Very touchy subject here..approach with caution.

[Stella_Omega]

I always enjoy when people throw out the phrase "in fact" as though it will settle the debate. Thank God that two thousand years of theological debate can now come to an end because RyeandGingerAle has let us in on a little known fact.

well that's actually a very good point.

Humans-- one of the things we do very well, is find what we are looking for. We are REALLY good at it-- so good that we can find things even when they don't actually exist, like canals on Mars, and pictures of scorpions mermaids and virgins in the stars, and meaning in packs of playing cards.
Once someone suggested that our universe came into existance from one singular point, we began looking for signs of that explosion. We have found those signs, a little less than one hundred years into the search.

Man has been looking for signs that Gods exist for much, much longer than two thousand years. More like ten thousand.

And... nope. Nothing. No proof.

So I think it's pretty safe to say that empirical evidence is stacking up against to possibility.

Nobody forced their religious views on you and I would challenge you to provide one example of when someone else's religious views were imposed on you.

1) Blue laws.
2) marriage and divorce laws.
3) laws against suicide.
4) laws that made it nearly impossible to obtain birth control, less than forty years ago.
5) laws against abortions.
6) laws against homosexual behavior.
7) laws against "fornication."
8) the ten bazillion churches that take up useful real estate, and the proliferation of Pat Robertson-style bigotry, and the money that my aunt squandered on blessed whatchamajiggers instead of her kids, and the shit that my gay best friend went through because his catholic family didn't believe in divorce, and the fucking fools who think that belief is better than knowlege.

Want me to go on?

 

[RyeandGingerAyle]

I used to have to recite the Lord's Prayer every morning in Public School

Originally Posted by Aviator1976
"Nobody forced their religious views on you and I would challenge you to provide one example of when someone else's religious views were imposed on you."

Stella...that one was too easy, but thanks for the answer. I doubt anyone's hard drive is big enough to detail or even list the history of organized religion's oppression against individuals, which goes back way past the Inquisition to beyond the dawn of written language. To balance that, many societies have oppressed religious believers, although that has most often been perpetrated by a dominant religion over less powerful ones.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Hell, even our laws about property and chattel are based on the belief that this world was made by God for the benefit of humans. Wanna destroy a stream of clear water? That's okay with God. Wanna kill of every single one of some species of animal? Wanna drill for oil in the last bit of unspoiled wilderness? God says it's your right to do so.

 

[HarlotMinx]

I find that while I'm entirely atheist I benefit by having an understanding of others religious beliefs. Not that all atheists should sit down and read the torah... just that it helps to know what others actually believe in order to confirm or solidify your own beliefs.

The biggest issue with the Bible today and by extension Christianity is a misunderstanding of the bible. Part of it is that people read the bible and pick and choose their beliefs, part of it is that the bible was written in a societal context that does not exist today, and a large part of it is that the bible was originally written in greek and hebrew and not all of it translates perfectly to English... or even well. I mean, for example, take Leviticus. Leviticus has to be one of the single most quoted references for anti gay sentiments. First off, Leviticus is a collection of Jewish ceremonial law.... well... Christians are neither Jewish nor Levites (the tribe of Levi that performed the ceremonial rituals of the Hebrews). Jewish law just doesn't apply to your average baptist... hell it doesn't apply to most Jews. What's more, christian dogma holds that all Jewish ceremonial law doesn't apply because the tearing of the veil (Mark 15:38). But, lets say you ARE a Jew and a levite, and don't recognize the tearing of the veil. Well every single mention of homosexuality in Leviticus has nothing to do with homosexuality as it does the practice of temple prostitution by the priests of Moloch and read in context it shows that.

That all said it's easier to pick and choose your phrase and pull it out of societal or historical context and ignore the rest. I've never seen a person who quotes Leviticus to condemn gays also condemn people for wearing clothes of mixed fiber (Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11) or only allow church services on Saturday (Leviticus 23:32) or stone their misbehaved children (Leviticus 20:2). It's easy to pull out the parts that they think apply to the gays...

