Frustrated.....

[Noor]

Continuing the rant...

In Judaism:

Sex is the woman's right, not the man's. A man has a duty to give his wife sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her. He is also obligated to watch for signs that his wife wants sex, and to offer it to her without her asking for it.

The woman's right to sexual intercourse is referred to as onah, and it is one of a wife's three basic rights (the others are food and clothing), which a husband may not reduce.

The Talmud specifies both the quantity and quality of sex that a man must give his wife. It specifies the frequency of sexual obligation based on the husband's occupation, although this obligation can be modified in the ketubah (marriage contract). A man may not take a vow to abstain from sex for an extended period of time, and may not take a journey for an extended period of time, because that would deprive his wife of sexual relations.

In addition, a husband's consistent refusal to engage in sexual relations is grounds for compelling a man to divorce his wife, even if the couple has already fulfilled the halakhic obligation to procreate.

Sex is not shameful, sinful or obscene. It is not solely for the purpose of procreation. When sexual desire is satisfied between a husband and wife at the proper time, out of mutual love and desire, sex is a mitzvah (a blessing).

 

[LadyCypris]

OP, I have no advice to offer, I just wanted to give my moral support as I'm going through something similar (albeit at a much earlier stage). Hang in there, and I hope you figure things out, one way or another!

One of the things I've learned over the years is that when you try on a pair of shoes, if they aren't comfortable right out of the box, they probably never will be totally comfortable and you may end up regretting that you bought them.

That may be true for you, I don't think it's necessarily true as a general rule. Speaking for myself, I'm rather socially awkward, and take a while to warm up to someone (and them me).

 

[bailadora]

Also keep in mind that there are between 1.8-2.2 billion people who calls themselves Christians and 14-15 million Jews worldwide (adherents to the Bible - Jews the Hebrew Bible, Christians the Christian Bible which also includes the Hebrew Bible). Do not assume that all of them are closed-minded, blind, scripture-thumping, terra-centric, anti-science creationists, because most of them are not. Like any extremists, it's the small minority that makes the most noise.

Again, I don't want to start an argument. However, I felt that I had to point out the various assumptions and how damaging these misinterpretations can be to billions of believers, including the OP's fiancé and many Litsters on these threads that are religious in the Abrahamic sense who post in the How-To. Like everything else in life, it's not black or white

And you wonder why I have a girl crush on you.

 

[mike2010fc]

.....

 

[njlauren]

<<< One note, when talking about Catholics and sex you have to be careful.A lot of Catholics these days are 'cultural Catholics' or "Christmas and Easter Catholics" and of those who even go to church somewhat regularly are cafeteria catholics, and no, they generally are not repressed as their parents and grandparents were, when it comes to sex most of them realize that church teaching that bans sex toys, oral sex, petting, masturbation and the like is the wet dream of a bunch of stupid old farts at the vatican (I love reading things on sex on the vatican website; on one hand they say sex is a major part of the love between a married couple,but then go on and on warning against 'recreational sex' (for example, the church is okay for a man to take viagra, but only if he is having sex 'open to life' and not for 'recreational purposes' ..and we are talking with his wife, folks....*gag*). However, there are still people out there whose attitudes are probably closer to people in Poland (where they have laws on the books that they prosecute for, for gay sex, or sex 'not in line with natural law'), the orthodox catholics who swallow the whole nine yards..and if the fiancee grew up with that, if he went to Catholic School and had parents who believed that twaddle, then yes, he could be guilt ridden as hell about what is 'good sex'..obviously he isn't following all of it, but there is some serious guilt at work there and ma church is very good at that one.BTW a lot of priests and nuns know the score, they think the Bishops and the vatican are basically off the deep end (their view of sex is about as enlightened as believing the earth was the center of the Solar system, which they didn't drop until the 1920's as the official church position.....), my wife went to a Catholic school that in high school had comprehensive sex ed (Right after she graduated, JPII made sure that catholic schools only taught the 'no sex before marriage' and 'sex is primarily for procreation' nonsense. >>>

Good points. I think the Vatican is either quite naive or just plain nuts and totally out of touch with reality (or wise in their controling tactics). In many ways I consider myself a spiritual person but I am certainly not a "religious" person after being force-fed a lot of "believe it blindly or burn in Hell" sorts of dogma while growing up. I think that too many people, whether with regard to religion, politics, or buying groceries and sex toys are too lazy to think for themselves and make decisions based on their own beliefs and too willing to follow what other's tell them. As long as people continue to be lazy and fearful in following their own beliefs, people like Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, or the Pope will continue to have an undue influence on the world. The more freedom, respect, and tolerance for others that we have, the better we all will be.

