[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Interestingly enough, this issue of Where does human loyalty lie, to god or to government, is something has been going on since the Middle Ages at least (and I'm currently taking an independant readings class on the very issue). It will never be resolved, as long as people still have such an idea that they need to be attatched to some kind of religious being that is somehow better than them. [/QUOTE]
I would actually rephrase that to "Where does human loyalty lie, to individual morality or to public morality?"
While this issue may have religious undertones, there are exceptions, and there are several similar issues that would all fall under this description. It's easy to simplify it into religious wackos trying to enforce their religion, but that's not necessarily the case.[/QUOTE]
You've made a good point here. However, when speaking of human society in general, there are two forms of morality; public and private, which you pointed out. Now, there are two ways to force people into morality, and both of them involve threats....threats on their personal life, liberties or benefits (you can't do this or you'll break the law and we'll make you pay a fine/throw you in jail, etc.) or threats on the afterlife (don't do this or you are going to go to hell). Even before Christianity, is was the roll of the secular government to enforce the lawas or morality, which were sometimes established by themselves (treason, etc.) But even in pre-Christian societies, the religious authorities were the primary creators and distributors of morals. This wasn't always done in the directly being told not to do this type way, as is the example in pagan Greece and Rome, where the gods and goddesses were given personal characteristics and getting into messy situations that they resolved generally with warfare amongst themselves...in this case it was a "don't do what they do when they are acting stupid" kind of message. In pre-Christian socities, where the blending of religion and state was common, each used the other to further the morals that had been established. This continued with the rise of Catholic Christianity forming an outside authority to the secular governments.
Now, I'll grant you the issue of whether or not printers should be allowed to not print flyers for gay bars if they don't want to doesn't have much to do with religion...that's more about freedom of practice of your business than anything else. But if you ask those business owners why they don't do it, they'll invariably reply that it's their perogative not to do so because it's against their morals...morals which are established by religion in this case. The secular establishment of certain morals has established that it is wrong to discriminate against anyone on any basis. The sacred has said it is wrong to be a certain way, and therefore if they refuse to be saved they are lost and you can treat them as you want (although there is this theory of "still treat them well). This is merely a modern day interpretation of the same question...where should the invidual place his loyalty? Which moral code should he follow when both are at a conflict with eachother? Church or State? Public or Private? Should the printer be able to refuse to print the offending flyers to please his religious sensibilities and risk jail/fines, or should be print the offending flyers and be in line with what the state is telling him to do, even if it violates his sense of religious wellbeing?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: [/QUOTENAME]i think it isn't right for the gov't to oblige the chruch to host receptions for gay couples because the church is a sacred place and it is the house of God.[/QUOTE]
So, because it's the "house of God", you're implying that God wants to exclude homosexuals? Nobody can speak for God, contrary to what they might like you to think. It's the church officials in the vatican who set the rules... not some invisible man in the sky... which brings me to my next point. "God" isn't a tangible and proven thing, so don't use that word as if it is. The idea of God is a philosophy, which means it's something people think about or experience... not something that tangibly exists. Do you have any idea how many different definitions and ideas of God there have been throughout history? Thousands. Not one or two... thousands. For your information, it's your beloved catholic church that suppressed a large chunk of them in the fourth and fifth centuries. But this subject is still pretty taboo, so most people of faith haven't really thought about it quite yet.
Back to the topic at hand... If the church and its members want to be intolerant of a group of people, then that's their prerogative. Anyone who agrees with their bigotry, judgement, and age-old "moral" systems is happy to do so. There are plenty of places one can go where all people are understood and accepted.
Personally, I think the ideas of religious freedom and religious tolerance are a load of crap. It's just an excuse to uphold horribly outdated religious dogma, as if we should blindly accept that it should have an impact on today's world without logical consideration. These people are basically asking to have the right to condemn others on the basis of "morality". As George Carlin once said, the missing commandment should be: Keep thy religion to thyself.
I'm not going to be tolerant of someone if they're intolerant of me in the first place. My personal philosophies don't exclude anyone in the first place. They initially choose to be intolerant of others, which leads people to react to their intolerance... certainly not the other way around. So don't attack me for being "intolerant" of someone else's intolerance. I've heard plenty of that before from people who say I should respect people's religious beliefs that attack hard-working law-abiding citizens, who just happen to have a different sexual orientation or private religious practice than they do.
Furthermore... before anyone comes down on me for being intolerant of all religious people... the term "religious tolerance" implies that there is some intolerance in the first place. Therefore, people who go to church once a week and practice their beliefs in their own private way as a way to enrich their lives are fine by me.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Music Man - in one of your replies you said this is not necessarily religious in nature. Perhaps it isn't, perhaps it's simple prejudice. However, they're hiding that behind the label of religion. Why? IMO, because they know that is the only way to be heard. A bigot would be called on the carpet for this, a moral religious person, however, is simply abiding by god's supposed law.
