|
Try and keep it on the political/societal/cultural end of the discussion. This deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups. Which religion, if any, is right is irrelevant and arguments of that nature will be moderated. |
United States41961 Posts
On December 14 2012 07:49 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 07:43 sam!zdat wrote:
ah. for this type of "legitimate" can we use the word "sincere," instead?
I don't know how one would evaluate that. A sincerity court?
edit: the idea of a government enforcing doctrinal consistency on churches makes me wanna go donate to the NRA. thats actually a much better word, and what the US Supreme Court uses. "sincere and meaningful" belief.
You'd have to clarify that it only works in the case of religion as a lot of groups have sincere and meaningful beliefs which society would not want to exempt from discrimination laws. If you have a sincere and meaningful belief that race mixing is wrong and bring up comparative crime rates, incarceration rates, average income, educational level and so forth then it doesn't count. That is part of the issue in my opinion, that the meaningfulness of religious beliefs is ultimately subjective because the arguments for them don't really translate into secular society, if anything they're less meaningful because arguments based in faith are harder to prove as objective necessities.
|
"when the only justification is religious anyway"
"the sky father"
You guys would do well to try to take other people's beliefs more seriously. Try to understand why they might think in that way, not just say "I'm Modern and Rational and they're Morons." That kind of thinking gets you nowhere, and is not really intellectual honest anyway.
|
United States41961 Posts
Apologies, I'll edit that to be more respectful.
|
On December 14 2012 07:55 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 07:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 07:35 Deleuze wrote:On December 14 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 07:20 Kitai wrote:On December 14 2012 06:05 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 06:00 Kitai wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 05:39 sam!zdat wrote:
Because I do not think that the secular authority should be able to dictate all matters of life. There must be spaces that are kept away from the greater system and allowed to dissent. You can think about this in Foucauldian terms as the preservation of heterotopia.
I think that it order for a society to be healthy, the state should allow as much freedom as possible for dissenting views on matters of conscience. I agree that there may be lines that must be drawn (that is, I would not permit a religion to practice human sacrifice, sexual abuse, and so on) but I feel that a refusal to perform marriage rites on gay couples does not cross this line that would allow the state to interfere. You simply cannot reconcile performance of the marriage ritual on a gay couple with the belief, for example, that romantic relationships derive their justification from procreation. I don't agree with this view, but I don't think the state can legitimately prevent a religious organization from holding it as part of their tenets.
Additionally, as farvacola has repeatedly stated, this legislation in fact PREVENTS doctrinal progress within these churches towards an acceptance of homosexuality. this is a classic example of liberal ideological fixation on isonomy (formal equality) at the expense of thinking strategically. You do not want a law that makes it illegal for a priest to challenge the doctrine of the church authority by performing a gay marriage against official doctrine. That is entirely counterproductive to the social agenda.
I think whenever you are considering exercising Imperial authority (i.e. the power of the secular sovereign to adjudicate in matters of religion) you should step very lightly. This legislation to me is an egregious overstepping of boundaries, despite my personal feelings about the backwardness of the doctrine in question.
edit: to put this in some context, and hopefully explain why a pro-gay atheist like me would be concerned about this, I'll just say that I am someone who is deeply concerned about keeping the power of the secular authority (for me, this means the bourgeois capitalist order) in check, and who feels that there is a growing tendency to legislate and "rationalize" all aspects of the life-world. So I'm suspicious of any attempt on the part of this order to extend its power to the few areas of the life-world that remain uncolonized. I agree entirely. When I read the OP, the one thing that stuck out the most was a law that would enforce discrimination, and make it illegal to not discriminate. I think it's entirely fine for a private organization to decline to offer a service (such as marrying a gay couple), but to make it illegal for them to expand into offering that service in the future just seems really backward and over-controlling. im pretty sure that they can change their mind in the future. if they couldnt, that would be pretty absurd. its just an all or nothing approach; your church is either against it or its not, you cant have certain members doing it when the church is against it. That sounds like a problem the church itself should deal with, not the law. If some members of the church want to marry gay couples, and some don't, then the church should have the power to decide how best to handle the situation within its own organization. Once again, the enforced-discrimination law seems overly-interfering. i've said this before, but i'll repeat. i have no problem with the law forcing the church to be consistent. if its a religious tenant that homosexuality is wrong and that gay marriage should not be allowed then the church should have to enforce that tenant consistently. a church shouldnt be allowed to say "we are exempt from anti-discrimination laws" and then pick and choose whether it discriminates. i understand that people think subgroups should be allowed to "break off" from the church as they become more progressive and the law shouldnt make their actions illegal. i agree, but i think the proper process is for them to disassociate themselves from the church, and as a result no longer be exempt from the anti-discrimination laws. take this for an example, church A claims exemption. congregation B decides it wants to do gay marriages despite being part of church a, and then do them. however, congregation B changes it mind and