Do we need religion to win LGBT equality?

[cbayer]

http://www.thegavoice.com/news/national-news/5850-do-we-need-religion-to-win-lgbt-equality

BY LAURA DOUGLAS-BROWN
FEBRUARY 14, 2013 12:00



Last month, five gay couples lined up at the DeKalb County Probate Court to ask for marriage licenses. In a poignant protest, all were denied, as Georgia law bans gay marriage.

A handful of local LGBT and allied clergy were on hand as “peacekeepers” for the protest, part of the “We Do” project organized by the Campaign for Southern Equality.

As the couples and a crowd of about 50 supporters marched to the courthouse, they were led by Rev. Jasmine Beach-Ferrara, who wore her clerical collar. Before entering, they gathered in a prayer circle on the lawn.

For a protest targeting the lack of a civil right — marriage for same-sex couples — much of the event had the air of a religious rite.

more at link

[trotsky]

1. Well, religion remains the primary reason people oppose it.

As noted in the article:

a Gallup poll in December 2012 found that “religion/Bible says its wrong” remains the most-cited reason for opposing gay marriage.

So yeah, we need religious folks to quit being so bigoted. And we need to get rid of the notion that the bible is some kind of ultimate authority on morality.

[Moonwalk]

2. Question makes no sense. Do we "need" religion to win such rights? No. We need...

...the supreme court to say such denial of such rights to LGBTs is wrong and against federal law. That's what the supreme court said when it nixed Jim Crow laws denying so many people of color their rights. Religion or being religious didn't matter in the legal arguments that won those rights--though certainly the "religion" of the judges might prejudice them one way or the other in their decision.

BUT, if you're saying, in some weird round-about way, that it would be good to have religious organizations fighting for LGBT rights, then yes. That would be good. Just like it would be good to have businesses, the military, etc. fighting for LGBT rights. The bigger and more organized the religions the better. Which is to say, when the Anglican Church puts a gay bishop in a position of power, that makes a statement. As for religious rites--the right being denied here isn't the right of some reverend to bless a gay couple as they say vows--it's the right for that gay couple to get a legal marriage license.

Which is why your question makes no sense. It's not like there wasn't any religious rites for gay marriage till now. Gays have been getting married in religious ceremonies for some thirty or forty years. Those rites haven't done a thing to change the issue--which is they can't be legally married. However, if it is what those protesting want, if it makes a statement and empowers them in their fight, then I'm all for it. But so far as I can see, LGBT fights and marches and steps toward equality haven't required religious rites. What difference do you think they'd make in convincing bigots to change their minds? Or getting judges to make the right legal decision? Or even to infuse more people who aren't marching for LGBT rights to start marching?

[cbayer]

4. It makes sense in the context of the article.

As the author points out, since most of the opposition to GLBT civil rights comes from the religious right, it is critical that GLBT affirming religious organizations push back. Many examples are given.

It's a good article, imo.

[Moonwalk]

6. The title is misleading--

--what you (and the article) are saying is that we need religious organizations on the left to be as vocal in their support of LGBT rights as those on the right are vocal in being against it. Sigh. I do wish those writing such articles would learn that "religion" doesn't = religious organizations. If it did, then we'd be blaming Catholicism for pedophile priests rather than Catholic church.

Same here. It's not about LGBT needing "religion," it's about them needing religious organizations. I would be nice, in the future, if you'd give us a brief, one sentence summary of what the article writer is going on about before/after quoting to avoid such misunderstandings. Not all of us have time to check out the full articles, and we do rely on the title and quotes to tell us what it's about. In this case, both were misleading.

As for the argument itself. Sure. It's valid. And old. LGBT have been trying since the 70's to get religious organizations that are on their side to stand up for them against the religious right. It's worth saying again, but it's nothing new--alas. I say "alas" because so very few organized religions--ones with real power--have been brave enough to be vocal on LGBT rights. The Episcopalian Church being one of the few.

[cbayer]

7. Just to be clear, the title is from the article.

I did not write it, but I found the article very interesting and agree with much of what it has to say.

It's really not my job to give a synopsis of the article. People can either read it or not. If someone wants to comment on the title (which is often the case on DU) and not bother to read it, that's their choice.

Many of the large mainline religious organizations have active and vocal pro-GLBT groups, including Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Jewish, progressive Islamic groups and UU.

Many formed alliances between themselves and with secular organizations during the last election.

This sounds like a topic you are quite interested in and I would encourage you to read the article when you have time.

[Moonwalk]

10. I know the title was not yours--but you posted it, and as for a synopsis...

...I don't see how onerous it is to write, "Article about getting left-wing religions to be more vocal in LGBT causes" prior to or after you quote the article. As you find it interesting and presumably want to discuss it, then why not make it clear? All I got from what you posted was that LGBT needed religion and religious rites to further their cause, not that they needed left-wing-religious organizations to be more vocal.

And that didn't make me think much of the article.

[cbayer]

11. I won't be writing any synopses and I often post things with which I agree

or don't agree. It is also my habit to not add any additional comments. I prefer to let others respond and then engage with them.