[/QUOTE]
Right on. Labelling it as "religion" is the primary way these belief systems can still exist. I do, however, acknowledge that there is plenty of secular homophobia out there... although I will argue that secular homophobia is dying faster than religious homophobia. Generally speaking, in western society (outside of the church and places highly affected by it), tolerance and understanding of homosexuals is becoming more and more prevalent, as society is evolving... unlike the majority of christian/catholic churches, which are not. Secular society is slowly making
So, because it's the "house of God", you're implying that God wants to exclude homosexuals? Nobody can speak for God, contrary to what they might like you to think. It's the church officials in the vatican who set the rules... not some invisible man in the sky... which brings me to my next point. "God" isn't a tangible and proven thing, so don't use that word as if it is. The idea of God is a philosophy, which means it's something people think about or experience... not something that tangibly exists. Do you have any idea how many different definitions and ideas of God there have been throughout history? Thousands. Not one or two... thousands. For your information, it's your beloved catholic church that suppressed a large chunk of them in the fourth and fifth centuries. But this subject is still pretty taboo, so most people of faith haven't really thought about it quite yet.
Back to the topic at hand... If the church and its members want to be intolerant of a group of people, then that's their prerogative. Anyone who agrees with their bigotry, judgement, and age-old "moral" systems is happy to do so. There are plenty of places one can go where all people are understood and accepted.
Personally, I think the ideas of religious freedom and religious tolerance are a load of crap. It's just an excuse to uphold horribly outdated religious dogma, as if we should blindly accept that it should have an impact on today's world without logical consideration. These people are basically asking to have the right to condemn others on the basis of "morality". As George Carlin once said, the missing commandment should be: Keep thy religion to thyself.
I'm not going to be tolerant of someone if they're intolerant of me in the first place. My personal philosophies don't exclude anyone in the first place. They initially choose to be intolerant of others, which leads people to react to their intolerance... certainly not the other way around. So don't attack me for being "intolerant" of someone else's intolerance. I've heard plenty of that before from people who say I should respect people's religious beliefs that attack hard-working law-abiding citizens, who just happen to have a different sexual orientation or private religious practice than they do.
Furthermore... before anyone comes down on me for being intolerant of all religious people... the term "religious tolerance" implies that there is some intolerance in the first place. Therefore, people who go to church once a week and practice their beliefs in their own private way as a way to enrich their lives are fine by me.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Music Man - in one of your replies you said this is not necessarily religious in nature. Perhaps it isn't, perhaps it's simple prejudice. However, they're hiding that behind the label of religion. Why? IMO, because they know that is the only way to be heard. A bigot would be called on the carpet for this, a moral religious person, however, is simply abiding by god's supposed law.
[/QUOTE]
Right on. Labelling it as "religion" is the primary way these belief systems can still exist. I do, however, acknowledge that there is plenty of secular homophobia out there... although I will argue that secular homophobia is dying faster than religious homophobia. Generally speaking, in western society (outside of the church and places highly affected by it), tolerance and understanding of homosexuals is becoming more and more prevalent, as society is evolving... unlike the majority of christian/catholic churches, which are not. Secular society is slowly making
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: [/QUOTENAME]i think it isn't right for the gov't to oblige the chruch to host receptions for gay couples because the church is a sacred place and it is the house of God.[/QUOTE]
So, because it's the "house of God", you're implying that God wants to exclude homosexuals? Nobody can speak for God, contrary to what they might like you to think. It's the church officials in the vatican who set the rules... not some invisible man in the sky... which brings me to my next point. "God" isn't a tangible and proven thing, so don't use that word as if it is. The idea of God is a philosophy, which means it's something people think about or experience... not something that tangibly exists. Do you have any idea how many different definitions and ideas of God there have been throughout history? Thousands. Not one or two... thousands. For your information, it's your beloved catholic church that suppressed a large chunk of them in the fourth and fifth centuries. But this subject is still pretty taboo, so most people of faith haven't really thought about it quite yet.
Back to the topic at hand... If the church and its members want to be intolerant of a group of people, then that's their prerogative. Anyone who agrees with their bigotry, judgement, and age-old "moral" systems is happy to do so. There are plenty of places one can go where all people are understood and accepted.
Personally, I think the ideas of religious freedom and religious tolerance are a load of crap. It's just an excuse to uphold horribly outdated religious dogma, as if we should blindly accept that it should have an impact on today's world without logical consideration. These people are basically asking to have the right to condemn others on the basis of "morality". As George Carlin once said, the missing commandment should be: Keep thy religion to thyself.
I'm not going to be tolerant of someone if they're intolerant of me in the first place. My personal philosophies don't exclude anyone in the first place. They initially choose to be intolerant of others, which leads people to react to their intolerance... certainly not the other way around. So don't attack me for being "intolerant" of someone else's intolerance. I've heard plenty of that before from people who say I should respect people's religious beliefs that attack hard-working law-abiding citizens, who just happen to have a different sexual orientation or private religious practice than they do.
