Does religion belong in politics

Started by elone, October 27, 2012, 11:15:19 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

elone

This is a letter to the editor in my local small town newspaper. (no link available) The author once ran for state  representative, lost to a Democrat. She is famous for her courthouse Tea Party speech with her "win at the ballot box before we need the bullet box." (paraphrased)

Question: Should religion play any part in politics, and just how crazy are these people? Well, two questions.

Vote Christian

"“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.” Isaiah 5:20

I address this letter to my brothers and sisters in Christ. It is a challenge to the assertion of your faith which defines your world view and, by extension, your politics. As a Christian, your faith, world view and politics are not mutually exclusive. They are not compartmentalize-able. They are one and the same and to argue otherwise defies rational thinking and basic logic. Thus I assert the following:

You cannot be a Christian and vote in favor of murdering 4000 viable, waiting-to-be born babies a day.

You cannot be a Christian and vote I favor of destroying the God-ordained institution of marriage between one man and one woman.

You cannot be a Christian and vote to extort money (taxation) from a working man or woman and give it to another; or extort money to fund contraceptives and abortions which defile the conscience of the person/s being forced to pay for it.

You cannot be a Christian and vote for a party that seeks to legislate special protections for a group of people who define themselves by the way they prefer to have sex.

You cannot be a Christian and vote to incentivize out-of-wedlock births through welfare, etc. rather than discourage it and incentivize marriage.

You cannot be a Christian and vote to pervert and desensitize innocence by forcing sex education on our children.

You cannot be a Christian and support a party that sought to have God removed from its platform and booed when God was disingenuously reinstated!

In other words, you cannot be a Christian and be a Democrat. You can, however, call yourself one and be a hypocrite.

There is a Day of Judgment and how you cast your ballot is no secret to God."

Catherine Crabill


In the end, all we have left are memories.

Roleplays: alive, done, dead, etc.
Reversal of Fortune ~ The Hunt ~ Private Party Suites ~ A Learning Experience ~A Chance Encounter ~ A Bark in the Park ~
Poetry
O/O's

Callie Del Noire

I think that she lost a few of the other points of Christian faith. Like charity, tolerance, endeavoring to help our fellow man. As for the assertion that the founding father's were 'right-wing extremists'  (I googled the name at the bottom of your post.. LOVELY tolerant woman there) she really glossed over some of them a LOT then. I know a few were very strong on separation of church and state.. and several of them were very much against what we call 'corporate personhood' these days.

ReijiTabibito

I'm with Callie. Even the Founding Fathers believed in taxation.  Are we to ignore when Jesus said that: "And the second [greatest commandment] is like [the first greatest commandment]: love your neighbor as yourself."

Charity is a virtue.  Why?  Because we are commanded to do it.  When Jesus said that "anything you do for the least of these, you do for me," he did not mean that we should do the least amount possible.

As for whether or not religion belongs in politics, I have some good news and bad news.

The bad news is that religion is already involved in politics.

The good news is that the Founding Fathers set up the constitution so that religion would not dominate politics.

What do I mean by this?  I mean that:

Religion is involved in politics insomuch as that religion, of any stripe, informs the values that we have.  And it's those values that inform the choices that we or our elected representatives make.  People who cry 'separation of church and state' can't have the full-end logical conclusion - no inclusion of religion in politics whatsoever.  To do that would be to make a complete moral vacuum of politics, that no religious source of values would be permitted.

However!

The Fathers, in their wisdom, had seen the things that had created America, the religious persecution and such.  They wanted their land to be free of that persecution, which is why they made the First Amendment.


So, to sum up.  Yes, religion belongs in politics, insomuch as that it gives us values of what's important.  NO, religion should not be the end-all in the political process.


Hope that came out right.

Silk

This is one big "No true scotsman"

and no, religion shouldn't have place in poltics because beleif systems don't belong in an area that directly influences lives. I want educated surgrons to do my heart surgery, not a priest that believes that god will guide his hand through the operation.

Quote from: ReijiTabibito on October 27, 2012, 12:02:25 PM
So, to sum up.  Yes, religion belongs in politics, insomuch as that it gives us values of what's important.  NO, religion should not be the end-all in the political process.


Hope that came out right.

You don't need religion or a thiestic believe system to have values of whats important.

Callie Del Noire

Faith and Religion are a part of us.. it makes up how we think and believe.

JFK followed the tenets of his beliefs, as did George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and most likely ALL the president. Religion is a guiding element in how we approach things.

I worry when it becomes the sole and rigidly definining element of how we think.

We should never fear a religious man or woman.. we should be WARY of one who is doctrinal and rigidly following a faith. Men of Faith AND Men of Logic built the foundation of our country. To deny the influence and guidiance of a faith isn't a bad thing.

Following the rigid letter of the law without any concern for consequence or even remotely considering the spirit of the intent, not to mention ignoring the points of faith that you DON'T like.. not so much a person of faith makes.

ReijiTabibito

Quote from: Silk on October 27, 2012, 12:04:52 PM
You don't need religion or a thiestic believe system to have values of whats important.

No, but it certainly helps out a lot.  And there are far more people who have a religion than people who don't.

Quote from: Silk on October 27, 2012, 12:04:52 PM
and no, religion shouldn't have place in poltics because beleif systems don't belong in an area that directly influences lives. I want educated surgrons to do my heart surgery, not a priest that believes that god will guide his hand through the operation.

Newsflash: everyone has a belief system, whether informed by religion or not.  If belief systems don't belong in areas that directly influence lives, then we are asking for the removal of belief systems from a great deal of what humanity does.

And as for your surgeon, people aren't stupid.  They're going to pick the educated surgeon over the priest.  Even the priest will pick the surgeon.  But do you want a surgeon who believes that all life is sacred, and is going to do his best to make sure that you heal and that the operation is successful?  Or do you want one that doesn't give a damn about the sanctity of human life and whose best effort is applied 'when he feels like it'?

Silk

Your mistaking a belief system to having a concience and moral compass based on insticual behavior of social creatures to allow us to better live with eachother. You don't need a god to know "Hey, lets not take eachother's stuff, so if you don't take mine I won't take yours"

And for the priest comment, people do sometimes opt for the priest and the prayer over the educated hand of educated surgeons and doctors who made it their lives work to deal with this sort of thing. Main example, jehova's witness's and blood transfusions.

Faith is what you have when you don't have any evidence to support the feeling, main issue when it comes to most religions, they are satisfied at keeping it at that, even when the feeling is completely wrong to what we know to be true.

Darwishi

I'd like to think people are smart enough now to separate their values from their religion.  Probably not, but I don't think we should base all of our laws on the Bible.  Of course, according to a lot of Christians I'm probably not one.  Especially if they knew the stuff I write on this forum.

Yeah, okay, some values from religion have to be in politics simply because you can't avoid it.  Some things will be similar.  Are they in there because of a religion or the rights that you are naturally born with as a person?

I am actually pro-choice politically while pro-life personally.  What in the hell does that mean? It means that I think everyone has the right to choose.  I believe there are way too many kids being born into unhappy homes already.  Parents that don't want their kids, but have them anyway.  The scary thing, to me, about having a law about pro-life is that where does it stop? Does it stop with the Plan B pills, or will some nutjob in DC suddenly decide that birth control is immoral?  Will they try then to pass a law to prohibit birth control?  And at that point what happens to all those girls that use birth control to regulate hormones?  It's a dicey subject, and I think far scarier if the government has too much control over it.

Then again I also think drugs should be legalized, taxed the hell out of them, and let the users pay for their own rehab, save me a few tax dollars. 

Oh right, so religion in politics.  You can see that pro-choice, and legalizing drugs, probably not the most Christian thing to do ever.  But that's why I say religion should not be involved in politics.  Like say gay marriage.  It's illegal because...well I think some Christians tend to think that God said he doesn't like men sleeping with other men, and therefore it's immoral or something stupid...but then, it's not a Christian nation, it's a freedom of religion nation.  Meaning again, that no one religion should be dictating out laws.  Legally, marriage allows a lot of things.  Like two people getting married, better chances at adoption, tax deductions, the ability to see your loved one in a hospital.

I don't really care what religion our leaders follow, I just don't think they should push those beliefs into laws.  If you want to argue about a person infringing on another person's rights, then fine.  But don't hide behind a religion and try to get it passed that way.  You run into a lot of scary stuff when religion and politics get a little too blurred.  Holy Roman Empire anyone?

Darwishi

Quote from: Silk on October 27, 2012, 12:19:56 PM
And for the priest comment, people do sometimes opt for the priest and the prayer over the educated hand of educated surgeons and doctors who made it their lives work to deal with this sort of thing. Main example, jehova's witness's and blood transfusions.

Jehova's (really should capitalize that even if you don't believe in Him) witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions because blood is seen as a bad thing to transfer in the Bible.  I'll also point out that they are now finding that blood transfusions aren't so great.  Your body tends to reject it, and you wind up having to get the antibodies just right in the new blood, which means longer healing times. 

Saline on the other hand...there's been some pretty great studies of doing that rather than a blood transfusion.  I used to work with a Jehova's witness, so I got to ask all the cool questions about how everyone misunderstands everything about them. ^_^

Silk

Quote from: Darwishi on October 27, 2012, 12:26:57 PM
Jehova's (really should capitalize that even if you don't believe in Him) witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions because blood is seen as a bad thing to transfer in the Bible.  I'll also point out that they are now finding that blood transfusions aren't so great.  Your body tends to reject it, and you wind up having to get the antibodies just right in the new blood, which means longer healing times. 

Saline on the other hand...there's been some pretty great studies of doing that rather than a blood transfusion.  I used to work with a Jehova's witness, so I got to ask all the cool questions about how everyone misunderstands everything about them. ^_^

Longer healing time, or death... I wonder what I would go with in most cases.

Darwishi

Didn't realize I'd have to spell that out. With saline, studies are showing that there are shorter healing times.  Meaning that the Jehova's witnesses might be onto something there. =P

BUT, I didn't mean to hijack the thread, sorry, I still don't think religion belong in politics.  You have the right to choose if you want blood transfusions or saline transfusions.

Oniya

I'd like to see some sources on that, please.  Mostly for curiosity sake, since I have a paramedic for a sister, and a profound interest in science (even if I'm too squeamish to pursue a medical career).
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Beguile's Mistress

Since I don't confuse politics with government I base my decision on how well I feel a person will govern.  I also don't believe government should involve itself in the private lives of the citizens it represents other than providing law enforcement and protection from criminal activity.  The Second Amendment provides protection to gun owners from government infringement and guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.  Whether you agree with the Second Amendment or not is not the point here.  The point is that if the government can guarantee your rights as a gun owner it can and should guarantee your rights as a person to decide for yourself what is best for you and your body.

Religion and politics will always go hand in hand because politicians will use any tool in the box to beat the voters into submission and religion is a powerful tool.  However, religion is not isolated in this sort of action.  Any and every group that has a vested interest in getting a candidate elected is going to use their powers of persuasion and ability to affect the hearts and minds of their members.  The NRA isn't a religion but it does the same thing that religion does.  The lobbyists preach their interests to politicians.  The military has an interest in who gets elected, too.  How many unions stay out of the influence game when election time rolls around? 

Religion is a hot button issue most certainly but any belief or opinion of any interest group is going to be pushed forward and used to sway the voters.

Once people are elected every other consideration should be put aside and governing is the job they should be doing.  They don't govern, though, do they?  The moment they are elected the carousel begins to turn again with the brass ring being the next election and/or the next office they want to hold.

We are well beyond the question of should it and need to address the wider issue of how to fix what is broken?

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on October 27, 2012, 12:59:16 PM

We are well beyond the question of should it and need to address the wider issue of how to fix what is broken?

I have a simple but painful fix for that. Set a limit to what a person can contribute. Then make it only so PEOPLE can donate. No companies, special interests, no unions, churches, boy scout troops. Not ONE group of people gets the ability to give cash to a party or person seeking office.. Only indiviguals.

Make it so these groups can advise and coordianate with politicians on issues.. just NO CASH anymore.

elone

Back to religion/politics for a minute. Personally I haven't been in a church for a long time but I was wondering of those that do go, if clergy ever get into political issues. Is that not allowed as a violation of tax exempt status?

Wondering this because I have a very religious elderly neighbor who seeks guidance from her pastor on these types of issues. When Obama ran in 2008 I asked her if she could vote for a black man. She said she would have to check with the minister to see if that was okay.

So does politics come up in the pulpit?
In the end, all we have left are memories.

Roleplays: alive, done, dead, etc.
Reversal of Fortune ~ The Hunt ~ Private Party Suites ~ A Learning Experience ~A Chance Encounter ~ A Bark in the Park ~
Poetry
O/O's

Oniya

It would depend (for me) on how the pastor answered.  If the pastor said either 'Vote for a black man' or 'Don't vote for a black man', then that's being political (and more than a touch racist).  If the pastor said 'My dear, you must vote the way that you feel is best.  If God is telling you in your heart to vote for a candidate, then by all means, vote for that person.' then it's a different matter entirely.

Fun fact:  A pastor can not report information given under the seal of a confession - even serious crimes.  They can, however, counsel the confessing person to turn themselves in as a way of receiving forgiveness from God (by rejecting their previous sin.)
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

WildCat

Should religion dictate our laws? No. Should our faith influence our values and our values the political decisions we make? Trick question—it can’t help but.

Although point by point:

QuoteYou cannot be a Christian and vote in favor of murdering 4000 viable, waiting-to-be born babies a day.
Or… you cannot be a Christian and vote in favor of murdering people overseas, murdering people through the death penalty, murdering people by overturning expanded health care, murdering young women by driving them to unsafe back-alley abortions…

QuoteYou cannot be a Christian and vote I favor of destroying the God-ordained institution of marriage between one man and one woman.
Or… you cannot be a Christian and vote to undermine the institute of marriage by denying it to same-sex couples, to degrade marriage by treating it as being about matching genders instead of love and commitment, to demean and demonize some of God’s children because the people they love happen to have some of the same personal bits.

QuoteYou cannot be a Christian and vote to extort money (taxation) from a working man or woman and give it to another; or extort money to fund contraceptives and abortions which defile the conscience of the person/s being forced to pay for it.

Or… you cannot be a Christian and vote to make life harder for those who are all ready struggling while empowering those seeking to shore up wealth in this world, to empower those who seek not to give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, to trump up excuses to pull support from attempts to prevent and fight cancer and help young women make better choices just because you happen to disagree with some of their ideas.

QuoteYou cannot be a Christian and vote for a party that seeks to legislate special protections for a group of people who define themselves by the way they prefer to have sex.

Or… you cannot be a Christian and vote for a party that seeks to preserve discrimination against people whose love or skin color or gender it disapproves of, a party that encourages police to engage in racial profiling and pushes legislation to make it harder for minorities to vote.

QuoteYou cannot be a Christian and vote to incentivize out-of-wedlock births through welfare, etc. rather than discourage it and incentivize marriage.

Or… you cannot be a Christian and vote to leave struggling mothers and their children to starve because their husbands or boyfriends or rapists abandoned them. (And, I might add, you insisted that they spend the following nine months as baby incubators. Was this rape ‘legitimate’ by the way? Or was this rape a precious gift from God?)

QuoteYou cannot be a Christian and vote to pervert and desensitize innocence by forcing sex education on our children.

Sorry, this is just stupid.

QuoteYou cannot be a Christian and support a party that sought to have God removed from its platform and booed when God was disingenuously reinstated!

Or… you cannot support a party which regularly throws around the name of God for the most ungodly of purposes—talk about taking the name of the Lord in vain—that doesn’t abide by Christ’s instruction “when you pray,do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to stand and pray… so that they may be seen by others”

QuoteIn other words, you cannot be a Christian and be a Democrat. You can, however, call yourself one and be a hypocrite.

Or… you cannot be a Christian and be a Republican.

QuoteThere is a Day of Judgment and how you cast your ballot is no secret to God

Yes, there is. And no, it isn’t. But everything I’ve said above is as wrong as what she said. Because God doesn’t endorse one political party or candidate or sports team or opinion. Jesus said, “I  have no kingdom in this world.” Don’t listen to her when she says you have to believe one way. Don’t listen to me if I say you have to believe another. God gave us brains and He wants us to use them. Thinking isn’t just patriotic, it’s also Christian.

I am a Christian. And if one insists on listening to a right-wing nutjob who spouts ignorant bromides that doesn’t make them not-Christian. But it doesn’t exactly earn much respect from me.
ONS and OFFS: Make Wildcat purr
Absence: Where's the cheshire Cat?

Don't want to lose track of crossrealms and my room

Tamhansen

Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on October 27, 2012, 12:59:16 PM
<snip> I also don't believe government should involve itself in the private lives of the citizens it represents other than providing law enforcement and protection from criminal activity.  <snip>
How does this work? Especially when concerning morality laws. Basically most morality laws are based on religion, and like the religion they come from these laws often lack any form of logic or reason. Without religgion these laws would most likely not survive. Should the government impose these laws, and thus support these religious infringements on itself, or allow this 'criminal behaviour?


ons and offs

They left their home of summer ease
Beneath the lowland's sheltering trees,
To seek, by ways unknown to all,
The promise of the waterfall.

Oniya

Actually, a lot of laws (moral and otherwise) are based on 'I don't want people to do that to me.' 

It's wrong to steal because I don't want people to steal from me.
It's wrong to lie because I don't want people to lie to me.
It's wrong to have sex with other people's spouses because I don't want anyone else having sex with my spouse.
It's wrong to kill because I don't want anyone to kill me.

They are codified mostly through religion, but they are not dependent on it.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Serephino

Religion is involved in politics at least a little because our beliefs do shape the kind of person we are.  I am not saying, and I don't think anyone has said that one must be religious in order to have a moral compass.  However, if you are religious, and a true believer not just putting up a good front, the morality of your faith is going to have a major impact on your personal morality.

That said, I do not want religious morality made into laws that everyone has to follow.  That is more of a discrimination against religious freedom then say, forcing tax payers to pay for birth control for people who want it.  Restricting my access because of your god is just wrong on too many levels to count.  It's forcing me to be Christian, and I really don't want to. 



Starlequin

#20
I'll just leave this here.

It is highly disrespectful to do nothing more than drop a link and provide no context or hint at what it may contain. If you are going to participate, please add to the discussion. -Vek
You live for the fight when it's all that you've got.

Beguile's Mistress

#21
Quote from: Starlequin on October 27, 2012, 03:19:25 PM
I'll just leave this here.

I'm wondering if we could have a bit of an abstract of the article for those who don't have time to see if the link is pertinent.  Please?  Posting just a link isn't really helpful most of the time.

Starlequin

Very well; apologies for any trouble, certainly no disrespect intended.

It was a link to a Washington Post article concerning a recent trend among pastors to encourage their congregations to vote for their (the pastors') preferred candidates despite prohibition of such endorsememts by the Johnson amendment. They (the churches) want the IRS to attempt to revoke their tax-exempt status so they can sue the government and (they think) get the amendment overturned, so they can have the best  of both worlds: political influence and tax exemption. More can probably be found by Googling 'Pulpit Freedom Sunday'.
You live for the fight when it's all that you've got.

ReijiTabibito

Quote from: Starlequin on October 27, 2012, 04:47:19 PM
Very well; apologies for any trouble, certainly no disrespect intended.

It was a link to a Washington Post article concerning a recent trend among pastors to encourage their congregations to vote for their (the pastors') preferred candidates despite prohibition of such endorsememts by the Johnson amendment. They (the churches) want the IRS to attempt to revoke their tax-exempt status so they can sue the government and (they think) get the amendment overturned, so they can have the best  of both worlds: political influence and tax exemption. More can probably be found by Googling 'Pulpit Freedom Sunday'.

Maybe I'm just being insane here, but I look at the Johnson Amendment and I do see free speech being stepped upon.  Free speech means free speech, people, regardless of affiliation, should be allowed to say/endorse whatever they feel like.  Voltaire had something to say about that.

Like I said, maybe I'm just being insane, but revocation of civil rights always starts out small.  Nobody has the stupidity to go and say something idiotic like African-Americans don't get to have free speech.  But, to quote the ever-wise little green man: "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."

Right now it's tax-exempt groups.  Who's next?  The precedent is there.

Starlequin

Well, really, I don't think I object to these churches having their say or endorsing whoever they wish; if it should become problematic somehow, the solution would simply be more speech from their opponents, not silencing their right to speak. But I would find it more than a little disturbing to see any group, particularly one with such obvious social and financial clout as a church or corporation (sometimes the same thing, these days), wield undue influence over policymakers while not paying their share of taxes. I don't think anyone should have both of those advantages, or it would tip the scales of power too far. No representation without taxation, as it were.
You live for the fight when it's all that you've got.

WildCat

Admitedly, I'm of two minds about that particular issue... but

It isn't a case of "we're going to take these rights away from people who are tax exampt". The whole point is that the tax exempt status is granted to non-partisan groups. If you need to hire a plumber and insist the plumber you're hiring is actually a plumber it isn't that you're discriminating against non-plumbers it's simply that you need someone to do plumbing.
ONS and OFFS: Make Wildcat purr
Absence: Where's the cheshire Cat?

Don't want to lose track of crossrealms and my room

WildCat

Actually, to clarify... Being a religious leader doesn't mean you don't have political opinions, and probably shouldn't mean you can't express them. I do think it rather disreputable of a religious leader to claim their own political opinion is in any way superior by virtue of their position as religious leader, or that what they feel politically is necessarily how a higher power feels. That's religious ethics.

From a legislative viewpoint... I think it needs to come down to the question of why we allow tax-exempt status and whether given behavior violates or runs counter to those reasons.
ONS and OFFS: Make Wildcat purr
Absence: Where's the cheshire Cat?

Don't want to lose track of crossrealms and my room

elone

#27
Because clergy in the pulpit could make a statement to the effect that "God spoke to me and he wants you to elect Romney" It is the influence that is possible over a congregation that makes me uneasy. Freedom of speech is a given but not in all situations. Federal employees were not allowed to campaign in the workplace as well, not sure if that is still the case.

In some manner it may come down to separation of church and state. If the government cannot make laws with respect to endorsing a religion, should religion be able to get involved politically. Right or wrong, with the free speech, it does not seem like a good idea for churches to be preaching politics.

Perhaps it is time to revisit the tax exemption for many organizations, put a few bucks in the treasury.
In the end, all we have left are memories.