That's just how I roll.

Sorry you didn't think much of the article. I thought it was a good read and had lots of good information.

[William769]

31. As a Gay man and as a Christian, I don't need the "left-wing religions" to further the LGBT causes

All I need them to do is follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, something the religious right will never do.

I am who I am not because I chose to be this way, I am who I am because I was born this way and in the greater scheme of things there must be a reason for it.

BTW there are many more "left-wing religions" that are furthering the cause of the LGBT community than what I am picking up on what you are saying. All one has to do is go back to the era of the struggle for African Americans to see that religion did play a big role in shaping minds for equality.

In closing I will leave you with this.

[Plantaganet]

32. Silly video.

[William769]

34. Care to elaborate on why it's silly?

Or are you just here to mock?

[Plantaganet]

35. "Silly" was the kindest description I could think of.

But no matter. You like it, yes? That's the important thing.

[William769]

36. Mocking got it.

Since you are incapable of even answering the most basic question.

[Plantaganet]

37. You don't find it at all patronizing?

I mean, if you don't that's okay. But as another gay guy I find it kind of offensive.

[William769]

39. I find it to be spot on.

I don't know your age, when you came out (if you have come out (age will have a lot to do with how one views this video)).

But as someone born in the early 60's coming of age during Aids crisis of the 80's not to mention what Gay men were thought of before the 80's, no I don't find it all patronizing but uplifting.

How many Gay people through history were shunned just for being Gay? How many Gay people through history that are prominent figures that were Gay but we don't know because of the fact thet they were Gay?

I could go on but I think you get my jist.

Go in peace my friend & have a faboulos Gay Day!

[Plantaganet]

41. Mayhaps.

I just have a big problem with elements of gay culture being purloined to bolster religion.

But it is what it is.

[okasha]

3. I think it provides a powerful witness,

given that much of the opposition to LGBT civil rights has been couched in religious terms. Clergy and other people of faith are providing a living example of liberation theology, even if it isn't called that. Fifty years ago, the Freedom Riders prayed as they were beaten bloody by the Klan. Oscar Romero died as he said Mass. When people put their lives and wellbeing on the line for a moral cause, it touches hearts and minds.

[cbayer]

5. Much of the work on the ground that led to legislative wins for GLBT civil rights was done

by religious groups during the last election.

I did not know much about HRC's Religion & Faith Program, but it looks like they have really led the charge.

[yardwork]

81. HRC has never led any charge.

HRC is an inside-the-beltway group that holds cocktail parties and appeased politicians for decades without gaining any ground at all.

Religious people on the ground in hostile territory have made enormous gains for equal rights and deserve a lot of credit for their courage. People like the Reverend Al Barber, head of the North Carolina NAACP, deserve our praise and gratitude.

HRC, well, bless their hearts.

[cbayer]

82. I understand what you are saying about HRC. They really seem to have lost their way,

but perhaps they can find it again.

[yardwork]

83. I don't believe that they ever had a clue.

In any case, we don't need them and are making good progress without them. In the end they will claim all the credit.

The Reverend Al Barber is a personal hero of mine.

[cbayer]

84. I worked with them some very early on when the major drive was the AIDS crisis.

Since it was on a more local level, my experience is limited, but at the time I thought they did a great job. Plus, they were one of the few organized groups early on.

But as they moved more towards national politics, they seemed to get sucked into the process and my involvement with them ended a while back.

I'm not familiar with Al Barber. Where is he?

[pinto]

85. Good points. They're basically lobbyists in the DC arena. Not cutting edge. Yet they've publicized

LGBT issues to a larger audience. Sort of a mixed bag...

[skepticscott]

13. Not just "couched in religious terms"

Give full credit where credit is due. "Motivated in large part by bigoted religious beliefs" would be a much more accurate description.

[pinto]

8. Good read. Echoes the support from faith based groups on other civil rights issues.

(aside) Human Rights Campaign website is here -

http://www.hrc.org/

[cbayer]

9. Agree. It's really nice to see this happening.

[skepticscott]

12. That's the biggest laugh I've had all week

Religion is the primary force OPPOSING LGBT equality. If we could get rid of the influence of religion, we'd be much closer to that goal in no time.

Religion gets no credit for meager efforts that wouldn't even be needed in the first place but for religion.

[pinto]

14. I think you miss the point. What's more effective?

A largely futile attempt to "get rid of" religious influence. Or encouraging pro-LGBT religious allies to step up and support our efforts. ?

Your argument is about religion, not LGBT civil rights. And, imo, undermines building effective coalitions.

I recognize your POV in religious / non-religious, theist / non -theist contexts. Yet, if you support movement on LGBT civil rights I'd encourage you to move beyond that framework.

[trotsky]

17. I don't think skepticscott is calling for a crusade against religious influence.

He's pointing out that this struggle is necessary, in large part, because of religion in the first place. So the repeated appeals for applauding long-overdue progress on the religious front are a lot like a thug asking you to be grateful he decided to stop beating you up. Gee, uh, thanks...?

