Say to my face that religion had nothing to do with the bigotry that happened in NC.

[2ndAmForComputers]

Come on, say it.

[Hissyspit]

1. Of course it did. I've been passing dozens of churches with Pro-Amendment signs and bigoted signs

for weeks now. There have been a few that showed support for its defeat, and I've driven mostly in rural counties, but mostly I've seen the bigoted ones.

[ScreamingMeemie]

2. Hatred and fear caused what happened in NC.

No matter what it was rooted in.

[2ndAmForComputers]

4. No, what it was rooted in is relevant.

What was it rooted in?

[ScreamingMeemie]

6. I focus on the hatred and fear.

Sorry.

Ick. I came here from the latest page. I abhor the Religion group sooooo...double sorry but yuck. Religion group. I'm going to discuss in GD if you wish.

[2ndAmForComputers]

7. Yeah, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

[ScreamingMeemie]

8. I don't do religion or non-religion.

Sorry to disappoint you.

For me it's about fear and hatred, as stated. Have a nice night. See you in GD.

[2ndAmForComputers]

9. You just did.

Playing smokescreen is doing something.

[ScreamingMeemie]

10. Nope. Don't post here. and now you've got me posting here.

I avoid these groups.

[2ndAmForComputers]

11. Well, gee, then you'd better stop letting this cesspool conspurcate your precious bodily fluids.

[AlbertCat]

163. Hatred and fear caused what happened in NC.

Nope. Religious doctrine did.


Every objection to SSM has been based on religion. It is a 100% religious outcome. The definition is religious. The hatred and fear is religious in nature. It's not fear of death or fear of ruining the economy. Nor is it hatred of skin color or crime. It's religious hatred and fear. That is clear.

Plus I'll bet there are many who didn't even think about SSM for a minute.... until they were told to fear it by their religion.

[DontTreadOnMe]

3. Jesus Saves!

[img][/img]

[Plantaganet]

5. I feel your pain, 2ndAm.

Religion had everything to do with it. Apparently this is what "change from within" looks like.

[rug]

12. Which one?

[2ndAmForComputers]

15. This one, for instance.

You ARE really going to try to deny the undeniable, aren't you?

[rug]

18. That's better. One of many.

One quality of bigotry is lumping entire groups.

[2ndAmForComputers]

19. I believe anti-gay bigotry is rooted in religion. That makes me a bigot?

[darkstar3]

22. Any port in a storm...

[2ndAmForComputers]

25. I guess when all you have left is the Pee Wee Herman School of rhetoric, well, gee,

you gotta use it.

[rug]

39. You must prefer Bluto pronouncements.

[rug]

23. No, but your indiscriminate slam on religion fits.

[2ndAmForComputers]

27. So my OP is bigotry?

[rug]

28. Are you saying all religion?

[darkstar3]

32. Tell me something, bigot-dar...do you think that ALL killing is wrong?

[rug]

35. Not at all. Red herrings serve no useful purpose.

[darkstar3]

40. Not a herring at all. A point.

We have people here daily on DU who decry killing wherever it is done. By your narrow logic they would be considered bigots against soldiers.

When you start calling people bigots because you disagree with the precision level of their language, you've gone beyond anything useful in discussion.

[rug]

42. As I said. Red herrings serve no purpose.

[darkstar3]

48. False accusations of bigotry serve no purpose.

Or should we all start calling you a bigot every time you defend the Catholic Church?

[rug]

49. You're right. False accusations of bigotry serve no purpose. Hence, this subthread.

[darkstar3]

52. Glad to see you admit it.

[rug]

59. You should read more closely.

[darkstar3]

60. You should stop posting things like #18, where you called the OP a bigot.

Now watch, you'll play straight to type and passive-aggressively claim that you didn't do that.

[rug]

64. "One quality of bigotry is lumping entire groups."

That direct enough?

Twisting words is a sign of weakness.

[darkstar3]

67. Straight to type...

Those who characterize their detractors as bigots are often terrified of the weakness of their own position.

[rug]

69. Those who argue by smileys are just, well, silly.

[darkstar3]

70. If all you saw was the smiley then I have bad news for you...

[rug]

72. I was commenting on the most thoughtful part of the post.

[darkstar3]

73. Last word games are not thoughtful. I think thoughtful would trouble you.

Now go ahead, prove me right again by taking the last word.

[opiate69]

74. indeed..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=25882

[rug]

84. '

[2ndAmForComputers]

33. I didn't see any Buddhist or Wiccan organization campaigning for Amendment One.

Therefore, the answer is no.

[rug]

36. Therefore, all Christian religions?

[2ndAmForComputers]

41. Too many of them. How many? Too many. And others too.

Islam, for one, tends not to be too hot on gay rights. Similarly Orthodox Judaism. Maybe others too.

Your point is?

[rug]

44. Too many? OK. So not all Christian religions, and others, fall into your condemnation.

Is that correct?

[2ndAmForComputers]

50. Pineapple crankshaft mauve.

Spindle stradivarius toolshed lime cyprus onion.

[rug]

55. I smell smoke.

[2ndAmForComputers]

62. Well, then stop trying to prove the square root of two is rational and tend to your dinner.

Burning food sucks.

[rug]

65. Burning food indeed sucks. As does evasion.

[Plantaganet]

53. Where do you stand on the issue of same-sex marriage, Rug?

You never did answer the question in the previous thread - so here's another chance.

Oh, and we'd prefer to hear your own words. Not those of the Vatican. If at all possible.

[rug]

58. It's purely a matter of civil law, and in this case, it's a matter of equality under civil law.

That's not a new position.

[2ndAmForComputers]

76. Yep. Evasion DOES suck.

[rug]

82. Yes, that's a very evasive answer.

[laconicsax]

101. And what is your position on whether same-sex couples should be equal under the civil law?

Do you agree with the leadership of your church and oppose same-sex couples attaining equality under civil law or do you reject the position of your church and support marriage equality for same-sex couples?