warning, this part is a bit thicker to read
But even if you pull out lines that apply specifically to homosexuals, lets say Corinthians 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals." Simple eh? Straight forward? Not in the least. First off, the word assumed to mean effeminate in it's original form was malakos which is in reference to the Greek catamites (young slaves who were used as homosexual prostitution) and the word Paul uses for homosexual is Arsenokoites.... the problem is Arsenokoites isn't a greek word much less a word for homosexual (which would be pedarast). Arsenokoites in it's roots mean "man" and "bed" even the catholic church didn't think it meant homosexual until the time of Martin Luther, it was originally interpreted to mean masturbation. Arsenokoites however in reference to the malakos could just as easily read "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexual prostitutes, nor the men who hire them." The fact is, even the world's best Linguists have to make assumptions about the meanings of words because some just don't simply translate into a single idea. The bible has changed many times over it's lifetime and even the versions where people have attempted to translate from the original text are different from each other. And even ignoring all that, you have to recognize that the bible was written by the Council of Nicaea and it was picked and chosen from a wide source variety of documents, many of which never made it into the bible. I remember when my old priest explained to me that they were divinely inspired to pick and choose only the word of god but I've always felt deus ex machina was a bad answer for any question.
Done with the heavy stuff

Basically, if you happen to be christian then follow your beliefs; God(if he exists) is in you, and not a book. If it works, makes you happy and isn't harming you or anyone else then run with it, there so little time in life that to waste years of it worrying about if a book condemns something that makes you genuinely happy is the real crime(not that you have or are but their are people who do).

 

[Mikijl Dragon]

I actually enjoy this post

It is very thought provoking. I myself believe you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Do I think I will burn in ever lasting fire after I die because I enjoy a varied sex life. No. Why? If there is a God, god, goddess, tea cup no one has gotten it right. There are core ideas in every religion that are good to follow in your everyday life but every religion also has a ton of crap that the religious leaders threw on top for reasons they thought would benefit either them or society.

Religion as it was said before is control. A way for the leaders in the community/home to impose their morality and rules upon the young. Is it a bad thing? Not really, these rules do help guide us in our young formative years but I think people out grow them much like the boogie man or the tooth fairy. Most people will not let go of the security blanket that religion provides. Once you understand this you can rise above the need for said security blanket and make your own choices good or ill.

 

[WestMich69]

Mikjl Dragon & HarlotMinx..................great replies!

 

[srlmort]

Another example of someones morality being forced upon us

That was pretty well answered by the others but let me give you just ANOTHER example of why my statement holds water:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_lesbian_prom_date

So in Mississippi it was ok for the school board to cancel the prom because bringing her girlfriend to the prom would be a "distraction"? WOW

Just because you don't like it or don't believe in it doesn't give you the right to FORCE other people to change their beliefs.

Just the same, I won't try to force my liberal view on anyone. However it is wrong for the governments, schools, etc to interfere in someones personal lives.

Just 7 days ago Washington DC allows gay marriage and a week later this happpens. What is wrong here my friends??

 

[Etoile]

Welcome to Mississippi, I guess. The documentary "Small Town Gay Bar" is very good on this subject.

 

[xdressslut]

Very touchy subject...approach with caution

good question all " The law in it's majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor ,to sleep under bridges beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Antole France


any way Big brother has been fucking with peoples lives since the beginning of time ... and he always will ...

 

[Esperanza_Hidalgo]

I touched on big brother a bit on another thread. See his influence.

Lesbian teen sues over prom flap; back at school

 

[Aviator1976]

How about that whole "gays can't get married" thing?

Sure they can in some states.

And that issue extends beyond purely religious boundries. There are people that oppose gay marriage for strictly political reasons, it is not religiously based.

 

[Aviator1976]

Familial acceptance is important..especially if you're from a small family.


Etoile, agree with you there.

But you stated that your mother accepts your lifestyle. Isn't that all you can reasonably ask of her?

Her religious views are her business.

 

[Aviator1976]

well that's actually a very good point.

Humans-- one of the things we do very well, is find what we are looking for. We are REALLY good at it-- so good that we can find things even when they don't actually exist, like canals on Mars, and pictures of scorpions mermaids and virgins in the stars, and meaning in packs of playing cards.
Once someone suggested that our universe came into existance from one singular point, we began looking for signs of that explosion. We have found those signs, a little less than one hundred years into the search.

Man has been looking for signs that Gods exist for much, much longer than two thousand years. More like ten thousand.

And... nope. Nothing. No proof.