[skepticscott]

24. See, trotsky got the point

Last edited Sat Feb 16, 2013, 02:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Of course I'm not expecting an actual end to religious influence, since that's not likely any time soon. Just do a little thought experiment. Go back 30 years in the struggle for LGBT rights...which would you choose...to have the same religious influence we HAVE had, with rabid, fanatical opposition to any move towards full equality by religious groups, countered by gradually growing support among other religious and non-religious groups, or NO opposition from religion whatsoever, and support simply from decent people, unmotivated by religion, but simply advocating for equal treatment for all? Under which of those two do you think more rapid progress would have been made?

[pinto]

46. See your point, yet I think the thought experiment denies a pertinent reality.

Yeah, religious influence is not going to go away. And religion, itself, isn't going to go away. Some religious groups will always oppose LGBT rights. It was so 30 years ago and it will likely continue for some time. That's the reality.

If religion motivates people to support equality I welcome it. And advocate for their increased influence among religious communities. I don't need religious acceptance. I and we all need a growing coalition across all segments of society to support simple equality as a norm. Codified legally.

(personal aside) 30 years ago I was in a long term relationship. Religious stuff was a minor concern for us. We had a joint business and the hardware that goes with that. A few employees. He owned and managed a rental home. We simply lived our life.

He died. I had his will, handwritten, that stipulated 1/3 of everything for me and 2/3 of the rest for his mother and father. They were hardcore Southern Baptists and immediately contested the will. Their point - I had no standing as a same sex partner of their son. It was a long, protracted struggle to see that what he wanted was done.

Eventually, a CA court found in favor of his handwritten will and my right to 1/3 of our assets.

Was I lucky? Maybe. Was it pro forma? Maybe (folks will assets to any number of folks, causes, etc.) Did I garner as much support as I could? Yes. Was I validated? Yes.

[skepticscott]

48. Uh, no...the thought experiment recognizes and points out the reality

that, on balance, religion has been an impediment to equality, and that, (in answer to the question posed) far from needing "religion" in order to make further progress, we'd be better off without its influence, and always would have been.

[pinto]

49. Again, I think your POV is about religion itself, not its influence, pro or con.

The reality is that it will always be there. For better or worse. And that we do need every avenue of support out there, in the big picture, including religious groups.

The goal, imo, is that we get to a point where it doesn't matter.

[amuse bouche]

73. Exactly

These people exalting the flimsy 'help' from the godly crowd just don't get it

It's like saying, well that one cop, out of 10 didn't shoot. He deserves credit, plus he told the guy next to him.."Joe...don't"

[Warren Stupidity]

110. If we had had enlightened slave masters slavery would have ended much sooner!

[dimbear]

15. Do we need religion to win LGBT equality? Yes!

We need religion to get out of the way.

[cbayer]

16. Are you aware of the role religious groups played in the GLBT victories

during the last election cycle?

Or do you blinders keep you from seeing that and only seeing the negative role some religious groups have played in preventing GLBT civil rights?

Did you even read the article? HRC, the biggest GLBT advocacy group in the country, completely and totally disagrees with you.

[dimbear]

18. As sometimes will happen, we see the forces at work through different eyes.

I notice that religious groups didn't make much LGBT progress in the preceding millennia before Hollywood got on board.


**by a very curious coincidence, the very next post I turn to on DU tells of God's Own Party shooting down a bill to simply celebrate an LGBT day in New Mexico.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022382166

[cbayer]

19. Sure they did. Increasing numbers of churches and other religious groups

were affirming and accepting very early on. I have no idea what you mean about Hollywood because I have never seen a shred of a connection.

While I enjoy your historical perspectives, and your love of intrigue and a good story, your hostility towards all things religious really makes it difficult to engage with you.

[dimbear]

20. Think of this as like an improvised play, where you and I are characters.

We talk it out and others take away what they will. It's a lot easier to follow a play if the characters stay in character.

Some of the early documents of the church are exactly the same, if I recall correctly.

[cbayer]

21. It's not a play, though, and we are not characters.

What you are doing is divisive and gets us nowhere.

But play whatever role you wish. If you feel that you must "stay in character", I see no point in discussing it with you.

[dimbear]

22. We're here in a small corner of the internet anonymously making observations.

We're providing a springboard for others to think. (Like.... a play.) A worthwhile endeavor.
Give Trypho his due.

[cbayer]

23. We are in a small corner called DU where we (supposedly) share the goal

of supporting democratic candidates and liberal/progressive causes.

There's not a place for intolerance or outright bashing of those on the same team here, imo.

Sorry, I don't think it's a worthwhile endeavor at all, but there are others who agree with you, so I will let you proceed with them.

Not me.

[dimbear]

25. We're all liberals here, and everybody who supports LGBT equality is good in my book.

I started this subthread by repeating an often said remark which is factual. All that needs to happen to get to equality is for religion to get out of the way.
That's not bashing or intolerance. It's not even the first time it was implied in this thread.

[cbayer]

26. If everyone that supports LGBT rights is good in your book, why should they

get out of the way just because they are parts of religious groups.

You didn't read the article, I think.