decides gays should burn in hell, and starts discriminating again. because they are part of church A there is no consequence to them changing their mind on principle tenants of the church. i am opposed to this picking and choosing. if its a legitimate belief, it shouldn't waiver. if its an illegitimate belief, it shouldnt be exempt from anti-discrimination laws. What?! So basically it's OK for the government to enforce consistency in religious organizations? Religious history is all about congregations breaking off and forming their own churches. Now that really is something I cannot allow government to circumvent - surely we want religious bigotry to cure itself and for everyone to be nice to each other! EDIT: essentially you're saying that religious groups need government approval - the total opposite of your underlying message surely??? i dont see it as them enforcing any religious tenants, just the law. if a religion claims an exemption, but then doesnt follow through with the requirements of the exemption, the exemption should be revoked. if congregations break off and form their own churches, they should re-register as non-exempt. no issue there. if they dont break off and the chuch allows it to continue, then the exemption should be revoked because the basis for the exemption doesnt exist. the government is enforcing the anti-discrimination laws; its not enforcing church policies. So you're saying if a religious group, having broken away from another group the discriminated against gay people, declared that it would not discriminate against gay people but then suddenly decided that yes it actually would discriminate then it would be prosecuted by the law? But surely this is as much, if not more, governmental interference: you are asking a gov to become involved in how a religious group operates, moreover you are treating religious organizations as far more homogenized than they actually are. Your asking for a government ratified contract issued by a Church to its congregation, correct? How is a government asserting then that the terms of this contract are non-discriminatory?
i think the law should be applied equally to all people.
i think a limited exception should be allowed where an individual or group can show that they have a sincere ;-) belief that gays shouldnt marry because it is against their religious principles.
if it turns out that the "sincere" belief was bullshit, then the exemption shouldn't apply and they should go back to being regulated like everyone else. i dont see this as an infringement because the belief apparently wasnt so sincere in the first place.
in the context of a break away congregation, they are either part of the church or they are not. there is either a religious tenant of homophobia, or there is not. in the circumstance of an exemption to anti-discrimination laws, i am willing to force a black-white line on this issue and refuse to consider gray areas.
i dont know about the whole contract thing. if you dont meet the exemption, you are subject to the law. exemptions should always be strictly scrutinized to make sure they arent abused.
also, to be clear, i dont think that break away congrgation should be prosecuted. i think that the church should be given an opportunity to disassociate themselves from the congregation, or face having the exemption revoked. you cant have your cake, and eat it too.
|
On December 14 2012 07:56 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 07:43 sam!zdat wrote:
ah. for this type of "legitimate" can we use the word "sincere," instead?
I don't know how one would evaluate that. A sincerity court?
edit: the idea of a government enforcing doctrinal consistency on churches makes me wanna go donate to the NRA. The proof is in the pudding. If they state the doctrine and don't waver it was sincere, if they waver it wasn't sincere. I think giving them the benefit of the doubt would be a reasonable course of action when granting exemptions. The first instance is basically "we believe this because we believe this" you can't really tell them "no you don't", also if they are permitted exemptions you can't really judge the validity of each one when the only justification is religious anyway...
Church congregations are not nearly that homogenized in their beliefs. In my experience, its sometimes literally a room full of people that believe in the same deity with nothing else in common.
I don't understand, it's like everyone has flipped around in what they are saying. Are you honestly suggesting that a religious group needs a constitution that its congregation subscribes to in order for it to be legitimate in the eyes of the law.
I am asking that it be enshrined in the law of the land that whosoever walks through a set of doors is entitled to be treated free from prejudice and discrimination.
However a religious group wishes to amend its belief, so long as it does not contravene the above, is none of my business.
|
On December 14 2012 08:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 07:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 07:43 sam!zdat wrote:
ah. for this type of "legitimate" can we use the word "sincere," instead?
I don't know how one would evaluate that. A sincerity court?
edit: the idea of a government enforcing doctrinal consistency on churches makes me wanna go donate to the NRA. thats actually a much better word, and what the US Supreme Court uses. "sincere and meaningful" belief. You'd have to clarify that it only works in the case of religion. If you have a sincere and meaningful belief that race mixing is wrong and bring up comparative crime rates, incarceration rates, average income, educational level and so forth then it doesn't count, you only want your meaningful belief to be protected if it is based upon the sky father telling you so.
personally, no.
also, the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't make such a limitation as well:
"To determine whether an action of the federal or state government infringes upon a person's right to freedom of religion, the court must decide what qualifies as religion or religious activities for purposes of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Religion
|
On December 14 2012 08:01 KwarK wrote:
That is part of the issue in my opinion, that the meaningfulness of religious beliefs is ultimately subjective because the arguments for them don't really translate into secular society, if anything they're less meaningful because arguments based in faith are harder to prove as objective necessities.