[LTX]

107. This wasn't directed to me, but the leadership of "my church" (actually synagogue)?

I do agree with the leadership of my synagogue, and we do not oppose same-sex equality under civil law or same-sex marriage. Many other churches and temples, and their respective leadership, hold the same position. So are we all now lumped into a single group?

[eqfan592]

108. Given that you are not a member of the roman catholic church...

...which I believe was the church specifically being spoken of, then no, I don't think your specific synagogue is a part of that group.

[laconicsax]

142. Yes, you're in the "decent people" group.

The question was really for rug since, being Catholic, his church leadership is virulently homophobic.

[darkstar3]

29. I'm trying to remember something said repeatedly by defenders of the faith in a previous thread...

what was that...oh yes.

The truth hurts.

The statement "religion was deeply involved in the victory of anti-gay bigotry in North Carolina" is undeniably true.

[rug]

34. Which are not the words of the op.

Do you have a problem with words that requires you to contort them to your own purposes?

[darkstar3]

43. You're right, the OP was even LESS stringent. It simply said religion was involved.

Here's another one from the believer toolbelt..."get over yourself."

[rug]

93. "tiresome"

At Tue May 8, 2012, 11:11 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Which are not the words of the op.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=26203

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Personal attack.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue May 8, 2012, 11:24 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: If this is a hidable personal attack we need to hide about 25% of the entire site. The OP is not wrong, but stated in an inflammatory manner, thus the whole thread is becoming contentious. Posting that OP in the Religion group shows poor judgment if you ask me, and this business of alerting on anyone who disagrees with you is growing tiresome.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Responding to the standard broad-brush religious bigotry prevalent at DU is hardly a "personal" attack, when the prejudice that started this thread is so personal to so many.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't think this really qualifies as a personal attack.

[darkstar3]

96. Again I wonder if you have an alter-ego.

[rug]

97. Again I wonder about . . .

nope, I may get alerted again for a personal attack.

[darkstar3]

98. Now now, what was it you said about smileys?

Seek help.

[rug]

99. Seek help?

That sounds like a personal attack.

Nah.

[skepticscott]

103. Time to declare that rounds are over

[Angry Dragon]

100. The leader of your church, the Pope, is a bigot

Would you agree with that statement??

No lumping there, just calling him out.

[Thats my opinion]

94. In some forms of religiosity nt

[darkstar3]

20. You defend the Catholic Church at every turn and have the audacity to call others bigots?

[rug]

24. Yeah I do. Especially when I see it.

[2ndAmForComputers]

30. Where are you seeing bigotry in this thread?

[rug]

37. As soon as you answer my question I'll tell you if and where.

At the moment, I see it against all religions except Wiccans and Buddhists.

[eqfan592]

105. You are claiming bigotry toward organizations, where most usually use the term bigotry...

...as applying to people, unless you are claiming that the religion and its practitioners are not separable in a persons mind, which is a position I think you will have a difficult time defending.

[darkstar3]

31. If that were true, then you have no time to post here.

The hierarchy of the Catholic Church is bigoted from the top down. Get name-calling...

(As if that would ever fucking happen.)

[rug]

38. This doesn't take much time.

Or effort.

[darkstar3]

45. You never put much time or effort into calling out bigotry,

unless of course you don't agree with it.

[2ndAmForComputers]

46. Yes, trying to prove there is bigotry where there isn't is indeed hard.

[rug]

47. The jury's still out.

I'm waiting for your answer.

[2ndAmForComputers]

51. Why don't you just blurt it out already? Your mind is made.

You've made your opinion blatantly apparent.

[rug]

61. Why don't you just blurt out an answer to the quesion instead of diving into a word salad

as you did above?

It's a stratightforward question.

[2ndAmForComputers]

66. Which question? You asked lots of them.

And I answered each of them, which was followed by a ludicrous request for "refinement." So, enough.

YOU talk.

Am I a bigot?

[rug]

71. The one you answered thusly:

"Pineapple crankshaft mauve. Spindle stradivarius toolshed lime cyprus onion."

Your answer to that question will answer your own question.

[2ndAmForComputers]

75. OK, yes, I condemn those religions that are bigoted.

And, among those, you find Christian denominations, Islamic ones, Jewish ones, and probably others I forget.

Is that opinion of mine bigoted?

You see, the "horrible" thing you're trying to "coax" me to "admit" isn't bigotry at all. It's cold, hard fact.

Happy now?

[rug]

77. Not quite.

Do you therefore not condemn those religions, Christian or otherwise, which are not bigoted?

[2ndAmForComputers]

81. I admire people who take a stand against bigotry...

...even while their sacred book enshrines it, along with a majority of their "comrades-in-faith." That takes courage.

[rug]

83. "2ndAmForComputers

76. Yep. Evasion DOES suck."

[2ndAmForComputers]

87. Nothing I say will satisfy you, so goodbye.

The thing you were hoping for, and typed so many words in pursuit of, ain't happening. Now go to sleep.

[rug]

90. And there is your answer.

[Starboard Tack]

144. That covers about 95% of the planet.

Might as well just call humans bigoted. And I guess we all are to a degree. Must all be about which pot or kettle is the blackest.
As religions were all invented a long time ago, by humans, they are inevitably riddled with bigotry, especially when seen through 21st century eyes.
Point is, many of us humans are making an honest attempt to free ourselves from bigotry, regardless of our personal faith or lack thereof.
As insidious as the Church, especially the RC Church, has been in the past and still continues to be, in the form of it's leaders, many of it's members are leading the way in their struggle to clean house. I do not envy them in that struggle, but I respect them for trying to do the right thing.

[eqfan592]

160. Note he said denominations of those religions, not the entirety of those religions. (nt)

[Starboard Tack]

203. He did, you are correct.

Though I got the feeling it was slipped in as a CYA attempt to tone down his own prejudice.

[whathehell]

127. LOL!

Go on with your bad self, Rug.