[skepticscott]

30. "Hostility towards all things religious"? Oh, please..

No one here is hostile towards "all things religious", and you know that perfectly well. People here are hostile towards some religious things and not towards others, and that includes you.

That type of broadbrushing is particularly ironic and despicable coming from someone who spends a good chunk of their life here whining about people "lumping all religion together". But I doubt you'll even acknowledge that, let alone retract or apologize for any of it.

[Warpy]

27. It would certainly help if mainstream stepped up to the plate

right out in public and voiced their support. Unfortunately, it's being done one local church at a time and that has limited effect, if any.

They're being drowned out by well organized evangelical crackpots.

[cbayer]

28. That's just not the case. There are many mainstream religious groups that

have organized, formed coalitions and actively worked for the cause.

I post stories about them all the time.

Here is a good article that lists many, many of the organizations:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/24/gay-friendly-religious-communities_n_1616510.html

Are they being drowned out by others? At times, but not all those others are coming from the right.

[trotsky]

45. Can you point to any evidence whatsoever...

that "others" who aren't on the right (and by this slam I can only assume you are continuing your unceasing crusade of blaming the lack of progress by religious liberals on secular liberals) are drowning out those organizations?

Surely you must have some links to full-page ads, television commercials, gigantic rallies, etc. by secular liberals that are attacking and drowning out your religious liberals?

Because if you didn't, you would look awfully silly and divisive trying to demonize another group for the lack of progress of another.

[SpartanDem]

98. The faith community in Maryland did an ads for Prop 6

[trotsky]

100. Did you read what my question was?

I don't think you did. Please let me know if you need clarification.

[thucythucy]

29. The Metropolitan Community Church

or MCC, was organized in 1968 in southern California as an openly GLBT Christian church. It now has congregrations all across the country. I have some very good friends who are members, and though I'm not much of a Christian myself (agnostic, really) I am awed by their courage and yes, their faith.

Progresive religious leaders were among those at the forefront of the African American civil rights struggle, despite the rabid opposition of conservative fundamentalist types. There's no reason we should expect any less of progressive religious leaders when it comes to the rights of the GLBT community.

As an aside: the changes in attitudes toward GLBTs in the last several decades are a real cause for celebration. Of course there's so much more than needs to happen, here and around the world, but seeing the steady growth of acceptance, especially among young people, makes me feel so much more hopeful for the future.

[William769]

33. Not only is the The Metropolitan Community Church in all 50 States

It's a world wide Organization. We have Church's in 37 Countries & minister in many more.

The Reverend Troy Perry founded The Metropolitan Community Church in his living room in 1968 and we have come a long long way since then.

[thucythucy]

38. I didn't know that--

that is, that the MCC is international.

Very cool.

Best wishes,

Thucy

[William769]

40. Best wishes to you too.

[Plantaganet]

42. Given that homophobia was pioneered by religion

I'd say, regrettably, yes. Just have to trade one lie for another.

[cbayer]

43. Trade one lie for another? What lies are you talking about trading?

[Plantaganet]

44. In other words...

Being gay is a sin = lie.

Being gay is a gift from God = also a lie.

But if one is more beneficial than the other, so be it.

[cbayer]

47. I remain unclear on what you are saying.

The religious groups that have taken strong advocacy positions for LGBT civil rights have not based it on the concept that being gay is a gift from god. They have based it on the idea that all people are entitled to civil rights and that discrimination is wrong.

[Plantaganet]

50. It's pretty simple.

Religion - specificially the Abrahamic faiths - created the problem of homophobia. Therefore they should be the ones to clean it up.

How they go about doing that isn't really important. Presumably, though, it will involve trading one version of religion for another. Both are ultimately lies, but if one is a kinder, gentler lie, I suppose that's the best we can hope for. It's probably the most inefficient solution, but it's the one we're stuck with.

[cbayer]

52. I agree that some people have used religion to justify homophobia

and that it makes sense for religious groups to address that and actively work to counter it.

The "lies" part is just smoke and totally irrelevant. It is just your POV, no more, no less.

[Plantaganet]

53. Just to be clear...

...it's a point of view that you asked for, yes? Even the title of the post was a question: "Do we need religion to win LGBT equality?" I answered your question. Not too surprisingly, you don't like the answer - but that doesn't make it irrelevant. It's still how many gay people feel about the matter, not just myself.

It seems that the real crux of the matter is - will gay people and culture allow for a complete whitewashing of what religion has done to them? The answer is no. "Progressive" Christians are free to help in whatever ways they can, but they can never erase history.

[cbayer]

54. It's not my question, it's the title of the article.

But, when you conflate all religion, then I will object. I don't wish to whitewash anything. What I do want to do is to support the organizations that are pushing back against the loathsome religious right.

No one that I knows want to erase history.

[skepticscott]

55. Uh, you posted the article

with the question right up front in it. Are we supposed to believe: A) You were trying to get people reading it here to give their opinion on the question; or B) You wanted everyone reading this to ignore the question completely.

If A, then it WAS your question, too. I know you like to post stuff and then wash your hands of it, but it's rather disingenuous.

