RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism"

RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/15/2014 8:42:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Whatever standard is used to select these practices, it must employ some system of belief (or values, which in this instance amounts to pretty much the same thing) in order to distinguish between useful practices and the rest. Well the only way to determine whether a practice is useful is to practice it, and practices derived from false beliefs would be unlikely to reward. So I think it more likely that the various methods were discovered empirically, and then belief structures followed to explain the experience. But whichever the case, it is definitely not true that beliefs must have come first. quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle However, the main issue with your definiton is that, regardless of its inherent merit, it is simply not what most people understand religion to be. Well, the view I've expressed is not mine alone. And it differs from what most people understand by "religion" because the meaning of the word has changed from what a religio intends. Education often introduces people to ideas that differ from what they thought, but I don't view that as an "issue" with education. And, there is more to be said. Failing to distinguish between theory and practice is a dangerous place to go, evidence of which can be seen in the failure to distinguish between belief and fact. K.

Lucylastic -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/15/2014 8:57:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Matthew 7 vs. 6 Okay . . . “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces." (KJV) Who are the dogs/swine in your view? What are the pearls? BTW, as a church lady myself, I have to say I cringe when I read your posts. Again and again, your words make all believers sound like morons. sweetheart, some of us know the difference between the morons out there and others who ARE decent people, no matter their "religion"

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/15/2014 9:07:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice If one truly believes that our unions merit "equal recognition and rights," why not accord them the same noun? How about because a union between a man and a woman, which is what the word has signified for hundreds of years, is simply not a union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Does "equal rights" mean that gays have a "right" to demand that society redefine a centuries old word simply because it suits them that it be so? quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Might it be to ensure--linguistically, at least--that everyone knows, deep down, those that gay guys down the street, however committed or united or devoted as parents, aren't really, truly, exactly equal to their straight neighbors? Might it be that some people suffer from a lack of self-worth, painful feelings which when stimulated they defend against by projecting onto others an intention to demean them? K.