[AlbertCat]

165. Especially when I see it.

Oh, it doesn't matter whether you see it or not. You just post one liners to start flame wars. I mean, you must LIVE here! It's that "must have the last word" syndrome that causes these yards long threads of one liners, usually with one or two posters sandwiched between "rug" "rug" "rug" "rug" "rug" "rug" "rug" "rug" "rug" "rug" "rug" "rug" "rug" "rug" .....

[rug]

171. I'll try to post more cartoons.

[AlbertCat]

177. I'll try to post more cartoons.

It might make you look cleverer.


Probably not though.

[rug]

178. I will instantly look cleverer when I leave this exchange.

Voila!

[rug]

80. "Good grief."

At Tue May 8, 2012, 11:09 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

That's better. One of many.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=26187

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Calling another poster a bigot and trying to do it while being able to claim he's not. Posts 23 and 24 too.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue May 8, 2012, 11:28 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: bs alert
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Bigotry has many forms.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Thank you to the alerter for making note of the context of this exchange.
uror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Good grief. Who is doing the alerting on this? Plez tell them to grow up.



Oops. And I just chastised darkstar3 for using smileys.

[darkstar3]

85. You served on a jury for one of your own posts?

That's fucked up.

[rug]

86. No. You alerted on one of my own posts?

That's fucked up.

[darkstar3]

88. Your accusation is baseless. I'd rather your bs be visible.

I am left to wonder, though, if you have multiple personalities.

[rug]

89. Of course. How could I think such a thing?

[darkstar3]

91. This from "Genevieve".

[noamnety]

124. another set of jury results

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Personal attack.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It may be a personal criticism. It's also true.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: This post, while exhibiting a certain artistry, is still a personal attack.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: I read the thread, and rug **IS** a bigot and a troll. But saying so violates DU rules, so: hide post.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Once Rug accused the OP of being a bigot, s/he opened himself up to the same attacks. Context is everything.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Rug is, in fact, a bigot and a troll. Unfortunately, under DU rules, you can't come out and say that. Alert is there for a reason.


(you wanted these all posted, right? If not, let me know and I'll edit it out.)

[LTX]

114. How, exactly, do you propose that "we" do that?

Maybe guns? Or some church-burnings? Obviously, lodging opposition by discourse, and taking the affirmative position that same-sex marriage is morally and legally indistinguishable from "traditional" marriage, is insufficient. Perhaps you can help "us" by offering a course of sufficiently vehement action to satisfy your standards.

[noamnety]

140. It's not so different from any other similar behaviors

The instinct - whether it's police protecting their own, or soldiers protecting their own, etc. - is to circle the wagons and attack the attacker.

When police see a fellow officer doing something reprehensible on youtube, it would be nice if their first response was "holy cow, that's horrifying" instead of "stop bashing police." The fact that their first reaction appears to be defending police instead of condemning the abuse tells us what their priorities are.

When soldiers kill civilians for sport, same thing - I want to see other soldiers condemn their actions instead of immediately jumping to a defense of all soldiers.

When there's a report about rape being on the rise, I would like to see men more outraged about rape than about their own bruised feelings if someone says violence by men against women is a problem. What's the bigger issue? That women are being raped, or that men's feelings are being hurt? Decide what the critical issue is, and then act appropriately.

When religious people are doing something abusive, whether it's molesting children or denying people basic human rights, an appropriate reaction is to be more outraged about the behavior than the fact that churches are being called out for it. If it's the leadership of your own church, maybe consider stopping attendance or withholding donations with an explanation why - so they get the reason for the boycott.

[LTX]

141. But that kind of condemnation, of course, is precisely

Last edited Wed May 9, 2012, 01:35 PM - Edit history (1)

what is being done by a great many religious groups. And members leave congregations all the time because of disagreements with leadership. But when a member "boycotts" a church (more likely just leaves), that doesn't get much attention. Indeed, little attention at all is paid to the voices that object to the loudmouths who make news with deliberately attention-getting bigotry.

This all sounds rather disturbingly like the right-wing meme about Muslims. If "they" weren't all alike, there would be a loud(er) objection to the extremists. But no amount of objection will ever really be enough.

[noamnety]

149. It has to do with the oppressor vs. the oppressed.

It's not right wing to say that police should condemn police brutality when they see it. None of the other statements I made are right wing.

People in positions of power over others (or in organizations who hold power over others) need to get over themselves if their leadership supports and covers up corruption or human rights abuses, and their first concern when abuse is uncovered is to deny it.

Is there a part of that statement you disagree with?

[LTX]

151. No. Do you think this is not being done? n/t

[noamnety]

166. In a lot of places it's being done, yes.

In this thread, certain individuals seem more offended that the "church" has been accused of playing a central part in denying basic human rights - without appropriate *not all churches* footnoting, than they are offended that major churches and their leadership have in fact played a central part in denying basic human rights.

If that statement doesn't apply to you, than I am not complaining about your actions. For the people in this thread who are more outraged about a missing footnote than a church promoting the denial of basic rights, it applies to them.

[LTX]

169. It's interesting to discover

that progressive theists on DU (i.e., the vast majority) are a footnote.

[darkstar3]

172. Progressive theists ARE a footnote.

Especially in America.

[noamnety]

176. Well hang on - look at this stunning list of churches

that support marriage equality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches#Churches_favorable_to_same-sex_marriage

[LTX]

180. Hilarious.

I mean it. Absolutely hilarious. You know, there has to be some kind of final solution for this.

[Plantaganet]

183. Wow.

This has got to be the most oblique instance of Godwin's Law in the entire history of the internet!

I actually feel privileged to be a part of this. It's like spotting a rare bird.

[LTX]

185. Well, if the tooth has gold ...

: )

[LTX]

181. Enabling footnotes at that.

Ps: Please inform Americans United that they are now an irrelevant footnote. And that the textual atheists will take it from here.