So I think it's pretty safe to say that empirical evidence is stacking up against to possibility.
1) Blue laws.
2) marriage and divorce laws.
3) laws against suicide.
4) laws that made it nearly impossible to obtain birth control, less than forty years ago.
5) laws against abortions.
6) laws against homosexual behavior.
7) laws against "fornication."
8) the ten bazillion churches that take up useful real estate, and the proliferation of Pat Robertson-style bigotry, and the money that my aunt squandered on blessed whatchamajiggers instead of her kids, and the shit that my gay best friend went through because his catholic family didn't believe in divorce, and the fucking fools who think that belief is better than knowlege.

Want me to go on?

Ok, this may take some time to respond to all of these points.

Firstly, I would agree with you that science has found signs that seem to indicate the universe was created by a singular cosmic event. As early as the 1960's with the observation of the 4k background radiation scientists were anxious to claim they had proven the "Big Bang".

But then you lose me. Somehow you make the leap that this somehow disproves the existence of any sort of creator. Is it not possible that if there is a God, they created the universe through one singular cosmic event? Science may actually be proving the existence of a creator. You may not choose to believe that, but it is a possibility just the same.

Now to your claims of "religious discrimination".

1. Blue laws - I live in a dry county. I can't even buy beer in my county any time. Solution? I go to the next county.
2. Marriage and divorce laws should be treated separately. Marriage as an institution existed before organized religion, so it has been recognized for thousands of years as benefitting society. As for divorce laws...do you really think no fault divorce was a result of imposing religious views? If religion were imposed on marriage laws, divorce would be more, not less, difficult.
3. Suicide - Laws against suicide are in place to promote a society that values life, which is a view that transcends religion. Even athiests value life. It also addresses other civil issues like insurance.
4. Birth control - What does 40 years have to do with now? Can you or can't you get birth control at Wal-Mart?
5. Abortion - Are you serious? Abortion is legal. What else has to be said? If religious views were really being imposed on you abortion would be illegal since almost every organized religion formally opposes abortion.
6. Laws regarding sexual behavior - There are laws regarding both heterosexual and homosexual behavior, so it is hardly discriminatory. I would tend to agree with you that the laws are useless because they are rarely enforced and they should be removed from the books. When is the last time someone in the US was charged with sodomy? (And not when sodomy was an add on offense to get more jail time...like throwing in a sodomy charge with a rape charge to get the guy more time.)
7. Laws against fornication - See above
8. The is just a series of ramblings coming from your own personal experiences and have nothing to do with religion being forced on anyone.

 

[Aviator1976]

Originally Posted by Aviator1976
"Nobody forced their religious views on you and I would challenge you to provide one example of when someone else's religious views were imposed on you."

Stella...that one was too easy, but thanks for the answer. I doubt anyone's hard drive is big enough to detail or even list the history of organized religion's oppression against individuals, which goes back way past the Inquisition to beyond the dawn of written language. To balance that, many societies have oppressed religious believers, although that has most often been perpetrated by a dominant religion over less powerful ones.

Both you and Stella missed the point....stop talking in generalities. I made my point very specific and used the word "you" for a reason. I want "you" to provide a specific example of when "you" were oppressed by someone's religious views.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oh, Aviator.

I can't really care enough about your quibbles to address them. You aren't interesting enough to debate, actually-- sorry.

Come back when you are a grownup.

 

[HarlotMinx]

Both you and Stella missed the point....stop talking in generalities. I made my point very specific and used the word "you" for a reason. I want "you" to provide a specific example of when "you" were oppressed by someone's religious views.

I can! My school was predominantly Mormon in composition. All the Mormon parents went to the principle and complained about the dress code for the prom and got him to impose a more conservative policy. Dresses couldn't expose your back, men had to wear suits, cross dressing wasn't allowed. The really ridiculous thing was that the Mormons didn't go to our schools prom, they had a separate prom at their church. The student body ended up creating a petition to overturn the principles new code and he refused. I ended up going to another school's prom but I herd a girl showed up in a prom dress made from duct tape in protest.

 

[HarlotMinx]

OH! and here's another one. I just got this message from my college's gay relations department.... this is lovely.

In case you haven't heard, the Attorney General of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, sent a letter to all of the public universities and colleges in the commonwealth and encouraged them to remove the terms "sexual orientation", "gender identity" and "gender expression" from their non-discrimination policies. Cuccinelli's reasoning for this was that because they are state institutions, the only institution that can decide which fields are covered by these policies is the General Assembly. Since the GA has voted against or killed bills outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation for state institutions over 25 times, Cuccinelli is asking that these colleges/universities cease these policies.