I would argue that the objective necessity of secular society is an illusion. Our secular society is in fact based on faith in a number of things (democracy, the market, Progress), and basic assumptions about morality and the meaning of life which have no more solid philosophical foundation than do religious views. What is the good life?
At some point, any society must ask itself what the point is, and religious discourse is a fundamental part of this process. Our modern secular society is no different. The only difference is that we cannot ask that question within our worldview and so we answer it, assume the answer as given, and then forget that the question existed in the first place.
|
On December 14 2012 08:05 sam!zdat wrote:
"when the only justification is religious anyway"
"the sky father"
You guys would do well to try to take other people's beliefs more seriously. Try to understand why they might think in that way, not just say "I'm Modern and Rational and they're Morons." That kind of thinking gets you nowhere, and is not really intellectual honest anyway.
You would do well to pay attention to the context.
The point is that their beliefs are not independently verifiable, and if they were they wouldn't be allowed to discriminate period.
So if they say we want exemption from certain anti-discrimination laws it's not the place of the government to judge whether their beliefs are acceptable, nor whether they are "sincere" or not, you have to wait and see if they stick to them as their only justification for exemption from these laws and holding these beliefs in the first place is religious anyway.
I stand by what I said there and it's not the slightest bit disrespectful.
As for sky father, though it brought a smile to my face I can't say the same thing 
|
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either.
edit: I'm walking out the door so I won't be replying immediately
|
On December 14 2012 08:07 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 07:56 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 07:43 sam!zdat wrote:
ah. for this type of "legitimate" can we use the word "sincere," instead?
I don't know how one would evaluate that. A sincerity court?
edit: the idea of a government enforcing doctrinal consistency on churches makes me wanna go donate to the NRA. The proof is in the pudding. If they state the doctrine and don't waver it was sincere, if they waver it wasn't sincere. I think giving them the benefit of the doubt would be a reasonable course of action when granting exemptions. The first instance is basically "we believe this because we believe this" you can't really tell them "no you don't", also if they are permitted exemptions you can't really judge the validity of each one when the only justification is religious anyway... Church congregations are not nearly that homogenized in their beliefs. In my experience, its sometimes literally a room full of people that believe in the same deity with nothing else in common. I don't understand, it's like everyone has flipped around in what they are saying. Are you honestly suggesting that a religious group needs a constitution that its congregation subscribes to in order for it to be legitimate in the eyes of the law. I am asking that it be enshrined in the law of the land that whosoever walks through a set of doors is entitled to be treated free from prejudice and discrimination. However a religious group wishes to amend its belief, so long as it does not contravene the above, is none of my business.
The very topic of this thread is contrary to your wishes I'm afraid to say. If they are indeed going to have to choose their position in order to be free secular law then it makes sense they are held to it.
What are you proposing exactly?
On December 14 2012 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either.
edit: I'm walking out the door so I won't be replying immediately
I don't know what you are saying there but you quoted me completely out of context and inferred some kind of negative meaning to what I wrote that simply doesn't exist, as I've explained thoroughly.
|
On December 14 2012 08:14 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 08:01 KwarK wrote:
That is part of the issue in my opinion, that the meaningfulness of religious beliefs is ultimately subjective because the arguments for them don't really translate into secular society, if anything they're less meaningful because arguments based in faith are harder to prove as objective necessities. I would argue that the objective necessity of secular society is an illusion. Our secular society is in fact based on faith in a number of things (democracy, the market, Progress), and basic assumptions about morality and the meaning of life which have no more solid philosophical foundation than do religious views. What is the good life? At some point, any society must ask itself what the point is, and religious discourse is a fundamental part of this process. Our modern secular society is no different. The only difference is that we cannot ask that question within our worldview and so we answer it, assume the answer as given, and then forget that the question existed in the first place.
This I agree with. But I want to go back to why you don't hold religious organizations up to the same laws and other organizations?
EDIT:
On December 14 2012 08:19 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 08:07 Deleuze wrote:On December 14 2012 07:56 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 07:43 sam!zdat wrote:
ah. for this type of "legitimate" can we use the word "sincere," instead?