[darkstar3]

182. Americans United is not a religious group, ergo they do not qualify as "progressive theists."

[LTX]

184. Oh, that's right.

It's an inclusive advocacy group. Moral superiority is reserved for exclusive advocacy groups.

[darkstar3]

187. I find that in most cases it is religion and its adherents that are interested in moral superiority.

[LTX]

188. Hence,

progressive theists have no business being included. I have to say, the animosity to progressive theists on this thread is revealing.

[darkstar3]

189. What you mistake for animosity is simply grouding in reality.

Progressive theists are few and far between. That is not some awful animosity, it's cold hard fact. That this fact bothers you, do not blame me.

[LTX]

190. As are atheists.

Odd that they refuse to be accepted as irrelevant footnotes isn't it?

(And as an aside, there are more progressive theists than you seem to think. Rather many more.)

[darkstar3]

191. We aren't the ones begging to be recognized as "right" on something which cannot be solved.

[LTX]

194. Separation of church and state

can't be solved? Religious discrimination (which, in case you missed it, includes discrimination against atheists under its legal umbrella) can't be solved? I had no idea. Well, I guess that rules out atheist "begging" as well. We're all just pissing in the wind.

[darkstar3]

208. Which of course isn't what I said.

The question of god cannot be solved. When you argue these issues from a viewpoint of what god wants, you're pissing in the wind. That's why americans united is a secular organization...they know better.

[Plantaganet]

192. The animosity is all in your head.

I'm sure it seems quite real to you. But it's a complete fabrication.

Progressive theists? They mean well. But something isn't clicking. Whenever God is in the mix both sides quote scripture and... whaddya know... the progressive cause loses time and time again. Why? Because scripture doesn't lend itself to progressive causes in an immediate, tangible way.

Once again, the challenge to any progressive theist - in the context of this conversation, at least - is to find something as primal and powerful as "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Once you can come up with that, you've got the trump card. That's the poster. That's the slogan. The battle for gay rights is over and won. Congratulations, we'll never have to deal with the likes of Prop 8 or Maine again.

But you can't, because it isn't there. If it were, the magic bullet would have been produced by now. Do you honestly think that anyone in the Bible belt is going to be convinced by a long, tedious argument involving context, proof-texting, the correct interpretation of words like "malakos" and the idea that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was actually about being inhospitable?

No. As with misogyny, homophobia is simply too hard-wired into the Bible. And pretending that Amendment 1 isn't a result of that is absurd.

[LTX]

196. Nice rant.

Beside the point, but nice. Tell me, do progressive theists have any duty to speak out against discriminitory government action? If so, what shoud an individual progressive theist say when

1. The government discriminates against a religion not his or her own?

2. The goverment discriminates against atheists (legally the same as one above, but atheists do deserve their own non-legal classification)?

3. The government discriminates against a sexual orientation not his or her own?

[Plantaganet]

204. ?

It's not beside the point. It's the whole point.

Look - my previous post outlined very clearly why progressive theism is at best ineffectual in the political sphere. If you want to dismiss that as a rant, that's totally fine, but you still haven't presented a viable solution. Keep driving with your brakes on.

[cbayer]

205. Progressive theism ineffectual in the political sphere? What about MLK?

[LTX]

207. No, it's entirely beside the point.

You stated:

"Progressive theists? They mean well. But something isn't clicking. Whenever God is in the mix both sides quote scripture and... whaddya know... the progressive cause loses time and time again. Why? Because scripture doesn't lend itself to progressive causes in an immediate, tangible way."

You assume that I have made some kind of competing scriptural or theological argument, which you say I can't win because my beliefs aren't as (powerful, or persuasive, or scripturally supported) as the quasi-biblical literalism that allegedly supports christian fundamentalism.

Set aside the surpassing strangeness of the argument for a presumed atheist (are you really weighing the relative merits of that which you reject entirely?), and that I'm Jewish (which kind of scripturally precedes christian fundamentalism), and focus on what I have said in this thread.

I have made no competing theological arguments. I don't object to them, but I also think they aren't persuasive to those already committed to a theology. I have simply been arguing that there is a very important place for progressive theists in advocacy against government discrimination, whether on sexual orientation grounds, or religious grounds, or otherwise. And if it is their personal religious beliefs that drive them to advocate equality, so be it.

I have also been arguing that the participation of progressive theists in Americans United and the ACLU is not only valuable, but essential. There is a reason why a great many theists, progressive and conservative alike, strongly and vocally support separation of church and state. The religion empowered by the state, and given state-coercive force, isn't likely to be theirs. And state entanglement with a given religion is a license to discriminate against other religions.

Much the same reasoning applies to discrimination on sexual orientation grounds. Exercising state coercive power to declare a given, non-criminal citizen to be something less than a full citizen is a license for state abuse of the very concepts of citizenship and inalienable rights that we, as a country, supposedly embrace.

And so, my questions to you, the answers to which we are very likely to agree upon.

But what I am hearing repeatedly is that progressive theists must give up their theism to even participate in this process. Or that they are somehow handicapped by being theists (a none to subtle "too infected by the virus of illogic to be clear thinkers," or not "clicking" on all cylinders). To which I say hogwash.

[noamnety]

175. Your main point of concern is noted. (nt)

[YankeyMCC]

106. Of course it did and of course nothing exists independantly

Last edited Wed May 9, 2012, 01:08 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm sure there were many people who don't go to church, don't give much thought at all to their own spirituality that voted for discrimination. I'm sure there were many people of faith and no-faith that voted against discrimination.

I agree with the above poster that the root causes are fear, hatred and ignorance. Many of the extremist, fundamentalist and even some of the mainline, churches support fear, hatred and ignorance. Ultimately people are responsible for their own actions only.

Just as there is no connection to lack of religion to lack of ethical actions there is no rule that people of faith, even members of fundamentalist christian, islamic, jewish, etc... churchs will act unethically.

Religion plays a role, culture plays a role, political leaders play a role. You can't change what others do, you can't make their choices, you can speak out against specific people, leaders, traditions, and fears, you can do your own good. That is the way to encourage change in the choices of the people.

on edit: I just noticed I meant to post as a reply to the OP.

