In a free society, you don't get to tell people what their religion means to them any more than you get to tell them what their sexuality means to them.

Also --

> They just want to use it as
> an instrument of hate.

That's schoolchild-y and pouty and psychologically goofy.

What Crid said, both times.

Although saying the fundies want to use the Bible as an instrument of hate sounds a little strong to me, I think Cenk Uygur has a point. You're skating on awfully thin ice if you try to elevate one sin over another -- where does homosexuality stand in relation to adultery? How does blasphemy rate against either? Throw in false witness, murder, covetousness and you confuse the picture further. As they told us in catechism, it wasn't individual sins that got us in trouble, it was sin in general, and it affected everybody.

Because of that, I can’t really argue with the idea that’s been batted around lately of issuing civil union licenses to every couple who wants one, homosexual or heterosexual. Since nobody’s getting hurt, it doesn’t strike me as my business either way. Let the churches decide whether to consider the couples married or not, but their judgments wouldn’t have any legal standing anyway. Otherwise, you have to be willing to accept judgment by the same standard you make it. While stoning adulterers might be a little over-the-top, forcing them to appear on Jerry Springer might not be.

And sanctimonious and bogusly clinical.

> You're skating on awfully thin ice
> if you try to elevate one sin
> over another

Call me a risk-taker, but savage rape is worse than jaywalking.

Sorry crid but when people start picking and choosing which part of their bible to ignore and which parts to push forward their bigotry we do get to call them on it.

And crid whould you be so kind as to tell us which bible passage metions jaywalking as a sin?

FYI the bible endorses rape, wonder why theres a law against if if we are a "christian" nation

> tell us which bible passage
> metions jaywalking

You care about biblical injunction or you don't... Apparently you care more than you usually let on, Looj. (Also, "mention" has two n's. And as a grown man, you oughta be past the "FYI" thing... Supplemental evidence, I think that this is all about indulging in childish impulses.)

Can you take a grown man seriously when talks about people using anything as an "instrument of hate"? Could any criticism be more flower-powery and smug?

more about the childishness of this after work.

Actually I find it very reassuring that Christians pick and choose the passages they with to follow. Perhaps they can one day be conviced to ignore passages relating to homosexuals as well.

I do, too, Charles. But, if you're a gay person who'd like the same marital rights as straight people (separation of church and state, anyone?), or the kid of gay parents, for example, "one day" isn't soon enough.

Since it's religious complaining about marriage for gays, this is clearly a separation issue, and there should be civil marriages for any two consenting adults who want one, and then you should be able to do whatever you want in your church or other place of irrational worship of the Big Imaginary Friend -- including excluding gays, blacks, Jews, the Chinese, atheists and Wiccans from being married in your establishment.

>>Can you take a grown man seriously when [he] talks about people using anything as an "instrument of hate"?

Lucky you never heard me play the violin, Crid!

(Nine years of pointless lessons, I was the pupil from hell).

Several criticisms to make here: the most important being that fact that Christians DON'T follow everything literally is the reason why the Western World is the civilized one. The Islamic World is barbaric precisely because they do still follow the Koran literally.

Yes, Christians pick and choose. Don't you wish Muslims did, too?

...there should be civil marriages for any two consenting adults who want one,...

?? I thought there were! Mine was a civil ceremony, performed by a justice of the peace, because I'm a witch and Ex is an atheist. And I've known gay couples who've gotten married in civil ceremonies. I still don't understand why people get their shorts in a knot about it all. O.o

Dammit Jody, I was saving that joke for later.

Amy, if you want separation of church and state, then the church is the only one that gets to define marriage. Be careful what you wish for.

Oh, and it would do wonders for your credibility, Looj, if you understood even a little bit about Christianity before going off about Leviticus.

> Yes, Christians pick and choose.
> Don't you wish Muslims did, too?

Go Karen! Go Karen!

I'm sorry that I dont remeber a passage about not using a crosswalk when crossing the road brian.

Are you going to tell me what it is or withhold the info and lord it over me?

I think we all wish Muslims would pick and choose ... but then they wouldn't be Muslim would they?

I agree with you Amy that homosexuals should enjoy the same civil rights heterosexuals do. That's why I firmly believe marriage should be left to religious institutions and the state should only sanction civil unions. My point though was simply that I prefer Christians who pick and choose as opposed to others ... who well ... don't pick and choose.

"Behold, cross thou not against the light, nor cross thou where the stripes are painted not, lest though be cursed in the eyes of the cabdrivers."

-- One of the (very) minor prophets

old rpm daddy and i are on the same page.

to throw some fuel on the fire. i'll gladly execute an adulterer if it means we get to execute gays.

no not relly. but i just wanted to highlight the disparity of his argument. denying sanction to gay marriages is not execution. leviticus stipulates death for many more sins than just adultery or man-man love. and i say man-man love because it does not say homo love, leaving y'all ladies free. it says what it says.

civil rights? marriage is not a civil right. it is a religious institution. separation of church and state? how about separation of state and church. it's a two way street.

the state should not be in the business of marriages at all. issue civil unions defined however it (we) sees fit. now, after the fact, the state can accept religious marriages as civil unions too, so long as they understand the leal ramifications are defined in the law.

watch the stats. some 80-90% of americans favor civil unions but not gay marriage. even in the bible belt.

your wigger (Uighur being from central asia and pronounced Wigger) friend is making his case based not on reason, but on his desire to have religion sanction his union.

so again. I'll execute adulterers (not sanctioned bu the fundies and it IS a viable excuse for fault divorce) if it means gays have to suffer the same fate.

expel that little arguent real quick doesn't it?

oh, and just for s's and g's, if memory serves, leviticus describes adultery as something women do. it makes no mention of it being something a man does.

who's picking and choosing which parts of the bible they like now?

> I think we all wish Muslims would
> pick and choose ... but then they
> wouldn't be Muslim would they?

Again– We don't get to choose what other people's religions mean to them. You rea dangerously, wickedly close to valuing the 'authenticity' of another man's religious practice more highly than you value his decency.

The quintessence of conservatism is acknowledging that there are only so many accomodations that you can can ask someone to make on behalf of others. Let's not worry about what makes someone a true Christian or a true Muslim. It will be enough to insist that they behave well.

