines, I’m curious how it is that you would prefer that religious people behave.
.
“What I find interesting is that many folks criticize religious people for not doing those things, and instead making unsupported assertions and appealing to authority. You seem to be criticizing them for the opposite. Am I understanding your position correctly?”
.
Except that people do criticize atheists for their bad behavior as well. Atheists who will not accept that some people hold some form of faith and have to badmouth them or belittle them for their beliefs do get criticized by many of the same people who criticize the religious person who won’t respect the wishes of someone who holds a different faith or who insults and belittles the beliefs of that person. Hëll, Micha and I both have done it on this blog in the past, so at the very least we’re both being consistent here.
.
No one likes the person who decides that they know what’s right for everyone else and people like even less the person who says that they know the “truth” and what is “right” for people to think or believe and insists on pushing that point even after they’ve been politely asked to back off. That’s true whether the person in question is pushing a faith or pushing the absence of faith.
[B]”Atheists like to present certain historical events, scientific phenomena and quotations from the bible (and other texts) as proofs supporting their beliefs (or lack thereof, if you prefer). And they often have to interpret those events, phenomena, and quotes. And their interpretation is generally consistent with atheism.”[/B]
.
Historical events, scientific phenomena and quotations from the bible can no more prove atheism than they can prove any religion. At best atheists or religious people can present philosophical-like arguments to justify their opinions — which may be either convincing to you or not. However, philosophical arguments rarely have a definitive conclusion.
.
[B]”What I find interesting is that many folks criticize religious people for not doing those things, and instead making unsupported assertions and appealing to authority. You seem to be criticizing them for the opposite. Am I understanding your position correctly?”[/B]
.
[B]”Why do you consider sources and texts valid for learning about WWII or Winston Churchill, but invalid for assessing the claims of various religions?”[/B]
.
The problem here is twofold. (1) the kind of claims religion makes vs. the kind of claims history (or other social sciences) claims. (2) The methodology used by religion and by historical study.
.
Using the methods of history you might be able to find a document or an archeological relic that will suggest something that matters to religion. For example a reference to the existence of an actual person named Jesus living in Nazareth at the relevant time (although it would be very unlikely to find something like that). However, history cannot answer the metaphysical or the ethical questions that are associated with Jesus. Moreover, since history is not an exact science, different historians are likely to draw very different conclusions based on the available evidence, and debate it for years and change their minds quite often.
.
And this leads to the 2nd problem. History approaches the question in a completely different way. It doesn’t have the certainty or the reverence toward the material. While the religious person views the biblical text (for example) as a divine and immutable source of authority, the historian will look at it in a way that the religious person will not like and reach conclusions that will not fit with the perception of the text as divine or authoritative.
.
As a secular person, I don’t recognize religious authority in either historical, metaphysical or ethical issues. So I approach sources like the bible from a skeptical secular POV. I suppose I could criticize religion for not doing that — for accepting religious authority. But I think it is better and nicer to simply respect religion and just agree to keep the methodologies separate. Thus religion should not encroach on the realms of history and science, but science and history should not be used to promote atheism.
.
In the missionary pamphlet I was working on, the intro included a list of historical events and biblical quotations from the OT that are viewed by Christians as proving Christianity. Needless to say, Jews view the same sources differently. So I found the attempt pretty silly.
.
[B]”Along those lines, I’m curious how it is that you would prefer that religious people behave.”[/B]
.
Ideally, I’d prefer that religious people don’t make any effort to convert me, and that they respect my own choices/culture. But I am aware that proselytizing is a major part of Christianity. So the important thing is not to be too pushy about it. I have to admit that as a Jew — even if a secular one — the efforts of Christians to continue to convert Jews after so many years has a certain bitter taste to it.
Micha: Just FYI, when you wish to boldface, don’t use brackets. That does nothing. You want to use the symbol with the B and /B enclosed.
.
PAD
Thanks
Micha: The problem here is twofold. (1) the kind of claims religion makes vs. the kind of claims history (or other social sciences) claims. (2) The methodology used by religion and by historical study.
.