[whathehell]

129. Thank you for the sanity break.

"Culture plays a role"...Of course it does, and denying that makes me think of the other

absurdity frequently repeated here -- "All wars are caused by religion".

Of course, because something called "greed" is never at issue.

[eqfan592]

132. It would indeed be an absurdity to say "all wars are caused by religion."

And interestingly enough, I've yet to see any such thing ever said here. Nice straw man. "Sanity break" indeed.

[whathehell]

137. So glad you agree

even if "interestingly enough", you've "yet to see any such thing ever said here"

I'd just like to suggest, however, that before you call "strawman" or exhaust

yourself trying to untangle this "interesting" disparity, you might compare

our respective post counts and consider that I have twice the number of posts you do,

which just might indicate a LOT more viewing time here....

[eqfan592]

161. So you're saying that the time it's taken me to make 4000 posts...

...isn't enough to have seen something you claim happens "frequently?"

[whathehell]

195. I'm saying that

just because *you* haven't seen it doesn't mean it hasn't happened

and to imply that someone with twice your post count is a liar

because they DID, is not only arrogant, it's stupidly arrogant.

[eqfan592]

206. Stupidly arrogant?

Says the person who thinks having a higher post count can turn a straw man argument into something else. You didn't make the claim that you had seen it once before, but rather you made the claim that it occurs "frequently." And you've so far failed to provide any evidence to support the claim of having seen it either once OR frequently. Oh yes, you're clearly doing a great job at making your point here...

[whathehell]

212. I see your reading skills are intact

In your case though, it might be best

not to confuse them with reasoning skills.

Hint: They may improve once you realize the difference

between "making a case" and making an "observation" as there's

no practical way to "prove" or "disprove" the frequency with which

a statement appears on a site with more than 100K membership and over a decade's duration.

Have a nice day.

[eqfan592]

213. You clearly checked your own reasoning skills at the door.

If something were happening "frequently," as you said, it should take little effort to locate at least several instances of that statement being made. You clearly cannot because your claim was a straw man to begin with, so now you've instead resorted to yet another logical fallacy, the ad hominem, by insulting my reasoning skills.

In either case of making a "case" or an "observation" evidence should be available to support the "case" or "observation" being made. And given that you were the person making the claim, it is on your shoulders to be able to support it.

You could do the logical and reasonable thing and just admit that it WAS in fact a straw man argument, or you can continue to dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole.

[whathehell]

216. BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I love it when people use terms like "ad hominem" and "logical fallacy"

incorrectly, thinking it makes them look "smart"

At this point I'll say "adieu", since Kindness forbids me

to engage in battles of wit with unarmed opponents.

Goodbye and Good Luck.

[eqfan592]

225. Yes, implying that my "reasoning skills" were not intact was not even close...

...to an ad hominem. I'm glad you showed me the error of my ways!

Yes, please do depart as rapidly as possible. Your desperate back peddling and flailing, while amusing, is hardly productive.

[cleanhippie]

201. Your post count means two things...Jack and shit... and Jack just left town.

Seriously? Your POST count?

[whathehell]

211. No, you're thinking about YOUR post count

because in your case, it's "quantity" vs. "quality"

[eqfan592]

214. Given the state of our current discussion...

...I would say the "quality" of your posts are not something you should be attempting to promote at this point in time.

[whathehell]

215. Given the "state" of those with whom I'm having the discussion

I'd suggest my posts reflect the only "quality" here

[eqfan592]

226. Oh, your posts reflect a "quality" alright.

That quality is best represented by the following image:



So long!

[darkstar3]

13. Oh it was religion, just not "true" religion. Watch as the believers disown and disavow.

[2ndAmForComputers]

14. You were two minutes too slow.

[rug]

16. Got an answer?

[2ndAmForComputers]

21. You were slow too, but only by a few seconds.

[rug]

26. Time stamp doesn't show seconds.

[Plantaganet]

17. It's real simple.

Good stuff is the result of religion.

Bad stuff is the result of... something... ANYTHING else. Not religion, though. Nope. No way.

[struggle4progress]

54. Statement of NC Clergy and Faith Leaders Against the Anti-LGBT Constitutional Amendment

http://equalitync.org/clergy

[2ndAmForComputers]

56. Then why did the amendment pass? All those mean atheists voted for it to make religion look bad?

Yeah, that must be it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

63. North Carolina is heavily fundamentalist

That's all you need to know.

I belong to one of the denominations that has GLBT clergy and at least one gay bishop, so I'm not accepting your characterization.

[Goblinmonger]

110. What characterization?

Are you denying that those that voted for the amendment are following their religion? I mean it's great that your denomination supports GLBT issues. Really, it is. But that does nothing to counter the fact that far more religious people (as evidenced by the vote) don't support GLBT issues. I wish your church were the majority church in NC and the country. But it isn't. Sticking you head in the sand and saying this vote wasn't the result of religion isn't helpful.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

125. It was the result of one VARIETY of religion

Saying that the vote in North Carolina is the result of "religion" (without a modifier) is like saying that dictatorships are the result of "politics."

[Goblinmonger]

128. One VARIETY of religion that is, clearly, powerful

and the majority in that state and many, many, many others. But for religion sticking its "morals" into politics, we would have gay marriage at this point.

[Thats my opinion]

150. Do you know any nation that has gay marriage that is not dominated by Christian conservarives?

In states that have adopted gay marriage do you know the effect of liberal religion on the outcome?
Do you think it would be better in those states to have pulled all the progressive religious people out out the contests?

[Goblinmonger]

153. I think it would be better

if both "sides" of religion pulled out of the contests.

[Thats my opinion]

157. Your argument is with the First Amendment. I, on the other hand, support it.

[darkstar3]

173. You support a bastardized version that protects your own speech, but not that of others.

[AlbertCat]

167. one VARIETY of religion

I don't think ONE variety is responsible.