tweakabelle -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/15/2014 9:42:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Whatever standard is used to select these practices, it must employ some system of belief (or values, which in this instance amounts to pretty much the same thing) in order to distinguish between useful practices and the rest. Well the only way to determine whether a practice is useful is to practice it, and practices derived from false beliefs would be unlikely to reward. So I think it more likely that the various methods were discovered empirically, and then belief structures followed to explain the experience. But whichever the case, it is definitely not true that beliefs must have come first. The choice facing an individual who has decided to check out these practices is on what basis do they choose or decline a given practice.. The question of how they developed historically isn't relevant. Someone deciding to start this process today must have some grounds upon which they make a decision to adopt practice A or to decline practice B. Whatever ground they choose to employ, it will invariably involve a belief or value of some kind. Practice, as you have described it, cannot be divorced from belief. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle However, the main issue with your definiton is that, regardless of its inherent merit, it is simply not what most people understand religion to be. Well, the view I've expressed is not mine alone. And it differs from what most people understand by "religion" because the meaning of the word has changed from what a religio intends. Education often introduces people to ideas that differ from what they thought, but I don't view that as an "issue" with education. And, there is more to be said. Failing to distinguish between theory and practice is a dangerous place to go, evidence of which can be seen in the failure to distinguish between belief and fact. K. The issue here is not a theoretical or philosophical one, it is a simple matter of clarity, of successsful communications. When you talk about 'religion' according to your definition, it isn't 'religion' as most people will understand the term. It is something else. If your goal is for people to understand or to be persuaded by your position, it is difficult to see how misleading communications are going to contribute towards achieving that goal.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/15/2014 9:52:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Voting against equal rights for homosexuals means you treat the homosexual community badly. For hundreds of years, and from the founding of our country, heterosexuals have called the committed union of a man and a woman a "marriage". I can see no argument against the government recognizing the committed unions of homosexuals, but that is not what the gay community is asking for. Instead, they are telling the heterosexual community, "We want that word to apply to our unions too. If you don't like it, fuck you. Tough shit. Go find another." Some people don't like that attitude, regardless of whether or not they have any aversion to homosexuality, be it religious or otherwise, and even if they support affording homosexual unions equal recognition and rights. And it is a general rule that you will always get more respect by giving some. K. This whole statement is a total load of bullshit, and it is typical of those trying to claim they are not homophobic, when they are. Heterosexuals might have called the committed union of a man and woman marriage, but it doesn't matter, the real issue is that the term marriage became a legal term, that specified rights and benefits on those who are legally married. Once that happened, it was no longer a religious term, and quite frankly it no longer matters one iota whether people think it should be reserved for straights or not, once the law recognized the term, it is no longer sacred, it is no longer special, it is a legal right, much as habeus corpus or the right against self incrimination, and it cannot be denied because some people don't like it being given to others. The reality is those who protest that it is the term marriage know damn well that the legal term marriage is needed to get rights. Did you know, Kirata, that people with civic unions cannot collect the social security benefits of their partner if they die, that if they have a civic union in state, their partner dies, that their blood relatives can go into court in their state, and have the children taken from the only parent they know..which they could not do if they were married? Do you realize that if a couple with a civic union goes on vacation, one of them has an accident, that the partner can be denied access and then have their partners family deciding medical issues, like what treatment and so forth? Did you know that with 401k's that the automatic inheritance of a spouse is not in play, and that a family member could get the 401k as next of kin, even if the deceased left it to their partner (401k inheritance is under ERISA which recognizes only the term marriage)? Did you know that if a company offers health insurance to same sex couples in a state where they cannot marry, but can have a civic union, that they pay taxes on that benefit, whereas to married couples it is tax free? If hetero couples were so worried about the term married being reserved for straights, they would insist the word marriage be taken out of the law completely, leave marriage to the churches, government not recognize marriage, and instead anyone who wants to get the legal rights, gets a civil union, straight or gay. In reality, the reason that straights object to gays using the term marriage is they want gays unions to be second class, if they wanted them to have the same rights, marriage would have no more legal meaning than the rite of communion does legally..but I don't exactly see anyone defending marriage proposing everyone gets a civil union.

Lucylastic -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/15/2014 9:52:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata How about because a union between a man and a woman, which is what the word has signified for hundreds of years, is simply not a union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Does "equal rights" mean that gays have a "right" to demand that society redefine a centuries old word simply because it suits them that it be so? K. marriage has been defined so many times that honestly to me, the underlined is moot. At one time you couldnt marry a person of the opposite race before that you could marry a child, before that, you had to pay or get paid a dowry(Yes Im aware THAT still goes on) its not like heteros have made the term married sacrilege. so much divorce makes a mockery of it:) doesnt it? ooooooh no maybe no

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/15/2014 9:58:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: We want that word to apply to our unions too. Indeed we do. If one truly believes that our unions merit "equal recognition and rights," why not accord them the same noun? Might it be to ensure--linguistically, at least--that everyone knows, deep down, those that gay guys down the street, however committed or united or devoted as parents, aren't really, truly, exactly equal to their straight neighbors? Bingo, novice, and that is what the term "it is about the word marriage' boils down to..when you name something different it makes it less valuable. SCOTUS defined this beautifully in the Brown V board of Ed decision, that said separate but equal by its very nature is not equal,that by separating out the 'other group', you are inherently making them unequal. Among other things, thanks to Marriage being a legal term, offering gays civic unions doesn't give them full rights; not to mention, it allows all those 'oh it is the term marriage' to sit there and think "okay, you damn f***ots, you got your civic union, but it ain't marriage, cause marriage is sacred and only we (straight, normal) people can have that, yuck yuck")). As far as gays not willing to compromise, why is it the gays have to compromise, how come those who want marriage for themselves are the selfish assholes? Are gays selfish cause they want to be married, which after all they were brought up to believe was a great thing, or those who want to deny it to others?