I don't know how one would evaluate that. A sincerity court?
edit: the idea of a government enforcing doctrinal consistency on churches makes me wanna go donate to the NRA. The proof is in the pudding. If they state the doctrine and don't waver it was sincere, if they waver it wasn't sincere. I think giving them the benefit of the doubt would be a reasonable course of action when granting exemptions. The first instance is basically "we believe this because we believe this" you can't really tell them "no you don't", also if they are permitted exemptions you can't really judge the validity of each one when the only justification is religious anyway... Church congregations are not nearly that homogenized in their beliefs. In my experience, its sometimes literally a room full of people that believe in the same deity with nothing else in common. I don't understand, it's like everyone has flipped around in what they are saying. Are you honestly suggesting that a religious group needs a constitution that its congregation subscribes to in order for it to be legitimate in the eyes of the law. I am asking that it be enshrined in the law of the land that whosoever walks through a set of doors is entitled to be treated free from prejudice and discrimination. However a religious group wishes to amend its belief, so long as it does not contravene the above, is none of my business. The very topic of this thread is contrary to your wishes I'm afraid to say. If they are indeed going to have to choose their position in order to be free secular law then it makes sense they are held to it. What are you proposing exactly?
I'm not asking that they choose anything, I'm asking that they be subject to the law of the land in the asme way as any other organization.
|
United States41961 Posts
On December 14 2012 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either.
The secular world view is the one that says "actually we've done research on it and it turns out that children raised in a stable loving family with two mums or two dads do just fine, whatever it is you think you know based upon praying on the matter". The secular state is the child of the enlightenment in which traditional assumptions met the challenge of reasoned inquiry and the scientific method.
|
On December 14 2012 08:21 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 08:14 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 08:01 KwarK wrote:
That is part of the issue in my opinion, that the meaningfulness of religious beliefs is ultimately subjective because the arguments for them don't really translate into secular society, if anything they're less meaningful because arguments based in faith are harder to prove as objective necessities. I would argue that the objective necessity of secular society is an illusion. Our secular society is in fact based on faith in a number of things (democracy, the market, Progress), and basic assumptions about morality and the meaning of life which have no more solid philosophical foundation than do religious views. What is the good life? At some point, any society must ask itself what the point is, and religious discourse is a fundamental part of this process. Our modern secular society is no different. The only difference is that we cannot ask that question within our worldview and so we answer it, assume the answer as given, and then forget that the question existed in the first place. This I agree with. But I want to go back to why you don't hold religious organizations up to the same laws and other organizations? EDIT: Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 08:19 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 08:07 Deleuze wrote:On December 14 2012 07:56 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 07:43 sam!zdat wrote:
ah. for this type of "legitimate" can we use the word "sincere," instead?
I don't know how one would evaluate that. A sincerity court?
edit: the idea of a government enforcing doctrinal consistency on churches makes me wanna go donate to the NRA. The proof is in the pudding. If they state the doctrine and don't waver it was sincere, if they waver it wasn't sincere. I think giving them the benefit of the doubt would be a reasonable course of action when granting exemptions. The first instance is basically "we believe this because we believe this" you can't really tell them "no you don't", also if they are permitted exemptions you can't really judge the validity of each one when the only justification is religious anyway... Church congregations are not nearly that homogenized in their beliefs. In my experience, its sometimes literally a room full of people that believe in the same deity with nothing else in common. I don't understand, it's like everyone has flipped around in what they are saying. Are you honestly suggesting that a religious group needs a constitution that its congregation subscribes to in order for it to be legitimate in the eyes of the law. I am asking that it be enshrined in the law of the land that whosoever walks through a set of doors is entitled to be treated free from prejudice and discrimination. However a religious group wishes to amend its belief, so long as it does not contravene the above, is none of my business. The very topic of this thread is contrary to your wishes I'm afraid to say. If they are indeed going to have to choose their position in order to be free secular law then it makes sense they are held to it. What are you proposing exactly? I'm not asking that they choose anything, I'm asking that they be subject to the law of the land in the asme way as any other organization.
We won't hold them up to the same laws as other organisations because the majority of people are religious and do not wish it to be so, and because apparently it would be infringing upon their religious freedom more than we have a right to. The two are obviously deeply connected.
Goodnight! Bed time 
|
On December 14 2012 08:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either. The secular world view is the one that says "actually we've done research on it and it turns out that children raised in a stable loving family with two mums or two dads do just fine, whatever it is you think you know based upon praying on the matter". The secular state is the child of the enlightenment in which traditional assumptions met the challenge of reasoned inquiry and the scientific method.
I'd call that ideological positivism.
Yes, scientific reasoning is fundamental to guiding how a society makes choices, but this is an ideological battle we are engaged in.