You ARE dangerously etc.....

I do know people who use the Bible as an instrument of justification or validation of beliefs that they, conveniently, hold anyway. To the extent that some of these beliefs are hateful (or just generally negative and antagonistic) toward certain groups, I guess you could say that they are using the Bible as an instrument of hate.

But I don't hold the Bible responsible, or Christians generally. Some people are just pricks (as any regular reader of internet comment boards can attest) looking for better footing for their prickishness.

"The Bible says eating shellfish is an abomination. Yet there are no Red Lobster Amendments"

Ok he's wrong about this. Theres a big section of the New Testament where Paul deals with this issue. You can eat and wear whatevs you want.

We don't get to choose what other people's religions mean to them

Sadly no. This being said, we are judging people who smoke in public. We say to them that they destroy their health, put an unnecessary risk on other's health (Including children) and we ostracize them by asking them to smoke outside.

Why can't we do the same thing with religion? Are we too wishy-washy to put pants and act toward it just as we would acted towards those men who worship anime video idols?

Another point; the modern clockwork was produced three centuries ago. The modern lock is two centuries old. The modern fuel engine was created in the 1900. Those inventions are not re-invented every few years, they are merely improved. Religions are the same. The current religions are looking great but their roots are deeply intrenched in mass-murder, blind ignorance, bigotry and immoral altruism. Why can we expect a good fruit when the three is watered by cholera laced, sewage water?

Worshiping a metaphysical being as the source to all the answers of this world is as rational as building a house on a floodplain; it put you at the mercy of doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons.

"how about separation of state and church. it's a two way street."

Thank you x 1000, mlah. A point so many miss or choose to ignore.

As to the topic, perhaps someone would try to live precisely as the Bible dictates. You either end up with a good book from the experience (A.J. Jacobs' "The Year of Living Biblically") or, more likely, you end up being declared a fanatic. And NOBODY likes a fanatic. Point being, you're never, ever, going to make everyone happy. Someone's always going to point a finger at you and complain, from both sides. Some of you think of me as a right-wing fundie religious nut. Yet there are others who say I'm not enough. Do I care? Why should I? It would be exhausting and pointless trying to make everyone happy with my expression of spirituality/faith/religion.

Some people do use the Bible as an instrument of hate. There are also people who use their jobs/ positions of power as such (teachers, coaches, DMV employees, talk show hosts). Others use their relationships (Mom, are you out there?) to torment people. I think they're called bullies. Then there are other people who use the Bible to do amazing things, but we tend to focus on the negative and ignore the positive.

"> Yes, Christians pick and choose.
> Don't you wish Muslims did, too?"

But that's exactly what makes both religions so incredibly stupid. What good is a religion if the only way you can live constructively with it is if you don't take it seriously? It's obvious that physically hurting people or stealing from them is wrong. It hurts other people, duh. "Sins" are something else. Things like envy, sloth, or coveting thy neighbor's wife are "thought crimes," and don't hurt anyone. You might as well just define "sin" as "something which doesn't hurt anyone, but which we'd desperately like to make you feel guilty about anyway."

Of course I also take the view that "faith" is "the belief in something which you know deep down isn't really true."

Unbelievable.

If there is a person who thinks that professing Christians don't cherry-pick Bible content, they have simply not looked. Compare the activity the rest of the week with promises made in Sunday Morning Theater. Compare the endless explanations of Answers in Genesis with the constellation of scientific discoveries. Compare the behavior of the Discovery Institute, the producers of the movie, "Expelled" and other creationist liars with the basic tenets of Christianity itself.

To do this well, you have to know the Bible. You arguing about the crosswalk, read 1 Peter 2:13 (KJV) and be satisfied. All of the Bible is on-line.

Just like the street outside, the Bible is full of people behaving badly, and it's important to seperate those stories which are endorsements from those which are warnings or simple reporting.

This does not interfere with the sport of pointing out just where the Bible or the people who read it, are flatly wrong.

The real challenge - because such errors are really low-hanging fruit - is to maintain civility and scholarship. People take offense at logic right away, so that's not easy.

Meanwhile, God is imaginary. That's really why nothing happens differently if you pray to a different idea.

"Meanwhile, God is imaginary. That's really why nothing happens differently if you pray to a different idea."

But assertions are not facts. Which is why atheism (unlike agnosticism) is every bit the faith-based belief system as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.

I'll tell you a story about a co-worker of mine here in SC - although this guy could be anywhere.

Prop 8 came up in conversation. It developed that he felt like beating up gays whenever he sees them on TV "talking about their 'rights'" and wants "those people to stay in the closet". Then he told a story about "a friend" who found that the girl he was pawing in the parking lot outside a bar wasn't a girl after all. Yes, he approved of the friend putting "that thing" in the hospital.

(How is it that homophobes all have "friends" who get freaky this way?)

I asked, "What was your friend doing in the parking lot in the first place?" and "So, you approve of severe beating. What if that person died? How big a step is it between that beating and killing?"

But the idea that this church-going "friend" set himself up fell on deaf ears.

As the conversation shifted to Sen. Obama's views and the national reaction to Prop 8, it developed that Sen. Obama is "not a Christian, because he supports abortion".

This from a guy who is tickled to show you his extensive cell-phone porn collection. Yep. Married for 24 years. Church-goer.

So there are lots of ways you can be identified as a "non-Christian": any way but how the one you're talking to is behaving.

"But assertions are not facts. Which is why atheism (unlike agnosticism) is every bit the faith-based belief system as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc."

You have the burden of proof, and you haven't met it, as the link abundantly illustrates. Bald isn't a hair color. Next?

scott -

No, atheism does not require faith, any more than my assertion that I will get out of bed in the morning does. Sure, there is a possibility that I'm wrong, but without evidence to the contrary, it doesn't take a lick of faith.

I'm not an atheist, except in the very broadest sense of the word. Indeed I used to be a Christian (way back a fundie). And even at the height of my fundamentalist faith, I didn't buy the argument that atheism takes faith - the notion is absolutely absurd. More importantly, it denigrates theistic faith and honestly, that assertion just makes theists look like fucking morons.