Roleplays: alive, done, dead, etc.
Reversal of Fortune ~ The Hunt ~ Private Party Suites ~ A Learning Experience ~A Chance Encounter ~ A Bark in the Park ~
Poetry
O/O's

Serephino

It's because of that person who said their neighbor had to ask her pastor who to vote for.  There are Christians out there who are that stupid.  There are probably Jews and Muslims who are also that stupid.  Wherever there are people following a religious set of rules, there will be those that will do what their leaders tell them to.  It's scary.  Could you imagine if the Catholic church were allowed to pay for political ads?  They'll use the money donated to them by their followers, and they don't pay taxes.  They aren't responsible to anyone but the Pope, who I'm sure would love to have a few politicians in his pocket.  He could work through them to bring about God's will and make sin illegal. 

Forgive my cynicism, but I don't have much faith in the Catholic church.  The Pope has already gone to Africa, a place where AIDS is a problem, and preached against condom use because birth control is against God's will.  To let them keep tax exempt status and give them the power Citizens United gave corporations would be a dangerous mistake.

WildCat

Really, to give anyone the power Citizens United gave corporations is a dangerous mistake, but that's another topic.

ONS and OFFS: Make Wildcat purr
Absence: Where's the cheshire Cat?

Don't want to lose track of crossrealms and my room

Silk

Quote from: ReijiTabibito on October 27, 2012, 04:55:15 PM
Maybe I'm just being insane here, but I look at the Johnson Amendment and I do see free speech being stepped upon.  Free speech means free speech, people, regardless of affiliation, should be allowed to say/endorse whatever they feel like.  Voltaire had something to say about that.

Like I said, maybe I'm just being insane, but revocation of civil rights always starts out small.  Nobody has the stupidity to go and say something idiotic like African-Americans don't get to have free speech.  But, to quote the ever-wise little green man: "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."

Right now it's tax-exempt groups.  Who's next?  The precedent is there.

Pastor's doing it in their own time out of their occupations I have no issue with, however when your on the clock it's not called for, Counsellors don't tell their client's their opinions and don't let their veiws skew their work either, it's part of the job description and it normally comes with positions of power and athority over potentially vulnerable people.

Stattick

I strongly believe in separation of church and state. I don't believe that religion has any place in politics, and that religion should be kept out of politics. The money shouldn't say "In God We Trust". The Pledge of Allegiance shouldn't say "Under God". Congress shouldn't be praying. The National Day of Prayer should be banned. Churches that endorse candidates should loose their tax exempt status, and be prosecuted.
O/O   A/A

Teo Torriatte

Quote from: Stattick on October 28, 2012, 09:08:51 AM
I strongly believe in separation of church and state. I don't believe that religion has any place in politics, and that religion should be kept out of politics. The money shouldn't say "In God We Trust". The Pledge of Allegiance shouldn't say "Under God". Congress shouldn't be praying. The National Day of Prayer should be banned. Churches that endorse candidates should loose their tax exempt status, and be prosecuted.

+1000 to this

Tamhansen

Quote from: Oniya on October 27, 2012, 02:53:11 PM
Actually, a lot of laws (moral and otherwise) are based on 'I don't want people to do that to me.' 

It's wrong to steal because I don't want people to steal from me.
It's wrong to lie because I don't want people to lie to me.
It's wrong to have sex with other people's spouses because I don't want anyone else having sex with my spouse.
It's wrong to kill because I don't want anyone to kill me.

They are codified mostly through religion, but they are not dependent on it.

Maybe not those, although I believe adultery isn't illegal in most places, but the religious types want it to be.

The laws i was referring to are laws like:

Homosexuals aren't allowed to be married
Women are not allowed to walk around topless in public.
A mariage between more than two people is illegal.

And then there's the whole bunch of places where they have laws banning blasphemy, or where it's illegal to teach evolution in high school.

I'm not critiquing Beguiled's opinion, merely asking where she stood on laws designed to stop criminal activity, when those laws infringe on those rights she holds dear.
ons and offs

They left their home of summer ease
Beneath the lowland's sheltering trees,
To seek, by ways unknown to all,
The promise of the waterfall.

Oniya

I'd still say that even those laws are based on 'I wouldn't want someone to do that to/in front of me.'  (I was going back to the earliest legal systems I could recall in an effort to see where laws 'come from'.)

Mind you, I think you're right that the ones you mentioned should be on their way out as cultural norms shift, but I can see them arising completely independently of religion, except for the cases where religion is the primary subject of the law (e.g., Commandments one through three, creationism v. evolution, and blasphemy laws) - which I don't think should be part of the secular law at all.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Tamhansen

Quote from: Oniya on October 28, 2012, 11:05:24 AM
I'd still say that even those laws are based on 'I wouldn't want someone to do that to/in front of me.'  (I was going back to the earliest legal systems I could recall in an effort to see where laws 'come from'.)

Mind you, I think you're right that the ones you mentioned should be on their way out as cultural norms shift, but I can see them arising completely independently of religion, except for the cases where religion is the primary subject of the law (e.g., Commandments one through three, creationism v. evolution, and blasphemy laws) - which I don't think should be part of the secular law at all.

the earliest legal system I could find were the laws of sumeria, Akkadia and Babylon. (The fertile crescent) Those laws were laid down by religious leaders.

But that wasn't what I was asking. Beguile said the following"
QuoteI also don't believe government should involve itself in the private lives of the citizens it represents other than providing law enforcement and protection from criminal activity. 

My question to her was, not as a critique, but as a way to better understand her position and arguments, what about criminal activities that harm no one, but are laid down because of (religious) norms, would they go in the 'not involve in personal life" or in the "protection from criminal activity"


ons and offs

They left their home of summer ease
Beneath the lowland's sheltering trees,
To seek, by ways unknown to all,
The promise of the waterfall.

Beguile's Mistress

Quote from: Katataban on October 28, 2012, 10:48:09 AM
I'm not critiquing Beguiled's opinion, merely asking where she stood on laws designed to stop criminal activity, when those laws infringe on those rights she holds dear.
Quote from: Katataban on October 28, 2012, 11:15:54 AM
the earliest legal system I could find were the laws of sumeria, Akkadia and Babylon. (The fertile crescent) Those laws were laid down by religious leaders.

But that wasn't what I was asking. Beguile said the following"
My question to her was, not as a critique, but as a way to better understand her position and arguments, what about criminal activities that harm no one, but are laid down because of (religious) norms, would they go in the 'not involve in personal life" or in the "protection from criminal activity"

First let me say in answer to both of those questions that criminal activity infringes on all of our rights and is harmful in some way to everyone.  I would need more specific examples to answer these remarks intelligently.

Based on the fact that I don't believe government should be allowed to legislate my personal life I don't want laws that would do that.  I don't want laws that would govern the personal lives of anyone.  However, people are not always the reasonable, considerate and respectful individuals needed for us all to live in peace.  Countries attack countries and need defense against invasion.  People steal, murder, exploit their fellow human beings sexually and sell drugs to minors among other things.  There are also people who believe that because they want something it should be theirs or because they want to do something it should be allowed.  Laws are needed to keep the peace and safety of the community.  Laws are needed because people are not the altruistic individuals they need to be for us to live without laws.

Because of the kind of person I am I care about people and their happiness and have a difficult time when one person pursues their happiness at the expense of another.  I get angry when the wants of some endanger the needs of others.  I hurt when my life, my choices, my faith and beliefs and my desires are laughed at, ridiculed and demeaned in some of the most disrespectful ways possible so I know how others feel when remarks like that are directed at them.

There are a lot of things I hold dear but I'm not the only one who does.  We are all equally deserving as long as we don't take away from someone else to get what we need and are willing to work for what we want.  I'm no better than anyone else but I am just as good.

On the subject of government I've always believed in the words of Thomas Jefferson:  “The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors.”

Silk

There's two kind of laws that religion really has any say in modern and past.

Criminal laws, which hardly need religious foundations to understand the purpose.

and culteral laws, which are only relevant to the society in question, and rarely/never affect's societies in such a way that it cannot function without them. In a lot of cases these laws are actually detrimental to the society their enforced in.

So no, Religion may of inserted itself into politics and law's but it is hardly required for it's function.

WildCat

Quote from: Silk on October 28, 2012, 05:03:54 AM
Pastor's doing it in their own time out of their occupations I have no issue with, however when your on the clock it's not called for, Counsellors don't tell their client's their opinions and don't let their veiws skew their work either, it's part of the job description and it normally comes with positions of power and athority over potentially vulnerable people.
And I would argue that it matters who is dicatating what is "not called for". I would be very much open to the argument that a pastor should, out of personal ethics, refrain from expressing political views in their capacity as a pastor. I would also be open to the possibility of a church hierarchy insisting that pastors of their faith refrain from doing so. And I am open to the government declaring that _if_ a pastor choses to do so then they are willfully chosing to sacrifice their tax-exempt status. But what I'm not comfortable with is a ban on pastors expressing their views coming from the secular government.

I'm also, incidentally, very much open to the freedom of congregants to decide that if their pastor insists on bringing politics to the pulpit then they'll move their attendance, and tithing, to a different church.
ONS and OFFS: Make Wildcat purr
Absence: Where's the cheshire Cat?

Don't want to lose track of crossrealms and my room

Tamhansen

Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on October 28, 2012, 12:17:58 PM
First let me say in answer to both of those questions that criminal activity infringes on all of our rights and is harmful in some way to everyone.  I would need more specific examples to answer these remarks intelligently.

Based on the fact that I don't believe government should be allowed to legislate my personal life I don't want laws that would do that.  I don't want laws that would govern the personal lives of anyone.  However, people are not always the reasonable, considerate and respectful individuals needed for us all to live in peace.  Countries attack countries and need defense against invasion.  People steal, murder, exploit their fellow human beings sexually and sell drugs to minors among other things.  There are also people who believe that because they want something it should be theirs or because they want to do something it should be allowed.  Laws are needed to keep the peace and safety of the community.  Laws are needed because people are not the altruistic individuals they need to be for us to live without laws.

Because of the kind of person I am I care about people and their happiness and have a difficult time when one person pursues their happiness at the expense of another.  I get angry when the wants of some endanger the needs of others.  I hurt when my life, my choices, my faith and beliefs and my desires are laughed at, ridiculed and demeaned in some of the most disrespectful ways possible so I know how others feel when remarks like that are directed at them.

There are a lot of things I hold dear but I'm not the only one who does.  We are all equally deserving as long as we don't take away from someone else to get what we need and are willing to work for what we want.  I'm no better than anyone else but I am just as good.

On the subject of government I've always believed in the words of Thomas Jefferson:  “The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors.”

Thank you. Your answer of my question has made your standpoint much clearer for me, and I think I can agree with it. But it's just like in the examples I mentioned above law can be used to infringe on people doing no harm to others while sometimes not interfering where people or animals are getting hurt. After all there are 44 states in the US where a man is a criminal for having sex with another consenting male, but only 27 states where it is illegal for a man to have sex with a horse.
ons and offs

They left their home of summer ease
Beneath the lowland's sheltering trees,
To seek, by ways unknown to all,
The promise of the waterfall.

Ironwolf85

Quote from: Katataban on October 28, 2012, 01:30:48 PM
After all there are 44 states in the US where a man is a criminal for having sex with another consenting male, but only 27 states where it is illegal for a man to have sex with a horse.

To be fair how often does horse fucking that come up in court? much of the american system is based on precident and past judgements, and if that never came up how likely are lawmakers to craft a law and punishment for that.
I'm pretty sure 70% of cases of moments like "that kid... he... he... he fucked mah prize horse Nelly" wind up in mental treatment centers, not the courts.
Prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, love...
debate any other aspect of my faith these are the heavenly virtues. this flawed mortal is going to try to adhere to them.

Culture: the ability to carve an intricate and beautiful bowl from the skull of a fallen enemy.
Civilization: the ability to put that psycho in prision for killing people.

Deamonbane

Ugh...*is disturbed*...

Anyway, Religion, in itself(also, in my opinion, and I am very probably wrong) has absolutely no place in politics... prayer, while it should not be illegal, should not be a requirement, and for people that are so obviously not Christians, from their actions more than anything else, offend the common Christian(such as myself) by pretending, by saying things like 'God Bless America'... useless mouthings, that, if they don't believe in it, they shouldn't say it. If they say they are open-minded, it means that they are anything but, because it is an excuse to believe what they do... would they believe in God should an obvious miracle happen in their face? No, they would try to explain it, and probably come up with a pretty reasonable explanation... hence, they shouldn't even pretend something that they don't... Like faking an orgasm: you are just offending the other person's intelligence...

I personally have no immense pleasure in having my intelligence offended, so I would rather these guys just keep things straight, and get elected for honesty...

Of course, this is all a moot point: No politician in the world is going to say what he/she means, or even mean what he/she says.
Angry Sex: Because it's Impolite to say," You pissed me off so much I wanna fuck your brains out..."

Ironwolf85

Actually many politicans are comptant and honest, but they don't wind up in the spotlight. Politicans lead very public lives, as well they should, so when they screw up or are corrupt their face is up on every slam ad, and newscast. People love a scandal, so that's what gets covered.

Not many stations are going to cover Senator Mulberry's visit to talk with the workers of a local powerplant to see what can be done to improve effecency, or cover him working till 3:00 am to network with others and re-draft a bill that will improve the lives of people in his state.

But the reporters will be there when the guy he has to work with goes on a drunken bender and runs over a hooker.
Prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, love...
debate any other aspect of my faith these are the heavenly virtues. this flawed mortal is going to try to adhere to them.

Culture: the ability to carve an intricate and beautiful bowl from the skull of a fallen enemy.
Civilization: the ability to put that psycho in prision for killing people.

Vanity Evolved

No. Religion has no place within politics. This is the sort of thing which leads to such great lines of thinking and logic such as 'homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, 'cause.'

Pumpkin Seeds

I remember an ethics teacher of mine who was amazing.  He refused to give his stand point on any discussion, merely arguing from the point of view of the philosopher that session.  An amazing debater with a great understanding of the concepts, no matter how different those concepts were from the previous.   One day he got into an argument with a woman who was a Christian and the Bible came up.  I remember she referenced the book and his response was, “Do you think your personal view points should be law?” 

That seems to be the best litmus test I can imagine for politics and religion. 

Ironwolf85

It should have a say, but never a place at the table I believe.

Also yes, if a church gets political and crosses the line between privately supporting, and publically endorsing someone. tax exemption should be revoked, as they are a religious political group now, not a normal church or temple.

also
“Do you think your personal view points should be law?” 
awesome
Prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, love...
debate any other aspect of my faith these are the heavenly virtues. this flawed mortal is going to try to adhere to them.

Culture: the ability to carve an intricate and beautiful bowl from the skull of a fallen enemy.
Civilization: the ability to put that psycho in prision for killing people.

Grakor

It shouldn't, but at least here in the US, we all know that "separation of church and state" is a bit of a farce anyway. People are unable, or unwilling, to look at political issues objectively and instead continually bring their religious beliefs into things. No one can really convince me that if we didn't have to worry about Christian dogma, we wouldn't have gay marriage legalized over here by now, as the most obvious and pressing example.

Vanity Evolved

Quote from: Grakor on October 29, 2012, 06:37:41 PM
It shouldn't, but at least here in the US, we all know that "separation of church and state" is a bit of a farce anyway. People are unable, or unwilling, to look at political issues objectively and instead continually bring their religious beliefs into things. No one can really convince me that if we didn't have to worry about Christian dogma, we wouldn't have gay marriage legalized over here by now, as the most obvious and pressing example.

Well, there is no secular arguement for why gay marriage shouldn't be legal. Only theological arguements, or the nicely renamed 'family values' groups. It's a shame, really.

Deamonbane

Since I do, I think believe that everybody else feels the same way... And therefore, no I don't lol

Uh... yeah... let's not get into politically correct name calling... or else liberals will find that they have done it a bit too much...
Angry Sex: Because it's Impolite to say," You pissed me off so much I wanna fuck your brains out..."

WildCat

Quote from: Grakor on October 29, 2012, 06:37:41 PM
It shouldn't, but at least here in the US, we all know that "separation of church and state" is a bit of a farce anyway. People are unable, or unwilling, to look at political issues objectively and instead continually bring their religious beliefs into things. No one can really convince me that if we didn't have to worry about Christian dogma, we wouldn't have gay marriage legalized over here by now, as the most obvious and pressing example.
I understand that most people believe that the bible is blatantly anti gay-marriage. This is not nearly such a safe assumption as it seems. Ultimately, churches reflect what exists in society. The bible doesn't create homophobia. The bible is used (falsely in my opinion) to justify homophobia.

If people with the gut instinct to be grossed out by homosexuality didn't have the bible to point to, they'd point to something else. There's no such thing as complete objectivity. How we approach issues will always be colored by subjective factors. And you can call them 'values' or 'religeon' or 'instinct'. You can cite all the authority or logical constructs or justifications in the world. But the subjective factors will always be there.
ONS and OFFS: Make Wildcat purr
Absence: Where's the cheshire Cat?

Don't want to lose track of crossrealms and my room

Stattick

Quote from: WildCat on October 29, 2012, 09:13:06 PM
I understand that most people believe that the bible is blatantly anti gay-marriage. This is not nearly such a safe assumption as it seems. Ultimately, churches reflect what exists in society. The bible doesn't create homophobia. The bible is used (falsely in my opinion) to justify homophobia.

If people with the gut instinct to be grossed out by homosexuality didn't have the bible to point to, they'd point to something else. There's no such thing as complete objectivity. How we approach issues will always be colored by subjective factors. And you can call them 'values' or 'religeon' or 'instinct'. You can cite all the authority or logical constructs or justifications in the world. But the subjective factors will always be there.

Both the old and new testament condemns homosexuality, in numerous places:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm
O/O   A/A

Vanity Evolved

Quote from: Stattick on October 30, 2012, 12:06:03 AM
Both the old and new testament condemns homosexuality, in numerous places:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

Yeah; it's simply common enough for people to read what they want from the Bible. While I agree that it isn't the Bible -alone- which caused such discrimination and demonization of homosexuality, it certainly is one of the most popular 'arguements' against it. If it's not 'Well, God said homosexuals are wrong!', it's 'Marriage is between one man and one woman!' or the far more veiled conservative religious groups such as 'family values' groups.

Tamhansen

Quote from: Stattick on October 30, 2012, 12:06:03 AM
Both the old and new testament condemns homosexuality, in numerous places:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm
Quote from: Stattick on October 30, 2012, 12:06:03 AM
Both the old and new testament condemns homosexuality, in numerous places:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm
Quote from: WildCat on October 29, 2012, 09:13:06 PM
I understand that most people believe that the bible is blatantly anti gay-marriage. This is not nearly such a safe assumption as it seems. Ultimately, churches reflect what exists in society. The bible doesn't create homophobia. The bible is used (falsely in my opinion) to justify homophobia.

If people with the gut instinct to be grossed out by homosexuality didn't have the bible to point to, they'd point to something else. There's no such thing as complete objectivity. How we approach issues will always be colored by subjective factors. And you can call them 'values' or 'religeon' or 'instinct'. You can cite all the authority or logical constructs or justifications in the world. But the subjective factors will always be there.


leviticus 18:22 = "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

So basically if I'm reading that as the bible propagating homophobia, that's because I'm reading it wrong.


I think on the original subject though Religion and politics are a match made in "well heaven I guess" Both consist of those in power telling lies and fairy tales to subjugate the people and remain in power.
ons and offs

They left their home of summer ease
Beneath the lowland's sheltering trees,
To seek, by ways unknown to all,
The promise of the waterfall.

Oniya

A huge number of the laws in Leviticus are directly involved in maintaining a small, nomadic population with inadequate methods of food preservation.  None of which are issues that we have in 21st century America.  Spilling your seed on the floor instead of in a woman's body is a sin - but you don't see the protestors carrying signs about masturbation.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Vanity Evolved

Quote from: Oniya on October 30, 2012, 10:03:23 AM
A huge number of the laws in Leviticus are directly involved in maintaining a small, nomadic population with inadequate methods of food preservation.  None of which are issues that we have in 21st century America.  Spilling your seed on the floor instead of in a woman's body is a sin - but you don't see the protestors carrying signs about masturbation.

Precisely! This is why politics shouldn't be mingled with religion, because all religion provides is an excuse to pass rulings. "Well, there's no proof that homosexuals shouldn't be married. But my book right here says it shouldn't happen, and because I believe that's true, I'm going to use that to stop others getting married! Also, my new law is 'all inside, all the time'."

Tamhansen

Quote from: Oniya on October 30, 2012, 10:03:23 AM
A huge number of the laws in Leviticus are directly involved in maintaining a small, nomadic population with inadequate methods of food preservation.  None of which are issues that we have in 21st century America.  Spilling your seed on the floor instead of in a woman's body is a sin - but you don't see the protestors carrying signs about masturbation.


Ehm Oniya. You might want to read this http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/08/thou-shalt-not-spill-thy-seed-anti-masturbation-amendment-added-to-anti-abortion-bill/
ons and offs

They left their home of summer ease
Beneath the lowland's sheltering trees,
To seek, by ways unknown to all,
The promise of the waterfall.

Oniya

Quote from: Katataban on October 30, 2012, 10:14:16 AM

Ehm Oniya. You might want to read this http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/08/thou-shalt-not-spill-thy-seed-anti-masturbation-amendment-added-to-anti-abortion-bill/

*facepalm*

QuoteShe later removed the measure stating that she wanted to emphasize the absurdity of the bill and its sexist undertones that is inherent in Personhood movement.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Tamhansen

#57
Quote from: Oniya on October 30, 2012, 10:15:04 AM
*facepalm*

weird though as I know she defended it at first.

well anyway I guess : Every Sperm is Sacred
ons and offs

They left their home of summer ease
Beneath the lowland's sheltering trees,
To seek, by ways unknown to all,
The promise of the waterfall.

Oniya

I'm sure there's a fancy debate term for it, but it's not too different from what Jonathan Swift did in 'A Modest Proposal'.  You take an idea that's absolutely ludicrous and do your best to make it sound perfectly logical.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Avis habilis


Grakor

Quote from: WildCat on October 29, 2012, 09:13:06 PM
I understand that most people believe that the bible is blatantly anti gay-marriage. This is not nearly such a safe assumption as it seems. Ultimately, churches reflect what exists in society. The bible doesn't create homophobia. The bible is used (falsely in my opinion) to justify homophobia.