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/15/2014 10:04:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Practice, as you have described it, cannot be divorced from belief. What I have said is that you don't have to "believe in" anything in order to engage in a religious or yogic practice. Obviously devotional practices will not suit someone who doesn't believe in the object of the devotion, but that is a different matter. quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The issue here is not a theoretical or philosophical one, it is a simple matter of clarity, of successsful communications. Which is precisely the problem caused by our current non-definition of religion. quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle When you talk about 'religion' according to your definition, it isn't 'religion' as most people will understand the term. It is something else. If your goal is for people to understand or to be persuaded by your position, it is difficult to see how misleading communications are going to contribute towards achieving that goal. I ordinarily use the term as everyone else does (at least to the extent that everyone can be said to mean the same thing by it). But we talking here about my view, which I was asked to offer, and, while I am defending it, it is not my goal to persuade anyone to accept it. K.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/15/2014 10:04:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: For hundreds of years, and from the founding of our country, heterosexuals have called the committed union of a man and a woman a "marriage". Words evolve. Always have, always will. That's particularly true for "marriage." In its long history, it's referred to polygamous unions (legally recognized in nearly 50 countries today), arranged marriages meant to advance dynastic and economic interests, households in which the woman was her husband's chattel with few if any rights of her own, love matches between equals, and God knows what else. The idea that "marriage" has ever had a single definition that fits all times and all places is, to borrow from the Book of Common Prayer, "a fond thing, vainly invented." As for heterosexuals' use of the word "marriage," I know plenty of straight folks who delight in extending it to their LGBT brothers and sisters. They include my bishop and parish priests, relatives, friends, and local legislators. My father, who was an oddity for his generation (WWII veteran), once said "why shouldn't gay couples get married? If they want to share in the suffering, more power to them" lol. It also raises a really interesting question, one I am surprised has not come up in arguments in the court, by what right do the religious types who are against same sex marriage have to define the law, when there are a lot of religious people who see marriage as the committed joining of two people, whether straight or gay? How come we give preference to the Catholic Church, or rather its leadership, whose moral authority these days is quite questionable (like, allowing children to be molested by priests time and again, moving them from parish to parish, rather than turning them over for prosecution, or keeping Bishops in office right now who have been convicted of breaking the law?). If the first amendment says that the government shall not establish a government or favor one belief over another, how come marriage should be defined only by 1 religious belief, which ignores that that is not the only belief?

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/15/2014 10:08:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren when you name something different it makes it less valuable. What complete and utter rot, though I admit among colors I've always preferred blue. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren SCOTUS defined this beautifully in the Brown V board of Ed decision, that said separate but equal by its very nature is not equal,that by separating out the 'other group', you are inherently making them unequal. Firstly, that is a very thin reading of Brown. And secondly, nobody is talking about segregating gays ferfucksake. K.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/15/2014 10:14:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice If one truly believes that our unions merit "equal recognition and rights," why not accord them the same noun? How about because a union between a man and a woman, which is what the word has signified for hundreds of years, is simply not a union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Does "equal rights" mean that gays have a "right" to demand that society redefine a centuries old word simply because it suits them that it be so? quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Might it be to ensure--linguistically, at least--that everyone knows, deep down, those that gay guys down the street, however committed or united or devoted as parents, aren't really, truly, exactly equal to their straight neighbors? Might it be that some people suffer from a lack of self-worth, painful feelings which when stimulated they defend against by projecting onto others an intention to demean them? K. Or conversely, maybe those who want to hold onto the term "marriage" for themselves want to do so because they are pathetic people who otherwise have little to set themselves apart, to say "well, I am married, so that makes me, while only you have a civic union, mine is better than yours".Among other things, it is pretty pathetic if a straight couple needs to feel superior because their union has a particular label and they think that makes them better than a couple whose has a different label. One of the realities of homophobia is that it is one of the few things left that morons can use to make themselves feel better, by having a group they can make fun of or demonize or 'keep in their place', and denying gays the term marriage does just that. It basically is no different than the white trash that backed Jim Crow, by keeping blacks in their place it made the white trash feel superior, because otherwise everyone else knew that in many ways they were trash. Not to mention, of course, that the term marriage has specific legal meaning that any union other than marriage would be inferior too. Like I said, if those who objet to gays have the term marriage proposed that everyone gets a civil union to get the legal rights now associated with marriage, and left marriage as a church rite with no legal meaning, I could respect that; but the fact is, those objecting to the term marriage being used by gays know damn well that only marriage grants full rights across the country.