THe church's stance on sexuality, even with married couples, only really changed in the 1970's. At that point the vatican issues a statement finally saying that sex is a key part of the love between a husband and wife and acknowledged that the church often had a very negative view of sex (Augustine for example, said sex was dirty because semen comes out of the penis which is used for urination), that is was at times psychotic. 50 years ago the church would tell married couples basically to stop having sex when the childbearing years were over, and their writings still talk about 'recreational' sex between married partners as being a sin, and they ban anything but vaginal sex that is 'open to life' i.e you can get pregnant. They just issues a scathing critique of a book a nun published that was very sex positive, ripping her for saying masturbation is healthy, that couples who practice the art of giving each other pleasure are showing love no matter how they do it and so forth. The problem with the church is the guilt over otherwise healthy sex has become community property. More importantly, it is easy to talk about a fringe, but remember we are only a couple of years removed from having laws on the books making certain forms of sex criminally prosecutable and we live in a society where you can be fired or have your kids taken away if someone doesn't like your form of sexual expression, and almost all of that can be traced to religious teaching, not science, you don't take away 2000 years of sexual repression all that fast, sexual revolution or not.

 

[njlauren]

That was well said and very true. I really don't believe myself how many millions and even billions of people are just willing to believe or have blind faith in what others tell them to be true. I really don't understand why religions can't "adjust" their views on things as science brings out true facts. I'm not saying that they have to change their morals or values, just adjust things which obviously aren't true. A few hundred years ago the Earth was believed to be the center of the solar system and the universe and we now know that that is not true (O.K. maybe religions have "adjusted" somewhat). I was recently reading a children's bible and it talked about how God made the Earth first and then made the stars, etc. later. Well, we know from proven science that that is not true. The universe is positively known to be approximately 13 billion years old and the Earth is only about 4 or 5 billion years old. So, obviously, God did not make the Earth first but I see nothing wrong with saying that God made the Earth and the stars and the universe. Just don't put your head in the sand and tell us things which obviously aren't true and expect us to take it on blind faith.

It is a problem because to those running it, any change, admission they were wrong is an admission of weakness (in their view), and to those who teach absolute truth, claim it, that is anathema. Put it this way, even though it wasn't church teaching, the RC didn't drop the earth centered solar system /universe until 1922 and didn't reverse the conviction of Galileo until 1992 (yes, 20 years ago). People within the church know the vatican is run by delusional types, my wife went to a Catholic school that had comprehensive sex ed, but look who has been running the church for the past 30 years, not the modernists, not the Andrew Greely's, but people like JPII, who didn't exactly come from a liberal country *shrug*.

Even liberal churches have problems, I belonged to an uber liberal church , and the rector believe it or not had trouble with people who are bisexual, because of the problem of monogamy. I could understand (sort of) being worried about non monogamous relationships given the nature of Christian teaching , but he couldn't quite grasp that many are bi and are monogamous (personally, I think that as long as it is consensual with a married couple, who gives a shit...). Fortunately, there are a lot of enlightened clergy out there, rabbis and so forth (Muslims in my experience on the other hand, even the large majority who aren't fundamentalist, are still back in the dark ages, having worked with more then a few over the years, even young ones had very repressed views); unfortunately, a lot of damage is out there, originally generated from religion, that has crept into the secular world, I know people who haven't been to church in 3 generations but still follow a lot of the old guilt ridden crap *sigh*

 

[njlauren]

In Judaism:

Sex is the woman's right, not the man's. A man has a duty to give his wife sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her. He is also obligated to watch for signs that his wife wants sex, and to offer it to her without her asking for it.

The woman's right to sexual intercourse is referred to as onah, and it is one of a wife's three basic rights (the others are food and clothing), which a husband may not reduce.

The Talmud specifies both the quantity and quality of sex that a man must give his wife. It specifies the frequency of sexual obligation based on the husband's occupation, although this obligation can be modified in the ketubah (marriage contract). A man may not take a vow to abstain from sex for an extended period of time, and may not take a journey for an extended period of time, because that would deprive his wife of sexual relations.

In addition, a husband's consistent refusal to engage in sexual relations is grounds for compelling a man to divorce his wife, even if the couple has already fulfilled the halakhic obligation to procreate.

Sex is not shameful, sinful or obscene. It is not solely for the purpose of procreation. When sexual desire is satisfied between a husband and wife at the proper time, out of mutual love and desire, sex is a mitzvah (a blessing).

Hmm, I wonder if this is the root of all the jokes my jewish (mostly male) friends would tell about Jewish sex, and generally it was exactly what was posted, that women ruled the roost and the men, well..*lol*

 

[njlauren]

And you wonder why I have a girl crush on you.

Very true, I would be the last person to disagree with you. The real problem isn't the crazies, it is that they have been given a platform, so we have public schools trying to teach creationism or 'young earth' theory as science, we had states until a couple of years ago that would criminally prosecute certain acts done in private by consenting adults (thank you, Anthony Kennedy, for voting with a heart, not what your church wanted). The real problem is all over the world that vocal minority has been given power, including the RC who uses threats of political repercussions, or creates a mountain out of a molehill like the coverage of contraception, and the rest of us let them get away with it.