If people with the gut instinct to be grossed out by homosexuality didn't have the bible to point to, they'd point to something else. There's no such thing as complete objectivity. How we approach issues will always be colored by subjective factors. And you can call them 'values' or 'religeon' or 'instinct'. You can cite all the authority or logical constructs or justifications in the world. But the subjective factors will always be there.

While this is true to a certain extent, the issue is much more complicated than that. This argument depends on the notion that people are going to get grossed out by homosexuality in general even if Christian dogma didn't reinforce this notion, but the cultures of the past suggest that this isn't a safe assumption. Homosexual acts were commonplace in Ancient Greece, for example, and were considered perfectly natural. During the Roman Empire it was also common, and though there was some grumbling about it being a corruption due to Greek influence, Romans did little to really try to stop such actions.

From a historical perspective, widespread persecution of homosexuality didn't really begin until the rise of Christianity, when Christian dogma regarding sexual sin started spreading due to the religion's own spread. Sure, Christianity may not be the only factor to consider, but it certainly is a large one.

Quote from: Katatabanleviticus 18:22 = "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

So basically if I'm reading that as the bible propagating homophobia, that's because I'm reading it wrong.

I don't have a link handy, but there is actually some contention on the translation of this passage. From what I understand this is caused by differences in the languages involved, as the word "abomination" is supposed to have a more "ritualistic" meaning, as in the act is ritualistically unclean. So, this could be merely referring to the now defunct act of temple prostitution, but who knows?

Beguile's Mistress

People will grow and change if educated and encouraged to do so.

People become stubborn and intractable when pushed and preached at.

Ranting and ridicule are not education and encouragement and never have been.  They usually come from the bigoted and prejudiced.

It doesn't matter which point of view is being presented; a bigot is still a bigot and allowing bigotry and prejudice to become part of a discussion is irrational and dooms the endeavor to failure.

Tamhansen

Quote from: Grakor on October 30, 2012, 12:40:28 PM
I don't have a link handy, but there is actually some contention on the translation of this passage. From what I understand this is caused by differences in the languages involved, as the word "abomination" is supposed to have a more "ritualistic" meaning, as in the act is ritualistically unclean. So, this could be merely referring to the now defunct act of temple prostitution, but who knows?

Yes there is contention about the word Abomination, but there is very little contention about the rest of the translation. Having studied the torah texts in hebrew though the texts seem very clear. Now I understand why the people writing that text would oppose homosexuality. It would take good healthy men out of the cycle of reproduction, and with the amount of infant and child death at the time every single grown male and female were needed to produce offspring. The problem is the world has changed, the bible text has not.

Another example of this is the ritual slaughtering practiced by orthodox Muslims and Jews. When those rules were written, they were the most hygienic and animal friendly method of slaughter. And that is what the writers intended in my opinion. However, the science of killing animals has evolved, and if the same people writing those texts would have lived today, they'd no doubt choose a different method to write down as sacred.


Now if people want to take guidance from a centuries or even millenia old fairy tale book with good moral guidelines they should. Mind you I like a lot of the moral guidelines layed out in the bible, the talmud and the Quran, but then I also like some of the moral guidelines in the original grimm stories or the book of sheherazade and the 1001 nights.

The real danger is when people forget the context in which these stories were written, the period in time, the state of the societies. Society evolved, those books did not evolve with it. Therefor there will be some parts that are outdated.
ons and offs

They left their home of summer ease
Beneath the lowland's sheltering trees,
To seek, by ways unknown to all,
The promise of the waterfall.

TaintedAndDelish


I don't like this a bit and I strongly feel that most religions and religious leaders suck hairy monkey balls, but I do feel that they have a place in politics.  Their religious experience, as f-ed up as it may be, is part of who and what they are.

Regarding this letter in the OP, that sort of manipulation is one of the reasons why I hate religions so much.

Deamonbane

#64
I am a devout Christian, and I have said so before... and while the Bible does, in fact condemn Homosexuality in various places, I recall a very clear statement in the Bible that also says," All the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

Which means, in general, so long as you aren't hurting anyone, and not actively doing anything that you know is wrong, and what you are doing is in love, then there is nothing wrong with it. While I am not a homosexual myself, I tend to believe that so long as you don't hurt anyone, you're okay, in my book.

As for how you interpret the Bible you can do whatever the fuck you want, so long as you make sure to keep that one commandment... Dislike whatever you want, but treat them with respect, and dignity, and respect their point of views... we are not all made in the same mold, and what might be right for one, may be wrong for the other. Civilization is all about us putting aside those differences, and agreeing to live in peace...
Angry Sex: Because it's Impolite to say," You pissed me off so much I wanna fuck your brains out..."

Stattick

Yeah, there are a lot of Christian churches that have a sane policy about homosexuals. Unfortunately, there are plenty of churches that don't have a sane policy about it, and that includes most forms of fundamentalist churches as well (I say most although I've never heard of a fundamentalist church that's okay with homosexuality... but maybe they do exist, and I don't want to toss them in with the bad churches if they do). I was just pointing out that both the old and new testament does speak out against homosexuality.

On the other hand, the Bible also says that bacon is an abomination. Bacon.

Damnit, now I've gone and compared gay sex with bacon. And it makes me wonder what I'm missing, because if gay sex is as good as bacon... >.>
O/O   A/A

Pumpkin Seeds

There is some dispute over the rest of the text besides the word abomination.  For one Leviticus is a series of laws made by the priests of ancient Jewish tradition, not part of the commandments handed down by God.  So there does need to be some separation between the word of God and the efforts of the priests to pass laws on their people.  A second contention is in how the line is phrased because the wording is “if a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman.”  One interpretation is that the wording makes reference to the station of women as property.  So by laying with a man as woman is to mean that one is treating the other like property, reducing them to the station of a woman.  This makes me think of rape essentially.

The Jewish tradition wouldn't be the only one to hold such a view since some sects of Buddhism and Hindu also believe women are more unclean and/or further removed from enlightenment than men.

Vanity Evolved

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on November 01, 2012, 03:40:26 PM
There is some dispute over the rest of the text besides the word abomination.  For one Leviticus is a series of laws made by the priests of ancient Jewish tradition, not part of the commandments handed down by God.  So there does need to be some separation between the word of God and the efforts of the priests to pass laws on their people.  A second contention is in how the line is phrased because the wording is “if a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman.”  One interpretation is that the wording makes reference to the station of women as property.  So by laying with a man as woman is to mean that one is treating the other like property, reducing them to the station of a woman.  This makes me think of rape essentially.

The Jewish tradition wouldn't be the only one to hold such a view since some sects of Buddhism and Hindu also believe women are more unclean and/or further removed from enlightenment than men.

So, it's not just homophobic. It's also sexist. So, that's good to know.

Pumpkin Seeds

Hebrew law that is over 2000 years old is certainly sexist.  Most cultures either were or are sexist, including the culture of the United States and many first world countries.  Do remember that women only had the right to vote recognized a few decades ago, not centuries.  Also, Jesus was the one to break such tradition by allowing women to become his followers.  For a time Peter did not recognize a difference between man and woman when joining the fledging followers of Christ.  That would be among one of the most radical times for woman in that time period and for some time after.

Deamonbane

The fact remains that most, if not all civilized notions such as abolishment of slavery, women's rights, fair trials, etc... were started by Christianity... note, please, that not all professing Christians have taken such notions to heart, as can be clearly seen throughout history... I am just saying that they started with Christianity, and Judaism before that...
Angry Sex: Because it's Impolite to say," You pissed me off so much I wanna fuck your brains out..."

Vanity Evolved

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on November 01, 2012, 03:56:41 PM
Hebrew law that is over 2000 years old is certainly sexist.  Most cultures either were or are sexist, including the culture of the United States and many first world countries.  Do remember that women only had the right to vote recognized a few decades ago, not centuries.  Also, Jesus was the one to break such tradition by allowing women to become his followers.  For a time Peter did not recognize a difference between man and woman when joining the fledging followers of Christ.  That would be among one of the most radical times for woman in that time period and for some time after.

Which is pretty cool. You know, if Jesus existed. Which we're not sure.

Point being, yeah, if the only thing that can be said for the Bible denying homosexuals their rights to marriage (in the case of religion becoming part of politics) is that 'No, it's not insulting to homosexuals. It's insulting to women, too!', then yeah, not exactly a point towards religion being part of politics.

Oniya

Quote from: Vanity Evolved on November 01, 2012, 05:08:31 PM
Which is pretty cool. You know, if Jesus existed. Which we're not sure.

Even if Jesus didn't exist, the fact that stories were passed down about some guy by the name of Jesus, or some guy by the name of Paul treating women as equal to men means that someone thought of gender-equality.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Vanity Evolved

Quote from: Oniya on November 01, 2012, 05:29:16 PM
Even if Jesus didn't exist, the fact that stories were passed down about some guy by the name of Jesus, or some guy by the name of Paul treating women as equal to men means that someone thought of gender-equality.

True enough.

Stattick

Quote from: Deamonbane on November 01, 2012, 05:01:49 PM
The fact remains that most, if not all civilized notions such as abolishment of slavery, women's rights, fair trials, etc... were started by Christianity... note, please, that not all professing Christians have taken such notions to heart, as can be clearly seen throughout history... I am just saying that they started with Christianity, and Judaism before that...

That would be a hilarious joke but for the fact that you obviously believe it. There have been plenty of cultures that were egalitarian that we've studied, that had nothing to do whatsoever with Christianity. This concept that it takes Christianity to bring equality to people is hogwash.
O/O   A/A

Ironwolf85

#74
Quote from: Vanity Evolved on November 01, 2012, 05:08:31 PM
Which is pretty cool. You know, if Jesus existed. Which we're not sure.

I think there are records of his existence from the roman empire, the Vatican has them in the archives it's been authenticated, it makes no detailed mention in the bureaucratic papers, no more than an execution report of a provincial rebel.
Basicly it's something like "Jesus of Nazareth, carpenter, Son of Joesph of Nazareth, Carpenter, executed for treason and sedition against the empire. Executed on orders of Pontus Pilate, governor of Judea. At request of Judean Priests."
Some monk saved it during a 6th century fire.


also addressing the question, religion belongs as a moral adviser, but should not have a seat at the political table.
Prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, love...
debate any other aspect of my faith these are the heavenly virtues. this flawed mortal is going to try to adhere to them.

Culture: the ability to carve an intricate and beautiful bowl from the skull of a fallen enemy.
Civilization: the ability to put that psycho in prision for killing people.

Stattick

Quote from: Ironwolf85 on November 01, 2012, 08:23:31 PM
I think there are records of his existence from the roman empire, the Vatican has them in the archives it's been authenticated, it makes no detailed mention in the bureaucratic papers, no more than an execution report of a provincial rebel.
Basicly it's something like "Jesus of Nazareth, carpenter, Son of Joesph of Nazareth, Carpenter, executed for treason and sedition against the empire. Executed on orders of Pontus Pilate, governor of Judea. At request of Judean Priests."
Some monk saved it during a 6th century fire.


also addressing the question, religion belongs as a moral adviser, but should not have a seat at the political table.

No. You're mistaken. There are NO records of the time period that shows that Jesus existed. If there were records, there wouldn't be a controversy as to whether there was a historical Jesus. If we had a proto-gospel that dated to the right time period, then we might have something. But we've never found the proto-gospel (some don't believe that it exists, but I feel that there's stronger evidence for it than against it), the book that the New Testament books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John of the Bible were based on and cribbed from. The earliest gospel we've found dated to something like 70 AD. The only other evidence were a couple of documents that appear to be forgeries or fakes that date to around the same time period. Everything else dates to much later.

Lack of proof doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist. It just shows that we cannot prove that he existed. Just because the period is filled with itinerant holy men who preached weird stuff and formed little cults around themselves that taught similar stuff as Jesus did, were the products of "virgin births" and were the "son of God", doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't the genuine article, and all those others in that time period that lasted a few hundred years were fakes. But there isn't enough proof there to base a belief in Christianity on the scant historical evidence. At least not for me.

We don't have a single contemporary source that refers to Jesus. We don't have any tax records, birth records, death records, execution records, criminal records, letters, crosses, artifacts with his name on it... we've literally got nothing. Now, Judea was wiped out pretty severely by the Romans because the Jews were revolting against the Roman Empire around 70 AD, so that could be a reason why there's a lack of evidence. It could have been lost or destroyed by the war. But it's hard to believe that not a single artifact remained. Really, it all boils down to what you want to believe. It's a matter of faith. This isn't like Mohammed, where we have incontrovertible evidence of his existence. It's an open question. Maybe one day some archaeologist will make a discovery that proves Jesus actually existed, but until then, we'll never know with any certainty. Some take the books from the Bible to be proof enough, but others, like myself remain skeptical.
O/O   A/A

Deamonbane

Quote from: Stattick on November 01, 2012, 07:35:49 PM
That would be a hilarious joke but for the fact that you obviously believe it. There have been plenty of cultures that were egalitarian that we've studied, that had nothing to do whatsoever with Christianity. This concept that it takes Christianity to bring equality to people is hogwash.
Really? Name one that came before Judaism, and before Christianity, please? It is fairly obvious that all the early cultures that involved such things based themselves around the Hebraic law, being that, for that time, it was extremely well put together...

As for the existence of Jesus, we really can't prove it in a way that you people will believe... It is all a matter of faith, as much as it takes to believe the He didn't exist... if I were to tell you to disprove his existence, you would be equally stumped... Disprove the existence of God? Equally useless... all is a matter of faith, my friends, and if you believe one way or another, you have your own reasons for doing so, and who the fuck am I to question them? I would be involved in a fun philosophical debate, but not an argument, as bashing my head against a rock is not very fun, lol...
Angry Sex: Because it's Impolite to say," You pissed me off so much I wanna fuck your brains out..."

Vekseid

Quote from: Deamonbane on November 01, 2012, 05:01:49 PM
The fact remains that most, if not all civilized notions such as abolishment of slavery, women's rights, fair trials, etc... were started by Christianity... note, please, that not all professing Christians have taken such notions to heart, as can be clearly seen throughout history... I am just saying that they started with Christianity, and Judaism before that...

This is false.

Mesopetamian law in general predates Hebraic law by a millennia and a half - including the concept of women having rights (something that Hebraic law and Christianity actually worked hard to remove, not implement, from the cultures they overcame - this is particularly true amongst the Native American tribes). Traditional Chinese law predates Leviticus by centuries. This is to say nothing of the reforms and philosophies espoused by the Greeks, Romans, Confucians, Taoists, Buddhists, Jainists... which are all contemporaries to Hebraic Law's finalization and far more enlightened.

Buddhism led the way in the abolition movement - Ashoka and Wang Mang abolishing the slave trade a thousand years before Venice did. Iceland still had a great deal of Norse influence when it abolished slavery.

The way Japan left slavery behind is rather interesting - the general trade was prohibited, eventually leaving only Kenin, or house-slaves, who passed their lowly status on to their children, and this was the only form of slavery permitted eventually.

Of course, we know the descendents of these slaves as Samurai.

The Yung-cheung emancipation occurred a century before the British one did, and a half-century before the British one was even proposed. This of course is nothing compared to the fact th

Not that I'd grandstand too much on who originated what ideals. The hyper-racist form of slavery as we know it is entirely the creation of Christians as a result of the Reconquista. The notion of 'blue blood', white skin being pure and good and dark skin being a sign of moral and intellectual failing, requiring that nobles show their untanned skin to prove that they were not 'tainted'...

As for women's rights, the Mithraic-Pauline branch of Christianity that eventually became the Roman Catholic Church was very keen on stomping out such notions wherever it found them. The Gnostics were first, of course, for being so silly as to believe that a woman could preach - they seemed to find this more offensive than calling the Hebrew god a thing of evil. Gnosticism certainly left its influence on the Christian Church even in this regard, but it was not special.

We don't even need to focus on that, however. Plato's 'Republic' is the earliest work specifically advocating full equality between men and women, save for women being relegated to roles not requiring as much strength. The notion of women being outright inferior is generally relegated to agricultural societies. Native Americans treated their women far better than contemporary Christians on arrival, for example, and this was not a pleasant point for European patriarchs to face.

And when the feminist movement made it into full swing in the United States, Susan B. Anthony spoke up for Ernestine Rose and made it very clear that the fight for women's rights was very much a secular movement, and not tied in any way, shape, or form to any religion whatsoever.

Tamhansen

Quote from: Vekseid on November 02, 2012, 08:38:08 AM
This is false.

Mesopetamian law in general predates Hebraic law by a millennia and a half - including the concept of women having rights (something that Hebraic law and Christianity actually worked hard to remove, not implement, from the cultures they overcame - this is particularly true amongst the Native American tribes). Traditional Chinese law predates Leviticus by centuries. This is to say nothing of the reforms and philosophies espoused by the Greeks, Romans, Confucians, Taoists, Buddhists, Jainists... which are all contemporaries to Hebraic Law's finalization and far more enlightened.

Buddhism led the way in the abolition movement - Ashoka and Wang Mang abolishing the slave trade a thousand years before Venice did. Iceland still had a great deal of Norse influence when it abolished slavery.

We don't even need to focus on that, however. Plato's 'Republic' is the earliest work specifically advocating full equality between men and women, save for women being relegated to roles not requiring as much strength. The notion of women being outright inferior is generally relegated to agricultural societies. Native Americans treated their women far better than contemporary Christians on arrival, for example, and this was not a pleasant point for European patriarchs to face.



also pre christian Celtic and Norse traditions held women in high regard. For example in Norse culture, the house and land often belonged to the woman, and her husband was a guest in her house. Women could divorce men without a proper reason, and were part of political life. That is until Christianity came along.

Even throughout the middle ages the Gaelic cultures were egalitarian, as proven by the Basque in northern Spain which were the only truly Cognastic culture.

ons and offs

They left their home of summer ease
Beneath the lowland's sheltering trees,
To seek, by ways unknown to all,
The promise of the waterfall.

Valerian

Overall, you'd be better off as a woman in ancient, polytheistic Egypt than as a woman in, for instance, Victorian, Christian England.

Ancient Egyptian women could marry whoever they pleased (except for royal women, who had to worry about bloodlines).  Women, married or otherwise, retained legal ownership and control of their property.  Either spouse could initiate a divorce, for any reason, and property divisions were generally even.  Divorced or widowed women usually kept custody of their children.  Women had the right to will their money and property away as they chose.  They could enter into business contracts and make investments.

Women in Victorian England were considered to be in the custody of their fathers, brothers, or other male relatives.  Once they married, they belonged to their husbands.  With a few exceptions in the upper classes, all of a woman's property became her husband's to do with as he pleased the moment they were married, and she had no legal right to protest his decisions.  Technically, he even owned her clothes and other personal items.  Obtaining a divorce was easy for a man, virtually impossible for a woman.  If she did manage it, she would probably be reduced to abject poverty, since she had no legal claim to any assets of the marriage and there were only a few (very low-paying) jobs that women were permitted to have.  A divorced woman almost never had custody of her children, or even visitation rights.  Even a widow was generally expected to let her other male relatives step in as far as the raising of her children, and few widows were allowed to handle their husband's estates themselves.
"To live honorably, to harm no one, to give to each his due."
~ Ulpian, c. 530 CE

Deamonbane

#80
Mesopotamic cultures also included the sacrifice of small children, burning, and eating of the flesh, as well as the sacrifice of virgins to their gods... where few, the very few women that were in the high class were offered equality... Slavery was also a very avid practice among them.

As for the Chinese... well, Let us just say that their concept of slavery is very, very loose, where a person is forced to work for house and board under horrible conditions, with very little rest, and little pay... very similar to how non-slaves were treated in places like Britain, and the USA during the industrial era... just not nice....

Also, ideas of racism are extremely unChristian, and started either way, way before, or came up with the concept of Evolution... The Stronger Race, which was taken to heart by Hitler...

The Nordic culture is one that I agree was very pure in spirit... but that was because they weren't exactly a civilization to begin with, or else you might call each and every tribe in early North America its own civilization... the small tribes were good, but once they grew, like, for example, the Aztecs, then shit just went out the window. Once rulers were implemented in Scandinavia under the Catholic Church, bad stuff began happening.

Also, I would appreciate if you didn't associate Christianity with those that claim profession, but never follow it's teachings... lest athiestys all be judged among their more famous peers, like, say, Hitler, Stalin, the various Communist rulers in modern Africa... There are excesses everywhere, and I am sure that if everyone adopted the 'love thy neighbor' policy, wars would start over just what the term 'neighbor' means... Mankind is by nature very warring, violent, greedy, and selfish, and no matter what system you put in place, there will always be those that find a way to circumvent it, or use it to their own ends... Civilization that claim to follow Biblical teaching should also not be held in very high regard... they are poor, if dominant, examples... however, every other major system, once reaching its peak, began to decline...

Read the Bible,  and you will see all these concepts written here... slavery was allowed in the Hebraic law, but the random taking of slaves was not... only when you owed a man, could you be taken as his servant, and even then, in seven years, you were set free. Not to mention that you were severely punished if you even so much as mistreated your slaves... In the Early Christian days, slave owners that were converted set all of their slaves free, although many of the freed men and women wereknown to remain with their former masters. Women as held as equal to the men in the household, men and women of all races mingling in harmony. Paul went on and on about all this in his writings. There were even female bishops at the time... until it got institutionalized by the Catholic Church, and, once again, grew so far as to get certain men thinking that they should stifle everything.

Of course, the first technical republic was Palestine under the Hebrews, where the whole country was divided into what could be termed as states, and leaders were elected from among the people... Women in this society were also held in very high regard, and the laws were enforced by these called 'judges'... But, as you can see if you read it, excesses happened a lot, as they do everywhere...
Angry Sex: Because it's Impolite to say," You pissed me off so much I wanna fuck your brains out..."

Grakor

First of all, I don't think you get to ask to be proven wrong, and the moment you do by several people, wheel back and essentially say "Well, those guys don't count, because they did these other unrelated bad things." That seems irrelevant to me. However, since you want to bring the Bible into this...