While Gov. McDonnell just issued an updated version of Executive Directive #1 and included sexual orientation as a protected class for discrimination against state employees, what this could mean for the future is vague. Cuccinelli responded to Gov. McDonnell's Directive by saying “I applaud Gov. McDonnell for the tone he is setting for the commonwealth of Virginia." However, this does not mention the fact that in order for these protections to be permanent, they must be passed into law by the GA. The Senate has voted in favor of this but these measures have repeatedly died in the House of Delegates, which just happened on Monday.

While Cuccinelli's reasoning is technically correct, that does not make it just. I will be speaking to Pat and other top people at my college on Tuesday to try and figure out where the faculty are standing on this. We will also be discussing possible things to do on Tuesday during our meeting.

In terms of what we can do now, it's pretty limited. However, the Virginia Young Democrats have organized a massive call in protest day for Friday, March 12. In addition to calling the Attorney General's office to ask that he not enforce discrimination, VAYD is asking that we call the Governor's office and demand that Gov. McDonnell put pressure on the General Assembly to pass this protection measure into law. You can find more info on the VA Young Democrats site:
http://action.yda.org/c/1038/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=146
At the bottom, they have a section where you can find your legislators and get their numbers and tell them where you stand.

The phone number of Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's office is 804-786-2071 and his office website is: http://www.oag.state.va.us/CONTACTS/index.html

The phone number of Governor Robert F. McDonnell is 804-786-2211 and his office website is: http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TheAdministration/contactGovernor.cfm

Sorry for taking so long, but this is complicated and needs to be explained as such. If there's any other questions, don't hesitate to contact me.

Take care,
Charlie

 

[Etoile]

Sure they can in some states.

And that issue extends beyond purely religious boundries. There are people that oppose gay marriage for strictly political reasons, it is not religiously based.

"Some states" means nothing. My Connecticut marriage license is not valid at home (Virginia) and not valid federally. (This is an example of how I personally have been affected by the religious beliefs of others, not generally - I do have a CT marriage license.)

If there are people who oppose gay marriage for political reasons, it is a VERY small number compared to those who oppose it for religious reasons. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

 

[RyeandGingerAyle]

Religious oppression

Through eight years of Public School (wholly funded by government) I and all my classmates had to recite the Lord's Prayer at the start of classes every morning.

In my younger years it was impossible to shop on Sundays. After all, we should have been in church, not shopping.

Aviator wrote: Both you and Stella missed the point....stop talking in generalities. I made my point very specific and used the word "you" for a reason. I want "you" to provide a specific example of when "you" were oppressed by someone's religious views.

 

[Mikijl Dragon]

I know I shouldn't but I so want to address these

1. Blue laws - I live in a dry county. I can't even buy beer in my county any time. Solution? I go to the next county.
You logic is flawed. You are affected. You must now drive out of your way to obtain that which others consider immoral. Your money, your time and the wear on your vehicle are all affected.
2. Marriage and divorce laws should be treated separately. Marriage as an institution existed before organized religion, so it has been recognized for thousands of years as benefitting society. As for divorce laws...do you really think no fault divorce was a result of imposing religious views? If religion were imposed on marriage laws, divorce would be more, not less, difficult.
You say that they should be treated separately but yet you lump them together in your response. To address the point of marriage yes it has been around for a very long time. In each different culture it has been treated differently. Some cultures allow for polygamy others do not. In each though it is what the majority in that culture consider right. Divorce is a little bit of a newer idea although it has existed in other forms. Annulment for one. So as it is a new idea I can not argue any of the points you brought up on the subject. Of course none of your argument shows why it does not affect you. I cannot speak to the point for I do not know if you are married, divorced or how you pay your taxes.
3. Suicide - Laws against suicide are in place to promote a society that values life, which is a view that transcends religion. Even athiests value life. It also addresses other civil issues like insurance. It promotes our instinctual need for self preservation. Yes this does transcend religion. Do we need laws to prevent something we are hardwired to do anyways. I do not think so. How does this affect you? How much time do you think law makers used to draft, propose and vote on the law? How much of that came out of tax dollars? How many programs that may have benefited you did not come to fruition that year because of lack of funds? I know I should not use questions in a debate but I do not know enough about you to point to the exact affect. The questions are here to provide you an avenue to see what those affects are for you.
4. Birth control - What does 40 years have to do with now? Can you or can't you get birth control at Wal-Mart?
This has a very direct affect on you. If 40 years ago birth control was available, not frowned upon and people were educated on it would there not be less unplanned pregnancies. These pregnancies resulting in hasty weddings , shunned women , abandoned children and added strain on a welfare system that results in higher taxes for you now? More people also consume more resources which directly affects the environment. Unless you live in space you are affected by this in some way.
5. Abortion - Are you serious? Abortion is legal. What else has to be said? If religious views were really being imposed on you abortion would be illegal since almost every organized religion formally opposes abortion.
This was an uphill battle and even now religion lobbies to get this decision overturned. It was not always legal and many a woman died from having back alley abortions. As to the affect it has on you see #4
6. Laws regarding sexual behavior - There are laws regarding both heterosexual and homosexual behavior, so it is hardly discriminatory. I would tend to agree with you that the laws are useless because they are rarely enforced and they should be removed from the books. When is the last time someone in the US was charged with sodomy? (And not when sodomy was an add on offense to get more jail time...like throwing in a sodomy charge with a rape charge to get the guy more time.)
The statement was "I would challenge you to provide one example of when someone else's religious views were imposed on you." not "I would challenge you to provide one example of when someone else's religious views were imposed on you because you are g/l/t/b." That being said the United States Supreme Court invalidated all state sodomy laws in 2003 Lawrence v. Texas but they are still on the books and people do get charged with them regardless. It does not stick but an easy way to humiliate someone.
7. Laws against fornication - See above
8. The is just a series of ramblings coming from your own personal experiences and have nothing to do with religion being forced on anyone. The is just a series of ramblings coming from your own personal experiences and lack of being able to see the big picture.