Using the methods of history you might be able to find a document or an archeological relic that will suggest something that matters to religion. For example a reference to the existence of an actual person named Jesus living in Nazareth at the relevant time (although it would be very unlikely to find something like that).
.
Well, firstly, I think it’s interesting that you say one is unlikely to find references to a man named Jesus living in Nazareth, since I can think of several that have been found.
.
Second, I would propose that statements about the existence of a man named Jesus who lived in Nazareth at a certain time are precisely historical claims, just as statements about the existence of a man named Julius Caesar who lived in Rome at a certain time are historical claims. Why should they be treated any differently? True, not all religious claims are historical in nature, but why not start with the historical ones, since we have a methodology for assessing them?
.
However, history cannot answer the metaphysical or the ethical questions that are associated with Jesus.
.
True.
.
Moreover, since history is not an exact science, different historians are likely to draw very different conclusions based on the available evidence, and debate it for years and change their minds quite often.
.
Also true, but that same criticism could be applied to all historical inquiry. And yet that doesn’t stop us from trying to understand history, nor does it stop us from believing certain truths about history.
.
And this leads to the 2nd problem. History approaches the question in a completely different way. It doesn’t have the certainty or the reverence toward the material. While the religious person views the biblical text (for example) as a divine and immutable source of authority, the historian will look at it in a way that the religious person will not like and reach conclusions that will not fit with the perception of the text as divine or authoritative.
.
While I would agree that many religious people do approach particular texts as unquestionable and unassailable, some including myself are in favor of taking a different approach. Namely, to hold them to the same scrutiny that is applied to other historical writings and see how they hold up. I would not be terribly interested in a religion that didn’t provide a sufficient level of intellectual rigor. After all, why would we have brains if we aren’t meant to use them?
.
As a secular person, I don’t recognize religious authority in either historical, metaphysical or ethical issues. So I approach sources like the bible from a skeptical secular POV. I suppose I could criticize religion for not doing that — for accepting religious authority.
.
As I mentioned, I think that’s actually a perfectly reasonable POV to come from, and to some extent many religious folks should be criticized for not doing the same.
.
But I think it is better and nicer to simply respect religion and just agree to keep the methodologies separate. Thus religion should not encroach on the realms of history and science, but science and history should not be used to promote atheism.
.
Interesting. I’ve not met many people who would say that history & science should not be used to promote atheism; in fact, those seem to be the primary reasons most people cite for being atheists. Would you mind elaborating on how you’ve decided on atheism apart from those things?
As a former New Yorker (had to move for financial reasons), hearing the news last night made me proud of New York. I’m a supporter of gay equality in both marriage and the workplace; after that, let ’em slug it out on a (somewhat) level playing ground with us breeders.
Will this erase homophobia ovcernight? No. Will it be debated and discussed ad nauseum? Yes. But I’m thrilled the question has moved from “Will gay couples ever be able to get married?” to “What’s the next step in gay marriage?”
Albany did something right…how is this possible?
I just feel sorry for the city clerks. In 29 days, they are gonna be swamped.
Actually, a more useful analogy here would be divorce. Divorce is generally considered a sin by Christianity, despite being legal in the US.
.
Is there any case of a church forced into or sued into marrying divorcees?
None of which I’m aware, although I do have an uncle (Unitarian by persuasion) who married a former nun. (And given that nuns are supposed to be “brides of Christ”, I can only imagine how comparisons to her ex work out…) The local Catholic church refused to do the ceremony, so his Unitarian minister officiated, incorporating as much of the Catholic ceremony as possible on her behalf (Unitarians are pretty flexible that way).
OTOH, my first marriage was performed by a Justice of the Peace, because at the time I was pretty much agnostic and she was a wannabe pagan (didn’t actually study any naturalistic faiths, but liked to mouth parts of the philosophy. Sometimes I wonder how the Threefold Law is working out for her these days…). No religious folks of any bent were involved, but it didn’t seem to make our marriage any less valid in the eyes of the law.
Funny about that nun… While nuns and priests are not allowed to marry, they are perfectly allowed to leave the vows and marry. I had plenty of teachers who were ex-nuns and priests and left the vows to marry, this in a catholic school and some even keeping status within their order (Sacred Heart, a “liberal” order). There is nothing in dogma against nuns leaving, specially if it is to marry.