Quote from: Deamonbane on November 02, 2012, 09:56:29 AM
Read the Bible,  and you will see all these concepts written here... slavery was allowed in the Hebraic law, but the random taking of slaves was not... only when you owed a man, could you be taken as his servant, and even then, in seven years, you were set free. Not to mention that you were severely punished if you even so much as mistreated your slaves... In the Early Christian days, slave owners that were converted set all of their slaves free, although many of the freed men and women wereknown to remain with their former masters. Women as held as equal to the men in the household, men and women of all races mingling in harmony. Paul went on and on about all this in his writings. There were even female bishops at the time... until it got institutionalized by the Catholic Church, and, once again, grew so far as to get certain men thinking that they should stifle everything.

Let's first start with slavery, which you're only half-right on. What you're saying is correct...so long as the slaves in question were Hebrew and male. These laws did not apply to non-Hebrew slaves, who could be treated much, much worse. Leviticus 25:44-46 states that slaves purchased from other nations could be kept for life. Exodus 21:20-21 states that it's perfectly fine to beat a slave to death, so long as the death is not immediate and takes a day or two to set in.

For women, Corinthians 14:34-35 essentially states that women should never speak up in church because it'd be shameful for them to do so, and should only speak to their husbands about it after the fact. Keep in mind, this one is in the New Testament.

So, I would recommend that we not bring the Bible into this like it's a shining example of morality on these cases. Because that'll just work against you.

Tamhansen

#82
hmm

Quote from: Deamonbane on November 02, 2012, 09:56:29 AM
Mesopotamic cultures also included the sacrifice of small children, burning, and eating of the flesh, as well as the sacrifice of virgins to their gods... where few, the very few women that were in the high class were offered equality... Slavery was also a very avid practice among them.

Yes, and they were twenty feet tall, had huge wings and ejaculated skittles. Mesopotamic culture is very broad however the laws of Hamurabi and Nebuchadnezar allowed slavery yes, but they also gave their slaves rights. The sacrificing of little children has no evidence outside the bible, which in itself is a work of pure fiction, without a single shred of cultural collaboration. Sacrifice of Virgins, yes this happened, but these were both male and female virgins, so again equality.

Quote from: Deamonbane on November 02, 2012, 09:56:29 AM
As for the Chinese... well, Let us just say that their concept of slavery is very, very loose, where a person is forced to work for house and board under horrible conditions, with very little rest, and little pay... very similar to how non-slaves were treated in places like Britain, and the USA during the industrial era... just not nice....

Yes because this is very different from Christian njations like South Africa, Romania, or say any country in South America were people are forced to work for little to no pay, live in shanties on garbage belts and run the risk of getting shot by the police just for failing to see how good they're being treated. Yes Christianity is definitely the answer there.

Quote from: Deamonbane on November 02, 2012, 09:56:29 AM
Also, ideas of racism are extremely unChristian, and started either way, way before, or came up with the concept of Evolution... The Stronger Race, which was taken to heart by Hitler...

Ah yes, for it was not in fact the catholic church that served the In the bulls Dum diversas (1452) and Romanus Pontifex (1455) declaring natives of the new world to be rightfully taken as slaves as they were not fully human, and had no souls.


Quote from: Deamonbane on November 02, 2012, 09:56:29 AM
The Nordic culture is one that I agree was very pure in spirit... but that was because they weren't exactly a civilization to begin with, or else you might call each and every tribe in early North America its own civilization... the small tribes were good, but once they grew, like, for example, the Aztecs, then shit just went out the window. Once rulers were implemented in Scandinavia under the Catholic Church, bad stuff began happening.

The pre christian norse culture spanned from Russia to Greenland and even into North America. So basically not small tribes, plus you gave your own answer. Once the Christian rulers were installed bad things started to happen. Not that the vikings were saints, but they at least respected their women.


Quote from: Deamonbane on November 02, 2012, 09:56:29 AMAlso, I would appreciate if you didn't associate Christianity with those that claim profession, but never follow it's teachings... lest athiestys all be judged among their more famous peers, like, say, Hitler, Stalin, the various Communist rulers in modern Africa... There are excesses everywhere, and I am sure that if everyone adopted the 'love thy neighbor' policy, wars would start over just what the term 'neighbor' means... Mankind is by nature very warring, violent, greedy, and selfish, and no matter what system you put in place, there will always be those that find a way to circumvent it, or use it to their own ends... Civilization that claim to follow Biblical teaching should also not be held in very high regard... they are poor, if dominant, examples... however, every other major system, once reaching its peak, began to decline...


Hitler was a catholic my friend, not an atheist. In fact he was the founder of a movement called positive Christianity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler. Read Mein Kampf or any of his speech transcripts and see how many times he refers to god and Jesus
Stalin was an atheist because he followed the doctrines of Lenin, yet he also followed many doctrines from the Georgian orthodox church

Quote from: Deamonbane on November 02, 2012, 09:56:29 AM

Read the Bible,  and you will see all these concepts written here... slavery was allowed in the Hebraic law, but the random taking of slaves was not... only when you owed a man, could you be taken as his servant, and even then, in seven years, you were set free. Not to mention that you were severely punished if you even so much as mistreated your slaves... In the Early Christian days, slave owners that were converted set all of their slaves free, although many of the freed men and women wereknown to remain with their former masters. Women as held as equal to the men in the household, men and women of all races mingling in harmony. Paul went on and on about all this in his writings. There were even female bishops at the time... until it got institutionalized by the Catholic Church, and, once again, grew so far as to get certain men thinking that they should stifle everything.

Yes yes, and then there were the good protestant Dutch who ran a intercontinental taxi service for all those african migrant workers going for a better life in the new world. And those very devout Christian ranch owners who employed these young hopeful men and women in their cotton plantations.


Quote from: Deamonbane on November 02, 2012, 09:56:29 AM

Of course, the first technical republic was Palestine under the Hebrews, where the whole country was divided into what could be termed as states, and leaders were elected from among the people... Women in this society were also held in very high regard, and the laws were enforced by these called 'judges'... But, as you can see if you read it, excesses happened a lot, as they do everywhere...

Yes, if by republic you mean Oligarchy, in which only the direct line of the twelve sons of jacob ruled each state. The first 'republic' as you described the construct was actually Ur in mesopotamia. Which was founded around 3800BC which if Hebraic writing is to be believed was 49 years before the earth was created "the Seder Olam Rabbah, claims the earth was created in 3751"
The first relatively democratic governments were the rajani of western India around 600 BC


Quote
As for how you interpret the Bible you can do whatever the fuck you want, so long as you make sure to keep that one commandment... Dislike whatever you want, but treat them with respect, and dignity, and respect their point of views... we are not all made in the same mold, and what might be right for one, may be wrong for the other. Civilization is all about us putting aside those differences, and agreeing to live in peace...

respect is earned, not given. If you allow others to live as they please, I will do the same for you. Problem is, many fundamentalist Christians do not. They try to put their morals on other people. and therefor I treat them in kind. There is no freaking way in hell good christians can be hurt by two gay people marrying. So basically these Christians are not respecting others or their PoV. So why should I respect theirs?

As for the bible quote, the appologists can squirm all they want. Leviticus 18:22 is very very clear, fucking Christians just want to cherry pick. "Our book is the word of god, except the really bigoted and retarted parts, no they've obviously been mistranslated. Bullcrock. Either the book is truth, or it's fiction. Pick a side and stick to it
ons and offs

They left their home of summer ease
Beneath the lowland's sheltering trees,
To seek, by ways unknown to all,
The promise of the waterfall.

Vanity Evolved

Quote from: Deamonbane on November 02, 2012, 09:56:29 AM
Mesopotamic cultures also included the sacrifice of small children, burning, and eating of the flesh, as well as the sacrifice of virgins to their gods... where few, the very few women that were in the high class were offered equality... Slavery was also a very avid practice among them.

Slavery is quite extensively guidelined in both the Old and the New Testament, and the Old Testament has two major instances of human sacrifice being pleasing to God; Job didn't go through with it because 'Lol! J/k, Job, you crazeh', and the other where someone (forget the guy's name) sacrifices his daughter in Gods name. God rewards him by letting him win the battle. This is ignoring the fact that the entirity of the Bible is based on the idea that a human (or demi-god) sacrifice is what saved us all from sin, and is treated as the Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread. You know, the eating of bread 'as if it was flesh' and drinking wine 'as if it was blood' is a popular part of another major faith today... I can't quite put my finger on it...

Quote from: Deamonbane on November 02, 2012, 09:56:29 AM
Also, ideas of racism are extremely unChristian, and started either way, way before, or came up with the concept of Evolution... The Stronger Race, which was taken to heart by Hitler...

Because as we well know, racism didn't exist before Hitler or Darwin. I guess the Roman opinion on the Greeks, or the Spartan view of the Greeks don't count as racism? The treatment of blacks by America, the treatment of blacks and Irish in England, the scripts written by Egyptians on their distaste for 'those whose skin is darkened by the sun'. Damn you, Hitler!

Quote from: Deamonbane on November 02, 2012, 09:56:29 AM

Also, I would appreciate if you didn't associate Christianity with those that claim profession, but never follow it's teachings... lest athiestys all be judged among their more famous peers, like, say, Hitler, Stalin, the various Communist rulers in modern Africa...

This is a personal favourite of mine; keep in mind that Hitler was not, infact, Atheist. He was a rather firm Protestant (if I recall; may have been Catholic) with the backing of the Pope, who was also part of the Hitler Youth. Mao and Stalin may have been Atheist, yet they both developed cultures of worship based around themselves as figures of worship, not to mention that Atheism has no dogma. If you can find a book called 'What Atheists Believe In Total' and point to a quote which advocates that Atheists should be fine with mass murder, I can completely agree with you. Remember, all branches of Christianity derive from a book which teaches the same things - Atheism does not. Lack of belief in a God does not mean you share beliefs with other Atheists (I don't believe in magic, like one of my Atheist friends. I also do not believe reptile aliens came from another planet to infiltrate us and create the world. Remember, Reptilians are Atheists, too.)

Lets also not forget that the Bible also has it's own aryen race. I personally don't know what the distinction entails, but arn't Jews 'God's chosen people'? I assume that title bestows some sort of preference towards them.

Quote from: Deamonbane on November 02, 2012, 09:56:29 AM

Read the Bible,  and you will see all these concepts written here... slavery was allowed in the Hebraic law, but the random taking of slaves was not... only when you owed a man, could you be taken as his servant, and even then, in seven years, you were set free. Not to mention that you were severely punished if you even so much as mistreated your slaves... In the Early Christian days, slave owners that were converted set all of their slaves free, although many of the freed men and women wereknown to remain with their former masters. Women as held as equal to the men in the household, men and women of all races mingling in harmony. Paul went on and on about all this in his writings. There were even female bishops at the time... until it got institutionalized by the Catholic Church, and, once again, grew so far as to get certain men thinking that they should stifle everything.


And in America before abolition, you couldn't take any random old slave. They had to be black, and you had to pay for them. And sometimes, they earnt off their contract, or were set free by their captors after they'd served their usefulness. Doesn't make it right.  Isn't it the Bible that states that you can beat the crap out of your servants just fine, as long as you don't kill them? Why would the Bible be a source of 'Free slaves, this is wrong', when the Bible has multiple references on what practices within slavery pleases God, and how to mark your Jewish slaves? I don't know about the exact situation, but I'm pretty certain that women were not equal to men in the Bible. Isn't that reinforced by the idea that women are the cause of all the suffering in the world, hence labour pains?

Deamonbane

Quote from: Grakor on November 02, 2012, 11:06:29 AM
First of all, I don't think you get to ask to be proven wrong, and the moment you do by several people, wheel back and essentially say "Well, those guys don't count, because they did these other unrelated bad things." That seems irrelevant to me. However, since you want to bring the Bible into this...

Let's first start with slavery, which you're only half-right on. What you're saying is correct...so long as the slaves in question were Hebrew and male. These laws did not apply to non-Hebrew slaves, who could be treated much, much worse. Leviticus 25:44-46 states that slaves purchased from other nations could be kept for life. Exodus 21:20-21 states that it's perfectly fine to beat a slave to death, so long as the death is not immediate and takes a day or two to set in.

For women, Corinthians 14:34-35 essentially states that women should never speak up in church because it'd be shameful for them to do so, and should only speak to their husbands about it after the fact. Keep in mind, this one is in the New Testament.

So, I would recommend that we not bring the Bible into this like it's a shining example of morality on these cases. Because that'll just work against you.
For starters, you are right. I Corinthians does say that, and find myself having to eat my words about Paul, who was a severe fundamentalist. My apologies for that.

Once again, about Leviticus, you are right: Foreign slaves could be kept for life by Hebrews. But I find nothing in that particular Exodus passage that indicates any such thing, as it is Moses telling the people of Israel that he will speak to the Lord for their forgiveness. I will search in the rest of the book, for you wouldn't have used that passage without knowledge.

The Bible, if you would read the rest of it, is claimed to be, by neutral historians, to be unnervingly accurate, both in timelines, and in places. Of course, you won't believe that, because you don't listen to neutral historians.

Hamurabi, and And Nebuchadnezzar were both very big fans of the Hebrew writings, Hamurabi known to have had a copy of the Terah gilded, and which he based his law off of. As for the Biblical inaccuracy, in structures uncovered in Ur, children's skeletons were found inside the newly constructed walls, well preserved. I don't know about you, but to me that paints a pretty gruesome picture. And, even if they were both female in male sacrifices, that is still pretty... just damn...

I am not saying that it doesn't happen that people are forced to work with little pay, and poor conditions. It happens a lot, everywhere. I am just saying that it is not a new concept, and it is worse than slavery. Not better. And those are not Christian nations, even if they say they are.

The Catholic Church was mess up back then. Let's just leave it at that. They were very, very wrong, and I am embarrassed to be in the same religious classification as them.

Yes, they were small tribes, even if similar in culture.

Those said wonderful people broke just about every law that there is in the Bible, even if they went to church, and sang, very very loudly. Once again, I ask you not to lump us all together in the same mold. Those guys were wrong, and, frankly, I, nor any of my ancestors, have anything to do with that. They were evil, and deserve a lot worse than what they got.

Hitler was as much a Catholic as I am. His views, religious, or otherwise, were based solely around Charles Darwin, and his goons, and if he professed one way or another, it was solely political. His actions speak for themselves.

Yeah... And I guess that you would call the United States a free country too? For those times, Palestine had an extremely advanced political structure, in which even their king later on was selected by popular vote. See that happening anywhere else?

And yes, you are right. But once again, I ask you not to classify all 'Christians' under the same banner. Many, many things have been done in the name of a hundred different things, but none of them have earned the right to be called thus. Jesus said," By their fruits ye shall know them." Balance them, make your call, and classify, case by case. If you put everyone together, then you are no better than a racist, sexist, or any other hypocrite. I am a Christian, and I accept that other believe differently than I do. They have their reasons, and they are all excellent. However, I have not lived through what they have, and by my book, what I believe is what is best. You believe what you believe in, and I will respect you for it. Just don't expect me to agree with you.
Angry Sex: Because it's Impolite to say," You pissed me off so much I wanna fuck your brains out..."

Vanity Evolved

Quote from: Deamonbane on November 02, 2012, 06:34:13 AM
Really? Name one that came before Judaism, and before Christianity, please? It is fairly obvious that all the early cultures that involved such things based themselves around the Hebraic law, being that, for that time, it was extremely well put together...

As for the existence of Jesus, we really can't prove it in a way that you people will believe... It is all a matter of faith, as much as it takes to believe the He didn't exist... if I were to tell you to disprove his existence, you would be equally stumped... Disprove the existence of God? Equally useless... all is a matter of faith, my friends, and if you believe one way or another, you have your own reasons for doing so, and who the fuck am I to question them? I would be involved in a fun philosophical debate, but not an argument, as bashing my head against a rock is not very fun, lol...

Also remember the burden of proof, here; if I destroyed your computer, and told you it wasn't me, but my pink unicorn friend (who happens to be invisible and psychic), is it your job to believe me until you can prove my pink unicorn friend doesn't exist? No, it's my job to prove to you it wasn't me who broke your computer so I don't have to pay you for a new one.

Vekseid

Quote from: Deamonbane on November 02, 2012, 09:56:29 AM
Mesopotamic cultures also included the sacrifice of small children,

You are thinking of Carthage and Phoenicia, the accuracy of such accounts are disputed and completely irrelevant - they are contemporaries of Hebraic Law, not its ancestors.

Quote
burning, and eating of the flesh,

I can find no reliable source of such. Like many rival tribes around the world, early Israelites shared many gods with and spread many vicious rumors about their Canaanite neighbors, but this is also completely irrelevant - both cultures vastly postdate their ancestors.

Quote
as well as the sacrifice of virgins to their gods...

Like the Hebrews themselves so readily attest to doing in Numbers 31:40

"And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the Lord'S tribute was thirty and two persons."

Persons specifically being women who did not know man.

This is the only firsthand testimony of virgin sacrifice that I know of from any middle eastern culture. You're welcome to point to more of course.

Quote
where few, the very few women that were in the high class were offered equality...

Which is better than any woman had under Hebraic Law. Menstruation as a sin? That she has to make an animal offering for? Seriously?

Quote
Slavery was also a very avid practice among them.

As it was among the Hebrews, I'm not sure what your point is here.

Quote
As for the Chinese... well, Let us just say that their concept of slavery is very, very loose, where a person is forced to work for house and board under horrible conditions, with very little rest, and little pay... very similar to how non-slaves were treated in places like Britain, and the USA during the industrial era... just not nice....

This happened across many cultures as those in power found ways to avoid taxation, eventually creating their own fiefdoms from themselves as they gained more control of the surrounding land. How serfdom actually ended is an interesting topic in its own right.

Quote
Also, ideas of racism are extremely unChristian,

The definition of Christian is one who believes that Christ is Savior. Hundreds of thousands journeyed to Iberia, fought, bled, and died to reclaim the peninsula in the name of Christ, over the span of seven centuries. That it led to such a racist attitude is horrific, yes. But casually dismissing seven centuries of three modern nations' history and just tossing it off as 'unChristian' feels like willful ignorance at best.

Quote
and started either way, way before, or came up with the concept of Evolution... The Stronger Race, which was taken to heart by Hitler...

If you want to debate evolution, make a new thread with your questions. It is too large a topic for this discussion.

Quote
The Nordic culture is one that I agree was very pure in spirit... but that was because they weren't exactly a civilization to begin with,

You have got to be joking.

The Nordic culture founded
- Sweden
- Denmark
- Iceland
- Norway
- The Keivan Rus (which became Russia)
- York (as in the city from which New York takes its name)
- Norse-Gaelic culture which profoundly influenced Scotland
- The Normans, which in 1066 launched a minor invasion that led to a civilization you might have heard of called the British Empire.

In short, Norse influence directly led to the three most powerful nations this planet has ever seen - and when China and India overtake Russia for certain it's not like you're going to argue for their Christian roots. Claiming that they were not a civilization is directly insulting the cultural legacy of nearly every single member of this forum. Heck, Scandinavians make up the majority of E's non-Anglophone population.

Quote
or else you might call each and every tribe in early North America its own civilization... the small tribes were good, but once they grew, like, for example, the Aztecs, then shit just went out the window. Once rulers were implemented in Scandinavia under the Catholic Church, bad stuff began happening.

The Aztecs were a water empire (much like China). What happened to Native Americans was a lack of metallurgical discipline and, of course, the whole plague business.

Quote
Also, I would appreciate if you didn't associate Christianity with those that claim profession, but never follow it's teachings...

Which teachings? Whose teachings are right?

I have profound respect for the Gnostic movement. Not so much for much else.

Quote
lest athiestys all be judged among their more famous peers, like, say, Hitler, Stalin, the various Communist rulers in modern Africa...

Hitler was not an atheist.

And it'd be fair, if you're going to compare atheist to atheist, we should compare theist to theist, and compare you to Timur - the greatest mass-murderer the world has ever known. One might also point out Ghengis Khan's association with Nestorian Christianity.

The real enemy is of course the concept of ideology itself.

Quote
There are excesses everywhere, and I am sure that if everyone adopted the 'love thy neighbor' policy, wars would start over just what the term 'neighbor' means... Mankind is by nature very warring, violent, greedy, and selfish,

Hardly. Humans are only this way as a whole when they are driven by desperation, fear, or ignorance.

Quote
and no matter what system you put in place, there will always be those that find a way to circumvent it, or use it to their own ends...

Which is why it should be our duty to make sure such people never amass power, and if they do, that it be deprived from them. People such as this are actually quite rare.

Quote
Civilization that claim to follow Biblical teaching should also not be held in very high regard... they are poor, if dominant, examples... however, every other major system, once reaching its peak, began to decline...

That's a tautology.


Quote
Read the Bible,  and you will see all these concepts written here... slavery was allowed in the Hebraic law, but the random taking of slaves was not...

And the sixteen thousand virgin women mentioned in Numbers above? Oh right, they're not people, they're property to be raped.

Quote
only when you owed a man, could you be taken as his servant, and even then, in seven years, you were set free. Not to mention that you were severely punished if you even so much as mistreated your slaves... In the Early Christian days, slave owners that were converted set all of their slaves free, although many of the freed men and women wereknown to remain with their former masters.

This is how indentured servitude often went until the beginning of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the racism that drove it, of course, being itself driven by the Reconquista.

Quote
Women as held as equal to the men in the household,

Not under Pauline doctrine. "Women, be subservient to your husbands."

Quote
men and women of all races mingling in harmony. Paul went on and on about all this in his writings.

Racism as we know it is, again, a concept invented a thousand years later during the Reconquista. Paul didn't go on about it because he had no concept of it as emerged after the Spanish struggle with the Moor.

Quote
There were even female bishops at the time... until it got institutionalized by the Catholic Church, and, once again, grew so far as to get certain men thinking that they should stifle everything.

Find me one confirmed female bishop in ancient Pauline tradition.

The Gnostics did this. But the Gnostics did not preach the same Gospel as you do.

Quote
Of course, the first technical republic was Palestine under the Hebrews, where the whole country was divided into what could be termed as states, and leaders were elected from among the people... Women in this society were also held in very high regard, and the laws were enforced by these called 'judges'... But, as you can see if you read it, excesses happened a lot, as they do everywhere...

If a king holds high authority, it's not a republic, no matter how strongly you wish to claim so. Not that pre-6th century records of the then-polytheistic Hebrews is well-known anyway, this just comes off as revisionism. If they were an actual Republic, why the Hasmonean dynasty when they finally achieved independence?