Furthermore... before anyone comes down on me for being intolerant of all religious people... the term "religious tolerance" implies that there is some intolerance in the first place. Therefore, people who go to church once a week and practice their beliefs in their own private way as a way to enrich their lives are fine by me.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
uhm... tell me if i'm getting this wrong... but... are you calling me intolerant?
oh. then again, i asked my teacher about this and she said it's okay for them to go in there to hold recpetions and stuff. maybe it just hasn't happened over here yet, you see. same sex marriage is banned o'er here.
my bad.
So, because it's the "house of God", you're implying that God wants to exclude homosexuals? Nobody can speak for God, contrary to what they might like you to think. It's the church officials in the vatican who set the rules... not some invisible man in the sky... which brings me to my next point. "God" isn't a tangible and proven thing, so don't use that word as if it is. The idea of God is a philosophy, which means it's something people think about or experience... not something that tangibly exists. Do you have any idea how many different definitions and ideas of God there have been throughout history? Thousands. Not one or two... thousands. For your information, it's your beloved catholic church that suppressed a large chunk of them in the fourth and fifth centuries. But this subject is still pretty taboo, so most people of faith haven't really thought about it quite yet.
Back to the topic at hand... If the church and its members want to be intolerant of a group of people, then that's their prerogative. Anyone who agrees with their bigotry, judgement, and age-old "moral" systems is happy to do so. There are plenty of places one can go where all people are understood and accepted.
Personally, I think the ideas of religious freedom and religious tolerance are a load of crap. It's just an excuse to uphold horribly outdated religious dogma, as if we should blindly accept that it should have an impact on today's world without logical consideration. These people are basically asking to have the right to condemn others on the basis of "morality". As George Carlin once said, the missing commandment should be: Keep thy religion to thyself.
I'm not going to be tolerant of someone if they're intolerant of me in the first place. My personal philosophies don't exclude anyone in the first place. They initially choose to be intolerant of others, which leads people to react to their intolerance... certainly not the other way around. So don't attack me for being "intolerant" of someone else's intolerance. I've heard plenty of that before from people who say I should respect people's religious beliefs that attack hard-working law-abiding citizens, who just happen to have a different sexual orientation or private religious practice than they do.
Furthermore... before anyone comes down on me for being intolerant of all religious people... the term "religious tolerance" implies that there is some intolerance in the first place. Therefore, people who go to church once a week and practice their beliefs in their own private way as a way to enrich their lives are fine by me.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
uhm... tell me if i'm getting this wrong... but... are you calling me intolerant?
oh. then again, i asked my teacher about this and she said it's okay for them to go in there to hold recpetions and stuff. maybe it just hasn't happened over here yet, you see. same sex marriage is banned o'er here.
my bad.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: [/QUOTENAME]uhm... tell me if i'm getting this wrong... but... are you calling me intolerant?[/QUOTE]
I don't know... are you?
I don't know... are you?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: [/QUOTENAME]uhm... tell me if i'm getting this wrong... but... are you calling me intolerant?[/QUOTE]
I don't know... are you?[/QUOTE]
i'm not intolerant. i love all peoples. :D
i just don't get why everything is so... blah in this world.
I don't know... are you?[/QUOTE]
i'm not intolerant. i love all peoples. :D
i just don't get why everything is so... blah in this world.
phew :)
its ok it didn't go through :-D
x
its ok it didn't go through :-D
x
or rather, the original act DID go through so its ok....am i making sense? :-/
x
x
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]KEVPAR wrote: [/QUOTENAME]or rather, the original act DID go through so its ok....am i making sense? :-/
x[/QUOTE]
Meaning the challenge failed, yes? The Gay Rights law stands, correct? If so, that's very good news.
x[/QUOTE]
Meaning the challenge failed, yes? The Gay Rights law stands, correct? If so, that's very good news.
The Gay Rights Law stands? Phew!! There may be a small hope for humanity and decency yet.
well oh well. everyone knows that in some point in time, a cetain group of people who happen to be homophobes, are gonna flip out because people are different than them.
recently, at a church nearly my house, the pastor dude, is protesting lesbians and gays that go to church. which is really dumb, because in the US they already cant marry so he shouldnt be worried about anything.
except this one lady pastor, who weds lesbians and gays, even though shes not sopposed to. shes a pretty cool lady. i met her one time.
but anyway, the only thing we can do to get the point across that gay people are normal, is to protest and streak. protest and streak, everyone....
recently, at a church nearly my house, the pastor dude, is protesting lesbians and gays that go to church. which is really dumb, because in the US they already cant marry so he shouldnt be worried about anything.
except this one lady pastor, who weds lesbians and gays, even though shes not sopposed to. shes a pretty cool lady. i met her one time.
but anyway, the only thing we can do to get the point across that gay people are normal, is to protest and streak. protest and streak, everyone....
yes the challenge by the homophobes failed and the gay rights law will go through :D
Kev x
Kev x