[Warren Stupidity]

112. "God loves us all" and "god hates fags" are both equivalently valid claims about "god".

We would all be better off if we stopped paying any attention to people who make these sorts of claims.

[cbayer]

113. I disagree, but that's ok.

I think those that say "god loves us all" harm no one, while those that say "god hates fags" do.

They are not equivalent, but they are equally without proof.

Anyway, I have no problem with anyone who wishes to ignore both the positive and negative aspects of religion and religious believers/non-believers.

[Warren Stupidity]

114. The claims are "equivalently valid", the claims need not be equivalent in other aspects.

But if it is also claimed that god provides morality, then who are we to judge one of these claims as harmful and one not? If god chooses to hate, that is just how it is.

If on the other hand we humans make moral judgements without divine intervention, then yes, obviously we have no need for a deity that hates some people for who they are, but likewise we have no need for the one that might love us all either. That is the point. Religion needs to get out of the way. Its irrational font of arbitrary morality is demonstrably dangerous. If we are going to make horrible moral decisions, at least we should do so without blaming invisible beings.

[cbayer]

115. People can claim whatever they want about god, but, since they have no

way to prove it, it's just their interpretation.

Some people do have a belief in a deity and some don't. That's just the way it is. Whether they need that or not is debatable, but it is their choice.

Religion is not going to get out of the way, so my position is to support and encourage those whose religious believes leads them to work for causes I support and marginalize and discredit those that use it to harm others.

You can rail against it, make arguments as to why it is harmful, etc, etc, but it's not going away.

That's why it is vitally important to distinguish between those that use it to guide them towards good acts and those that do the opposite.

Arguing that it should just go away is meaningless and may actually assist our political enemies by creating a vacuum.

[skepticscott]

116. When they try to impose it on others

or denigrate or diminish the beliefs of others (recognize anyone?) because of it, then it ceases to become simply "their interpretation"

[patrice]

51. People have a right to their own minds up to the point that they hurt others, so we can't let

the pain they deal stand.

They STILL have a right to their own minds, it's not my responsibility to make them to change the mistake that they are making about our LGBT brothers and sisters. It is my responsibility, in light of their wrongness and the way that they project it into the world, to meet that with the best representation of the truth that I am capable of, but I also am bound by the principle that I can't do that through coercion or pain on them and still expect them not to deal coercion and pain on our LGBT community.

So, we do need religion to win LGBT equality in the sense that we have a responsibility to convince them to STOP trying to hurt people overtly or covertly. They should coexist. If they CAN coexist, without claiming special privileges toward the LGBT community to change them or to oppress them in any way, then it is un-necessary for the rest of us, and indeed even a violation of their own rights, to try to make religions change their minds.

[mr blur]

56. Well, it would certainly help if the religious would just shut up

and mind their own business.

[cleanhippie]

57. Yeah, that will happen. When hell freezes over.

[cbayer]

58. After you.

[amuse bouche]

59. Now that's a plan

I'm so sick of idiots and their religion sticking their sanctimonious noses in everything.

Don't like abortions? Don't have one...Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry one

[cbayer]

60. So you think that the religious groups fighting for LGBT civil rights are idiots?

And are sticking their sanctimonious noses in everything?

Religious organizations played a critical role in advancing LGBT civil rights during the last election cycle. Many groups are ardently pro-choice and pro-LGBT equality, as is described in the article.

But, hey, don't let that stop you from your intolerant view of all religion. Why would you want to be any different than the religious right??

[amuse bouche]

62. "a critical role in advancing LGBT civil rights "

They are also the biggest stumbling block, but go ahead and tell yourself otherwise. Delusion is key for the religious sympathizers.

That's right, I am intolerant of fraud, no matter how the phonies try and dress it up

[cbayer]

63. No, you tell yourself that all religious people are exactly the same.

That's much closer to a delusion, because it is patently false, but seems to be a critical ingredient for those bigoted against all things religious.

There is no doubt that religion has been a major factor in the denial of GLBT rights. There is also no doubt that men have played a major role in the oppression of women, but what would you call someone who condemned all men for the acts of some?

You go far beyond intolerance.

[amuse bouche]

65. All

religion is fraud.

A bunch of shit, people tell themselves because they can't cope with reality.

That would be ok if they kept the shit to themselves, but they insist on spreading their shit and stinking up the world with their shit

[cbayer]

67. My, what liberal/progressive ideals you possess.

I hope you share your thoughts with Obama and other religious democratic leaders. And do drop in a word or two about MLK being full of shit and unable to cope with reality.

Your issues go far beyond what I am willing to deal with. Enjoy your hate. See you around the campfire.

[amuse bouche]

68. Enjoy your ignorance

and magical thinking like the rest of the phonies and frauds...I'll enjoy reality, science and facts

[cbayer]

69. Thanks, but ignorance is assuming that you know anything about me or my beliefs.

Your assumptions are all wrong - not based on any facts or valid data at all, but only on your fraudulent conclusions and personal prejudices.

Yep, that's some science, lol.