Vekseid

Quote from: Deamonbane on November 02, 2012, 12:59:12 PM
The Bible, if you would read the rest of it, is claimed to be, by neutral historians, to be unnervingly accurate, both in timelines, and in places. Of course, you won't believe that, because you don't listen to neutral historians.

Perhaps you should listen to your own advice?

Quote
Hamurabi, and And Nebuchadnezzar were both very big fans of the Hebrew writings, Hamurabi known to have had a copy of the Terah gilded, and which he based his law off of.

Hammurabi lived three to four centuries before the Israelites even existed, and nine centuries before they are thought to have begun laying down their law, and a full twelve centuries before it would have resembled anything close to what you read of it.

You badger about us having biased sources and then throw this out?

Quote
As for the Biblical inaccuracy, in structures uncovered in Ur, children's skeletons were found inside the newly constructed walls, well preserved. I don't know about you, but to me that paints a pretty gruesome picture. And, even if they were both female in male sacrifices, that is still pretty... just damn...

Source please. Preferably one that would assume it's a sacrifice rather than a mode of burial.

Quote
Hitler was as much a Catholic as I am. His views, religious, or otherwise, were based solely around Charles Darwin, and his goons, and if he professed one way or another, it was solely political. His actions speak for themselves.

Find me one quote from Hitler which even mentions Darwin by name.

If we're to believe Table Talk...

Quote from: Hitler
Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been what he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They've occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey — assuming that this transformation really took place.

...I know a few Christians who have made similar arguments.

Again, if you want to debate evolution itself, please take it to a new thread.

Vanity Evolved

Also, please remember that evolution has nothing to do with Atheism. Darwin is not some prophet to Atheists and evolution proves only one thing; evolution. If tomorrow, evolution was overturned completely? This does not influence my lack of belief in a divine entity. It simply influences my the evidence behind evolution. I can't speak for them, but from what I know of the Reptilians, they're an entire Atheist group who believe the exact same thing as Christians; the entire world was made by a superior being who intelligently designed the world without evolution. Evolution =/= Atheism.

Grakor

Quote from: Deamonbane on November 02, 2012, 12:59:12 PM
But I find nothing in that particular Exodus passage that indicates any such thing, as it is Moses telling the people of Israel that he will speak to the Lord for their forgiveness. I will search in the rest of the book, for you wouldn't have used that passage without knowledge.

I'll print out the Biblical text as it reads in the Bible I happen to have on hand. It's a New King James Version, granted, but Exodus 21 in general is mostly a collection of laws and guidelines written down after the Ten Commandments were given. The passage I'm referring to:

QuoteExodus 21:20-21 - "And if a man beats his servant or his maidservant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. / "Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his property.

In other words: if you kill the slave outright, it's a crime. If he survives and bleeds out over the course of the next day or two, then it's not. That's a whacky moral lesson, right there.

QuoteThe Bible, if you would read the rest of it, is claimed to be, by neutral historians, to be unnervingly accurate, both in timelines, and in places. Of course, you won't believe that, because you don't listen to neutral historians.

I find it insulting that you choose to presume I am some form of dogmatic atheist. I can assure you that is not the case. I grew up in a very Christian household. My decision to break away from Christianity was not done lightly, and it was done with research on the history of the religion, an examination of the Bible and its text, and a reflection on both of those with the discoveries of the scientific and historical communities. In the end, I found more evidence against Christianity than I did for.

I suggest taking your own advice and objectively examine both sides of the issue, because I can assure you that there are a number of neutral historians that find many flaws with the Biblical accounts of events. The one I recall most are contradictions to the accounts of the Battle of Jericho. There's more, and there are more Bible passages that I can quote and point out that really make the entire book suspect, but that would require its own thread due to the sheer amount of material involved.

Tamhansen

Quote
The Bible, if you would read the rest of it, is claimed to be, by neutral historians, to be unnervingly accurate, both in timelines, and in places. Of course, you won't believe that, because you don't listen to neutral historians.

First of all there's no such thing as a neutral historian. Second yes the bible is pretty accurate, it was written in that time. However:

1) The bible Claims adam and eve were the first people They begat Cain and Abel, and so on and so on. By Christian and Jew scholars own calculations the world was created 3751 BC. Well that has been sufficiently debunked

2) Exodus speaks of a great amount of Jewish slaves building a city for Rameses II. Neither that city, nor any signs of a massive jewish slave population have ever been found in Egypt or in any contemporary texts outside the bible

3) The first umpty books of the bible were written by captive jews in Babylon the Pentateuch at least. This could explain why many of those first books contain stories also found in older works. e.g. Noah's ark and the |Gilgamesh Epoch
ons and offs

They left their home of summer ease
Beneath the lowland's sheltering trees,
To seek, by ways unknown to all,
The promise of the waterfall.

Ironwolf85

*raises hand in the back*

All these bible quotes do depend greatly on translation, and edition, as the King James Verson that appears in many protistant churches has a number of diffrences from the Cathloic Bible, published in french.
oh and the book just says Rameses, never Rameses II, Rameses II is the most well known of egypt's rulers, and thus prior to modern archology, the only Rameses most people knew, he and cleopatra were the only egyptian rulers people could mention by name till Tut was dug up.

Also on the eveloution thing, I adressed this in another post on the athiesim thread, the arguement isn't so much about facts and theories anymore, most people under 30 accept eveloution as fact. The battle has become more of a cross between media sensationisim, and people battling not so much over the facts, but the feelings of it.
this is relevent to the topic because it illustrates a point.

These days we have High and Mighty people on both sides leading the charge. The victorian slang for them was "Goodwives" (basicly the kind of people who tried to get D&D banned.)

The Views: (I intentionally argued both sides to some of the older adults in my hometown, who were veteran's of these E.VS.C. fights, I did a collage paper on this)
To the "creationist" side evolution is an insult to mankind, because to them it places him as a "dirty monkey child" instead of "inheritor of the earth" if you talk to one, you can hear the distain in their voice and arguments. Trying to force them to accept it only meets with distain and fustration because you are not talking about theory, you are talking about a worldview, one I share on a number of points.
Often times if you can find a way to help them reconsile the concept of evolution without removing man's importance in existance from the equasion, they will willingly embrace it.

Oftentimes their opponents advocating evolution, as scientificly sound as their arguments are, remain ignorant that the argument comes not from the text of the bible, but their faith in mankind which they feel is under assault, and in absense of evidence they rely on holy scripture. But the courts are based on law and facts, and therefore the evolutionists have the upper hand because have facts to back themselves up. Throwing scripture and slogans at an american judge just isn't as effective as cold hard facts.'

But their worldview and faith in humanity is never proven, disproven, or reconsiled, leaving the creationists soured on the experience, and bitter towards the courts and schools.
It is here that religion enters politics, they cling all the harder to their scrpture as a shield against a world they feel alienates them, combine that with their zeal. A politican can appeal to that and sway the demographics in his favor, this is is just one way religion can and does leak into the political system.

I believe the alienation is getting worse, this fundamental method of adressing the facts, and not reconsiling the feelings, faiths, and worldviews, is why the religious right has grown more and more vocal, and powerful within the republican party.
Prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, love...
debate any other aspect of my faith these are the heavenly virtues. this flawed mortal is going to try to adhere to them.

Culture: the ability to carve an intricate and beautiful bowl from the skull of a fallen enemy.
Civilization: the ability to put that psycho in prision for killing people.

Vanity Evolved

Quote from: Ironwolf85 on November 02, 2012, 03:18:21 PM

Also on the eveloution thing, I adressed this in another post on the athiesim thread, the arguement isn't so much about facts and theories anymore, most people under 30 accept eveloution as fact. The battle has become more of a cross between media sensationisim, and people battling not so much over the facts, but the feelings of it.
this is relevent to the topic because it illustrates a point.

These days we have High and Mighty people on both sides leading the charge. The victorian slang for them was "Goodwives" (basicly the kind of people who tried to get D&D banned.)

The Views: (I intentionally argued both sides to some of the older adults in my hometown, who were veteran's of these E.VS.C. fights, I did a collage paper on this)
To the "creationist" side evolution is an insult to mankind, because to them it places him as a "dirty monkey child" instead of "inheritor of the earth" if you talk to one, you can hear the distain in their voice and arguments. Trying to force them to accept it only meets with distain and fustration because you are not talking about theory, you are talking about a worldview, one I share on a number of points.
Often times if you can find a way to help them reconsile the concept of evolution without removing man's importance in existance from the equasion, they will willingly embrace it.

Oftentimes their opponents advocating evolution, as scientificly sound as their arguments are, remain ignorant that the argument comes not from the text of the bible, but their faith in mankind which they feel is under assault, and in absense of evidence they rely on holy scripture. But the courts are based on law and facts, and therefore the evolutionists have the upper hand because have facts to back themselves up. Throwing scripture and slogans at an american judge just isn't as effective as cold hard facts.'

But their worldview and faith in humanity is never proven, disproven, or reconsiled, leaving the creationists soured on the experience, and bitter towards the courts and schools.
It is here that religion enters politics, they cling all the harder to their scrpture as a shield against a world they feel alienates them, combine that with their zeal. A politican can appeal to that and sway the demographics in his favor, this is is just one way religion can and does leak into the political system.

My point isn't whether someone accepts or denies evolution, regardless of it's scientific backing. My point is, a lot of Apologist or fundamentalist Christians will attack evolution, and bring the topic of evolution into any conversation they can against Atheists. The point is, accepting evolution doesn't make you an Atheist. Conversely, being Atheist doesn't mean you accept evolution. For some reason, a lot of people who want to back up their theism feel the best way to do this is to attack evolution, as if it's some Holy Scripture of Darwin that Atheists pray to, or something. If evolution was proven wrong, nothing changes on the front of theism or Atheism. Someone gets a Noble Peace Prize, a metric gold horde of funding and science drives on.

As for the courts? If someone believes that their religious beliefs or a voice in their head should have as much impact in reality as tangable things like evidence, or money? Well... They're bound for a life of disappointment.

Stattick

So, um...

What does this conversation have to do with religion belonging in politics?
O/O   A/A

Vanity Evolved

It has strayed a tad. xD I apologize~

Stattick

Quote from: Vanity Evolved on November 02, 2012, 03:45:42 PM
It has strayed a tad. xD I apologize~

I understand. Deamonbane is saying a lot of crazy things that are directly contradicted by neutral historians. It's hard to ignore. But the tangent doesn't have anything to do with the topic of the thread. I understand that a thread's topic can drift, and it's sort of natural to do so, but this is kind of ridiculous. We're arguing history with someone that's almost certainly a Biblical Literalist, and is probably a Young Earth Creationist, based on his dogmatic responses. He's already stated that this is a "matter of faith" for him. We can't reason him out of something he didn't reason himself into. Not that I can understand why someone like him would be on a "sinful" site like E. Nevertheless, I can see this new topic being spun out into a new thread if people really want to argue that badly, but I'm not sure that continuing the argument in this thread is best. This argument is a distraction, akin to Old School Gamer's popping into politics threads to argue conspiracy theories. But that's just my opinion.
O/O   A/A

Deamonbane

Quote from: Stattick on November 02, 2012, 04:01:52 PM
I understand. Deamonbane is saying a lot of crazy things that are directly contradicted by neutral historians. It's hard to ignore. But the tangent doesn't have anything to do with the topic of the thread. I understand that a thread's topic can drift, and it's sort of natural to do so, but this is kind of ridiculous. We're arguing history with someone that's almost certainly a Biblical Literalist, and is probably a Young Earth Creationist, based on his dogmatic responses. He's already stated that this is a "matter of faith" for him. We can't reason him out of something he didn't reason himself into. Not that I can understand why someone like him would be on a "sinful" site like E. Nevertheless, I can see this new topic being spun out into a new thread if people really want to argue that badly, but I'm not sure that continuing the argument in this thread is best. This argument is a distraction, akin to Old School Gamer's popping into politics threads to argue conspiracy theories. But that's just my opinion.
First off, E isn't a sinful site... It is fun, and enjoyable... I am most certainly not a Biblical Literalist, nor a Young Earth Creationist, and I am not a very good debater, as I have so avidly demonstrated... and I tend to spout, or in this case, type off before thinking straight, or even getting my facts straight. I can be reasoned with, and I was not being objective when I typed out my posts, and I beg your forgiveness. I don't know if I was the one that steered this thread away from its original topic, being that, once again, I wasn't thinking clearly(not an excuse, just an explanation)...

I have cooled off a bit now, and I realized what I fool I made myself, and I ask you not to see me like this permanently... I am not usually this emotional, or this stupid... I guess I should avoid this forum from now on, before I go off half-cocked again, before I let my less-then-reasonable beliefs go ahead, and make me spout off again...

Once again, I apologize, and do not blame you in the least for seeing me as an idiot, and a loud mouthed, unknowledgeable dumb-ass... I am that sometimes, as this was not the first time this has happened. You would think I would learn from my mistakes, but, I don't apparently... I have been properly put in my place(again), and will not do so again, if I can help it...
Angry Sex: Because it's Impolite to say," You pissed me off so much I wanna fuck your brains out..."

Vekseid

Those rare moments when we are able to reflect and grow are a major part of this board's purpose.

Pumpkin Seeds

I think most of us agree that religion on its own is not a positive influence on anyone’s political decision making no more than someone’s cultural, family background or history are.  Governing people requires an objective mindset to look for the greater good above personal gain and personal morality.  What applies for all is not always what applies for one.  Religion will never be removed from politics because politics is a human affair and humans are shaped by their past experiences and upbringing. 

Much of what I see though is not so much religion as manipulation, twisting someone’s belief and faith into a weapon to be used.  A shaming of the faithful into towing the party line which I find reprehensible.  I can think for myself.  If I have my free will from God, then he can watch me use that gift.

Vanity Evolved

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on November 02, 2012, 05:56:38 PM
I think most of us agree that religion on its own is not a positive influence on anyone’s political decision making no more than someone’s cultural, family background or history are.  Governing people requires an objective mindset to look for the greater good above personal gain and personal morality.  What applies for all is not always what applies for one.  Religion will never be removed from politics because politics is a human affair and humans are shaped by their past experiences and upbringing. 

Much of what I see though is not so much religion as manipulation, twisting someone’s belief and faith into a weapon to be used.  A shaming of the faithful into towing the party line which I find reprehensible.  I can think for myself.  If I have my free will from God, then he can watch me use that gift.


The problem with religion, moreso than most mindsets, is it's a very strong thing. It's also very personal. Once you combine that with political power, and the ability to make changes to the public, you can see it doesn't shape up to something good.

Suddenly, you have people who believe (due to their religious beliefs) that homosexuality is a sin, and that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. That abortion is murder, and 'thou shalt not kill', therefore, that's illegal. The Bible Belt is a perfect example of this, where Intelligent Design was underhandedly sneaked in as 'science' within Texas schools, where Christian Creationism is being taught as literal truth to not just the faithful, but to children not of the faith, of other faiths or of no faith. Would you stand for your country or state teaching your children Adam and Eve as Biology?

You're right that there's always going to be a bias. But a secular political system, to me, is a far better system than allowing any form of religion, Christian-Judeo or otherwise, into having a heavy governing opinon on what laws and such should be within any country. However, there -is- proof that this isn't always true (look at the extremes the French government went to, where 'secular' became something more akin to verging on anti-theistic)

Stattick

Quote from: Deamonbane on November 02, 2012, 04:30:05 PM
First off, E isn't a sinful site... It is fun, and enjoyable... I am most certainly not a Biblical Literalist, nor a Young Earth Creationist, and I am not a very good debater, as I have so avidly demonstrated... and I tend to spout, or in this case, type off before thinking straight, or even getting my facts straight. I can be reasoned with, and I was not being objective when I typed out my posts, and I beg your forgiveness. I don't know if I was the one that steered this thread away from its original topic, being that, once again, I wasn't thinking clearly(not an excuse, just an explanation)...

I have cooled off a bit now, and I realized what I fool I made myself, and I ask you not to see me like this permanently... I am not usually this emotional, or this stupid... I guess I should avoid this forum from now on, before I go off half-cocked again, before I let my less-then-reasonable beliefs go ahead, and make me spout off again...

Once again, I apologize, and do not blame you in the least for seeing me as an idiot, and a loud mouthed, unknowledgeable dumb-ass... I am that sometimes, as this was not the first time this has happened. You would think I would learn from my mistakes, but, I don't apparently... I have been properly put in my place(again), and will not do so again, if I can help it...

I'm sorry. I misjudged you. I took the evidence, your arguments, and built a story around them that seemed correct to me, but apparently was not.

I accept your apology, and hope that you accept mine. Sometimes, I'm too quick to judge. And sometimes I misjudge, as I did today. Other than that, I understand that religion and faith are very emotional things to people. When I, or someone else, say unflattering things about someone's religion, it's hard not to take it personally. It's hard not to assume that we're talking about you rather than your beliefs. I used to be a very religious person, a fundamentalist Southern Baptist. I understand the reaction to blast back at someone that's questioning your religion.

Don't worry. I don't think you're an idiot. Not a single one of us are knowledgeable about everything. Worse yet, many of us think we're knowledgeable about things, when in fact we know very little about the subject. I've fallen victim to thinking I really knew my stuff about some subject, only to be blasted away by multiple posters who all had a much deeper and more recent education about the same subject. It can happen to anyone.

But it takes a big person to not only swallow their pride and realize that they don't know the subject they thought they knew, but to admit it. It's not something you see often, especially on the internet. So, you have my admiration for being able to admit when you're wrong. You have my respect for being open minded enough to listen to what others have to say, and to accept that it might be you that's wrong.

Again, I apologize for mischaracterizing you.
O/O   A/A

Tamhansen

Ok, here is the thing. And I'm probably going to get scolded for this, but basically I don't really care.

Bane did not cause insult with the things he said or the words he used. Yes he made statements which were debunked and he used some emotional words, but these were not used to cause insult. Those who were insulted by his words took it upon themselves to be insulted. This is a problem I see on both sides of the field, although in my personal experience, religious folk tend to take offense quite easily (certain religious folk I mean)

I mean just look at an example that is put before this thread: Marriage equality. Is there a Christian, Muslim, Jew or any other religious person who can give me one single objective argument on how they would be hurt by Gay marriage? Anyone?  No because it doesn't affect your life, unless you are the gay couple wishing to marry. Those people opposing gay marriage are not hurt or offended by gays marrying, they choose to be offended. They take it upon themselves to be offended.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is this: If we can all just stop trying to look for offense in other people's words and actions, and especially in words or actions that do not affect us in any way, we'd all be a lot happier.And people would be a lot less afraid to speak their mind, or live their lives
ons and offs

They left their home of summer ease
Beneath the lowland's sheltering trees,
To seek, by ways unknown to all,
The promise of the waterfall.

Stattick

Quote from: Katataban on November 03, 2012, 05:09:50 AM
Ok, here is the thing. And I'm probably going to get scolded for this, but basically I don't really care.

Bane did not cause insult with the things he said or the words he used.

I'm sorry. It's probably a stupid thing on my part, but I do get offended when people say things that are patently untrue, and contort facts in bizarre ways. It's probably because I hold truth (and by extension, knowledge) to be of the highest order of importance. I'd rather gravely insult my best friend then to let him get away with believing or saying something that's profoundly false.

Having said that, I believe that the disagreement between he and I is ended, and I for one don't have any hard feelings. I thought uncharitable things about him, and unjustly, so don't take that to mean that I think that my behavior was beyond reproach.

But no, I wasn't trying to look for offense. I almost never do that, especially on the internet. But when people start making claims that are wildly divergent from the truth as if they have THE TRUTH, and the rest of us don't know what we're talking about, yes, I do get offended. But it isn't me looking for offense. It's a knee jerk reaction down in the deepest part of me.
O/O   A/A

Vekseid

I started out thinking Katataban's post was a sidetrack but it really isn't. It is the core of why religion should not be involved in politics.




Pretend for a moment that the Canaanites and their descendent cultures (the Phoenicians and the Carthegians) survived to the modern day in some form.

And you have one group of people claiming that they committed child sacrifice, cannibalism, and other horrific acts. There's no actual evidence of this - just rumors spread by their enemies of the time. And this can be about any culture or belief system, but it's most relevant here because calling the Canaanites tainted is an actual part of the Bible. Are they supposed to be comforted because 'those are just my religious views'?

Things like calling the Norse 'not a civilization' or my own ancestral beliefs (Romuva) not even worth mentioning? I want to know what my great*30 grandfather believed. No one bothered writing much of it down. It wasn't worth their time.

But people feel free to make statements about these and other matters, because "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

This of course is not unique to religion. I've seen atheists do the same, environmentalists do the same, communists do the same, objectivists do the same, etc.

Had someone come in, admit that they didn't know jack about how computers work, and try to tell me that computers were not capable of something that is actually rather trivial for them. Am I supposed to be nothing more than a robot, and not feel the slightest bit hurt when someone tells me that half my life's study doesn't mean shit compared to their half-baked intuition? Did it hurt much? No. Of course not. It was trivial to refute. But it's hard to avoid a sense of "Why am I even needing to have this discussion?" And when they refuse to listen, or consider evidence, and start making accusations that we are like Hitler or Stalin...

I'm not supposed to feel insulted. Right.

Any ideology presents this issue. It is frequently tied to anti-intellectualism. It's never 'right', at least not in the sense of soundness. Not every mass-murderer promoted one religion, another, or none, but every mass-murderer promoted an ideology.

And this presents the core problem of religion infesting politics - any political interference based on religious grounds is by definition the imposition of an ideology.

Tamhansen

Quote from: Vekseid on November 03, 2012, 06:04:48 AM
I started out thinking Katataban's post was a sidetrack but it really isn't. It is the core of why religion should not be involved in politics.

Thanks i did my best to stay on topic.

Quote from: Vekseid on November 03, 2012, 06:04:48 AM
Any ideology presents this issue. It is frequently tied to anti-intellectualism. It's never 'right', at least not in the sense of soundness. Not every mass-murderer promoted one religion, another, or none, but every mass-murderer promoted an ideology.

And this presents the core problem of religion infesting politics - any political interference based on religious grounds is by definition the imposition of an ideology.