 

[fire_breeze]

And you wonder why I have a girl crush on you.

Aww shucks *blushes and kicks at an invisible stone* I'm touched and flattered Bail and know that the girl crush is so completely reciprocated

THe church's stance on sexuality, even with married couples, only really changed in the 1970's. At that point the vatican issues a statement finally saying that sex is a key part of the love between a husband and wife and acknowledged that the church often had a very negative view of sex (Augustine for example, said sex was dirty because semen comes out of the penis which is used for urination), that is was at times psychotic.

*sigh* I'm so sorry. I swear I'm not picking on you!! I actually enjoy many of your posts here on the How-To forums. However, for the record, Augustine never said anything like that, much less that semen is evil. Sin is transmitted through concupiscence (a state of which lust turns into obsession which is manifested through sex) and Augustine said, and I quote:
original sin...is transmitted to his [Adam's] posterity, just as, from the soul's will, actual sin is transmitted to the members of the body, through their being moved by the will'' (Church Fathers IaIIae.81.3; New Advent); Now from this concupiscence whatever comes into being by natural birth is bound by original sin (De bono coniugali).
In other words, original sin, which is a state, is passed through through concupiscence - he believed that prefall, humans had sex, enjoyed sex but did not experience lust, postfall, they do. Furthermore, it was common belief at the time that the sins of your father was passed down to you through his semen. This is why Christians believe that Mary was immaculately conceived (born without the taint of original sin) and why she was chosen (and asked, if you remember your Luke correctly) to be the Theotokos, and most importantly, why Jesus was (and still is) believed by many Christians not to have a human father.

Augustine did not condemn sex, either, a sentiment still echoed by the church, if I understand from my brief perusal of the Catechism correctly, and I'd like to think that I do. He condemned lust because it can not only completely consume humans, but also manifested itself through what he calls sexual perversions. This is not a uniquely Christian thought either. Romans at that time also viewed many what we think of normal sexual practices as abomination. Aristotelean and Neoplatonic thought was prevalent at the time, and so it obviously made it into the religious dialogues which was written at the time, whether it was Christian, Jewish and later Islamic thoughts.

If I recall correctly, The Da Vinci Code perpetuated the myth of Augustine (or at least the Church) said semen=evil, when the fact is that neither said anything like that. Terrible writing aside, that book has done a lot of damage in the study of art history, cultural anthropology (particularly mediaeval European), religion, ritual symbolism and theology. Unfortunately, a lot of fictional nuggets that was called 'fact' made it into popular knowledge, much to many 'ists' and 'ians' dismay. Please ignore everything that came from that book.

(In relations to semen, many religions and cultures believe that the expulsion of semen can make you impure, or extra powerful, much like menstrual blood and therefore you need to cleanse yourself after ejaculation).

Very true, I would be the last person to disagree with you. The real problem isn't the crazies, it is that they have been given a platform, so we have public schools trying to teach creationism or 'young earth' theory as science, we had states until a couple of years ago that would criminally prosecute certain acts done in private by consenting adults (thank you, Anthony Kennedy, for voting with a heart, not what your church wanted). The real problem is all over the world that vocal minority has been given power, including the RC who uses threats of political repercussions, or creates a mountain out of a molehill like the coverage of contraception, and the rest of us let them get away with it.

In the United States, maybe. This does not happen in Canada, nor in most of Europe (as my relatives who live throughout the continent informs me) and in many parts of Asia and as far as I know in Australia/New Zealand (although the Aussies and New Zealanders will correct me if I am wrong).

As for, to paraphrase Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the butting out of the state of the bedrooms, this is a problem worldwide, and it often has very little to do with religion itself but rather a dictatorial nature of the government. In countries AND states where the Vatican has little - if any - presence, this happens as well, and probably, again from a brief look at the statistics, more so.

Again, you are talking about a small minority worldwide. Many believers, from all echelons of the hierarchy of their faith, regardless of the said faith, are not as narrow minded as you paint them to be. Sometimes, change is slow to be officially declared, but is still nonetheless accepted by all. For a more secular example, look at governmental institutions; that are absolutely NO different.

To the OP, I apologise for hijacking the thread - I guess I'm showing off

Okay, now I'm really bowing out

 

[bailadora]

Very true, I would be the last person to disagree with you. The real problem isn't the crazies, it is that they have been given a platform, so we have public schools trying to teach creationism or 'young earth' theory as science, we had states until a couple of years ago that would criminally prosecute certain acts done in private by consenting adults (thank you, Anthony Kennedy, for voting with a heart, not what your church wanted). The real problem is all over the world that vocal minority has been given power, including the RC who uses threats of political repercussions, or creates a mountain out of a molehill like the coverage of contraception, and the rest of us let them get away with it.

Where people are trying to impose their beliefs on others, I absolutely understand your objection. Otherwise, what people chose to believe is their own business and I prefer to live and let live. I see no need to assign labels such as crazy, repressed, unenlightened or otherwise malign folks who's views don't fall in line with my own.