Oh my god, the irony is hilarious. I am so done with you.

[cleanhippie]

70. What we ALL know about you comes from direct observation of your posts.

Most of which are so hypocritical from one thread to the next as to be laughable on its face.

Unless there is something you have been hiding, it seems clear.

[amuse bouche]

72. Your reputation

of being delusional is well known. Yes...oh your god...indeed

[Exultant Democracy]

61. Nope, bringing religion into, only gives ground to the argument that religious prinicpals matter.

This is similar to the stupid ideal's the DLC has of arguing within a republican framework in order to win. Once you give ground on the framing of the debate it is already lost.

[cbayer]

64. Religious principles don't matter?

Including principles related to social justice, civil rights and taking care of those most in need?

Ridiculous. Good luck with taking care of the poor without help of religious organizations.

Hey, did you happen to catch 60 minutes last night?



This is nothing like the DLC arguing within a republican framework unless one insists on conflating all religion.

[cleanhippie]

71. If they are based on interpretation of what one's deity thinks, then yes, they don't matter.

[Exultant Democracy]

74. Of course they don't they are make believe. Morality is very different from religion.

Often morality is in direct opposition to religion.

If we look at the places with the least religiousness we find the places where the poor are best taken care of, makes your argument look rather silly.

I'm not sure how you avoid conflating all religion, its pretty simple and all the same. "Pay me and I'll do magic."

[cbayer]

75. Prove it, lol.

Morality is not that different than religion, imo. In fact, it's closer to religion than it is to science. You can't make a scientifically based argument for either morality or religion being *factual* or not. They are both conceptual.

Morality can be informed by religion, either for good or for bad, but there is no way to test it.

China has one of the worst human rights records in the world and the least religiosity, so your argument about people being taken care of completely falls apart. On the other hand, while not perfect, the US has one of the better human rights records and high levels of religiosity.

I am always amused when people who say that science, rationality and fact is all one needs come up with statements that can't be scientifically backed up by facts.

My argument is silly? LOL.

[Exultant Democracy]

76. Morality is testable and measurable, we can watch it at work when we look at a brain scan

the neuroscience of morality is a very hot field right now in academic circles. Are you really unaware of the raft of scientific studies published on this topic? Type neuroscience and morality into the google it will probably blow your mind how wrong you are about morality being more like religion then science.

As for your comparison of China and US, well I guess you don't have much respect for science, but in general it only makes sense to compare like to like. There is no way to control for all the factors that a different between the US and China. However if we compare countries that are otherwise similar there is less noise in the data and the result my actually mean something.

Now compare the US to Denmark Norway and Sweden, (the countries that are actually the least religious according to every study ever done on this) and we might have some data worth considering. So when we compare the US with the big atheist three what do we find? They jail exponentially fewer members of their society, lower infant mortality, far less poverty... the list just goes on. So yes your argument was and still is silly and it is only getting worse.

[cbayer]

77. But who defines what is moral behavior and what is not?

That is the area where it become more philosophical and less neuroscience.

Perhaps that is exactly where the metaphysical and physical overlap.

You might want to step back before you question my knowledge of neuroscience or my respect for science in general.

You made a blanket statement not backed up by data. I guess we can compare countries with significant wealth and homogenous populations, but those variables alone might skew the results very significantly. Scandinavia's lack of diversity, small size, limited immigration and relative wealth may all account for the outcomes note. I also think it's one of the dullest places on earth, but that's just me.

I would ask that you refrain from insults about my intelligence and what I value. We hold different POV's, that's all. I find value in religion, you don't. I see that religious organizations do things to help the weakest and poorest in the world that no one else is doing. You apparently don't. I support religious organizations that value the same things I do and step up to the plate to do something about it. Do you?

[Exultant Democracy]

78. You compair China to the US then turn around and say compairing another western country

doesn't count because the Scandinavian countries are too homogenous. Does this mean that you admit that your first comparison between China and the US was an absolutely absurd way to make a point? I would think you would have too. Following from that it is pretty easy to see that your arguments have little if any integrity, but that you will always spin out another one. That is easy for someone unencumbered by reality.

Yes I do question your respect for science because you believe in magic and magic isn't real.

[cbayer]

79. I love this part.

You have no idea what I believe or don't believe. And you are wrong. You make assumptions based on on your own biases and prejudices. Great rationally based, scientifically driven facts you got there, not unlike those you rail against.

Bye.

[Exultant Democracy]

80. I loved the part when you fell into my framing and refuted your own argument.

Which brings us back to my answer about the OP.

Thank you for helping me illustrate my point. Best way to lose an argument is to accept the oppositions framing.

[Gore1FL]

86. Those aren't religious principles.

Those are principles some religions happened to adopt.

Religion is a net negative to human progress.

[cbayer]

87. Perhaps it has been a net negative for you, but for others it has been a net positive.

I did not mean to imply that these principles were exclusive to religion, btw, but they are religious principles.

[Gore1FL]

88. Net negative to science and civilization.

Sorry. There is no benefit to be had in pretending disproved things to be real.