But you "good" Christians derive your authority from the same book as the "bad" Christians. Just because your sect chooses to jettison major Christian teachings doesn't make it so special. Christians, and all other religions, pick and choose whatever they want from their doctrines.

Christians are responsible. Maybe not your clan. So go rein in the "bad" ones. It's not for me to do.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

197. Not this again!

The fundies do NOT consider us to be Christians. They think of us as heretics. They won't listen to us any more than the Communists will listen to the Democrats.

[Thats my opinion]

152. We all know that in the South, every since Nixon's Southern strategy,

conservatives of every stripe are predominant. Much of the church there has been co-opted by that social notion. Of course a majority religious establish of that sort, will prejudice elections. It is shameful and a black-eye on religion.

To blame the whole thing on religion is just another verse of the same old sad song. Show me a nation anywhere that is not religious which has gay marriage. Go ahead, or step back.

[Goblinmonger]

155. Sweden

Gay marriage legalized in 2009. Less than 20% said religion was important in their lives.

Next question? Or can I step back on again?

[Thats my opinion]

158. Knowing something about Sweden,

I can tell you that although the 20% may be correct, deep in the Swedish mentality and social ethic is a liberal religious perspective that no longer flies under the banner of religion, but that is where it has its roots.

[froster]

159. No example will satisfy true believers.

They are immune to reason. Their great strength. But the rigid thing does shatter instead of bend.

[darkstar3]

174. So Sweden is religious if you use the "right" definition of religious?

What is this vendetta you have against the English language?

[trotsky]

179. You insult non-believers without even realizing you're doing it, don't you?

It's disgusting. Listening to you, it would seem that the only way non-believers can be moral or good is to have either A) grown up in a religious society, or B) grown up in a society that even if it's not religious now, was somehow based on a religious tradition.

That sounds like religious bigotry to me. You don't think people can be good without religion.

[cleanhippie]

202. Oh FFS TMO, why not just admit that you got exactly what you asked for.

[struggle4progress]

68. There are many reasons it passed. In part, it passed because:

(1) Supporters did turn out the bigots to vote for it
(2) Many people had no idea exactly what the amendment meant to do or would do, and in fact quite a few were confused about what a vote "for" or "against" would do
(3) We didn't do a good enough job educating people, because we didn't get as much volunteer manpower as we needed
(4) About 2/3 of the electorate sat the election out

I made hundreds and hundreds of contacts, by phone and door-knocking, to educate people about the amendment, to recruit volunteers, and to turn out our side to vote. When I made phone calls, folk regularly told me they belonged to a church group actively working to defeat the amendment. But folk also regularly told me they didn't have time to volunteer

I have no respect whatsoever for folk who whine or drive wedges. Here in Durham, we beat the amendment down 70-30, even though it seems to have passed statewide 60-40. The difference corresponds to a major flip, and it's what happens when folk work together

[skepticscott]

104. Your #1 and #2 are in direct contradiction

You don't even see that, do you? And #4 also contradicts the contention by another poster than NC is heavily fundamentalist.

And don't congratulate yourself too much about Durham. Bigger cities, especially college towns, are almost invariably bluer and more liberal than rural areas. If Durham had been polling 60-40 in favor three months before the election, and ended up 70-30 against, you could pat yourself on the back, but we both know that's not what happened.

You should stick to Google searches and cut-and-paste.

[struggle4progress]

130. Here's the data for the counties containing the top five urban areas

Mecklenberg (pop Charlotte 731K) 628,677 registered voters, 28% turnout
80816 for, 95615 against (46-54%)

Wake (pop Raleigh 404K) 612,919 registered voters, 40% turnout
105900 for, 139020 against (43-57%)

Guilford (pop Greensboro 270K) 338,263 registered voters, 35% turnout
58520 for, 58448 against (50-50%)

Forsyth (pop Winston-Salem 230K) 233,744 registered voters, 34% turnout
41772 for, 37650 against (53-47%)

Durham (pop Durham 228K) 192,270 registered voters, 39% turnout
22359 for, against 51591 (30-70%)

[skepticscott]

199. For someone who

usually prides themself on telling "the rest of the story", you're being very disingenuous.

[struggle4progress]

200. As of today, the following counties seem to have voted against:

Wautauga 51-49 (~35% turnout)
Buncombe 51-49 (~35% turnout)

Mecklenberg 54-46 (~25% turnout)

Orange 79-21 (~45% turnout)
Durham 70-30 (~35% turnout)
Chatham 54-46 (~45% turnout)
Wake 57-43 (~45% turnout)

Dare 51-49 (~25% turnout)

[Goblinmonger]

111. So 20% voted the wrong way?

The simple fact is that the religious fundamentalists in NC voted against this and there is apparently a shit load of them. It's that simple. You cannot tell me that if you had just called some more people in the country that they would have seen the error of their ways and let the gays marry. That's just wrong. Your desire to paint all religion in a good light is rather ridiculous.

[struggle4progress]

135. Conversing with you would be more interesting if you tried harder

not to misrepresent what other people say

[Goblinmonger]

138. Conversing with you would be more interesting if you didn't contort yourself

to make it look like religion is completely harmless. Like what happened in NC would have been different if you would have just tried harder. It happened because of what these people's churches told them. And there are more people in those churches than in the liberal ones and they clearly have more power.

[Thats my opinion]

154. Sad,but probably true. nt

[struggle4progress]

139. ... Our final marriage amendment poll finds it leading by a 55-39 margin, little change from a week

ago when it was ahead 55-41. The final yes percentage will likely be somewhere in the 57-59% range depending on how the undecideds break. Opponents of the amendment had an uphill battle in convincing voters that it was anything other than a referendum on gay marriage, even though it does go a lot further than that. 57% of voters in the state think gay marriage should be illegal (to only 34% who think it should be legal) and it's not a coincidence that number correlates so closely with the 55% planning to support the amendment.