To echo Fire, I generally enjoy your posts on HT, but sometimes find it jarring when you appear to so casually dismiss large groups of people based upon a single identifier.

 

[Noor]

Hmm, I wonder if this is the root of all the jokes my jewish (mostly male) friends would tell about Jewish sex, and generally it was exactly what was posted, that women ruled the roost and the men, well..*lol*

The men are scared stiff? That is what I have seen, they practice on non-Jewish women and then marry Jewish ones.

Jewish women often date non Jewish men for sex, they have less to lose because their children will remain Jewish by birth whereas children born of a non Jewish mother are not considered Jewish in many areas of Judaism.

Because birth right goes through the mother (matrilineal), and several important religious ceremonies require women, Judaism is in many ways a matriarchal society.

 

[Lord Pmann]

Very true, I would be the last person to disagree with you. The real problem isn't the crazies, it is that they have been given a platform, so we have public schools trying to teach creationism or 'young earth' theory as science, we had states until a couple of years ago that would criminally prosecute certain acts done in private by consenting adults (thank you, Anthony Kennedy, for voting with a heart, not what your church wanted). The real problem is all over the world that vocal minority has been given power, including the RC who uses threats of political repercussions, or creates a mountain out of a molehill like the coverage of contraception, and the rest of us let them get away with it.

Because people on the other side of those crazy beliefs are always so kind and reasonable. Thank God we have reasonable people like Michael Moore, Bill Maher and Sean Penn to defend our rights fairly and with compassion.

Your posts are normally great. But this one just got my goat. And for the record, I'm not a republican or a democrat. People on both sides have ideas that drive me mental. this is the kind of rhetoric that makes people from both sides hate each other.

And the beauty of America... Even the crazies can have a platform. You realize that, given your choice of lifestyle, you would be considered a "crazy" in any middle eastern country?

If Catholics want to believe some antiquated views on sex, let them. Yeah, it's a problem when it affects you. I agree with that. Everyone should be tolerant. But being tolerant means you tolerant something. Tolerate is not a loving word. It basically means endure.

As firebreeze said, you're talking about a small minority. It would be the equivalent of me implying that every gay person is out there sucking random cock on the street in between bath house visits.

 

[Chelynn]

frustrated

I'm still trying to figure this site out and rarely come but I don't know what to do. I have little experience w/anything and have never really been single. I have been in a relationship where he made me ashamed of anything sexual I wanted, thought, wore and wasn't allowed to have friends. I've finally gotten rid of him and it's so hard for me to do this stuff. I've never flirted with men, looked them in the eyes, or taken pics of myself. I have started making changes, I'm wearing sexy clothes and I have a good size breasts, I'm taking pics and have started flirting. I've found out I'm very sexual and want to experiment and learn new stuff. I know I like some pain but not how much, I know I'm not way into it but I like to be spanked and people I've talked to think it's kind of weird I liked to be choked while I'm being fucked. I am trying to find a strong man that can teach me w/out disrespecting me. I have a man now I belong to and love the thought of it, it excites me like crazy but I've found out he has a partner and can't be there when I really need him, nights and weekends and I want more but I can't find a man that has that power and excitement. I don't like being told what to do and he doesn't really do that, I'm going crazy. I am horny all the time and am not able to please myself yet, I need help and that's hard to find. Anyone have any help?

 

[BeachMomma]

I don't see this as a religion issue; it sounds to me like it's more about control, trust, jealousy, and less than stellar communication. I agree with the others, though. While it may seem NOW like a non-issue, it won't seem that way forever. I've heard it said that sex isn't everything in a marriage. When the sex is great, it's 10% of the total picture. When the sex is lacking, it becomes 90%. You may be ok with it now, but in 10 years, you will become even more frustrated and resentful.

For your sake, and the sakes of your future children, I sincerely hope you'll rethink marriage with this guy until the two of you can really get to the bottom of this problem and come to a conclusion that is acceptable to BOTH of you. You can't really expect to live your life according to his standards, and you certainly can't expect him to live according to yours. The beliefs and values that make each person unique do not change over time.

Good luck.

 

[Eilan]

Very true, I would be the last person to disagree with you. The real problem isn't the crazies, it is that they have been given a platform, so we have public schools trying to teach creationism or 'young earth' theory as science, we had states until a couple of years ago that would criminally prosecute certain acts done in private by consenting adults (thank you, Anthony Kennedy, for voting with a heart, not what your church wanted). The real problem is all over the world that vocal minority has been given power, including the RC who uses threats of political repercussions, or creates a mountain out of a molehill like the coverage of contraception, and the rest of us let them get away with it.

FWIW, I see nothing wrong with this post. I deal with the crazies every day. Unfortunately, they shout down the reasonable folk.

 

[satindesire]

FWIW, I see nothing wrong with this post. I deal with the crazies every day. Unfortunately, they shout down the reasonable folk.