[cbayer]

90. Really? Any data to support that? Or is just your belief?

Because there is lots of historical evidence that religion has been both a negative and positive influence on science and civilization, but I've seen nothing that would factually substantiate your claim that it's a net negative.

There is no benefit to making statements as fact that have no factual basis.

[Gore1FL]

91. I can give examples.

But I'll let the esteemed Neil DeGrasse Tyson make them for me. He is by far more eloquent and researched than I.

[cbayer]

92. Exactly, examples can be given to show both the good and bad.

I am a huge NGT fan and have seen and read much by him.

This clip is about the specific issue of intelligent design and in no way supports your claim that the net outcome of religion has been negative. In fact, NGT has never taken such a position that I am aware of and has declared himself agnostic.

While he is an eloquent fighter against those that cling to religious explanations despite strong scientific evidence to the contrary, he is not an anti-theist.

[Gore1FL]

93. Name examples of good that negate the loss of the library of Alexandria.

Make up for two hundred years of lost discovery from that incident alone using religion.

After that, let's quantify the loss in all religious wars and see if religion ever managed to save that many.

The clip is far more specific than that, and your assessment betrays the fact that you didn't watch it.

I am not an anti-theist either. Believe whatever unsupported claim you want. Please don't try to tell me that doing so provides any benefit over the harm, while doing so.

[cbayer]

94. I can name many examples, but will give you some anecdotes.

I visited Kenya last year and saw many, many good things. A shelter for women with AIDS who have been ostracized from their tribal communities. There they learned to make and dye cloths and had opened a shop to support the small community of these women and their children. Orphanages. Sports programs for children in some of the biggest slums in the world.

Did you happen to see 60 minutes this week? The story about the medical ship was amazing.

Religious organizations, and most notably the catholic church, provide more for the neediest on this earth than any secular or governmental agencies.

I have previously seen this clip and have read his writings on this subject. As I said, I am a big NDT fan. I have never seen him make the claim you make.

You are the one that made the unsupported claim of net negative. You will not be able to supply any data, because there is none to support what you say.

Again, I do not deny the negative, but I also do not ignore the positive.

[Gore1FL]

95. Destruction of the Library of Alexandria = net negative.

The Crusades = net negative.
9/11 = net negative
Thirty Years' War = net negative
Nigerian Civil War = net negative
Second Sudanese Civil War = net negative
Lebanese Civil War = net negative
Palestine v Isreal = net negative
India v Pakistan = net negative


All of these are because of religion.

Orphanages, sports programs and feeding the hungry are all great accomplishments. Belief in a unsubstantiated super-being isn't a prerequisite. Even if they were, how many fed vs how many dead?

[cbayer]

96. But you leave out the countless lives saved. Do you have a number for that?

You made a claim that can't be substantiated factually. Answer your own question - how many fed vs. how many dead?

I'm not going to argue with you about the net outcome, because it's a useless argument. If you can't see the good, then you can't see it. But making claims that there is a net outcome that can be bolstered by some kind of data is fallacious.

It's also impossible to tease out to what extent religion has been used as a cover for politically based wars. Wars are fought for all kinds of reasons. Shall we blame the deaths by atomic weapons in Japan on science? How about all the violent gun deaths in this country?

I will agree with you that a belief in a god or gods is not a prerequisite for doing the right thing for the neediest in this world. But I will make the argument that religious organizations provide more of it than non-religious organizations when it comes to the poorest and neediest in this world.

Until secular and governmental agencies are willing and able to step up to the plate, religious organizations will continue to do the boots on the ground work.

If you have AIDS and your children are starving in west Africa, you probably don't care much about the Library of Alexandria.

[Gore1FL]

101. What lives were saves specifically because of religion and not morality? n/t

[cbayer]

102. Morality and religiosity are not exclusive.

The fact is that religious organizations provide a massive amount of care and assistance for those most in need. It doesn't have to be religious groups, and certainly non-religious groups also do good works based on their ethics/morality, but that's who is doing it.

[Gore1FL]

103. They are not the same thing, however.

Morality drives doing good. Religion may utilize morality, but it is not it's source.

[cbayer]

104. i never claimed that it was.

[Gore1FL]

105. Are you saying that without religion people would not have come together to feed others?

At this point I am not sure what you are arguing.

I contend that non-religious people get together an do the same thing without a religious organization coordinating it for them.

[cbayer]

106. No I am not. I am saying that religious organizations provide a massive amount

of charitable care for those most in need. They fill in the huge gaps that governmental and secular agencies leave. Were these other agencies to step up to the plate, there would be less need for and reliance on the religious organizations.

While some non-religious people do get together to do good deeds, they don't do it at nearly the rate religious organizations do. That's just a fact.

The reasons for that are varied. I applaud secular groups that are taking on causes and see that number growing, but it just can't compare. I particularly applaud the "interfaith" coalitions, which include atheist groups, that are joining forces for the common good.

[Gore1FL]

108. They do indeed.

But not because they are religious. I would like to see your data on per-capita non-religious contributions vs religious contributions. A link providing that information would support your claim "While some non-religious people do get together to do good deeds, they don't do it at nearly the rate religious organizations do. That's just a fact." I look forward to seeing it.