My point is not that people shouldn't be educated, rather that going on the offensive, because you feel insulted by comments made out of ignorance will not contribute to this education. Personally, being an Atheist with a 'pagan' background. (I was raised in the celtic traditions) I have had to suffer derogatory comments my entire life. I had to sit through the most ignorant remarks about my beliefs my entire life. But I soon realised it doesn't affect me.

Point in fact. Suppose some idiot does come into your workplace and tells you computers can't do stuff you know theyu can. Does that impede you in any real sense? Does it make your acomplishments any less real, any less impressive?  No it doesn't your life will go on, just as if it had without this idiot coming by.

Now the problem comes when either you take offense by this idiot, and go on the offensive trying to burn him down, or the idiot seeing your acomplishments and feels threatened in his beliefs and goes on a rampage trying to burn you down.

And that is the problem with Ideology, be it religious or a-religious. The need for people to prove themselves or their beliefs right.

A true teacher does not try to convince by force of argument or force of arms, he simply points out the evidence and explains, so that others can learn for themselves.
ons and offs

They left their home of summer ease
Beneath the lowland's sheltering trees,
To seek, by ways unknown to all,
The promise of the waterfall.

Oniya

Also, not taking offense doesn't mean that you have to ignore the person.  In the case of the computer-idiot, instead of calling them an idiot, you can pull up a bit of code, have the computer execute it, and sit back.  More of a 'see, isn't this cool?' moment than a 'what rock have you been hiding under?' approach.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Pumpkin Seeds

Yes, but following that train of thought would mean that a politician should aspire to power without any ideology.  That seems a practical impossibility.

Oniya

I'm not sure exactly how that follows?  You can have an ideology without it being the be-all and end-all of your existence - or of your arguments.

The trick is remembering that those on the other side(s) love their children too (to paraphrase Sting).
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Pumpkin Seeds

“Any ideology presents this issue. It is frequently tied to anti-intellectualism. It's never 'right', at least not in the sense of soundness. Not every mass-murderer promoted one religion, another, or none, but every mass-murderer promoted an ideology.

And this presents the core problem of religion infesting politics - any political interference based on religious grounds is by definition the imposition of an ideology.”

If the core problem of religion being part of politics is the imposition of an ideology, then the solution seems to be a lack of ideology.  This seems to be a problem of ideology then over religion. 

Oniya

I'd think that the solution would be to not impose your ideology.  It's fine to have one.  It's when you try to force it on others that everything goes whack.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Pumpkin Seeds

Isn't the point of politics to guide people in a way that you believe correct?  The person with their hand on the steering wheel should have an idea of where they are going afterall.

Vanity Evolved

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on November 03, 2012, 06:18:56 PM
Isn't the point of politics to guide people in a way that you believe correct?  The person with their hand on the steering wheel should have an idea of where they are going afterall.

You're supposed to be guiding people towards something which benefits everyone - what sort of benefit is there is stopping homosexuals from being married because you think it's a sin? What benefit is there in you forcing young children to learn Bible stories as science and jeoperdize their future because you believe the Earth was made in six days?

To give a more extreme and far more unlikely example, what if your belief was that kosher meats were evil and you enforced a law against that? People tend to not look at things on the flip side; as a Christian or whatever dominant religion is in your country, if suddenly, your ability to learn about your religion was forbade? If, say, another major religion came into power such as Islam, and enforced mandatory worship to Allah across it's entirity, as Christianity once had in it's schools?

I remember quite a few tales of culture shock from Christians in the Middle East attending festivals, and feeling hugely alienated once their beliefs were in the minority and another religion was imposing their customs on people who were used to being in a country where their beliefs were the dominant ideology.

It's not your place to put what you believe is right for everyone onto everyone - you've got to do what is right for everyone. Abstinence only programs are horribly harmful and religiously motivated, causing large amounts of ignorance and pregnency rate increases amounts teenagers, backed by the government. Just because you believe it's right, doesn't mean it is; if the facts say it's not helping, it's your job to fix it, regardless of what you believe. What your believe does not equal reality.

Pumpkin Seeds

Don’t you think that what the person thinks is right, is what he would think is right for everyone?  The politician presented his platform to a constituency and was then elected by those people on the values presented and the policies put forth.  The people elected that person on the belief that he would carry out what was proposed and would work toward the goals he set forth while running for office.  Should the goals be religious ones or coincide with the public’s religious belief, then does the politician not have an obligation to represent the views and wishes of his constituents?

To pass laws in opposition to public opinion and want would be imposing that person’s ideology on a resistant population. 

Vanity Evolved

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on November 04, 2012, 08:31:23 AM
Don’t you think that what the person thinks is right, is what he would think is right for everyone?  The politician presented his platform to a constituency and was then elected by those people on the values presented and the policies put forth.  The people elected that person on the belief that he would carry out what was proposed and would work toward the goals he set forth while running for office.  Should the goals be religious ones or coincide with the public’s religious belief, then does the politician not have an obligation to represent the views and wishes of his constituents?

To pass laws in opposition to public opinion and want would be imposing that person’s ideology on a resistant population. 


He may think it. Doesn't mean it -is- right. Someone may think that banning gay marriage, because 'gay couples are unnatural' is the right thing because the Bible tells him so, but does this benefit the ten to twenty percent of homosexual couples in the world? Does this benefit the remaning eighty percent of hetrosexual couples in any way? What about when the proof is given to him that homosexuality is not, infact, 'unnatural' and just as natural as hetrosexuality? He either had the option to do what is -right- (and put his bias aside) or he can be dishonest and enforce -his- belief on the people (I don't care what the evidence says, I've decided/the Bible told me that homosexuality is a sin, therefore, no marriage for you)

The latter implies that it's possible to not only represent an entire religion, but an entire religion and group of people in which beliefs -within- the religion are the same. You have a fourty percent Christian population, say. Twenty percent of them believe gay marriage is wrong, and they're Class A Christians. The other twenty are Class B Christians. Their doctrine teaches that homosexuality is fine. However, ten percent of those Class B Christians also believe homosexuality is wrong.

What do you do here? Do you ignore the seventy percent of people who want gay marriage, just to apply your laws and 'fixes' to the country on the thirty percent of people who don't believe it's right? Do you force out the religious people who don't believe it's right, to change the law in the favour of the majority who supports gay marriage? What about your reasoning for banning gay marriage, or adoption? Do you think it's right that someone in power could say 'Well, I don't care what subjective evidence presents, my book says homosexuality is wrong, therefore, it's in your best interest homosexuals, hetrosexuals and religious people alike?'

The idea that someones religious beliefs are the correct thing for an entire country is baffling to me. In a country of over sixty percent Christians in America, that is split up between hundreds of different groups of Christianity, and even people within the same -branch- of Christianity don't agree with each other on the same topics. The idea of a theocracy and state religion with decisions based on that religion only works if you've got an entire country which not only follows the same religion, but the exact same portions of that religion entirity.

Pumpkin Seeds

 Well, for one Vanity you are speaking in absolutes as if there is a clear cut, correct decision that is simply being ignored in favor of a religious one.  As if to say, this is right and that is wrong but religion is forcing people to make the wrong decision.  Rarely are decisions so cut and dry.  The decision is easy in your mind because of the way you think, your ideology and your beliefs.  Someone that does not believe that way would feel quite differently.  For instance, not all homosexuals want gay marriage.  There is a minority among the gay community that do not believe seeking marriage is right for the community and do not believe they benefit from having marriage.  So there is certainly not a simple right and wrong answer at this point.

Also, the number of 70% is a bit large at this point and not truly reflecting of this debate.  There are few things that 70% of an entire country can get behind which is not law.  I don’t even think support of marijuana is at that level.  The latest Gallup poll that I have seen puts the country split pretty evenly in regard to the issue.  As a side note, the main predicator for someone being for or against gay marriage is age not religious affiliation.

In any democracy type setting, a group of people are not going to get what they want.  Sometimes that group is the minority; often times that group is the minority.  By the ideals of democracy that is how things are supposed to be where everyone puts in their opinion and the majority of what the people want, happens.  So someone is going to “lose out” on the decision no matter what that choice might be.  Such is the difficulty of politics and the fine line that must be walked by political figures when the choices are so gray instead of black/white.

Vanity Evolved

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on November 04, 2012, 01:57:36 PM
Well, for one Vanity you are speaking in absolutes as if there is a clear cut, correct decision that is simply being ignored in favor of a religious one.  As if to say, this is right and that is wrong but religion is forcing people to make the wrong decision.  Rarely are decisions so cut and dry.  The decision is easy in your mind because of the way you think, your ideology and your beliefs.  Someone that does not believe that way would feel quite differently.  For instance, not all homosexuals want gay marriage.  There is a minority among the gay community that do not believe seeking marriage is right for the community and do not believe they benefit from having marriage.  So there is certainly not a simple right and wrong answer at this point.

Also, the number of 70% is a bit large at this point and not truly reflecting of this debate.  There are few things that 70% of an entire country can get behind which is not law.  I don’t even think support of marijuana is at that level.  The latest Gallup poll that I have seen puts the country split pretty evenly in regard to the issue.  As a side note, the main predicator for someone being for or against gay marriage is age not religious affiliation.

In any democracy type setting, a group of people are not going to get what they want.  Sometimes that group is the minority; often times that group is the minority.  By the ideals of democracy that is how things are supposed to be where everyone puts in their opinion and the majority of what the people want, happens.  So someone is going to “lose out” on the decision no matter what that choice might be.  Such is the difficulty of politics and the fine line that must be walked by political figures when the choices are so gray instead of black/white.

Yeah, I do tend to make it sound rather sweeping; I don't intend to. I'm not trying to imply that religion is the only driving force which causes people to work this way, it just simply tends to be a very powerful and common driving force behind some of the more out there ideas which groups like to try and force on people - the anti-homosexual and anti-atheist set ups within America's Boy Scouts, Absteinence Only programs, etc.

In response to that: So what? If a homosexual doesn't believe marriage is for them, the correct answer isn't 'stop every other homosexual in the world having the right to marry'. It's 'don't get married'. Gay marriage happens to be a very good example of a ruling which proves why secular ruling is superior, in these instances. Homosexuals being given the right to marry does no harm to anybody. It doesn't affect heterosexual people, as it doesn't influence their rights or marriages. If homosexuals don't want to get married, it doesn't affect them, because they don't want to get married anyway. It does affect the homosexual population who does want married very positively. So, what secular reasoning is there that homosexual marriage is a bad thing which isn't in the public interest? The few arguements I've seen against it are exclusively theological or simply make no sense/are actively offensive.

The only reasons to be against gay marriage is your personal ideas; there is no secular reason to stop gay marriage, as pointed out. Only homophobic or theological arguements. If 'I don't like gay marriage, therefore is shouldn't be legal' is right, then what about all the people who opposesed inter-racial marriage? Is it their right to prevent two people of another race marrying? Apparently not, as that is legal now, and for good reason.

The numbers are large, but they're simply an example for the purposes of the analogy. In the case of a religious disagreement to gay marriage and a homosexual's right to marriage, in my mind, there is a very clear cut answer: You either allow the religious to impose their books law on the minority, forcing their personal religious beliefs as fact onto a populace which doesn't believe or, more reasonably, homosexuals are granted their full right, as I believe they have, to become husband and husband/wife and wife while allowing the religious groups to exercise their power as seperate entities from the government to, for example, not allow gay marriage ceremonies in their church. Both people get to exercise their wants.

Tamhansen

The whole "religious" argument against gay marriage is bullcrap anyway. If god exists as is told in the bible, then he is the one to judge, not humans. The bible gives you a set of rules and says, we want you to live by these laws, and if you do you'll go to heaven. Nowhere in the bible does it say you get extra credit for forcing others to live by those rules. You are to preach the word of god to try and save them, but those who will not heed are to be judged by god, not by men.

Basically it is not religion that is the problem here, it's arrogance. Man thinking they can decide for god. Arrogance is pride, and pride is one of the seven Cardinal sins (and a very yummy magnum flavour) and god will strike you down for that sin. The only reason he hasn't done so already, well the same reason Santa didn't put a lump of coal in your stocking.
ons and offs

They left their home of summer ease
Beneath the lowland's sheltering trees,
To seek, by ways unknown to all,
The promise of the waterfall.

Pumpkin Seeds

The point of the back and forth here is not gay marriage, but rather a look into the exact nature of politics in terms of ideology.  From what has been said, imposing an ideology on people is bad.  Yet from what I can gather here, people want their own ideology forced on people that are resistant.  The excuse being that their ideology is better for everyone.  That reason of course being the same reason a politician would push their ideas onto a populace in the first place.

Vanity would have people of a religious bent forced to accept gay marriage because he does not believe their religious opinion or wants is valid.  That would be his ideology that he is attempting to force on other people for the “greater good.”  So is imposing an ideology only bad if you, personally, don’t agree what it?

Tamhansen

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on November 05, 2012, 05:43:49 AM
The point of the back and forth here is not gay marriage, but rather a look into the exact nature of politics in terms of ideology.  From what has been said, imposing an ideology on people is bad.  Yet from what I can gather here, people want their own ideology forced on people that are resistant.  The excuse being that their ideology is better for everyone.  That reason of course being the same reason a politician would push their ideas onto a populace in the first place.

Vanity would have people of a religious bent forced to accept gay marriage because he does not believe their religious opinion or wants is valid.  That would be his ideology that he is attempting to force on other people for the “greater good.”  So is imposing an ideology only bad if you, personally, don’t agree what it?


Although I agree with the gist of what you are saying, you are using false logic. Accepting the possiblity of gay marriage is not pushing his ideology on you. He does not force you to conform. He does not force you to marry someone of the same sex. He just wants to give everyone the same options regardless of ideology.

In an ideology free society everyone would be free to choose their own path straight people can marry the opposite sex, gay people can marry the same sex, and those inclined to do so can marry their toaster. Point is, that no one gets hurt by this. Politicians should only assure that people are free to live their lives without being harmed by another. And well there is not a single objective argument you can put down that you as a god fearing Christian would be hurt by marriage equality. Nor by the legalisation of Marijuanna for that matter
ons and offs

They left their home of summer ease
Beneath the lowland's sheltering trees,
To seek, by ways unknown to all,
The promise of the waterfall.

Pumpkin Seeds

They are forcing people, who do not want this to happen, to accept that this is happening.  That is forcing ideology.  “We don’t want gay marriage.”  “Well we’re going to pass a law that allows gay marriage, deal.”  That is the essence of forcing gay marriage on people.  The logic is simple.  People must accept that the state, which they pay taxes to and adhere to, allows for same-sex marriage even though they do not approve of the state doing so.  Because you don’t see a downside to this does not mean that others, the voters, don’t see a downside.

The logic is not faulty.  If I say, I don’t want gay marriage because I believe God will be angry at our country and punish us.  Then you respond with, not a valid reason we’re doing it anyway.  You are pushing your agenda and ideology on me.  I have to accept, since in this example you are in a leadership position, the decision made.  My only other option is to protest, rebel and not accept the decision.  In which case you, who are in power, invoke authoritarian figures to make me comply or punish me for not complying with your decision.

Vanity Evolved

#120
Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on November 05, 2012, 06:12:51 AM
They are forcing people, who do not want this to happen, to accept that this is happening.  That is forcing ideology.  “We don’t want gay marriage.”  “Well we’re going to pass a law that allows gay marriage, deal.”  That is the essence of forcing gay marriage on people.  The logic is simple.  People must accept that the state, which they pay taxes to and adhere to, allows for same-sex marriage even though they do not approve of the state doing so.  Because you don’t see a downside to this does not mean that others, the voters, don’t see a downside.

The logic is not faulty.  If I say, I don’t want gay marriage because I believe God will be angry at our country and punish us.  Then you respond with, not a valid reason we’re doing it anyway.  You are pushing your agenda and ideology on me.  I have to accept, since in this example you are in a leadership position, the decision made.  My only other option is to protest, rebel and not accept the decision.  In which case you, who are in power, invoke authoritarian figures to make me comply or punish me for not complying with your decision.

I'm sorry, but -this-, to me, is horribly faulty logic. Once upon a time, inter-racial marriage was against God. This was a sin which was and would ruin the country. Were we wrong to allow this, too? Some people hate Mexicans, and think they're 'stealing all the jobs'. Does that make alright to deport every Mexican out of the country? Does not annoying people to ritualisticall sacrifice their daughter to God infringe on their religious beliefs?

The reason I used gay marriage as an exampe is because it's an easy one; it is not a grey area. If homosexuality offends you that much that gay marriage hurts you to your core, then how do you deal with your everyday life? Homosexuals are out there, in relationships. What is it about a piece of paper giving them some tax breaks which suddenly makes this so offensive to people that it must be forbade? What is that gives one group the right to deny another happiness because of their belief? Is it offensive to the Flat Earth Society that we public books which state, without a doubt, that the world is round?

Gay marriage is the perfect example of why theological opinion should -not- drive politics. It denies entire groups rights they deserve with no reason other than 'Because my imaginary friend said so'. There is a very, very vast gulf between 'Homosexuals can marry, this offends me' and 'Homosexuals can get married. My book says this is wrong, but now it's legal, I guess -I- have to compromise my beliefs and get married to my own gender'.

To use weed, as it was mentioned earlier; giving someone else the right to smoke weed does -not-, in any way, infringe on your right to -not- smoke. If someone finds gay marriage wrong in their religion, they are completely within their rights to not marry someone of the same gender. This does not give them -any- right to stop other people. Once again, for an analogy, I like white chocolate. I don't really like milk chocolate. Am I allowed to stop others from eating milk chocolate because someone else enjoying the sweets they want insults my taste in sweets? Or do I simply need fifty one percent of the country to agree with me that milk chocolate is somehow inferior and -no-one- is allowed to like it because I don't and can't understand how someone else would?

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on November 05, 2012, 05:43:49 AM
The point of the back and forth here is not gay marriage, but rather a look into the exact nature of politics in terms of ideology.  From what has been said, imposing an ideology on people is bad.  Yet from what I can gather here, people want their own ideology forced on people that are resistant.  The excuse being that their ideology is better for everyone.  That reason of course being the same reason a politician would push their ideas onto a populace in the first place.

Vanity would have people of a religious bent forced to accept gay marriage because he does not believe their religious opinion or wants is valid.  That would be his ideology that he is attempting to force on other people for the “greater good.”  So is imposing an ideology only bad if you, personally, don’t agree what it?


Gay marriage, in this example, is not 'an ideology'. Unlike people trying to force their religious ideas through politics, gay marriage is not forcing homosexuality onto people and telling them that it's better for everyone. It's not telling them they have to get married to another man, because heterosexual marriage is inferior. Gay marriage is not superior, nor is it inferior; theres an entire population which it will make happy, and an (hopefully) small portion of people it will offend.

And yes, because your belief is not -their- belief. If they were trying to force you into a homosexual marriage, then that would have a footing. But if, say, fifty one percent of the country were homosexual, would they be allowed to, if they thought this was the case, forbid heterosexual marriage because they believed this was the right thing for everyone?

One last analogy before work: I don't like Dr. Who. Let's say that over sixty percent of people in the country say it's the best show in the world, and it's given the Best Show In The World Award. I take offense at this, because I disagree. Am I allowed to stop this, because my personal belief is that they're wrong? Better yet, because this affects me? Does my offense at this title entitle me to stop an entire group of people watching that show? Does this show being named the Best Show In The World somehow invalidate my opinion that it's terrible and force me to watch it, and accept it as great, regardless, because The Guys In Charge said it is? No, it does not.

Edit: Also, you've summed up forcing ideology through politics. " The excuse being that their ideology is better for everyone." Excuse being the operative word.

Pumpkin Seeds

I fail to see the faulty logic or really why any logical argument needs to be made.  You are quite blatantly stating that what you believe to be right supersedes what someone else believes to be right.  That you would enforce your statements, your values and your belief is imposing your ideology onto another group of people that feel differently.  So you do not feel that imposing your values, ideas and beliefs onto another group is wrong.  You just don’t want them imposing those things on you.

Vekseid

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on November 05, 2012, 06:12:51 AM
They are forcing people, who do not want this to happen, to accept that this is happening.  That is forcing ideology.

An ideology is a set of beliefs to which facts are supposed to conform, not the other way around.

The desire for two consenting individuals to perform an act that only involves each other and calling it whatever they feel like has no innate material impact on the rest of the world. On its own, it is not even a belief in the first place to qualify, much less there being no facts quantified.

Quote
“We don’t want gay marriage.”  “Well we’re going to pass a law that allows gay marriage, deal.”  That is the essence of forcing gay marriage on people.  The logic is simple.  People must accept that the state, which they pay taxes to and adhere to, allows for same-sex marriage even though they do not approve of the state doing so.  Because you don’t see a downside to this does not mean that others, the voters, don’t see a downside.

In terms of state recognition, you have to present two arguments in order for this to qualify
1) That discriminatory status based on factors not of the participants' choosing should exist, and
2) Why they should exist in this case.

We hold as self-evident that all people are born equal. It's one of the founding principles of this country, though it has taken time to actually mean 'all' people, and still won't even after this fight is done.

Quote
The logic is not faulty.  If I say, I don’t want gay marriage because I believe God will be angry at our country and punish us.

This is your ideology. You forcing your bigotry on others. You have no facts to back up your claim, just a belief.

Whereas, we hold, as an axiom, that all should have an equal opportunity. The state provides certain rights and privileges to married couples as opposed to unmarried couples. Therefore this is a form of discrimination and should be eliminated.

Quote
  Then you respond with, not a valid reason we’re doing it anyway.  You are pushing your agenda and ideology on me.  I have to accept, since in this example you are in a leadership position, the decision made.  My only other option is to protest, rebel and not accept the decision.  In which case you, who are in power, invoke authoritarian figures to make me comply or punish me for not complying with your decision.

And this is just ludicrous. What is compliance? Not murdering them?

Stattick

Pumpkin Seeds is sort of right and sort of wrong.

What she's getting into is the dividing line between maximum person rights and societies protection of the rights of minorities. It's arguing that a bigot that hates black people, and only wants them allowed to have demeaning and/or dirty service jobs, has his rights infringed on when he sees black people capable of getting good jobs. He has his rights infringed upon when black people are able to go to college through affirmative action programs, or for some companies to have a hiring preference imposed on them from the government due to affirmative action programs. But that same bigot has his rights imposed on when his taxes go to giving "those people" a free education in elementary through high school. He has his rights imposed on when his taxes help to pay for medical care for "those people", and when his taxes help pay the salaries of police and firemen that serve in "those" neighborhoods.