I kind of like to see myself as one of the reasonable folks that can cut through the shouting. I see more and more "thinking religious" folks doing it, to make sure that we don't get all tarred with the same brush.

Okay, hijack over.

 

[BuckyDuckman]

No, it's certainly not a deal breaker. I may deserve great sex, but I wont die without it. I want to have that with him, which is why I'm trying so hard to help him broaden his horizons. I have brought out my vibrator to show him. But he was offended and thought he hadn't given me enough pleasure. Which isn't true, I just wanted to make things more interesting. He was raised Catholic, so I'm also wondering if that played a part in his sexual repression?

It's not a deal breaker ... yet ... I know you've seen that advice already, but please pay attention to it. Sex differences isn't the same as saying you like aspargus and he doesn't or you like lots of flowery prints to your wallpaper and he hates flowers.

I was raised Catholic, but I think that's a red herring. His religious views could have something to do with his feelings, but which religion doesn't matter.

Even if the world says "You're right, he's wrong," that doesn't mean anything will change.

Final piece of advice: how fair does it feel that he's trying to change you? (Don't masturbate. Don't use toys, etc.) ... you do realize you're doing the same thing to him, right?

Sorry for the tough love.

 

[blksoldier]

patience pays off

I love my fiance, but I'm very frustrated with our intimate life. I have more experience than him when it comes to sex and he seems offended by that. I also enjoy using toys with or without him, but he considers that 'cheating'. He wont even masturbate by himself because he says it would mean he'd cheated on me. I want to enjoy sex again...with him! But he's making it very hard to grow together in this area. Any useful advice is appreciated.

take your time its a marathon not a sprint. Take your time and learn each other, discovery is and can be fun

 

[njlauren]

Where people are trying to impose their beliefs on others, I absolutely understand your objection. Otherwise, what people chose to believe is their own business and I prefer to live and let live. I see no need to assign labels such as crazy, repressed, unenlightened or otherwise malign folks who's views don't fall in line with my own.

To echo Fire, I generally enjoy your posts on HT, but sometimes find it jarring when you appear to so casually dismiss large groups of people based upon a single identifier.

I don't dismiss large groups, first of all, I was careful to say these are minorities.We aren't talking what people believe, we are talking what people do with their beliefs that is the problem, and the idea that everything is fine under the realm of cultural relativism is misguided at worst and foolish as best. When you have places like Saudi Arabia, where women are basically property and routinely are stoned to death for adultery, when you have people in africa who mutilate the genitals of women to keep them 'pure' and other nonsense, when you have countries like Iran that kill people for being gay or myriad other abuses, it is not about belief. There is very little that can be said in defense of the church and what they did to Galileo, or the fact that it took the church until 1992 to clear him of being a heretic (after finding him guilty again in 1984), and the same church took until 1922 to officially drop the claim that the earth was at the center of the solar system and universe, despite the fact that telescopes had long shown that view was basically totally falacious and had been for centuries (it doesn't mean the church is necessarily full of morons, Le Maitre a Belgian Monk came up with the Big Bang Theory, and he pushed back when Pious XI wanted to proclaim this to be the proof of the existence of God, Le Maitre chided him for arrogantly assuming that this proved anything of the sort).

When you have states banning the teaching of evolution as being 'a hypothesis' or trying to get biblical versions of creation made as school curricula, this is not about beliefs, when you try and teach religious belief that has zero factual basis or credibility as science, it is stupid, I am sorry. The woman who was the chief of staff of a local Congressmen who wrote an op ed arguing that conservationists and people worried about finite resources were going against God, that God made the earth for man to use up so the end of days would happen, when this becomes public of the public debate about what to do with our world, there is little to be said for that. Fundamentalist religion in all its forms is a major threat to the world and to people like ourselves on this board, because they not only believe they know the truth, they want to force others to believe it. Want to really get scared? Look up Christian Dominionism in the US and then come back and tell me how we should all respect beliefs. When we have judges and politicians who believe that the founders wanted this to be a Christian theocracy and a major political party that Kowtows to it, it has to be called out, because it is dangerous.

Also note it was only 7 or 8 years ago that we had laws on the books that could get someone arrested for the kind of sex they had and it was only a 5-4 ruling on the supreme court that got that law thrown out, and that the 4 dissenting judges said that religious morality and tradition had the right to be part of public policy, that enforcing their morality was in the nature of the public good (the words are paraphrased, the intent is not, that is what Scalia wrote in his dissent, which made him the laughingstock of legal scholars).

People can believe what they want, and you note I didn't make fun of Catholics for believing that the communion wafer and wine is transmuted into body and blood literally, I didn't make fun of someone who believes that the angel Moroni gave Joseph Smith golden tablets, that is what they believe and that is fine, but when it comes into the public domain, when they decide how others can live or worse, die, then I am going to call them on it, and if they want to drag everyone, force everyone, into their mode of thinking I am going to call them on it.