They didn’t refuse because of her status – they refused because he was a Unitarian, and wouldn’t convert to Catholicism. You see, it’s long been okay for churches to discriminate about how their sacraments are handed out. That’s the other side of the whole “separation of church and state” thing; just as churches aren’t supposed to tell the government how to operate, so the government isn’t supposed to tell churches how to operate. (With exceptions for things like those religious schools that accept federal funding, of course…)
That’s different… You’d find many priests against interconfesional marriage. Most would be content with just a half hearted conversion but others would be very adamant about it and require some kind of proof. These days, many conservative priests turn their pre-nuptial interview with the couple into a series of exams that involve not only them but also friends as “witness of character”. This becomes harder and more ridiculous in churches with long waiting lists (usually old and picturesque ones).
.
A couple years ago a friend of mine, liberal but also devoutly catholic (dedicating over 50hrs of work every month to many church programs and charities) was asked by a couple to speak to a priest as a “witness of character” and say that the soon-to-marry had kept the celibate even tho they had been living together for 5+ years. He was so torn over this that he agonized for a week before the interview, even considered asking me (the allways useful friendly heathen) to impersonate him and lie. In the end he decided it was better to do the lying himself as it was for a good cause than to be an hypocrite or a pharisee.
Actually, I’m disappointed that when the media announces “[Insert state here] legalizes Gay Marriage,” Nobody mentions the state also legalized the Gay Prenup and the Gay Divorce.
Does this count” : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0025164/
It may count as precedent 🙂
(Too)Slowly, but surely, marriage rights are being equalized.
Have they started rounding up straight people in New York to force them into gay marriage yet?
And kudos to Republican Senator Roy McDonald for bucking his party and doing the right thing! When they call him The Honorable Roy McDonald he can know he earned that title.
Maybe McDonald’s decided that gays deserve a break today.
.
PAD
As it seems many of the debate aspects of this conversation have played out and built up to a point where I’m not sure I can include anything brilliant or insightful, I’ll restrict my comments to saying I’ve amazingly happy about this and for all my gay & lesbian friends.
It’s a rare occasion when I have cause to be proud of my state’s government. But today I can say, “Way to go, Albany!”
Is it wrong to not care? I mean, about gay folks getting married. I kind of consider myself liberal on several fronts, even as a Catholic, and I find myself utterly indifferent to this issue. Does that make me a bad liberal? A bad Catholic? That I don’t care one way or the other?
I guess what it really boils down to is that I have a young daughter. I really dislike the idea of paying for a wedding. Since we live in Georgia, I’m secretly hoping she becomes a lesbian, because the rednecks down here don’t cotton to that whole ‘gay marriage’ thing, consequently I won’t have to pay for anything.
Of course, if she moves, my plan goes to pieces.
Nice to see you have your priorities in order. 😉
I did a bit more reading on the subject.
.
Initially, I thought the exceptions in the law regarding religious institutions made sense, even if they were redundant. Now I’m not so sure, and I feel like the religious people disappointed me yet again.
.
The argument that wicked gays could sue churches into allowing them the use of facilities and personell to celebrate a sinful union seemed iffy to me, but okay. Supposedly it could happen.
.
But there were cases of gay couples in other states that allow gay marriage that sued a religious org, like the Salvation Army, because one of them was an employee and the organization refused to pay benefits appropriate to a married employee.
.
This is where religious freedom morphs into bigotry. Suppose I am a straight guy that has divorced seven times. I wonder if the Salvation Army would refuse to pay me benefits for my eighth wife? Because I’d be a bigger sinner than any gay couple, according to what Jesus said.
.
No law can force you to regard a married gay couple as joined by God. That is religion. But the law should be able to force you to regard a gay person as owed certain completely secular benefits, like payments and hospital visits, even if the organization is religious.
Oh yeah, totally. But alas, because I’m Australian – and not married anyway -, my marriage wouldn’t be regocnised by my government when I get back, so. *shrug*