blegh! I have to get to work... please excuse the grammer and/or typos

 

[Aviator1976]

Oh, Aviator.

I can't really care enough about your quibbles to address them. You aren't interesting enough to debate, actually-- sorry.

Come back when you are a grownup.

So grown up of you; maybe someday I will reach your level of maturity.

As with most people, when your position is challenged you look for the easy way out.

 

[Aviator1976]

"Some states" means nothing. My Connecticut marriage license is not valid at home (Virginia) and not valid federally. (This is an example of how I personally have been affected by the religious beliefs of others, not generally - I do have a CT marriage license.)

If there are people who oppose gay marriage for political reasons, it is a VERY small number compared to those who oppose it for religious reasons. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

My point remains that you were able to get married. Too many people have the view that the U.S. is suppoed to be entirely homogenous, with every state looking and feeling the same. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As a footnote, I have no problem with gay marriage. If people have a problem with calling it marriage, give ity another name like civil union. The end result is that two people should be able to form a household. I would go so far as to argue that two widows should be able to cohabitate and recieve the tax and other benefits from that situation.

 

[Aviator1976]

I know I shouldn't but I so want to address these



blegh! I have to get to work... please excuse the grammer and/or typos

You make some good points, but all I think it did was illustrate just how differently some people view the world.

In most of your examples I would agree there is an issue of inconvenience. I would also argue that an inconvenience is hardly oppression. Can I still get beer? Yes, I just go to the next county. Can Etoile get married? Yes, but she had to go to CT.

The fact that there are avenues to address these issues and affect change demonstrates just how effective our system is. In a democracy where laws are supposed to reflect the will of the people, and a majority of the people claim to be religious, the laws will reflect those beliefs. As I said before, I will accept that they may be an inconvenience for some people but they are hardly oppression. Oppression is what happened in Iran last year when the government forcefully and violently squashes opposition.

 

[Aviator1976]

Hell, even our laws about property and chattel are based on the belief that this world was made by God for the benefit of humans. Wanna destroy a stream of clear water? That's okay with God. Wanna kill of every single one of some species of animal? Wanna drill for oil in the last bit of unspoiled wilderness? God says it's your right to do so.

Are you serious? You think those arguments are based on religion? They are based purely on capitalism, and to a certain extent greed. Profit. Making money.

The Christian God talks about the environment with great respect. Yes, we are granted dominion over all of creation, but that is more of a responsibility than a license to streal. Don't blame religion for examples of people spoiling the earth. Blame human nature and our greed.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Aviator, you don't get to decide what is oppressive and what is merely an "inconvenience." You are welcome to your opinions, but don't expect anyone to take them seriously.

And you don't need to defend religion to me. Religion has the upper hand at this time.