 

[njlauren]

Because people on the other side of those crazy beliefs are always so kind and reasonable. Thank God we have reasonable people like Michael Moore, Bill Maher and Sean Penn to defend our rights fairly and with compassion.

Your posts are normally great. But this one just got my goat. And for the record, I'm not a republican or a democrat. People on both sides have ideas that drive me mental. this is the kind of rhetoric that makes people from both sides hate each other.

And the beauty of America... Even the crazies can have a platform. You realize that, given your choice of lifestyle, you would be considered a "crazy" in any middle eastern country?

If Catholics want to believe some antiquated views on sex, let them. Yeah, it's a problem when it affects you. I agree with that. Everyone should be tolerant. But being tolerant means you tolerant something. Tolerate is not a loving word. It basically means endure.

As firebreeze said, you're talking about a small minority. It would be the equivalent of me implying that every gay person is out there sucking random cock on the street in between bath house visits.

Sure they would consider me crazy in a middle eastern country, but how many people would take it seriously, given how screwed up the middle east is? And yes, there are people who say crazy things on both sides, but I suggest you take a look at the reality out there. Sean Penn and Michael moore and Bill Maher say things that are objectionable, but last I checked they aren't talking about denying anyone their rights, no one is saying that people who believe the earth is 6000 years old shouldn't be allowed to get any benefits from science because they don't believe it, no one is saying fundamentalist Christian parents should have their kids taken away, I wish I could say the same for the other side. The religious right, and they are not small (if they were, the politiians would laugh at them, especially the GOP, as once people like Buckley and Goldwater did), routinely do demonize gays and other people who are different, they are the people who make sure that in many states, same sex couples cannot get married and cannot be foster parents or adopt kids, even though there are a ton of kids who need adopting. It is the religious right who are pushing for a constitutional ban on same sex marriage and Romney is actively supporting that in his campaign. Rick Santorum was a serious candidate for the GOP nod, and he associated gays with pedophiles and people who have sex with Animals, and some loud mouth evangelical, who is quite infliuential with certain politicians, said that gays and lesbians should be put in the equivalent of concentration camps,and not one GOP politician denounced him for saying it. And just ask gays and lesbians what it is like growing up in the bible belt, and then come back and tell me about how these are people who simply have different beliefs. In a large majority of states, you can be fired for simply being gay or lesbian or trans or some for of sexuality, and if you think that isn't the handywork of people you dismiss as a small minority I don't know what else to say. BTW, the same people we are talking about have been continually pushing for laws to censor the internet, supposedly in the guise of protecting children, we had one in the 90's that could have shut sites like this one down, ostensibly to protect children, and Scalia before he went off the deep end wrote the majority decision striking it down, because the law was so broad it would have brought the net down to the level of Mr. ROger's neighborhood if it passed.


The problem is that the majority, usually for political reasons, have kowtowed to the idiots and there are a lot of people to blame. When Kansas decided that evolution shouldn't be taught, the top universities in the country should have turned around and refused to admit students from public schools in Kansas on the grounds that they are ill prepared to go to college, when states pass discriminatory laws fair minded people should find ways to fight back (as happened when Colorado, thanks to Evangelical Christians, those most tolerant of people, passed laws that made any kind of protections for GLBT people illegal, it was repealed in large part because boycotts hurt the state and made them look like knuckle draggers to the business community who might want to move there).

The fact that in the 21st century in the US we are still having major issues over same sex marriage says how much this 'small minority' is not, when Catholic countries like Spain and Portugal have passed same sex marriage laws, it doesn't say much about the US or who is in charge. Voltaire once said that he might not agree with what someone said but would fight for their right to say it, and I totally am on board with that, and would say that about what someone believes, but if part of that belief is that their beliefs should be forced on others, that is way over the line. Someone's right to believe something ends when their belief includes taking away the rights of others to live as they see fit based on their own beliefs, and that is the issue. Dismissing it as a crazy minority, especially in troubled times, is dangerous, people in Germany dismissed the National Socialists as a tiny bunch of loons, and look what happened there, and the religious right is a lot stronger then the National Socialists were in the 1920's.

 

[njlauren]

I kind of like to see myself as one of the reasonable folks that can cut through the shouting. I see more and more "thinking religious" folks doing it, to make sure that we don't get all tarred with the same brush.



Okay, hijack over.

There are thinking religious folk, among even younger evangelicals they have started realizing that the angry ranting against gays, the single minded belief that all that mattered was gays and abortion, or that their duty was to support the GOP's economic agenda to get "Heaven on Earth" even when it meant hurting the people Christ teaches them are above all, the poor and powerless (I have to admit, the most shocking thing I have heard, as someone who was baptized as a Christian, is the idea that Jesus wants you rich or that the rich are blessed, don't know what bible they are reading...). It is funny, many people castigate Muslims for not speaking out against the Islamic fundamentalists, saying it is their duty to speak out loudly to drown out the haters and such, yet those same people faced with the rhetoric of the fundamentalist Christians have remained amazingly silent, and this includes liberal churches and their members, and it is sad. Most people don't share those beliefs, of course, but they also sit back and don't bother to do anything, so when the Mormons pumped 10's of millions of dollars into California to pass prop 8, the 'good' people did exactly what Burke and others warned against, they did nothing and let the loons have sway when they shouldn't of. When we allow religious groups to dictate that schools can only teach abstinence only were are allowing their beliefs to override public good and policy.