Now, in a true democracy, where each person only has one vote, and there are no protections in place for people, it's very easy for society to turn into a horrible and evil mob that systematically brutalizes people for being different. Maybe at first, society decides that it doesn't like people who have brown skin, so they're all rounded up and deported. Or maybe they're just killed. Next society decides it doesn't like non-Christians, so all the Jews, Pagans, and atheists are rounded up and likewise done away with. But why stop there? Some people hate gingers. Or stutterers. Or people that drool. Or people with speech impediments. Or people with stupid hairstyles. Do away with them too. And maybe the machine starts turning on itself. It voted to get rid of the non-Christians before. But maybe now it's decided that Mormons and Catholics aren't real Christians, so put them against the wall too.

So, you obviously have to have some sort of protections for people. And at some point, my rights are going to rub against your rights. Society gets the fun job of deciding whose rights supersede the others. If my offense at the smell of ranch dressing knows no bounds and can literally make me vomit, do I have the right to ban ranch dressing? Do I even have the right to ban ranch dressing in my personal vicinity? I don't think so. I think I have to just put up with the disgusting culinary habits of lesser evolved creatures. But what about peanuts? Can I ban peanuts if even the slight exposure to them might kill me because of an allergy? Yes... yes, my life should be protected, even if it inconveniences others to some small degree. So food items should be carefully labeled so I can avoid peanuts, and restaurants should have to go to pains to avoid serving me food that will knock me dead.

Now, between those two extremes, there are a whole slew of rights that people have. It's often the case that these rights come into conflict. So, for some people, it can be very disturbing and impose on their "rights of happiness" to see gay people acting gay. Of course, they're just bigots, but those bigots still have rights. Society's goal has to be to decide if the bigots' "rights to happiness" is more important than gay people's "rights of happiness", which happens to be, in this case, the right to be themselves and act gay in public if they want to.

A pure democracy always just defaults to mob rule, so whoever the majority is gets to make the rules. They could decide to just get rid of all those nasty gay people if they wanted. But in a society like ours, we try to protect the rights of everyone, even from the wishes of the majority. So those gay people can be gay if they want.

So, in the context of this conversation, Pumpkin Seeds is right, in that to allow gay marriage, the rights of bigots to be happy gets ignored. Bigots are being forced to be tolerant. So yeah, she has a point. But on the other hand, fuck bigots.

So, getting back to the topic, does religion have a place in politics? Well, much of the "politics" of religion in this nation revolves around bigotry of one form or another. And, as I so eloquently said before, "fuck bigots." So no, I don't believe that the politics of bigotry should be allowed in politics. On the other hand, religious stuff that doesn't involve bigotry or trampling on someone's rights... well, I suppose I should give a bit on that, and have to tolerate some religious stuff in politics even if I dislike it, because in this case, it's I that could be accused of bigotry for not liking organized religion or (most) Abrahamic faiths, and when it comes down to whose rights are more important, we already have the precedent to "fuck bigots".
O/O   A/A

Stattick

Quote from: Vekseid on November 05, 2012, 10:02:07 AM
This is your ideology. You forcing your bigotry on others. You have no facts to back up your claim, just a belief.

I don't think that Pumpkin Seeds is actually against gay marriage. I think she's playing the devil's advocate here, and picked up the cause of gay marriage as an example because Vanity Evolved used it. I could be wrong though.
O/O   A/A

Pumpkin Seeds

Thank you Stattick for making my point clearly as I seemed incapable.  I do put some of the blame on the sensationalism of the gay marriage debate and realized too late that my point was being clouded by that topic.  Yes, for clarification, I have always been a supporter of same-sex marriage.  My point is simply that law-making is the imposing of one set of ideas (perhaps not as extensive as ideology) on another group that disagrees typically, otherwise the set of ideas would just be accepted.  I want to say the concept is called “Majority Rules, Minority Rights” or something similar.

I was just pointing out that people have to accept that their ideas, values, beliefs or whatever are in essence being pushed and forced onto other people in that setting.

Vekseid

Quote from: Stattick on November 05, 2012, 10:18:16 AM
I don't think that Pumpkin Seeds is actually against gay marriage. I think she's playing the devil's advocate here, and picked up the cause of gay marriage as an example because Vanity Evolved used it. I could be wrong though.

Of course not, she's presenting a caricature.

Regardless, presenting an ideology as 'anything forced upon you' is not a useful definition. Is a woman defending herself against a rapist imposing her ideology? A minority defending themselves from abuse?

We accord and grant people certain rights by virtue of being born, rights which presumably grow until they are of a certain age, and give a certain moral weight to their right of self-determination. How far that should extend, exactly, can be a matter of debate, in terms of what externalities may be imposed on society as a whole and such.

And sometimes movements intent on fighting discrimination do form ideologies (militant feminism and militant atheism both end up ranking pretty high on the authoritarian scale). But these groups end up crossing clear lines in terms of what they wish to impose or see imposed, for no other reason than the simple existence of men (gender or sex, depending) or religions offends them.

Vanity Evolved

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on November 05, 2012, 08:57:13 AM
I fail to see the faulty logic or really why any logical argument needs to be made.  You are quite blatantly stating that what you believe to be right supersedes what someone else believes to be right.  That you would enforce your statements, your values and your belief is imposing your ideology onto another group of people that feel differently.  So you do not feel that imposing your values, ideas and beliefs onto another group is wrong.  You just don’t want them imposing those things on you.

If you want to stretch the term ideology, then yes; I like to think that my 'ideology' that people should be able to do something natural, and have the same rights as everyone else is superior to making entire groups of people second class citizens who deserve scorn and inequality because a group of people, rather than using any real, legitimate reason to state why homosexuality/inter-racial/whatever marriage, and insted point to one vague translated sentence from a book written two thousand years ago, addressing the problems of people two thousand years ago. It also brings into question their bigotry; why is homosexual marriage still wrong, and stoning women for not being virgins in marriage now accepted? If the beliefs can suddenly change there, why does -this- 'problem' stick? That's when you start using theological 'evidence', the only 'evidence' that supports the claim said person believes, to shunt the blame of their ignorance and intolerance ('Oh, -I- don't have a problem with gay people having a piece of paper that says they'd just like you or me. But my God does, and there's nothing I can do about that. No offence!')

The point here is, as I say, not gay marriage. This isn't me declaring my opinions on gay marriage and such, because this isn't the thread for that. Gay marriage just happens to be, in my opinion, one of the perfect examples of why religion and theocracy does not work as a good basis for political decisions. Something such as capital punishment is far more grey, whereas gay marriage is far more black and white; there is no reason for it to be vilified outside of religious belief. So why would homosexuals being married, when you yourself are not a homosexual, affect you? If it's a claim that 'God says it's wrong', well, they're already sinning. Why would a piece of paper saying the State acknowledges that they're sinning with each other change that? Unless your arguement is 'I don't believe homosexuals should pay less tax', which is just as non-sensical, but at least not theistically motivated.

So yes, that pretty much sums up my opinion on that. If a theology states homosexuality is wrong, and you already tolerate homosexuals, why would them getting non-religious (or religious services within a different religion/denomination/church) acknowledgement of their commitment suddenly make their relationship that much more offensive that it's better for the country to stop them doing so?

Quote from: Vekseid on November 05, 2012, 10:36:21 AM
Of course not, she's presenting a caricature.

Regardless, presenting an ideology as 'anything forced upon you' is not a useful definition. Is a woman defending herself against a rapist imposing her ideology? A minority defending themselves from abuse?

We accord and grant people certain rights by virtue of being born, rights which presumably grow until they are of a certain age, and give a certain moral weight to their right of self-determination. How far that should extend, exactly, can be a matter of debate, in terms of what externalities may be imposed on society as a whole and such.

And sometimes movements intent on fighting discrimination do form ideologies (militant feminism and militant atheism both end up ranking pretty high on the authoritarian scale). But these groups end up crossing clear lines in terms of what they wish to impose or see imposed, for no other reason than the simple existence of men (gender or sex, depending) or religions offends them.

It is a rather extreme notion; by this logic, a doctor is forcing his ideology onto you when he says that antibiotics are the only way to cure your chest infection or, exactly as stated, the rape example.

If the idea is that 'The Democracy knows what's best, and what the majority wants is right', then you set up a terrible precident. It's well and good to argue that if you're in a first world country, such as America or UK, but what about say, a woman going to a place where women are still seen as second class citizens? Is it offensive to someone's religion or them if you refuse to be treated as such? Is it another persons right to force you to do something? If someone demanded in the street that you give them £20, because women are inferior, would you just hand it over and accept that it's wrong to offend their view of women and your place?

Once again, in this case, there is no 'forcing' of anything. Legalising homosexual marriage, in no way, forces -you- to accept gay marriage in any way. It does not force you to believe it's right. You are still allowed to believe what you believe. If you're a pastor, you are still free to say your church doesn't believe in gay marriage, and direct them to a church which does perform that. Telling people they're inferior and that they don't -deserve- marriage by virtue of being born is offensive.

Vanity Evolved

Quote from: Stattick on November 05, 2012, 10:13:28 AM
Pumpkin Seeds is sort of right and sort of wrong.

What she's getting into is the dividing line between maximum person rights and societies protection of the rights of minorities. It's arguing that a bigot that hates black people, and only wants them allowed to have demeaning and/or dirty service jobs, has his rights infringed on when he sees black people capable of getting good jobs. He has his rights infringed upon when black people are able to go to college through affirmative action programs, or for some companies to have a hiring preference imposed on them from the government due to affirmative action programs. But that same bigot has his rights imposed on when his taxes go to giving "those people" a free education in elementary through high school. He has his rights imposed on when his taxes help to pay for medical care for "those people", and when his taxes help pay the salaries of police and firemen that serve in "those" neighborhoods.


Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on November 05, 2012, 10:32:20 AM
Thank you Stattick for making my point clearly as I seemed incapable.  I do put some of the blame on the sensationalism of the gay marriage debate and realized too late that my point was being clouded by that topic.  Yes, for clarification, I have always been a supporter of same-sex marriage.  My point is simply that law-making is the imposing of one set of ideas (perhaps not as extensive as ideology) on another group that disagrees typically, otherwise the set of ideas would just be accepted.  I want to say the concept is called “Majority Rules, Minority Rights” or something similar.

I was just pointing out that people have to accept that their ideas, values, beliefs or whatever are in essence being pushed and forced onto other people in that setting.


Except you don't. I see your point that it's somewhat infringing, but not in the sense you're putting it; laws being passed to make something legal or acceptable by law does not magically alter people. People are under no obligation to change their opinion; just because inter-racial marriage is legally allowed, it does not take away your right to believe what you want to believe. You do not have to support inter-racial marriage. You do not need to have an inter-racial marriage. You do not have to change any of your opinions. It is not taking away your right to disagree and it is also not taking away your right to stop people marrying, because no-one has the latter right to begin with.

You are free to believe what you want. I am free to believe what I believe about your belief. I do not have the right, and shouldn't have the right, to infringe upon your beliefs. However, theological belief as law does do that.

I am not a Christian, and do not accept 'homosexuality is a sin'. If a law is passed with no reason other than that, I no longer have my right to believe what I believe; the State or the country I am in is -telling me- what I need to believe. This is not the same as the State deciding that the standard procedure for treating chest infections is antibiotics; the proof that it works is there, the proof that it helps us is there and even then, I still have the right, as a person, to refuse that medical treatment if I so choose, or if my beliefs conflict with that of the proscribed course of antibiotics.

It sets an unhealthy precident, because you can justify a Hell of a lot that way. "Well, the Bible says kill people for working on the Sabbath, so I guess we'll make that a law too."

Edrick

I'm not approved, but was said I could post in these forums...if not, just delete this lol.

With that said, I do not take the side of anyone on this.  But there are some facts that need to be agreed upon, and that is politics is 90% based on the Social tolerated beliefs of the culture at that time.  If people like to admit it or not, the majority of people that their ideals/beliefs from their religion and have for all of human kind.  The truth is, this "there is no God, and each person has a right to do as they think they should", is a radical idea of the 20th century.  You can study history for 100 years and read every book known to man kind, you can not find a time or a large culture that had no god of some kind where they pulled their ideals from until maybe the last 100 years.

Now there will always be a group that is outside the social norms of their culture, and have to face the masses making laws that goes against their personal ideals.

more tolerated topic is same sex marriage, people respond with 'well, what people do is not anyone else's business".  ok...what about those that enjoy sex with children, 14 was the marriage age of a girl from ancient times until the middle ages.  But if you ask a homosexual if we should legalize child porn and sex with minors, I am sure most will say no and that is gross.  But then they say people are stepping on their rights, when people say the same about same sex marriage.

Again..comes down to social norms of the place and time, and religion always plays a big part in it.  Currently Christianity and Islam are the major religions, and both believe same sex relations are immoral.

..not to offend, but just food for thought.

Vanity Evolved

Quote from: Edrick on November 05, 2012, 03:15:18 PM
I'm not approved, but was said I could post in these forums...if not, just delete this lol.

With that said, I do not take the side of anyone on this.  But there are some facts that need to be agreed upon, and that is politics is 90% based on the Social tolerated beliefs of the culture at that time.  If people like to admit it or not, the majority of people that their ideals/beliefs from their religion and have for all of human kind.  The truth is, this "there is no God, and each person has a right to do as they think they should", is a radical idea of the 20th century.  You can study history for 100 years and read every book known to man kind, you can not find a time or a large culture that had no god of some kind where they pulled their ideals from until maybe the last 100 years.

Now there will always be a group that is outside the social norms of their culture, and have to face the masses making laws that goes against their personal ideals.

more tolerated topic is same sex marriage, people respond with 'well, what people do is not anyone else's business".  ok...what about those that enjoy sex with children, 14 was the marriage age of a girl from ancient times until the middle ages.  But if you ask a homosexual if we should legalize child porn and sex with minors, I am sure most will say no and that is gross.  But then they say people are stepping on their rights, when people say the same about same sex marriage.

Again..comes down to social norms of the place and time, and religion always plays a big part in it.  Currently Christianity and Islam are the major religions, and both believe same sex relations are immoral.

..not to offend, but just food for thought.

Except in that case, it wasn't sex with minors; legal age of consent of sixteen or eighteen is, as you point out, a modern audition as lifespans increased. Remember, the big issue here isn't 'Some people have preferences, and some are more socially acceptable than others because times say so'. It's impossible to compare gay marriage to child pornography, as the first is a consenting agreement between two long-standing partners to enter into a legally binding agreement, and a vast majority of child pornography and child sex offenses are instances of sexual abuse and rape. It's like comparing a couple of engaging in consensual BDSM sado-masochism and brutal, human rights violating torture.

Edrick

Quote from: Vanity Evolved on November 05, 2012, 03:25:15 PM
Except in that case, it wasn't sex with minors; legal age of consent of sixteen or eighteen is, as you point out, a modern audition as lifespans increased. Remember, the big issue here isn't 'Some people have preferences, and some are more socially acceptable than others because times say so'. It's impossible to compare gay marriage to child pornography, as the first is a consenting agreement between two long-standing partners to enter into a legally binding agreement, and a vast majority of child pornography and child sex offenses are instances of sexual abuse and rape. It's like comparing a couple of engaging in consensual BDSM sado-masochism and brutal, human rights violating torture.

I do not believe that is a fair comparision, as have sex with a minor is illegal so our example of healthy relationships are limited.  The only people we see brave enough to act out on those desires or interest, are those that are unstable enough to go to the extremes to get what they want since they can't get it any other way.

In high schools through out the world for the most part, there are 18 year old seniors dating 14 or 15 year old freshmen.  They may hide it and did mean for it to happen, but they like each other.  There are examples of teachers that have fallen in love with their students, again not wanting too or trying too, but there was a connection and both went with it.  Neither cases are rape, or some twisted vile act of unstable people...to them, they are two people, making a choice they do not feel is anyone else's business.

Vanity Evolved

Sometimes the laws around it does get iffy, I agree. But as stated, it's still not exactly a fair comparison. You're comparing a minor, someone who doesn't have fully recognition as an adult by law having relations with someone who is held accountable, to two people who, all things equal, do not have the same rights as their peers just because of the sex of partner they're attracted to. One of the only arguements for this to exist is theological.

My point is once you allow theology to control politics, whether homosexuals can marry is the least your worries. The Bible says homosexual sex is a sin, but it also says working on the Sabbath is. It also says that women have to marry their rapists. If you're instituting one part of the Bible as law, why not the other? If 'It's in the Bible' is a strong enough arguement, then how can any of it be used without using the rest? Ignoring that, what if it's someone who doesn't share your religion? A good portion of Christians in America agree that a Christian based moral code would benefit the country, but I distinctly remember what a huge outrage it caused when rumoured flew around that Barrack Obama may be a Muslim. What happens when someone who doesn't share your religious feelings institutes laws based on their religious teachings?

Edrick

Quote from: Vanity Evolved on November 05, 2012, 03:46:11 PM
Sometimes the laws around it does get iffy, I agree. But as stated, it's still not exactly a fair comparison. You're comparing a minor, someone who doesn't have fully recognition as an adult by law having relations with someone who is held accountable, to two people who, all things equal, do not have the same rights as their peers just because of the sex of partner they're attracted to. One of the only arguements for this to exist is theological.

My point is once you allow theology to control politics, whether homosexuals can marry is the least your worries. The Bible says homosexual sex is a sin, but it also says working on the Sabbath is. It also says that women have to marry their rapists. If you're instituting one part of the Bible as law, why not the other? If 'It's in the Bible' is a strong enough arguement, then how can any of it be used without using the rest? Ignoring that, what if it's someone who doesn't share your religion? A good portion of Christians in America agree that a Christian based moral code would benefit the country, but I distinctly remember what a huge outrage it caused when rumoured flew around that Barrack Obama may be a Muslim. What happens when someone who doesn't share your religious feelings institutes laws based on their religious teachings?

That is true enough that a child does not know better, but their parents do.  So instead of the parents legal rights to give permission for their 16 year old daughter they can do the same for their 14 year old daughter to marry an adult.  Then you are saying it is fine, and fairly comparable with same sex marriage?

For the most part in the US in any case, it was illegal to open your business on sunday until people fought it and changed the law.  As far as the marrying your rapiest, that isnt a law.  The Jews lived by the law, and statutes.  Christians do not follow the statutes, as the New Testament states that Jesus nailed them to the cross with him.

So eating pork, touching dead bodies, befriending a heathen, marrying your rapist, and going to the temple three times a year for different feasts are no longer required.

The muslim making laws for a Christian nation is the same as same sex being passed, like I said before, it all depends on the social beliefs of the culture at the time.  currently the United States is a Christian nation, and majority of people are Christians in some sense or another.  Some do not go along with the religion part and see it corrupt, and keep to their own beliefs...but they are Christian beliefs.  in 2000 years we might all be druids, and same sex marriage will be legal and so will animal sacrifice to the gods.

Oniya

Quote from: Edrick on November 05, 2012, 04:08:03 PM
For the most part in the US in any case, it was illegal to open your business on sunday until people fought it and changed the law.  As far as the marrying your rapiest, that isnt a law.  The Jews lived by the law, and statutes.  Christians do not follow the statutes, as the New Testament states that Jesus nailed them to the cross with him.

There is no reference to homosexuality in the Gospels.  The references to homosexuality are in Leviticus, and in the Pauline Epistles (which are also where some of the more misogynistic passages show up.)  Christians who oppose same-sex relationships (which is not the same as 'all Christians') invariably bring up Leviticus - the Pauline Epistles are much more rarely mentioned, if at all.  And yet, the Old Covenant was done away with by the blood of the New Covenant.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Vanity Evolved

Quote from: Edrick on November 05, 2012, 04:08:03 PM
That is true enough that a child does not know better, but their parents do.  So instead of the parents legal rights to give permission for their 16 year old daughter they can do the same for their 14 year old daughter to marry an adult.  Then you are saying it is fine, and fairly comparable with same sex marriage?

For the most part in the US in any case, it was illegal to open your business on sunday until people fought it and changed the law.  As far as the marrying your rapiest, that isnt a law.  The Jews lived by the law, and statutes.  Christians do not follow the statutes, as the New Testament states that Jesus nailed them to the cross with him.

So eating pork, touching dead bodies, befriending a heathen, marrying your rapist, and going to the temple three times a year for different feasts are no longer required.

The muslim making laws for a Christian nation is the same as same sex being passed, like I said before, it all depends on the social beliefs of the culture at the time.  currently the United States is a Christian nation, and majority of people are Christians in some sense or another.  Some do not go along with the religion part and see it corrupt, and keep to their own beliefs...but they are Christian beliefs.  in 2000 years we might all be druids, and same sex marriage will be legal and so will animal sacrifice to the gods.

For the same reason that parents can allow their kids to smoke pot and the child can still be prosecuted for it; pot is illegal, regardless of the parents allowance. Minors are treated differently from adults, but not unequally; minors don't have the same rights as adults, but they are also not held up to the same standards as adults. This is completely different from two twenty year olds wanting to marry, yet one cannot because they are attracted to their own sex.

And yeah, it was. And guess what? People changed it. Why? Because they didn't think it applied. So, why does the punishment for working the Sabbath get thrown away, but one line about homosexuality in the Bible is still touted as reason to not pass laws to grant the LGBT community the same rights as the heterosexual community?

This is also my point; a lot of Christians will tout that a religiously guided country is a good choice. Of course, but this, they mean 'a country guided by my religious beliefs'. What do you think the reaction of most people would be if someone of a religion different from the majority come into power and starts imposing their laws based on their religion? Suddenly, the same people who believe instituting -their- beliefs on the rest of the country are up in arms, because 'that religion is wrong'.

Personally, I'm a little more hopeful that it won't take two thousand years for homosexuals to be treated as equals. As for animal sacrifice... well, remember, the Bible is a story which bases the entirity of it's good message on human sacrifice to God (and in some denominations, God coming to Earth so that he can be sacrificed to God...).

Edrick

Quote from: Oniya on November 05, 2012, 04:14:54 PM
There is no reference to homosexuality in the Gospels.  The references to homosexuality are in Leviticus, and in the Pauline Epistles (which are also where some of the more misogynistic passages show up.)  Christians who oppose same-sex relationships (which is not the same as 'all Christians') invariably bring up Leviticus - the Pauline Epistles are much more rarely mentioned, if at all.  And yet, the Old Covenant was done away with by the blood of the New Covenant.