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/15/2014 10:14:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren Did you know, Kirata, that people with civic unions cannot.... Civil unions have whatever rights are accorded to them by the state, and since anything less than the same rights and privileges accorded to heterosexual marriage would not be equal rights, anyone who thinks I would support such a thing is being both stupid and insulting. K.

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/15/2014 10:21:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Might it be that some people suffer from a lack of self-worth, painful feelings which when stimulated they defend against by projecting onto others an intention to demean them? pathetic people... feel superior... homophobia... white trash... Well that answers that. [:D] K.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/15/2014 10:23:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren when you name something different it makes it less valuable. What complete and utter rot, though I admit among colors I've always preferred blue. [:D] K. Nope,it is a fact of human existence, when you have two things named differently, the alternate name is often considered less valuable. It is about perceptions and how things are valued. There have been a lot of studies done like this, and for example, they did something like have people test facial tissues, and told them one of them was Kleenex, one of them was a 'no name' brand (while giving them two kleenex), and a large percentage of the time, they reported that the 'no name' brand was not as good, when it was the same tissue! People are asked to listen to two pieces of music, one supposedly of a famous musician, one by a student, and they were asked to listen to them and see which they liked better, and they routinely said the one done 'by the master' and had distinct criticisms for the 'student' piece that justified picking the 'master'. "Marriage' has been set up as the ideal, as something you are supposed to do, is cherished, and when you create another name, it is inherently inferior in most people's minds, since when growing up they aren't told "when you grow up, you will find someone to love and commit to them", they are told "when you grow up, and find someone you love, you will marry them and become a family". The fact that this was restricted to straight couples is irrelevant, that is exclusionary but doesn't change the fact that it is the term marriage that was set up as being the ideal, and gay kids heard that like hetero ones did. What those who wish to exclude gays from marriage are doing is by not allowing them them the term marriage, is enforcing the belief it is not the ideal, that it is unequal, because of the strong association with the word marriage.

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/15/2014 10:29:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice In its long history, it's referred to... Did it escape your notice that every one of the examples that you and Lucy cited involve heterosexual relationships? K.

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/15/2014 10:51:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata What complete and utter rot, though I admit among colors I've always preferred blue. [:D] Nope,it is a fact of human existence, when you have two things named differently, the alternate name is often considered less valuable. It is about perceptions and how things are valued. There have been a lot of studies... There is a difference between assigning different names to the same thing, particularly when one name is comparatively prejudicial, and assigning different names to different things. I put it to you that a heterosexual relationship is not the same thing as a same-sex relationship, and I would be inclined to think that marrying a contra-sexual partner is not something most gays would hold as an "ideal". More generally, I question your whole premise in that regard. Personally, I'm single. I have never been made to feel that I was held in less regard for that cause. In fact, some of the married people I know envy me! And by the way, related to your previous knee-jerk "homophobia" crap, it may interest you to know that for a variety of reasons not all gays themselves favor gay marriage. For example... Gays against gay marriage K.

Lucylastic -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/15/2014 11:19:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice In its long history, it's referred to... Did it escape your notice that every one of the examples that you and Lucy cited involve heterosexual relationships? K. And?? why is that????

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/15/2014 11:23:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Did it escape your notice that every one of the examples that you and Lucy cited involve heterosexual relationships? And?? why is that???? Okay wait, I know this, gimme a minute to think.... [:D] K.

Lucylastic -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/15/2014 11:23:21 PM)
double post sorry, my computer frozze

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/15/2014 11:26:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic double post sorry, my computer frozze Whew, thanks. For a minute there I thought I was having one of those deja-vu things. [:)] K.

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625