I truly hope that the religious start understanding that when the defame others, when they demean gays or call them less then fully human or worthy of basic rights, they are demeaning themselves. The religious get upset that they are portrayed en masse as knuckle draggers and the like, but when you stay silent and let the loons have the floor, you are going to get stained with it. 90% of Catholics in this country are cafeteria Catholics, who don't follow the right line of the JPII and beyond vatican, many of whom support same sex marriage, women priests and so forth, who found the actions of the church against groups of nuns abhorrent, when you let the Bishops make it seem like their flock will vote based on what the Bishops say, it is doing a disservice to themselves and their faith (and that is simply an example, same holds true of a lot of people of faith). I also personally know a number of evangelicals who realized the whol e political movement was more about power for the 'leaders', and have refocused their lives on living as they are supposed to, helping others, and let God do the judging, and bless them for that, and I mean that.

 

[Lord Pmann]

And yes, there are people who say crazy things on both sides, but I suggest you take a look at the reality out there. Sean Penn and Michael moore and Bill Maher say things that are objectionable, but last I checked they aren't talking about denying anyone their rights, no one is saying that people who believe the earth is 6000 years old shouldn't be allowed to get any benefits from science because they don't believe it, no one is saying fundamentalist Christian parents should have their kids taken away, I wish I could say the same for the other side.

Oh? Ever heard of gun control? If those guys had their way, they'd ban gun rights tomorrow. So what you really mean was the side you prefer doesn't care to take away any of the rights that are important to YOU. And here lies the problem with liberals versus conservatives... Both sides are so damn stubborn that neither can see outside their own arses.

And one thing I've always found hysterical is how people can tout the Big Bang Theory with such passion, despite the fact that it defies numerous fundamental laws of energy and physics. The very subject that people use to prove the BBT disproves it at its most fundamental base. I am not saying the earth is 6,000 years old either. My point is, you're ranting about people believing in Creationism when the very thing you believe in takes just as much faith as the other.

For the record, I'm not a Republican and I think Santorum is a nutter. My point was, the liberals are just as crazy as the conservatives. The conservatives like to keep people in their crosshairs socially whilst the liberals like to do it with their ridiculous programmes and such. There are a small, logical minority of us who believe in rights for everyone. The right to be a religious nutter, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others and the right to be a liberal idealist, as long as it doesn't rape my pocketbook.

 

[subwannabe]

I'm an independent myself but, I have to say that scientific facts are scientific facts. That doesn't mean that creationism is the only answer (obviously they are dead wrong in several areas) and it doesn't mean that the big bang theory is the only answer either. Even though the big bang theory is the most plausible current explanation for what happened 13-14 billion years ago you're right in that it hasn't been completely proven. Also, let's say for the sake of arguement that the big bang theory was proven 100%. That doesn't mean that there is no God. It doesn't even mean that that's when the universe actually started. Even according to the BBT there was a single blob of ultra dense material before the big bang and it has also been theorized that we have a big bang followed by an implosion followed by yet another big bang over and over again throughout eternal time. I can't ever comprehend why the two sides keep arguing that it has to be one or the other. Why can't there be a God, the big bang theory, and evolution, all at the same time? Even as far as evolution goes, there can be a God and he can even be responsible for humankind to some degree as it has never been proven that every living thing's ultimate ancestor is an Amoeba (but even if it was it still doesn't mean there is no God). But, evolution, at least to some degree, is a scientifically proven fact. It's hard to take anyone seriously when they deny absolute facts.

 

[Lord Pmann]

I'm an independent myself but, I have to say that scientific facts are scientific facts. That doesn't mean that creationism is the only answer (obviously they are dead wrong in several areas) and it doesn't mean that the big bang theory is the only answer either. Even though the big bang theory is the most plausible current explanation for what happened 13-14 billion years ago you're right in that it hasn't been completely proven. Also, let's say for the sake of arguement that the big bang theory was proven 100%. That doesn't mean that there is no God. It doesn't even mean that that's when the universe actually started. Even according to the BBT there was a single blob of ultra dense material before the big bang and it has also been theorized that we have a big bang followed by an implosion followed by yet another big bang over and over again throughout eternal time. I can't ever comprehend why the two sides keep arguing that it has to be one or the other. Why can't there be a God, the big bang theory, and evolution, all at the same time? Even as far as evolution goes, there can be a God and he can even be responsible for humankind to some degree as it has never been proven that every living thing's ultimate ancestor is an Amoeba (but even if it was it still doesn't mean there is no God). But, evolution, at least to some degree, is a scientifically proven fact. It's hard to take anyone seriously when they deny absolute facts.