Read Aquinas, if you want to learn about how to proselytize and the responsibilities of a Christian, when they are representing their faith in public. The most important thing is not to make absolutely idiotic assertions like that one. Another is to understand that the burden of proof is not on the non-believer, its on you. To claim otherwise is a distraction and will interfere with your ability to share the gospel.

The other thing that Aquinas taught, was to understand what you are up against. I should warn you, that this may well bring an end to your faith. But if you want to convince the atheist they are wrong, you really need to understand where they are coming from - instead of arguing against straw-man versions of where atheists are coming from. This requires more than just knowing what they are saying, it requires attempting to understand what they are thinking - getting them to clarify. You're not likely to get such clarification by telling them what you think they think, as though it were fact.

John Wesley was another well reasoned theologian. He asserted that the best witness, was to live a truly godly life. Show the people around you what it means to be Christian - give of yourself and live with the fullness of joy that such giving brings.

"I'm not an atheist, except in the very broadest sense of the word."

DuWayne, what does that mean? I don't mean this in a snarky way; I'm just curious. Also, I don't know much about Aquinas. Can you point me where to start looking?

Regarding the rest of the third paragraph of your comment -- point taken. As I suspect you'll agree, it works both ways. I'm in no more position to tell atheists what they believe than they are in telling me what I believe.

Crid -

In a free society, you don't get to tell people what their religion means to them any more than you get to tell them what their sexuality means to them.

Yes, yes you do. And like Amy said, no one has to listen to you.

I started out life in the church. I studied theology at a very young age, went to parochial school, the whole nine yards. I was reading Wesley, Calvin and Luther at ten, Aquinas by twelve. I was convinced that I was going to be a pastor someday and wanted to get a serious head start on things. And I had church leaders who were happy to explain ideas that were a little over my head - though I quickly learned that a lot of this was over their heads too.

What I was doing at the time, was learning about a variety of theological viewpoints. Not just about what I believed, I wanted to understand what other people believed. I even studied what those idolaters, the Catholics believed in. And there was a vast range of often contrary beliefs that fell under the heading of Christian. But there was one unifying theme, one idea that every position held to. You want to guess?

What I believe is right. Where the beliefs of others contradict my own, they are wrong. If they were really a Christian, they would not be wrong.

Now days, with the spirit of ecumenicism for political expediency alive and well, it is easy to pretend these divisions don't exist or just don't matter. But there was a time when these differences not only caused churches to split apart, they were worth killing people over. People believed they were so right and should be able to tell others what to believe, so strongly, that they would kill for it.

And these divisions still exist today, not even well hidden beneath the surface.

The other thing that is important to realize, is that there is a utility to someone like Amy making the assertions she does about theism and specific theistic faiths; It can and does change hearts and minds.

I was stubborn. It took a lot of people making a lot of different arguments for me to get it. But eventually I just couldn't keep up the mental gymnastics it took to reconcile my lack of belief in the bible as the actual, literal word of God(tm) and my claim to being a Christian. Hell, it took a long while for me to get over the gymnastics required for me to reconcile science and the bible, so that I actually rejected the bible. Ultimately, it wasn't so much that reconciliation that got me, it was my inability to justify the genocidal maniacal god of the OT with anything resembling a god I could worship.

So not only can Amy tell Christians what they should believe, if they want to consider themselves Christians, there is a utility to it. Because while no one is required to listen to her, it is likely that some will. Like Christians will often put it; She's planting seeds. Only instead of seeds of faith, she's planting seeds of reason.

old rpm daddy -

I mean that I absolutely reject revealed religion in any form. Because of that I am not really a theist. But I do find it quite likely that there is a physical/spiritual duality. Likewise I believe in interaction between the spiritual and physical, though I hesitate to call it god. I accept that I really don't know and probably never will.

I also don't buy into the notion of supernatural. If it exists, it is natural and part of the natural world. If it isn't part of the natural world, it doesn't exist. This is a semantic argument, but I think this is an important distinction to make. It takes what I believe - what I have some faith in, from the realm of something aside from quantification and therefore to be left alone, into a place that leaves it open to scientific inquiry.

As for Aquinas, I would recommend this book as a good place to start. This is a downloadable version, but it can be easily found in most university libraries, some public libraries and some church libraries.

Thanks, DuWayne! I'll look up Aquinas sometime this week, hopefully.

"Since it's religious complaining about marriage for gays, this is clearly a separation issue"

Not until the state cites to the Bible as the justification behind legislation. Motivation does not equal statutory underpinnings. You could just as easily say that Cal. Pen. Code 187 ("Murder") constitutes a "separation" issue since it invokes the same subject matter as the First Commandment.

My bad. The Sixth Commandment.

Radwaste: "You have the burden of proof, and you haven't met it."

Well, that's only on the assumption that I am trying to convince you of something (existence of God). Which I am not.

If you are trying to convince me of something (non-existence of God), then the burden of proof is on you. And, were you so trying, you would not have met it (assertion-based website notwithstanding).

"They don't give a damn what the Bible says. They just want to use it as an instrument of hate.

"The Bible says eating shellfish is an abomination. Yet there are no Red Lobster Amendments."

Evidently Cenk picks and chooses as well. That prohibition was done away with in the New Testament.

"The Bible says you should leave your family and join Jesus Christ. The religious right pretends that Jesus was about family values. He wanted you to abandon your family. Read the Bible."

To abandon one's family meant to leave their father and mother to follow Jesus. There weren't abandoned wives and children the disciples left behind. It was also acknowledged that this is not a lifestyle for everyone and that if you can't give up all your worldy possessions and connections, then getting married and having a family is also a good thing to do. You go read the Bible, Cenk.

" The Bible is full of men taking on second wives, servants, prostitutes and concubines. And all the while, God heartily approves. How many wives did King David have? Eight? Twelve? Let alone his possibly gay lover, Jonathan."

God did not "heartily approve." David lost a son for the Bathseba affair. Abraham slept with his servant girl, and the end reuslt was generations of strife. The Bible isn't full of perfect men living a perfect life (Gideon was a coward, Samson was imprudent and clouded by lust, Paul was murdering Christians before his conversion). Most of them suffered consequences when they did something wrong.