[cbayer]

109. This discussion began with you saying that religion was a net negative

and my challenging that. There is no data to support your statement and there are way too many variables to probably ever substantiate.

Data concerning religious versus non-religious contributions to charity is easily available and, if you are genuinely interested in it, you won't have to look very hard to find it. There is data concerning both financial contributions and contributions involving volunteering time. Here is one link on financial contributions, but that's all the research I am going to do for you:
http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17886:charitable-giving-to-religious-groups-outpacing-giving-to-secular-charities&catid=155:nonprofit-newswire&Itemid=986

It's been nice talking to you and I am really pleased that we kept it civil. I think we are both right and both wrong, but I don't think either of us is malicious.

Religion does good and it does bad. Charitable work is done by religious and non-religious organizations. Working together, everyone could do more.

Got to make dinner. I hope you have a wonderful evening.

[Gore1FL]

111. I gave you numerous examples.

Your link provided information about gross contributions. You said rate. Rate implies per-capita.

I am glad this has been civil, as well.

[Lordquinton]

117. There was a quote recently

saying, roughly, that it would be impossible for Churches to replace the support that the Government gives to it's citizens. Assuming that person did their research, then your statement is factually untrue.

Additionally, A lot of the pain and suffering in this world are caused by religious actions, so when they do something good, it's still making up for the bad. Like if you rebuild an orphanage, it's a good thing, but is it a net gain if you burned down the orphanage in the first place? or if you are starting the wars that create the orphans?

[cbayer]

118. Quite the contrary. It would be impossible for the government to replace the support given

to the poor by churches.

If you have a quote that says the opposite (and is backed up by any kind of data at all), I would like to see it

Who burned down an orphanage? What religion is responsible for the orphans of Kenya?

[Lordquinton]

122. It was a metaphore

you know, like what makes up a lot of bible passages. I notice you gave no source for your statement.

I could not find the quote I'm thinking of, but a quick google search provided plenty of evidence, here's one with simple math to back it up, probably off a bit, but the numbers are based on official stats.

[cbayer]

123. I think you forgot the link.

[Lordquinton]

124. I did...

http://chuckwarnockblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/think-churches-can-feed-americas-poor/

here it is.

[cbayer]

125. Good points made there and I see where you (and he are coming from).

In terms of money, I agree that churches could not replace government assistance. OTOH, places like food kitchens and food banks are generally run by religious organizations and not the government.

So perhaps the difference lies in looking at the money and looking at the manpower. Both the government and churches provide something, but there are differences in what they provide.

The government has shown increased support for faith based initiatives primarily because they are not or can not get it done. This is a slippery slope, to be sure.

I don't think churches should "take over" caring for the poor. Quite the contrary. If the government and other secular groups were doing the job, there would be much less need for religious organizations to step in.

[trotsky]

126. Food kitchens and food banks usually receive government funding.

I find it fascinating, your consistent reaction to being demonstrated to be wrong. Plain facts are presented to you showing your error, and you can only reply with "oh, those are good points" followed by a dishonest verbal sleight of hand to try and retain some shred of being "right."

A little honesty and sincerity would go a long way toward improving the dialog, cbayer. When will you lead by example?

[okasha]

119. The Library was burned

accidentally by Julius Caesar in the factional battles among the triumvirs. What does that have to do with religion?

[Gore1FL]

120. Here is your answer

http://www.mediahistory.umn.edu/archive/alexandria.html

Early in the year A. D. 642, Alexandria surrendered to Amrou, the Islamic general leading the armies of Omar, Caliph of Baghdad. Long one of the most important cities of the ancient world and capital of Byzantine Egypt, Alexandria surrendered only after a long siege and attempts to rescue the city by the Byzantines. On the orders of Omar, Caliph of Baghdad, the entire collection of books (except for the works of Aristotle) stored at the Library of Alexandria were removed and used as fuel to heat water for the city's public baths.

In A. D. 391, riots instigated by fanatical Christians damaged the collection heavily. During the years between disastrous events, the library collection had been gradually restored. In 641, the Caliph of Baghdad exhibited the same spirit of religious fanaticism in ordering Amrou to burn the books stored there. The loss of the library at Alexandria was a particularly grievous blow because the works of so many Roman scholars. literary geniuses, and historians were destroyed.

[cleanhippie]

121. Are you ever going to apologize for your baseless allegation that I was blocked from another group?

Are you going to show that you possess even a speck of integrity and courage and admit that you fabricated your slanderous claim in a childish attempt to discredit me?

No? For all your blather about "getting along" and "working together", your actions show hypocrisy. Rank hypocrisy.

[amuse bouche]

66. Well put

[Evoman]

89. Oh man...seriously?

I just....wha......

Oh man, This is just rich.

Geez.

[SpartanDem]

97. No. Any ally should be welcome

,but I think don't religious groups are any more necessary than their secular counterparts.

[cbayer]

99. I agree. Power in numbers and coalitions, imo.

[skepticscott]

107. That's two