Well see, there ya go using logic. Stop it. You'll annoy the uber liberals and the extremists.

What's the Einstein quote? "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

I realize I am using it slightly out of context, but you get the point. It's mind numbing to me that people think religion and science are mutually exclusive. Your post was excellent and the way things should be viewed.

It's funny to me when people say such absolutes regarding some things in science. Man made global warming (not to open up a can of worms) is another. I'm not out to say it is or it isn't a fact. But it is baffling to me how people are so certain how things happened thousands and millions of years ago regarding global temperature and the like. Our scientific method is not infallible. There is a lot that goes in to this kind of conjecture.

Or the study done in Australia counting the number of stars in the universe and coming up with the number 70 sextillion. Wtf is that?

Just because a scientist says it, doesn't make it true. Some of the things scientists try to prove are just beyond their ability. But that doesn't stop them from giving an answer and promoting it as fact.

 

[njlauren]

Oh? Ever heard of gun control? If those guys had their way, they'd ban gun rights tomorrow. So what you really mean was the side you prefer doesn't care to take away any of the rights that are important to YOU. And here lies the problem with liberals versus conservatives... Both sides are so damn stubborn that neither can see outside their own arses.

And one thing I've always found hysterical is how people can tout the Big Bang Theory with such passion, despite the fact that it defies numerous fundamental laws of energy and physics. The very subject that people use to prove the BBT disproves it at its most fundamental base. I am not saying the earth is 6,000 years old either. My point is, you're ranting about people believing in Creationism when the very thing you believe in takes just as much faith as the other.

For the record, I'm not a Republican and I think Santorum is a nutter. My point was, the liberals are just as crazy as the conservatives. The conservatives like to keep people in their crosshairs socially whilst the liberals like to do it with their ridiculous programmes and such. There are a small, logical minority of us who believe in rights for everyone. The right to be a religious nutter, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others and the right to be a liberal idealist, as long as it doesn't rape my pocketbook.

The argument about extremes is valid, but your argument also bears close scrutiny. A lot of 'liberal' legal scholars have concluded that the second amendment gives people the right to bear arms for example, and most people, including myself, don't want to ban weapons. On the other hand, to use the gun argument as a good example of extremism as public policy, the NRA has taken a stand that there should be no limits on gun sales, that anyone should be able to walk into a store and buy guns like buying toothpaste. In a lot of places it is easier to buy a gun then it is to buy a car or get a driver's license. When you own a car, it has to be registered and you are responsible for it, if your car is used in commission of a crime you can be held liable if it wasn't reported stolen, for example, yet some yahoo can walk into a gun store, fill up his trunk with guns, and drive to a big city and sell them on the black market......of guns confiscated in crimes in most cities, 65-70% of them were purchased legally, mostly in places like Virginia and Georgia that have loose gun laws....and those that bought them can sit back and say "not my problem, boss, that gone was stolen/lost" and get away with that. The degenerate who shot up that movie theater bought 6000 rounds of ammo online, perfectly legally, and had a magazine with 100 rounds in the gun he used.....There is real harm there as opposed to religious nutters who claim that someone doing oral sex on their wife should be put in jail because the rantings of some 2000 year old "prophets' or whatnot.....

The Big Bang theory doesn't violate any laws of physics and there is a solid body of evidence behind it, galaxies are expanding away from each other and the further out they are the faster they are moving, which is consistent with the big bang, radio telescope work has shown energy flows that match predictions of big bang theory and the big bang is almost universally accepted by scientists because there is a ton of evidence to show it happened. What they don't have is a universal theory to explain how the big bang happened, string theory is really string conjecture, because there is no evidence with that or super symmetry. Comparing that to belief in a 6000 year old earth is quite frankly idiotic, because the evidence of the big bang is huge, it has passed all kinds of tests of predictability and as technology has increased more and more predictions have been validated, whereas a 6000 year old earth is based on what a 16th century Bishop got from tracking biblical patriarchs back in the bible, claiming 'historical' basis for his work, when the bible is not an accurate history and his methods are short on logic, that is pure belief because there is 0 evidence that a 6000 year old earth is real, and a mountain of evidence it is billions of years old.

At least Maher et al can show a reason to ban guns (whether I believe it or not), if guns were banned there would still be some criminals with guns, but it would be far less then today, guns are used in a lot of crimes and despite the NRA rhetoric, it is a lot harder to commit a crime with a knife or a rock then it is a semi automatic assault weapon with a 100 round barrel, the 24 people killed and scores wounded in Colorado happened in the space of a minute or so, try killing 24 people with a knife in that time, and also try taking out very many people with a knife before someone gets him (and even if some yo yo had a gun in that theater, it is unlikely they would have done anything other then get more people kiled); whereas those arguing biblical morality as law have only the Bible as proof of anything.