And speaking of pulling things from the Bible that aren't there; "Possibly gay lover Jonathan?" Weren't you just critisizing Christians for doing that? Where are you getting that from?

"Now the Bible says that a man shall not lie with another man. That is true. But it also says, in the same exact book, that adultery is an abomination. And the just punishment for this sin is execution. So, who will execute the first adulterer? "

One, the punishment for homosexuality was also stoning. We stone one then we stone the other. Two, again, this rule was updated in the New Testament. Jesus himself let the adulterous woman go without chucking a rock at her.

The article is a poor argument done in the echo chamber of HuffPo. I respect the fact you're an atheist and anti-religion Amy. I don't want to prostletize in you home here. But this was too ridiculous to leave unchallenged. I don't deny that there are hypocrites in powerful place or that Christians pick and choose what they believe. But this article seemed to be aimed at a ya-ya club of readers.

Again, with the assuming that only religious people are against gay marriage. Bangers in the street are very against it, doubt you'll find them in church. And plenty of religious people are tolerant, at least to the point of saying it's not a worse sin than others. I fall into that category, so do all other methodists. "Open Minds Open Hearts Open Doors" after all. My objection to gay marriage is the law of unintended consequences. No advocate can say what society will look like 30 years after gay marriage because no society has ever tried it. We might all be singing kumbayah, or we might have seem marriage disappear and childbearing fall to unsustainable levels. Or something else. No one knows. What we can say is that legislating societal change always causes sea changes in society. Welfare did. Civil rights did. Some are better some are worse, but the sea change is there.

And for those of you who don't care if childbearing falls to the point to be unsustainable to maintaining society as long as you are free free free, grow up. It's no more intelligent or mature than stomping your foot and throwing a temper tantrum to get your way.

That said, the bible did not arrive from heaven via fax, and most christians know and accept this and behave accordingly. There's no reason creation couldn't have been evolution. The bible is full of parables.

Momof3: "And for those of you who don't care if childbearing falls to the point to be unsustainable to maintaining society as long as you are free free free, grow up."

I've heard this argument (?) before and I have absolutely no idea what would lead someone to think that allowing gay people (they are ALREADY gay) to get married will somehow reduce the number of kids that straight people (they are still straight) decide to have.

If they are gay and single are they more likely to reproduce? Am I as a straight person going to insist on popping out a few more wailing kids to celebrate the uniqueness of my union? Do we honestly think there are people waiting in line at the great marriage smorgasbord who were just reaching for the garlic spare ribs and heterosexual union with children when, all of a sudden, here comes a waiter with a big collander of french toast and gay marriage and, whoa, who could resist...?

I'm not disparaging the notion here (tempting as it may be), but I'd like to understand the possible arc of history that people anticipate would lead to this result.

Well, that's only on the assumption that I am trying to convince you of something (existence of God). Which I am not.

No scott, that's on the assumption that being an atheist takes faith, which is absurd on it's face. The reason that Radwaste's response is relevant outside of the assumption that you are trying to convince him to believe, is as an explanation of why atheism doesn't require faith.

Put simply, every atheist I know doesn't believe in God, because they have never seen any evidence supporting the existence of god. Saying that atheism requires faith, assumes the atheist believes something. It is in effect assuming they are trying to prove a negative. They aren't. Both Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet would agree with your assertion that there is no proof that God doesn't exist. Both find it exceedingly unlikely, but neither would claim to know absolutely. I doubt even Hitchens would make that claim.

Not believing takes no faith.

I would question though, your motivation in commenting here, if you aren't trying to convince anyone. What's the point then? Are you trying to stick it to the non-believers? If so, I would love to hear you justify doing so. Because the bible I studied rather intensively as a lad, seems to be pretty dead against this kind of behavior.

DuWayne,

I'll just say up front that a lot of your posts here have been intelligent and well-drafted and you seem to have put some thought into what you are writing about. You have a bit of a background in this area (which I think might be why you are so eager to jump in). It's always nice when people are talking about our hometowns...

"Are you trying to stick it to the non-believers? If so, I would love to hear you justify doing so. Because the bible I studied rather intensively as a lad, seems to be pretty dead against this kind of behavior."

I noticed your first post responding to me made a few assumptions about where I might be coming from. May I invite you to go back through what I've said and point out where exactly I'm proselytizing or otherwise assuming the role of defender of the faith? I'm just trying to be the devil's advocate in the way people approach this topic (generally, I'm right, you're positions are silly/juvenile/unsupported/etc).

Perhaps I'm drawing an improper distinction between someone who doesn't believe in God and someone who believes There Is No God. You can doubt God's existence, you can assert that there is no God (the old can't prove a negative, was waiting for that), but frankly, if you really, really, REALLY BELIEVE there is no God and you have no evidence to support this beyond the absence of evidence to the contrary, then I don't see how you are any different than those deeply religious people who see God in all the little things, every single day, and can't understand how anyone would question his existence. It's still faith, I think.

But then again, not having been raised on Aquinas, perhaps I'm playing too carelessly in the precisely manicured garden of your soul. I guess you could just call me idiotic again, that might make you feel better. (oooh who's a clever poster...you are, yes you are, yesss...)

I"m not saying gay marriage would lower reproductive rates. I'm saying it might. A lot of people on this board are all for "open up the freedom-of-personal-fulfillment floodgates and damn the consequences" mindset. It's not a rational one. The only reason the government, and not just churches, is involved in marriage at all is because the much-mocked nuclear family is the still best way to turn young people into responsible productive adults. The matriarchal archetype so common in the black community is obviously failing miserably. Single parents-male and female-are more likely to raise poor, lower educated, lower achieving kids than even mediocre 2 parent homes. The government has an interest in making sure it's young people grow up productive and not criminal, so the government sanctions marriage.

If a girl raised by just a mom is more likely to sleep around and get pregnant as a teen, because of the lack of father figure in her life, then how is a girl with 2 moms any different? She is still missing a vital part of her nurturing. Ditto for a kid raised by 2 dads. Am I saying gays can't be parents? Aside from the obvious biological fact, no I am not. They may be good ones. But they are missing a vital ingredient that 2 opposite-gender parents have. And I really don't see how someone such as Amy who is so very against single moms, can be so very for 2 moms.