The law was never taken away, only the statutes.  dont cut your hair, dont touch dead body...the..dont murder, don't bare false witness are a large part of the new covenant.  Even said if you can not follow the ten commandments, you have no hope or moral founding to ever become a Christian.

Edrick

Quote from: Vanity Evolved on November 05, 2012, 04:19:49 PM
For the same reason that parents can allow their kids to smoke pot and the child can still be prosecuted for it; pot is illegal, regardless of the parents allowance. Minors are treated differently from adults, but not unequally; minors don't have the same rights as adults, but they are also not held up to the same standards as adults. This is completely different from two twenty year olds wanting to marry, yet one cannot because they are attracted to their own sex.

And yeah, it was. And guess what? People changed it. Why? Because they didn't think it applied. So, why does the punishment for working the Sabbath get thrown away, but one line about homosexuality in the Bible is still touted as reason to not pass laws to grant the LGBT community the same rights as the heterosexual community?

This is also my point; a lot of Christians will tout that a religiously guided country is a good choice. Of course, but this, they mean 'a country guided by my religious beliefs'. What do you think the reaction of most people would be if someone of a religion different from the majority come into power and starts imposing their laws based on their religion? Suddenly, the same people who believe instituting -their- beliefs on the rest of the country are up in arms, because 'that religion is wrong'.

Personally, I'm a little more hopeful that it won't take two thousand years for homosexuals to be treated as equals. As for animal sacrifice... well, remember, the Bible is a story which bases the entirity of it's good message on human sacrifice to God (and in some denominations, God coming to Earth so that he can be sacrificed to God...).

The point remains, the majority will always fight against others that try to put their beliefs as law.  That is the entire point of the conversation, the majority of the culture have a set belief system and all laws will be based on that.  it has since the beginning of time, and will until the end of the human kind.  Galileo was executed because he said the world was round, young women burned at the stake in saleem Massuchetts because they used herbs to heal, utah told they had to make multi-person marriages against the law to gain state statues in America, and every President of the United States HAS to be a Christian or they would never get into office.  ....Is obama Muslim, probably, but he lies and says he is a Christian because he knows he would lose against the leader of the KKK if he didn't.  If he came out openly to being a Muslim, this country would vote in the worse personal you can think of as long as they said they were Christian.  Pedo, rapist, women abuser, KKK leader..it would not matter, people would only see Christian vs Heathen.

Vanity Evolved

Quote from: Edrick on November 05, 2012, 05:13:36 PM
The point remains, the majority will always fight against others that try to put their beliefs as law.  That is the entire point of the conversation, the majority of the culture have a set belief system and all laws will be based on that.  it has since the beginning of time, and will until the end of the human kind.  Galileo was executed because he said the world was round, young women burned at the stake in saleem Massuchetts because they used herbs to heal, utah told they had to make multi-person marriages against the law to gain state statues in America, and every President of the United States HAS to be a Christian or they would never get into office.  ....Is obama Muslim, probably, but he lies and says he is a Christian because he knows he would lose against the leader of the KKK if he didn't.  If he came out openly to being a Muslim, this country would vote in the worse personal you can think of as long as they said they were Christian.  Pedo, rapist, women abuser, KKK leader..it would not matter, people would only see Christian vs Heathen.

I can't comment on a good portion of this, especially not Obama's religious leanings; this isn't the place and I wouldn't have any idea, regardless.

But by this point, I've repeated myself a lot and I'm beginning to clog up the board - I'm probably going to duck out for awhile, and let people have their own discussions on the topic without my name popping up every few seconds, hehe.

Oniya

Quote from: Edrick on November 05, 2012, 05:03:36 PM
The law was never taken away, only the statutes.  dont cut your hair, dont touch dead body...the..dont murder, don't bare false witness are a large part of the new covenant.  Even said if you can not follow the ten commandments, you have no hope or moral founding to ever become a Christian.

Ten Commandments were Exodus - that said, most of the Ten Commandments can be summed up in the Two Great Commandments of the New Covenant, because if you love God with your whole heart, mind, and soul, that covers 1-3.  Loving your neighbor as yourself pretty much covers 4-10 - unless you've got a thing for people coveting your spouse ;) .  Leviticus is entirely devoted to enumerating all the things you're referring to as 'statutes' (blended fabrics, eating shrimp, new wine in old wineskins - all that).
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

ShadowFox89

Just gonna leave this here.

Power always thinks... that it is doing God's service, when it is violating all his laws.
John Adams
Call me Shadow
My A/A

Chelemar

#141
QuoteGalileo was executed because he said the world was round, young women burned at the stake in saleem Massuchetts because they used herbs to heal, utah told they had to make multi-person marriages against the law to gain state statues in America,

1st. Galileo was never executed.  He was charged with heresy and died of natural causes while under house arrest.  His arrest was not because he said the world was round, that is generally given credit to  Eratosthenes, though even that is argued.  Galileo argued that the sun and not the earth, as the Catholic church taught, was the center of the universe.  He couldn't prove his belief; he wouldn't recant and still wrote against the church's teaching, so he was charged and imprisoned, but not executed. 

Young women in Salem, Mass. were not burned at the stake because they used herbs to heal; it was most likely a combination of abuse of power and mass hysteria.  First, they weren't young women exclusively, second the majority were hanged, though one person was crushed to death, and some drowned. Of twenty killed, six were men.  Some were children, married women, elderly.  Changes are none were witches. 

yes, Utah was required to make a law banning plural marriages to obtain statehood.  However, they were requesting statehood, and had done so numerous times both as a strictly Mormon state and as a mixed religion state.  Plural marriage was already illegal in the United States.

Obama was baptized in 1988 as a Christian, over those 20 years, he attended church fairly regularly, got married there, had his children baptized there.  I doubt that he had a 20 year plan.



Ironwolf85

Quote from: Chelemar on November 05, 2012, 09:13:10 PM
1st. Galileo was never executed.  He was charged with heresy and died of natural causes while under house arrest.  His arrest was not because he said the world was round, that is generally given credit to  Eratosthenes, though even that is argued.  Galileo argued that the sun and not the earth, as the Catholic church taught, was the center of the universe.  He couldn't prove his belief; he wouldn't recant and still wrote against the church's teaching, so he was charged and imprisoned, but not executed. 

Young women in Salem, Mass. were not burned at the stake because they used herbs to heal; it was most likely a combination of abuse of power and mass hysteria.  First, they weren't young women exclusively, second the majority were hanged, though one person was crushed to death, and some drowned. Of twenty killed, six were men.  Some were children, married women, elderly.  Changes are none were witches. 

yes, Utah was required to make a law banning plural marriages to obtain statehood.  However, they were requesting statehood, and had done so numerous times both as a strictly Mormon state and as a mixed religion state.  Plural marriage was already illegal in the United States.

Obama was baptized in 1988 as a Christian, over those 20 years, he attended church fairly regularly, got married there, had his children baptized there.  I doubt that he had a 20 year plan.


Quote from: Chelemar on November 05, 2012, 09:13:10 PM
1st. Galileo was never executed.  He was charged with heresy and died of natural causes while under house arrest.  His arrest was not because he said the world was round, that is generally given credit to  Eratosthenes, though even that is argued.  Galileo argued that the sun and not the earth, as the Catholic church taught, was the center of the universe.  He couldn't prove his belief; he wouldn't recant and still wrote against the church's teaching, so he was charged and imprisoned, but not executed. 

Young women in Salem, Mass. were not burned at the stake because they used herbs to heal; it was most likely a combination of abuse of power and mass hysteria.  First, they weren't young women exclusively, second the majority were hanged, though one person was crushed to death, and some drowned. Of twenty killed, six were men.  Some were children, married women, elderly.  Changes are none were witches. 

yes, Utah was required to make a law banning plural marriages to obtain statehood.  However, they were requesting statehood, and had done so numerous times both as a strictly Mormon state and as a mixed religion state.  Plural marriage was already illegal in the United States.

Obama was baptized in 1988 as a Christian, over those 20 years, he attended church fairly regularly, got married there, had his children baptized there.  I doubt that he had a 20 year plan.

Thank you Chelemar, for rebuffing that crazyness with more tact and grace than I could have.

On the topic of the girls killed in Salem, the ones who brought those accusations of witchcraft were actually a group of teenage girls, reading the documents from the time it smacks of a "I don't like that unpopular girl, let's accuse her of being a witch..." mindset. Combined with authortian parinoia. created a bloodbath.

Those girls somehow convinced the town elders they were "witch detectors" and got a lot of people killed, they weren't responsible for it all, but being "herbal healers" didn't factor into the Salem trials.

that being said a number of witches in europe during the early dark ages were "old wise women" who pissed off the local clergy, and the Roman Church, being pauline in doctrine, took exception to these ladies holding to the old ways, which is sad when you realize the church had a number of founding mothers too. (thinks of wistful things, if history had been diffrent.)

On an interisting note, the eastern denominations of christanity were far more open to women by the standards of the time, but those sects were lost either to absorbation by the Byzantine Orthodoxy, or crushed out of existance by the Islamic Conquest. There was actually a sizable population of eastern china that was christan, many having fled to escape the islamic conquest to the west of china.
They were nearly destroyed outright by a ming emperor who favored buddisim, and a "corvert or die" approach. This emperor also burned Taoisit monistaries, booted out the chinese muslim population, and litterally made the existance of non-buddists illegal in Ming China. What rural sects survived, and were not absorbed by the missionaries from europe that came later, were then finished off the Mao during his great purge.
The USSR also eliminated the mongolian sect that followed the teachings of Aryus, and were the last keepers of copies of his writings, untouched, and unedited by either Orthodox or Cathloic hands. USSR burned those documents to "Free the people from religion" (which we all know was bupkiss, they simply favored the Russian Orthodoxy that could be controled.) into the spiritual void grew a nationalistic hero cult based around Genghis Kahn that we see today, along with buddisim and taoisim spilling over from china.


I got long winded and rambly...
Prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, love...
debate any other aspect of my faith these are the heavenly virtues. this flawed mortal is going to try to adhere to them.

Culture: the ability to carve an intricate and beautiful bowl from the skull of a fallen enemy.
Civilization: the ability to put that psycho in prision for killing people.

TaintedAndDelish

#143
Another way to look at the O.P. is, "Would it be good if religion was somehow separated from politics?"

For one, whether I like a candidate's religious views or not, I want to know what they are. I want to know how a candidate will be biased when he or she makes decisions.  Two, I don't see how religion can be excluded from politics as its strongly tied in with the candidate's beliefs and hence with who and what he is.( please assume "he" means he/she/shi etc...)

In the business world, we try to be blind to gender, race, religion, and so on when dealing with customers. At the end of the day, we're trading products and services for money, so this only makes sense. Internally, the same applies as we're exchanging money for the service of employees.

I think that this playing field is different when dealing politics. We're no longer dealing with monetary transactions, but with the livelihood and well being of people. To be satisfied, people want rules that will enable them to be comfortable, to live as they wish,  to ensure their well being. We want to be able to eat what we want, express and voice our ideas freely, worship or not worship as we wish and choose sexual partners of our liking. Some wish to enforce their religious ideas on others, to ensure that others adhere to certain moral standards, that they are taught to acknowledge and accept certain beliefs - whether they be religious, philosophical, or scientific. We have different ideas of how crime should be dealt with, whether its moral to kill violent criminals,  to fund and provide a means for abortions, or to provide support for those who are sick or poverty stricken. The list goes on.

When at work, I only care about your level of competence, your work ethics, ability to communicate and things that pertain to your productivity and ability to fit into the environment. I think that for politicians, the things that matter more are the things that will effect their decision making. Their morals, values, and other biases.  Being agnostic, I would prefer a candidate who is not religious, one who will think rationally and fairly and who will not make decisions that are based on fictional beliefs. I want to see candidate who's beliefs and values represent mine a little more. Likewise, religious folks will want the same sort of representation - someone who's values and beliefs match theirs.


Edit - added last sentence.


ShadowFox89

 Religion belongs in politics as much as salt in my eggs. It adds some flavor, but too much and it tastes like crap.
Call me Shadow
My A/A

Ironwolf85

Quote from: ShadowFox89 on November 06, 2012, 08:11:14 PM
Religion belongs in politics as much as salt in my eggs. It adds some flavor, but too much and it tastes like crap.
Agreed!
Prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, love...
debate any other aspect of my faith these are the heavenly virtues. this flawed mortal is going to try to adhere to them.

Culture: the ability to carve an intricate and beautiful bowl from the skull of a fallen enemy.
Civilization: the ability to put that psycho in prision for killing people.

elone

I like salt on my eggs.

Seriously, religion and politics just don't belong together. Even if people look at issues like abortion and same sex marriage and claim their opposition is based purely on personal belief, I have to question if those beliefs are based on their religious upbringing to some degree. I agree that since issues like same sex marriage harm no one who is married traditionally, why would they oppose allowing people who love each other from making that commitment.

And how can you oppose abortion, yet allow it for cases of incest, rape, and mother's life. If you believe it is murder, then stick by your guns in all cases, otherwise you are a hypocrite. Or did I miss the part where life begins at conception except sometimes.
In the end, all we have left are memories.

Roleplays: alive, done, dead, etc.
Reversal of Fortune ~ The Hunt ~ Private Party Suites ~ A Learning Experience ~A Chance Encounter ~ A Bark in the Park ~
Poetry
O/O's

Vanity Evolved

Quote from: elone on November 06, 2012, 11:52:24 PM
I like salt on my eggs.

Seriously, religion and politics just don't belong together. Even if people look at issues like abortion and same sex marriage and claim their opposition is based purely on personal belief, I have to question if those beliefs are based on their religious upbringing to some degree. I agree that since issues like same sex marriage harm no one who is married traditionally, why would they oppose allowing people who love each other from making that commitment.

And how can you oppose abortion, yet allow it for cases of incest, rape, and mother's life. If you believe it is murder, then stick by your guns in all cases, otherwise you are a hypocrite. Or did I miss the part where life begins at conception except sometimes.

The last part is that moment of realization - when you realize that your morality is superior to that of your beliefs. So either you have to rationalize it away, re-read into another vague chapter to claim that is what was meant all along or abandon it.

My personal favourite is when something is claimed on religious grounds, when only a very new ideology can support that; for example, Christians who claim that stem cell research is against their religion. I don't recall the part in the Bible where it mentioned 'thou shalt not use the cells of an expired fetus to advance medical knowledge'.

ShadowFox89

 It goes into the desecration of the dead, the same reason med students for hundreds of years had to graverob in order to study.
Call me Shadow
My A/A

Vanity Evolved

Quote from: ShadowFox89 on November 07, 2012, 12:38:34 AM
It goes into the desecration of the dead, the same reason med students for hundreds of years had to graverob in order to study.

Which itself is a weird idea, to me. Considering only your immortal soul has any worth in this life, what happens to your body whenever you've gone up or down hardly seems to matter.

Stattick

Quote from: Vanity Evolved on November 07, 2012, 01:35:51 AM
Which itself is a weird idea, to me. Considering only your immortal soul has any worth in this life, what happens to your body whenever you've gone up or down hardly seems to matter.

Well, the Catholics had weird ideas about the sanctity of bodies, and bodies needing to be unmolested and laying in Holy Ground so that you wouldn't have to spend eternity in Purgatory and such. Maybe they still have those ideas... I'm not sure. But I always figured that it was just a racket to get people to fork over a bit of coin not only for the Last Rites and a Proper Christian Funeral, but also to be laid in Holy Ground when you were buried or encrypted.
O/O   A/A

Rozel

Considering the country was founded by those that were self governed by religion, it is unlikely that it will ever not be a part of elections. As we have to admit that religious sections are a very large and vast part of the voters. Targeting sympathizers is the basis for running an election campaign in the first place.

So, while I don't like it and feel it shouldn't belong in politics, it will always be there. If used as nothing but a means of securing votes.

When I lay my head on the pillow at night, I can say I was a decent person today. That's when I feel beautiful.
My Ons and Offs: ~♠Funs, Not so Funs and Maybes with Roz♠~
Musings and Thoughts: 𓆩*𓆪Available Stories𓆩*𓆪
Sorry: ~~A/A's~~
{Slow return, its been a while. }
.

Ironwolf85

Quote from: Stattick on November 07, 2012, 02:13:59 AM
Well, the Catholics had weird ideas about the sanctity of bodies, and bodies needing to be unmolested and laying in Holy Ground so that you wouldn't have to spend eternity in Purgatory and such. Maybe they still have those ideas... I'm not sure. But I always figured that it was just a racket to get people to fork over a bit of coin not only for the Last Rites and a Proper Christian Funeral, but also to be laid in Holy Ground when you were buried or encrypted.

actually for the longest time most early christans believed that on the day of judgement the dead would rise and be ressurected, then stand before god and be judged, many including myself do believe parts of that, but threy took the dead rising as a more literal thing.
They believed that the souls of the dead would re-inhabit their corpses and rise from their graves, good and evil alike, would then march towards jersulam for judgement.
This is the reason all cathloic and eastern orthodox branches bury their dead facing east towards the holy city. While all the priests are buried facing west so as to face their people and calm them on that day.

Protistants were less concerned with things like that, and with american religious culture being largely protistant in nature, we've stopped caring what direction they face so long as they go into the ground and are treated with respect, as the vast majority of americans do believe in the same way as vanity.

On the issue of stem cells, it is meeting this oppisation because the opponents see it as science using dead featuses.
It's the distubing idea that of "this science is amazing, yet it's research is powered by dead babies" that makes them squrm, go out and protest.
If they could create artifical stem cells resistance would be greatly lessened, of even if they found a way to make animalcells work.
Prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, love...
debate any other aspect of my faith these are the heavenly virtues. this flawed mortal is going to try to adhere to them.

Culture: the ability to carve an intricate and beautiful bowl from the skull of a fallen enemy.
Civilization: the ability to put that psycho in prision for killing people.

Stattick

Sometimes when I spit, my own living cells splatter into the porcelain bowl. When I scratch myself, it's like an Armageddon where tens of thousand of cells are damaged, killed, or dislodged from my skin to go floating through the air, only to die because they have not the means to defend or feed themselves while lying forgotten and unknown in my mattress. I am a nation of tens of trillions, and I'm a despot that regularly kills millions of my own citizens, sometimes just for fun. I scrape away and kill thousands with each bite of nachos. The evil chips keep damaging me as they scrape down my esophagus. In my stomach, partially protected citizens hose the mash down with strong acid, and try not to succumb to the corrosive like their brothers. They don't last long in their position, but I have rank upon rank of their brothers to take their place. Their fate could be worse. The could work further downstream in the sewer, what doctors like to call my intestines. I literally have dedicated specialists that sort food from waste, and spend their entire lives in the churning, bacteria laden waste. Many are scraped free from their home, perhaps by a surviving sharp edge of a nacho chip, only to join the froth and be eaten or killed. Yes, I'm even a cannibal; I have citizens whose sole job is to eat other citizens of my esteemed nation. I have others that eat intruders... yum!

I am a seething mass of sin and horror, a collective being that would scream in pain always, if I could only feel the sensations of all of my cells. But the individuals matter not, only the pilot, the pseudo consciousness that tries to make sense of the world, the faux intelligence that tries to pretend that every action is made for reasons other than pure selfishness. What ignoble creatures we are. Do not try to sway me with arguments that paper thin sheets a few square inches large have human rights and feelings. I shit that much of myself away everyday. Do not try to sell me that a fetus the size of a walnut, a thing that wouldn't have anything approaching human sentience for years, has the rights of an adult. Might as well try to tell me I should be convicted of murder for clipping my fingernails.
O/O   A/A

ShadowFox89

 Stattick, can you stop with the Strawman Atheist argument? It got old five years ago, it's still old now.
Call me Shadow
My A/A

Vanity Evolved

Quote from: Ironwolf85 on November 07, 2012, 11:09:43 AM
actually for the longest time most early christans believed that on the day of judgement the dead would rise and be ressurected, then stand before god and be judged, many including myself do believe parts of that, but threy took the dead rising as a more literal thing.
They believed that the souls of the dead would re-inhabit their corpses and rise from their graves, good and evil alike, would then march towards jersulam for judgement.
This is the reason all cathloic and eastern orthodox branches bury their dead facing east towards the holy city. While all the priests are buried facing west so as to face their people and calm them on that day.

Protistants were less concerned with things like that, and with american religious culture being largely protistant in nature, we've stopped caring what direction they face so long as they go into the ground and are treated with respect, as the vast majority of americans do believe in the same way as vanity.

On the issue of stem cells, it is meeting this oppisation because the opponents see it as science using dead featuses.
It's the distubing idea that of "this science is amazing, yet it's research is powered by dead babies" that makes them squrm, go out and protest.
If they could create artifical stem cells resistance would be greatly lessened, of even if they found a way to make animalcells work.

This is the reason they protest; because it's a basic, emotional response. For the same reason that we'll gladly eat hamburgers, then when someone sees a cute little calf wandering around a field eating grass, they switch instantly to 'killing animals is wrong!'

It's the same reason we buy coffins and spend thousands in gestures to the dead. Emotions. And unless you're a truely heartless person, yeah, you're going to most likely feel that way on the surface.

The question I pose is, why is that wrong? Of course, the person who had lost a child will have strong feelings against this, but if you view it in a pragmatic light, it's actually a much nicer option in my opinion. A dead child is dead. There isn't a cure for that. Using stem cells for research and curing people means that someone out there, despite your child not having had a shot at life, could have potentially saved the lives of people across the world. Is this a bad idea to think about? Or do you believe that just putting them in a wooden box in the ground to be eaten by micro-ogangisms and natural processes is a nicer?

But I completely agree, it's a very dicey topic. It's a very emotional one, which is the worst kind of topic; logic and pragmatism is all well and good, but when it comes to gut human emotion, it takes a -lot- to placate that urge, in the fact same way that it's hard to suppress that pounding rush of adrenaline forcing its way through you when you're scared. Highly intelligent animals we may be, but we're still animals.

Lux12

I believe religion and politics should be separated as much as possible with regards to how a nation is run. It is a mutual corruption where the faith adopts the predatory elements of government and the government becomes vicious, oppressive, and ruled by dogma. I already think government is inherently tainted, but I think a direct combination is a match made in hell.