In some sense North Carolinians are voting against their own beliefs. 53% of voters in the state support either gay marriage or civil unions, yet a majority also support the amendment that would ban both. The reason for that disconnect is even with just 24 hours until election day only 46% of voters realize the proposal bans both gay marriage and civil unions. Those informed voters oppose the amendment by a 61-37 margin but there may not be enough time left to get the rest of the electorate up to speed ...
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 6, 2012
INTERVIEWS: Tom Jensen 919-744-6312
IF YOU HAVE BASIC METHODOLOGICAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE E-MAIL
[e-mail], OR CONSULT THE FINAL PARAGRAPH
OF THE PRESS RELEASE
Dalton, McCrory, Amendment lead in North Carolina
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NC_506.pdf

[cbayer]

123. Good for you and thanks for all your hard work s4p.

What do you think the next step will be.

[struggle4progress]

147. This particular load got dumped in the road simply because

we let the Republicans win in 2010. So from now til November 2012, I'm thinking about November 2012

[darkstar3]

57. Their name is an oxymoron. They're not "leading" faith in North Carolina.

[Plantaganet]

78. Yes.

You can't fight a problem (homophobia) with the same tools that cause the problem in the first place (religion.)

[darkstar3]

79. One of the roots of an OP I've been pondering for a while. Good point.

[LTX]

116. So in other words, you can't fight irrational conservatism (republicans) with the same tools that

cause the problem in the first place (politics).

Is your solution really the eradication of religion? If it is, how do you propose doing that?

[eqfan592]

121. Irrational conservatism isn't caused by politics, so it's a false comparison. (nt)

[LTX]

126. By that reasoning, religion doesn't "cause" the bigotry at issue in this thread.

"Religion" is a label under which a myriad of theological and spiritual beliefs are grouped because they relate to the theological and spiritual. "Politics" is a label under which a myriad of social and economic beliefs are grouped because they relate to the social and economic. The "cause" then, necessarily arises from something other than the broad label.

[eqfan592]

133. Indeed it does.

So it would then be appropriate to say that it is specific religious beliefs that are the problem, correct?

[LTX]

136. Yes. And specific political beliefs.

Specific "beliefs" are an unavoidable product of our particular brand of computer, which operates on the basis of confirmatory intuition. Harnessing intuitive leaps to analytic scaffolding is the ongoing challenge.

[Plantaganet]

122. Straw man.

No one said anything about "eradication of religion." That was your contribution.

Rather, what's being said is that religion isn't the solution to the problem of homophobia. Especially since religion is the main force behind homophobia.

If you disagree (and you obviously do) please enlighten us as to how to solve the problem in religious terms. How's that going to work, exactly?

We're all ears.

[LTX]

131. Then how do you explain religious people who are not homophobic?

After all, if religion causes homophobia, then all religious people must necessarily be homophobic.

You seem to think that all "religious terms" are identical. What god is, and what man's relationship to god entails, is by no means monolithic. It never has been. In "religious terms," homosexuality has even been an expression of the divine in man, a "two-spirit" human. Within my own religious traditions, homosexual marriage is considered a normative expression of the very essence of god in man, love. It is a product of the fundamental forces that drive human nature.

[Thats my opinion]

92. The combination of a fundamentalist religion, which has little relationship to the nature of faith,

cannot be denied. Nevertheless, around the nation other religious commitments are helping to make the freedom to marry the wave of the future. As with other issues, religious forces are on both sides of this one. The NC story is a sad commentary on what happens when religion gets captured by a right-wing political ideology.,

[darkstar3]

95. "little relationship to the nature of faith"

Really? And what, pray tell, is the nature of faith?

[mr blur]

102. "Progressive" religion to the rescue! eh?

As usual...

[Goblinmonger]

113. "make the freedom to marry the wave of the future"

EVERY confederate state has a gay marriage ban. Way to go "other religious commitments;" you're doing a hell of a job.

What is going to make the freedom to marry the wave of the future is the secular values that are taking over many religious. Also, it's going to take a SCOTUS ruling, because just like Loving vs. Virginia, these backward fuckers blinded by their religion are not going to go willingly.

But, hey, keep talking about how much power the liberal religion has. So much power that they couldn't even protect gay marriage in fucking CALIFORNIA. The liberal hot bed of the country.

Bravo. Well done.

[LTX]

117. Every "confederate state" (nice) is also republican.

You're doing a hell of a job.

[Goblinmonger]

118. So I should have taken a bit more words to get to the same point.

Every state that was a member of the confederacy in the mid-1800s has an anti-gay marriage law. That better?

You don't think religion affects political views?

[LTX]

120. I like that dance step. And yes,

religion does affect political views. Both conservative and progressive. And a great many other things affect political views, including spousal and family influence, wealth, class, education, job hierarchy, economic sophistication, etc. And in the volatile arena of discourse, we're all trying to persuade the "other" of the correctness of our particular beliefs, be they religious or political. The results are necessarily mixed.

[edcantor]

115. In my few times in NC, everyone I met went to church.

A Christian church. Just saying.

[backscatter712]

119. There are common-cold variants of the religious virus, and there are ebola variants.

North Carolina clearly has a large amount of the latter.

[raccoon]

143. Well said "There are common-cold variants of the religious virus, and there are ebola variants." nt

[cbayer]

134. Of course it did, just like it does in every state that passes this kind of legislation.

It is bigotry and hate cloaked in fundamentalist trappings.

Race probably played a role as well, as did ignorance and fear.

The question I would ask is, how can those things be combatted so this doesn't happen again?

There were some progressive religion organizations that tried to fight this, but they were clearly outnumbered and overwhelmed. Perhaps they need to focus on speaking to youth, doing more education, etc.

[laconicsax]

145. Thank you for your honesty.

It isn't often that the progressive people of faith acknowledge that religion can have a negative role to play.

[Goblinmonger]

146. I second the thank you.

And I think we have to realize this is a long, slow battle. It isn't going to happen overnight. The gay marriage thing is only going to be resolved when the SCOTUS says it has to be a la Loving vs. Virginia.