"'open up the freedom-of-personal-fulfillment floodgates and damn the consequences' mindset. It's not a rational one. "

I don't necessarily agree with your take on the gay marriage question. But on this, at the risk of having DuWayne call me a Jesuit, I'll throw out an Amen!!

You don't have an Internet blog, you have a theological seminary.

This topic reminds me of that Peanuts comic strip in which Charlie Brown's baseball team debates the nature of suffering.

http://comics.com/peanuts/1967-09-17/

scott -

Unless you are really bent on the following as part of your identity;

Which is why atheism (unlike agnosticism) is every bit the faith-based belief system as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.

I am not calling you idiotic. But that statement is absolutely idiotic. If I think someone is idiotic, then I refer to them as such.

May I invite you to go back through what I've said and point out where exactly I'm proselytizing or otherwise assuming the role of defender of the faith? I'm just trying to be the devil's advocate in the way people approach this topic (generally, I'm right, you're positions are silly/juvenile/unsupported/etc).

My sincere apologies, your comments made it sound very much like you were being a defender of the faith as it were. I really am sorry, I myself get irritated when people make mistaken assumptions like my own with you. I get even more irritated when I am guilty of it.

At the same time I don't really see much in the way to refute the way people approach this topic. Honestly, the notion that God revealed any religion to any person is somewhat silly, somewhat juvenile and absolutely unsupported. And I say that as someone who still has issues with the faith he grew up with.

You can doubt God's existence, you can assert that there is no God (the old can't prove a negative, was waiting for that), but frankly, if you really, really, REALLY BELIEVE there is no God and you have no evidence to support this beyond the absence of evidence to the contrary, then I don't see how you are any different than those deeply religious people who see God in all the little things, every single day, and can't understand how anyone would question his existence. It's still faith, I think.

And you're absolutely right, anyone who claims absolutely there is no God, is making a statement of faith. But that is not the position of any atheists I know of. Not even the most anti-religion atheists. I daresay that you aren't going to find a single atheist who would claim that quantifiable evidence showing categorically there is a God wouldn't convince them they were wrong. Nor do I believe you'll find very many, if any, who claim to have quantifiable evidence that God doesn't exist and short of such evidence, few if any would claim that there is no way God exists.

But then again, not having been raised on Aquinas, perhaps I'm playing too carelessly in the precisely manicured garden of your soul. I guess you could just call me idiotic again, that might make you feel better. (oooh who's a clever poster...you are, yes you are, yesss...)

And you know what, now you are being idiotic. Not your argument, but you. And you're falling into the same assumptions about me, that I made about your being a defender of the faith.

The last thing I would call my soul is precise anything. Had you said that twenty years ago, I might have considered my soul rather precisely manicured, to use your analogy. But these days, if I even have a soul, it is one filled with doubts and questions. In my youth I had the arrogance of absolute certainty. I could answer most any theological question and respond to those who were wrong. (i.e. those who followed some dogma that was contrary to my own)

And I wasn't raised on Aquinas or any of the myriad theologians I studied. I was a True Believer, who believed he would one day become a minister, possibly a missionary. I had an interest in philosophy as well, so I also figured on becoming something of a religious scholar who would write wonderful volumes that some kid just like I was would read and become enamored by. I was arrogant and in my arrogance assumed that studying the great theologians of history and our time would make me even more worthy of my over inflated ego.

But no, until that very last paragraph, I didn't think you were idiotic at all.

The only reason the government, and not just churches, is involved in marriage at all is because the much-mocked nuclear family is the still best way to turn young people into responsible productive adults.

No. The main reason that governments throughout history have been involved in marriage, is because of property rights.

Policies to encourage marriage are a different story.

And speaking of pulling things from the Bible that aren't there; "Possibly gay lover Jonathan?" Weren't you just critisizing Christians for doing that? Where are you getting that from?

Elle read the first book of sameul

My objection to gay marriage is the law of unintended consequences. No advocate can say what society will look like 30 years after gay marriage because no society has ever tried it.

No society was all that keen on allowing widespread inter racial marrige either momof3

. . . how is a girl with 2 moms any different? She is still missing a vital part of her nurturing. Ditto for a kid raised by 2 dads. Am I saying gays can't be parents? Aside from the obvious biological fact, no I am not. They may be good ones. But they are missing a vital ingredient that 2 opposite-gender parents have.

One question - how is a girl raised in an orphanage with no parents better off then with two of the same sex
One comment - until we are willing to deny single parents their cildren this type of reasoning is pointless

"And for those of you who don't care if childbearing falls to the point to be unsustainable to maintaining society as long as you are free free free, grow up."

Please elaborate, momof3 - how many kids does everyone need to have to "maintain society?" Enough so that every old geezer has his own private bedpan-changer? Enough to keep the twin pyramid schemes of SSI and Medicare afloat? At what point should those of us who don't want kids sacrifice the lives we enjoy to meet the needs of the collective?

Quite frankly humainty could survive quite nicely with a population less then the number of people living in the phoenix valley right now.

"...but frankly, if you really, really, REALLY BELIEVE there is no God and you have no evidence to support this beyond the absence of evidence to the contrary, then I don't see how you are any different than those deeply religious people who see God in all the little things, every single day, and can't understand how anyone would question his existence. It's still faith, I think."

Obviously you are not careful with either logic or definitions - in my experience, that makes you typical of religious people in general.

Please look up any of the many fallacy tutorials on-line to find out why your burden of proof not being met does not equal anything with regard to the action or inaction of another person w/r/t their argument.

I'll make it simple: pointing at others does not prove your point.

Think a little bit about definitions. Faith flatly cannot exist in the absence of doubt. That's what I call The Irony of Faith. The passage in Hebrews about "evidence" is plain nonsense; say it out loud, or try to show someone there's a mailbox outside using that argument, and you'll get a great example of just how dismissive of the real world a religious fundamentalist has to be to cite that.

A point about "belief": the term usually involves some amount of emotional investment. This is irrelevent to whether a proof exists to back up any assertion the believer might make.

Proofs do not acknowledge the limitations and prejudices of the observer, and beliefs do.

Mmm, I don't know about the Phoenix valley comment. Heard of bottlenecks? Cheetahs are a wellknown example. A population gets down to a certain level of individuals, and genetic diversity takes such a hit that even if they breed enough to regain some numbers, the level of "bad" genes is unstably high and the species health suffers.

I'm not for unrestricted breeding. I wish we could restrict it to those who have business doing it. But those who we say are good at it may not be bringing enough diversity to the table. Super models rarely have really attractive parents, after all. Smart people tend to have smart kids, but then smart people really value and encourage education. So I'm a bigger fan of proving your worth when grown. One of the many reasons I am not fan of welfare.

To answer you, Pirate Jo, most people should have none. Some people should have a lot. Which has no bearing on the law of unintended consequences which has a very legitimate bearing on large-scale societal change. The likes of which hahve never been seen before. If more gay marriage proponents spent a little time thinking up the most outlandish, least likely to happen outcomes, and refuting them, I'd be more comfortable than I am with "I want it because others have it, so damn the torpoedos and full steam ahead".

humanity went thru a bottle neck with the explosion of lake Toba, reduced humanity to less than 100,000 by most estimates

the Phoenix area has around 3 million, most are retirees so I was using phx as a number example

> Yes, yes you do. And like
> Amy said, no one has to
> listen to you.

I've been trying to figure out how to respond for a whole day. It's prototypical DuWayne: It's inane. It's wordy. It's like a sixth grader trying to talk about sex at a freshman mixer at the State college. Desperate for participation, it fails to take a point and completely derails the exchange. It's a tiny sliver of a huge comment that illuminates nothing.

Hats off, dude. You have a remarkable skill.

Crid -

I've been trying to figure out how to respond for a whole day.

And that's the best you could come up with?

I took your point, I just happen to think you're wrong. Less wordy version of my comment:

Everybody who wishes others would believe something different, attempts to define what those others believe. This can be and often is, an effective tool for changing those beliefs they disagree with.

While positing that gay marriage might result in a catastrophic drop in birthrates, Momof3 says: "If a girl raised by just a mom is more likely to sleep around and get pregnant as a teen, because of the lack of father figure in her life, then how is a girl with 2 moms any different?"

Do you see the contradiction there?

No? You've just said that "2 moms" are likely to have kids who get pregnant early. That sounds much more likely to result in a *rise* in birthrates.

And, by the way, I would hypothesize that a major reason that kids of single parents do poorly and make unwise choices can be largely attributed to two reasons. One, lack of money (and the advantages that come with it) due to being a single-income household in an expensive world. Two, in trying to make that money, the single parent is likely to have to work longer hours or a second job, resulting in inadequate *parenting* time, and a resultant loss of supervision, nurturing, and just togetherness. Two parents, even same-sex, are more likely to have money and time.

While certainly the "gold standard" might be two parents of opposite sex, both of whom are intelligent and caring, and nurturing, and financially sound but with plenty of time to play catch or Barbie Dream House, and who deal with conflict in calm and rational ways... that "gold standard" might consist of about 5% of families. Maybe. So talking as if only those who meet it are fit to marry and breed, doesn't really make much sense. THAT would bring on a catastrophic drop in birthrate.

> This can be and often is, an
> effective tool for changing
> those beliefs they disagree with.

1. Comma error.

2. Who, who, ever had their faith diminished by hectoring from the likes of Amy?

3. You concede as much in your first draft: "no one has to listen to you."

> the best you could come up with?

I often forget I'm dealing with children incapable of abstraction.

OK, finally found the link to the blog that much more coherently defines many of my concerns with gay marriage:

http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

Crid, at some point on a previous gay marriage thread you had asked for this.

This really isn't that difficult to parse:

1) People are inconsistent. So what?

This is the old Alinsky technique of hitting your enemy with their own rule book.

It can be done to anyone - for example, we can cite the reports that liberals give less to charity than conservatives, and call liberals hypocrites.

That doesn't mean we have effectively discredited the ideals and goals of liberalism. We've simply mounted a sleazy drive-by ad-hominem attack.

2) Every body of law reflects the moral values of the society that wrote it.

That means that religious-sourced values are going to make their way into the law books.

Democracy only insures that majority values prevail. Not that they are clean of all religious impetus.

Separation of church and state only protects individuals from having state-sponsored religious practice forced upon them.

It says nothing about a large, grey area of ostensibly secular behavioral norms that are influenced by norms of religious belief.

The lefties have no problems using the law to impose their (minority) values upon the rest of us. So spare me the whining when majority values make their way into the law books, as they should.

3) Even though people don't always uphold every point of their moral code, the fact that certain rules are on the books is, in itself, of value - to the individual and society.

Again, lefties are quite forgiving of the rather bloody failings of their revolutionary heroes - still asserting that "true socialism hasn't been tried yet", as Harold Pinter said.

Yet the imperfect striving to uphold Judeo-Christian ethics has yielded real progress for humanity.

reading article, so far agruments are

1 bigots might not get married - good

2 income tax is higher than 10% - which is supposed to tell us allowing gay marrige will lead to lead to something far more sinister?

3 Because we stopped discriminating againt unwed mothers we now have more - is this suggesting that if we stop discriminating againt gays there will be more of them? or just more out of the closet?
Also how is brining up unwed mothers remotly relevent in a discussion about people who want marriage?

4 Married parents are good for kids - unless they're gay apparently

5 Quote "people who don't see the use of a social institution are the last people who should be allowed to reform it" - but they do see a use so why not let them?

6 Divorce once hard to get is now abused - So gays might abuse marrige by using it poorly, dont straight people already do that?

7 Things dont go the way they were expected to - neither does anything else in life, get over it

2. Who, who, ever had their faith diminished by hectoring from the likes of Amy?

Me for one. Though it wasn't Amy and it wasn't my religious faith. I used to have a very strong affinity for "alternative" medicine, until I started getting into blogs that debunk the woo. What initially got my attention, made me angry and pushed me to look at what I thought of as their so called evidence, was the mockery that went into many posts on the topic. I wanted to look at their evidence so I could discredit it, only to find that low, their evidence was awfully fucking convincing.