But I think reaching out to youth is a good avenue. I teach high school and there is a lot of change in high school students over the years. They are much more open and accepting than past generations have been of gays and atheists and other groups. It's not 100% by any stretch and there are still plenty of problems, but the current school-age generation shows a lot of hope.

[Thats my opinion]

156. So those of us from a progressive religious stance and those whose stance arises from

a non-religious motivation need to keep at it with that generation. Good work.,Keep it up.

[cleanhippie]

164. But its the "relgious stance" that IS the problem.

Believers on the left who say "I do this because of my religious stance" empower those on the right who say "I do this because of my religious stance."

Only by taking the stance of "because its the right thing to do" and removing religion completely from the stance will progress be made.

[AlbertCat]

168. removing religion completely from the stance will progress be made.

Tah- Dah!

The sooner ancient superstition is removed and people do the right thing because it's good for everyone, and not because they might not meet their loved ones in heaven or make some spook angry, the sooner we'll make progress.


Anyway.... why is the government in the marriage business to begin with?

The government should only offer Domestic Partnerships. These give couples, any consenting adult couples, legal status re property, children, etc. And the government should stop there.

I you want to then get married in a religious or non religious ceremony, then do so. But this step should not be necessary for legal status.

You could also just get married if you want, but then you would not be legal in the eyes of government until you got your Domestic Partnership.


I know.... too sensible (and secular) for the current religious/politics/emotional muddle.

[2ndAmForComputers]

148. I third the thank you.

[eqfan592]

162. Fourth the thankyou here.

[Plantaganet]

170. Fifth. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

186. I say most religions had nothing to do with the bigotry that happened in NC.

I assume most of the bigotry behind the NC vote is rooted in conservative monotheism.

[laconicsax]

193. ...which is religion.

The OP isn't, contrary to what seems to be a prevailing interpretation, suggesting that all religions and all religious people took part in some vast conspiracy to pass Amendment 1.

The hardly provocative suggestion of the OP is that supporters of Amendment 1 were motivated, at least in part, by their religion.

[ZombieHorde]

217. I agree my post doesn't truly contradict the OP, and your post does not truly contradict mine.

I think my post is just a little more specific than the OP. We could broaden the claim by saying human opinion is to blame for the NC vote, and still not be contradicting the OP.

A matter of taste I suppose.

[noamnety]

198. What are the religions or churches that support marriage equality? (nt)

[ZombieHorde]

218. I don't remember. Some of the DUers on the Religion board say their church is cool with it.

If you asked in an OP, you would probably get several answers.

[noamnety]

219. Here, I can help you answer it:

The Anglican Church of Canada
the Church of Denmark
The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
The Mennonite Church in the Netherlands
The Affirming Pentecostal Church International and the Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals (US based denominations of Oneness Pentecostals)
The Unitarian Universalists perform same-sex marriages.
The Swedenborgian Church of North America
Quakers in Canada
Australian Quakers
and some smaller denominations, such as the Eucharistic Catholic Church and the Old Catholic Church (in Sweden)

Does that look like "most religions" to you?

*from wikipedia

[ZombieHorde]

220. "Does that look like "most religions" to you?"

No, that looks like a handful of sects of one religion to me. I suppose one could argue no two people have the same exact religion, but that is a different debate for another day.

By "most religions" I mean "most religions." Scores of New age religions, scores of neo-pagan religions, thousands of cults, most American Buddhist sects, Shinto, Satanism, etc.

[noamnety]

221. I looked at some others

Buddhism - the dalai lama opposes gay marriage. I don't know enough about buddhism to know if american buddhists have an equivalent person they look to, or if it's more a free for all in terms of beliefs. If nobody's in charge of the beliefs, if it's more up to individuals, than we can't say a specific religion supports it - at best, they are neutral.

Meanwhile the main religions with an actual decision-making body actively oppose it.

I had a talk with my SIL about this a couple days ago. She was on my case for no longer going to church with my husband (her brother). I said I stopped because the pastor was preaching bigotry and homophobia. And furthermore, her brother had also stopped going for the same reason and the church (Lutheran) was going to see a lot more people leave, because younger people aren't going to put up with that.

She said it's not the whole Lutheran Church - like in her church in Chicago, they don't preach hate or bigotry. It must just be the one pastor here. She added that there, they're just encouraged to pray for them and lead by example, and she even has two gay friends. She doesn't lecture them or tell them they're wrong, she just prays for them.

Yeah. So if you ask her, what she sees is that her church is totally accepting of those gay sinners and not involved in spreading bigotry at all.

[ZombieHorde]

222. I know Tibetan Buddhism is against homosexuality, but it is against a lot of straight sex too.

They are focused on helping all life becoming enlightened, and they seem to think sex gets in the way.

Many American Buddhists are non-denominational and don't even believe in reincarnation. American Buddhists seem to be very peaceful and liberal individuals.

[noamnety]

223. Well yes.

The Dalai Lama is kinda sorta okay with homosexual sex - as long as it only happens between a penis and vagina like sex is supposed to be.

Lots of folks are peaceful and liberal - that doesn't mean they belong to a religion that - as an organization - supports marriage equality.

[ZombieHorde]

224. I did not say the Dali Lama was sorta okay with homosexual sex, I said sex in generally is frowned

upon in Tibetan Buddhism. Sex is for making babies in their eyes (and rumors of ritual applications, but I don't really know).

Lots of folks are peaceful and liberal - that doesn't mean they belong to a religion that - as an organization - supports marriage equality.

I am talking about religion in general. If you are only talking about organized religion, then you are misunderstanding my replies.

[Warren DeMontague]

209. I'm not always sure whether religious fundamentalism is the cause, the symptom, or the excuse

But in answer to your op, well, duh. Obviously it did.

[2ndAmForComputers]

210. Indeed. Only a very stupid and dishonest zealot would try to convince people of the opposite.