For that matter, people who used mocking tones toward my faith definitely had an impact too, but I hesitate to include that because one, they were family and two, it was only a very small part of my loss of faith.

Finally, this isn't a vacuum. There are a lot of people reading this conversation who are not taking part. The mockery may not change the mind of the mocked, but it might impact some of those lurking in the wings.

I often forget I'm dealing with children incapable of abstraction.

Again, that's the best you can come up with? I mean I realize you didn't have a whole day to think about it this time, but come on.

No advocate can say what society will look like 30 years after gay marriage because no society has ever tried it.

Effectively gay marriage/civil union/whatever changes nothing in the short term. DOMA makes it moot at the federal level and it only effects minor rights of inheritance in the stat and has some minor effect on employer insurance. But even then not a substantial change from now.

Separation of church and state only protects individuals from having state-sponsored religious practice forced upon them. -- Ben-David

Just to throw you an example of your religion and effect. I am a resident of the state of Ohio. Somehow the rules and restrictions on the sale of alcohol require vendors to get an additional license/stamp/whatever for Sunday sales that aren't needed for the rest of the week. And to have a bar sell liquor on Sunday you need the local district to vote on it.

Tell me without using a bible (or other religious text) why Sunday is any different than Saturday or Monday?

Tell me without using a bible (or other religious text) why Sunday is any different than Saturday or Monday?

It's the only six-letter day of the week that starts with an 'S'.

Oh, and football. And racing.

Sure, there might have been religious underpinnings for the original "blue laws" that mandated all businesses close on Sunday (only repealed in the last thirty years in Connecticut, and some vestiges remain to this day). But those religious reasons gave way to political maneuvering.

See, the bar owners don't want you to go to the package store and buy a six-pack for $3-10 (wide range to not offend any particular beer drinker) when they can get you in their bar and sell you a single beer for that price. So they lobby politicians and tell them what a hardship it will be.

Oh, and someone in the law enforcement arena must like it, because even with the recommendation that time-based alcohol sales be done away with in the interest of reducing drunken driving incidents, politicians insist on keeping them there. I guess the revenue stream from DUI arrests and legal fees is too good to give up.

And how many of those Prop 8 types would have been too dead to vote for it if they'd actually lived according to actual Biblical teaching?

Simply beautiful!

Not until the state cites to the Bible as the justification behind legislation. Motivation does not equal statutory underpinnings. You could just as easily say that Cal. Pen. Code 187 ("Murder") constitutes a "separation" issue since it invokes the same subject matter as the First Commandment.

Posted by: snakeman99 at December 22, 2008 12:27 PM

This is not true. Murder has a very good reason - aside from any religious one - for being on the books as a criminal act - it ends the life of another human. I know Christians like to believe that they have a monopoly on the origins and basis of morality, but the golden rule existed long before the Torah, the Bible, or the Koran.

Gay marriage, on the other hand, imposes upon absolutely no one else's rights, and therefore the only objection to it is a religious one, thus it is purely a separation issue. In short, logic allows us to parse motivations behind legislation - we do not always need politicians to tell us what their motivations are for us to be able to understand them, especially when the motivation is so obvious, as it is in the gay marriage debate.

That's schoolchild-y and pouty and psychologically goofy.

If you think it is childish to believe anyone would use a holy book as an instrument of hate, you obviously slept through history class.

I doubt anyone would argue that Islamic terrorists use their Koran as an instrument to project their hate, both intellectually and physically. And if you think that it is a solely Muslim proclivity to do so, you're deluding yourself, because plenty of Christians (along with others) do the very same thing. Just because you agree with one and not the other does not make them different.

because plenty of Christians

Name three.

Adolf Hitler
Jerry Falwell
John Hagee
Fred Phelps
Francisco Chimoio
Pat Roberston

There are six, would you like more?

Thanks, lujlp - I wasn't quick enough on that one. But I'll add a couple more obvious ones:

King Richard the Lionhearted
Pope Innocent III

Elle wrote: "No advocate can say what society will look like 30 years after gay marriage because no society has ever tried it. We might all be singing kumbayah, or we might have seem marriage disappear and childbearing fall to unsustainable levels."
=============================================
Oh, please! You really believe that if same sex is legal, straight people will want to stop doing the nasty? (Sorry, count me and my husband out.) Stop reproducing? Would that it were so, at least for a little while! The planet risks becoming dangerously overpopulated. Please tell me how same sex marriage would cause YOU or YOUR marriage to change.

luljip,

"Elle read the first book of sameul"

Just did go reread it in case I missed anything. I didn't. David and Johnathan were close friends in a culture where it was normal for close male friends to hold hands or kiss one another. The love between them was Philos, bortherly love, not Eros, what lovers share.

I wouldn't call Hitler a Christian. He was more of an Occultist.

Carla,

Elle did not write that. I believe Momof3 did.

DuWayne, I read Aquinas's so called ontological proof of god in a philosophy class and I concluded that he didn't understand logic and was simply desperate for something to support his belief.

Crid said 'It's inane. It's wordy. It's like a sixth grader trying to talk about sex at a freshman mixer at the State college. Desperate for participation, it fails to take a point and completely derails the exchange.'

Crid, you're not generally wordy, but other than that,it's like the pot calling the kettle black.

I think the main reason so many bible thumping christians are so strongly anti gay is because it lets them focus on someone elses faults instead of their own. I don't claim that is the only reason, nor do I think they are the only ones that are strongly anti gay - I knew an atheist who was (he was also a racial bigot as well).

Unintended consequences - like welfare laws that discourage marriage because they make it harder to get benefits, or those that encourage unmarried women to have more kids to get more money. I don't think allowing gay marriage will change the number of kids being born. That said, I think previous comments about the government staying out of it and having it only do civil contracts makes sense. If the government is out of the marriage business, then any gays who want a marriage can find a church that allows the kind of thing.

But I'll add a couple more obvious ones:

King Richard the Lionhearted

Let's leave the anti-Crusades propaganda out of this until you read a little more history.

Both the Muslims and the Christians were waging wars of conquest for the Holy Land back then. If anything, Richard and Saladin were the two most intelligent and modern of the commanders in the Crusades time period.

Both had their faults and could be ruthless, but both understood warfare and statecraft in ways their contemporaries were only beginning to comprehend.

Both the Muslims and the Christians were waging wars of conquest for the Holy Land back then. If anything, Richard and Saladin were the two most intelligent and modern of the commanders in the Crusades time period.

Just because both sides did the same thing doesn't mean that they cancel each other out. King Richard I embarked on a mission to free the Holy Land for expressly religious purposes, regardless if it was in retaliation or not. The challenge was to name Christians - as if there weren't any - who had waged war based upon their religious beliefs, and Richard I fits the bill, intelligent and stately or not.

The challenge was to name Christians - as if there weren't any - who had waged war based upon their religious beliefs, and Richard I fits the bill, intelligent and stately or not.

No problem. I thought the challenge was to name people who use the Bible as an instrument of hate and thought Richard I was stretching it a bit.

Throughout the Middle East, the Crusades are still being used as an anti-Western propaganda tool. Strange, how an 800+ year old conflict can still be used as a rallying point in that part of the world.

The West tends to have shorter emotional memories (...and widespread literacy). Try rallying Europeans for an invasion of the Middle East with "Remember Hattin!" and you'll just get a blank look.

I also have issues with the choice of Adolf Hitler as an example, but people who insist Hitler was a Christian have a tin ear when it comes to evidence contradictory to that pinnacle of their anti-Christianity argument.

Throughout the Middle East, the Crusades are still being used as an anti-Western propaganda tool. Strange, how an 800+ year old conflict can still be used as a rallying point in that part of the world.

Having spent a year in Iraq, I can tell you that you that this is the case because they simply don't throw anything away, propaganda-wise. The mullahs in the individual villages have a near absolute measure of control over the people that live there, and they use anything and everything they can to maintain that control.

For example, one day my unit got shot up while coming into a village on a mission to check on three families who had been threatened by insurgents, only to find out that five of the people engaging us were members of those three families we were there to check on. They did not do so on their own accord - they were told by their local mullah that we were there to pillage and destroy their town, and that Allah had commanded them to defend against us. We later found out that the mullah simply wanted our noses out of his village so he could expand his black market trading operation.

The people firing at us did not have the freedom to refuse the order - once the mullah related Allah's command, it was their sacred duty. (Had they not followed his directive, he had complete legal freedom to take what little their families had, including their sons and daughters, and do with them as he pleased.) The ones that were not killed expressed great sorrow for their actions, which completely blew my mind.

I also have issues with the choice of Adolf Hitler as an example, but people who insist Hitler was a Christian have a tin ear when it comes to evidence contradictory to that pinnacle of their anti-Christianity argument.

Having read Mein Kampf, it is clear that Hitler used religion as a tool for motivating the masses to carry out his plans, but in my opinion, he probably really didn't care all that much about the Christian deity and his commandments, other than the benefit they could offer him in controlling his people. So while he may not have personally been a believer, he certainly recognized that his country's population did believe, and used that to its full effect.

Adolf Hitler - Not a Christian. This has been addressed above.

Jerry Falwell - Televangelist. He was an actor, not an agent of Christ.

John Hagee He thinks an invasion of Iran was foretold in the Book of Esther. That's hardly a Christian book.

Fred Phelps Not only not a Christian (he was kicked out of the ministry for refusing to follow the faith), the sum total of his followers numbers in the tens. Comparing him to even the local Roman Catholic church is pointless.

Francisco Chimoio - Catholic. Not Christian. Sorry. That whole communion thing kinda lets them out. The Catholic Church is a political entity, not a religious one.

Pat Roberston - Even the freaks denounce him. His following is tiny compared with even Hamas.

And of everyone on your list, only Adolph Hitler advocated genocide, and not for religious reasons, but racial purity.

Robertson said we ought to kill Hugo Chavez, but anyone sane thinks that. He just made it impossible for anyone to do that because he can't keep his fat mouth shut.

0 for 6. Please try again. You might consider remedial European history before you do.

Merry Christmas!

Sorry brian everyone of these people self identify as christian and their followers see them as such.

And catholics are christians, if your going to start removing christian sects for doctirnes which are in direct contradiction to the "teachings of jesus"TM then noone anywhee since jesus himself is a christian.

I assume you meant the communion being with indiviually baked crackers rather than broken bread, if I am mistaken please elaborate.

In the meantime how about the serial killer king Henry the 8th?

But if you want more name I'll get you a list, would twenty suffice?

I'm going to bed at the moment as I get up at 2am MST but I'll have it posted sometime tomorrow afternoon

Actually, lujlp, you could take your entire list, sum up all of their followers, and STILL not come close to the number of jihadi that are directly inspired to murder by the leaders of Islam who take their direction from Mecca and Tehran.

Everyone you've named so far is either not a Christian by any definition (one cannot self-identify as a Christian in one breath and call for the extermination of the Jews in another and be reasonably called Christian), or is a fringe that takes their own justifications from what they believe to be in the bible.

You're grasping at straws. Your hatred for religion is so intense that you will fall for every falsehood ever conceived to make all religions look monstrous.

And it isn't terribly becoming.

Actually, lujlp, you could take your entire list, sum up all of their followers, and STILL not come close to the number of jihadi that are directly inspired to murder by the leaders of Islam who take their direction from Mecca and Tehran.

That wasnt the challange, the challage was to name three christians who use reilgion as a vehicle for hate

Everyone you've named so far is either not a Christian by any definition (one cannot self-identify as a Christian in one breath and call for the extermination of the Jews in another and be reasonably called Christian),

So you're going with the "If they do something wrong thie not REALLY a Christian" defense?

or is a fringe that takes their own justifications from what they believe to be in the bible.

You just described every christian on the planet

You're grasping at straws. Your hatred for religion is so intense that you will fall for every falsehood ever conceived to make all religions look monstrous.

Not hatred, exasperation, and it is mosterous. And you know the really messed up thing? 'Good' chrisitians are the ones who ignore almost every law the bible sets down

And it isn't terribly becoming.

Niether is moving the goal posts everytime I satisfy your challange