It's not bad to be in an ideological battle.
EDIT: good night all, the Sandman calleth.
|
I often wonder if we don't have real issues. Like fear of losing the job, the partner. Or the worries of getting ill or getting cancer. The climate change which will cost a lot of money and cause substantial suffering. The suffering of child soldiers, or of the victims natural catastrophes. Unreasonable peer pressures in society. The really bad TV programs which spread fear and false information.
I would say, if two people want to marry, why shouldn't they? Let them do it and concentrate on real issues.
|
On December 14 2012 08:21 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 08:14 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 08:01 KwarK wrote:
That is part of the issue in my opinion, that the meaningfulness of religious beliefs is ultimately subjective because the arguments for them don't really translate into secular society, if anything they're less meaningful because arguments based in faith are harder to prove as objective necessities. I would argue that the objective necessity of secular society is an illusion. Our secular society is in fact based on faith in a number of things (democracy, the market, Progress), and basic assumptions about morality and the meaning of life which have no more solid philosophical foundation than do religious views. What is the good life? At some point, any society must ask itself what the point is, and religious discourse is a fundamental part of this process. Our modern secular society is no different. The only difference is that we cannot ask that question within our worldview and so we answer it, assume the answer as given, and then forget that the question existed in the first place. This I agree with. But I want to go back to why you don't hold religious organizations up to the same laws and other organizations?
I'll jump in here and inject a bit of my own personal "ivory tower" reasoning, and although I am coming at this from a primarily US perspective, I think a fair bit of it applies to the UK in a corollary sense; I think that institutions and ideas that are religious in nature deserve a fundamentally different consideration than those of non-governmental, secular affiliation, and my reasoning revolves around a quasi-historicist emphasis on the "genealogy" of the form of progress. I say quasi-historicist because while I do not think we are necessarily beholden in entirety to the shape and expression of historical reference, when it comes to political and civic matters on a grand scale there exists a requisite space for acknowledgement of that which came before (in fact, one could argue that virtually every constitutional government turns on a literary historicist impulse, but that's a discussion for another time).
Ultimately, I think religion ought to be handled differently due to what I guess you could call its "stickiness"; the fact of the matter is that Western societal consciousness as a whole is still coming to terms with the disillusionment of what seems like a falling away of abject, traditional faith as a commonplace of society (while the Islamic world is beginning to seize upon the ideological fertility of a society in which faith informs all, which again, is a topic for another time). Unfortunately, far too many people make the mistake of relegating that faith to the realm of the religious in exclusivity, when in fact the underpinnings of "faith" inform far more than that, as Sam pointed out. I drop this name far too frequently on this forum it seems, but Michael Polanyi gave a series of lectures at Aberdeen in the very early 1950's that have been collected into a volume entitled Personal Knowledge; within he discusses how positivism and an idealized sense of logical objectivity obfuscates the inherently commitment-based nature of scientific progress, or even more generally the progress of knowledge.
Think of it this way. When you read the results of an interesting study in, say, particle physics, the idea that one necessarily conjures up in their head pertaining to the authoritative validity of the scientists at the head of said study is actually just as nebulous and unverifiable as a faith in some illusory being. Sure, there are more easily accessible standards with which one can assess and distribute scientific trust via an appropriate evaluation of the application of the scientific method, but ultimately we are beholden to the limitations of the words on a page or the spoken assurances of another if we are to make sense of any piece of data. Even the scientific method itself is married with the language with which it is expressed, and though its implementation surely "works" in an observable fashion, it ultimately does so through an inherent requirement that one evaluate its use through a lens constructed of the same material as the method itself.
Ok, so I've been yammering on about the ubiquity of "faith-based" interactions, but this is somewhat tangential to the point at hand (the feelings of the misunderstood scientist and the caricatured believer are not so unalike), that religious institutions deserve different governmental regard. Going back to the notion that religion is historically "sticky", especially in the sense that a majority of people still declare themselves religious, I think it makes pragmatic sense to allow progress to take hold in an organic fashion amongst religious groups, if for no other reason that sincerity in moving forward with cost to benefit ratio in mind. The roots of the less savory aspects of more fundamentalist religious ideology (the ones most non-religious dislike the greatest and are most likely to misapply) are quite deep, and heavily intermingled with sentiments of angry rebellion, intolerance, and hatred for "the other". Accordingly, these ideas will not be so easily defeated by mere government regulation, as historical precedent shows us, merely stoked and grown fatter (this isn't like the issue of gun control, where the answer is simply make them harder to get  ). My evidence in favor of this approach exists across the United States, amongst Episcopal, Presbyterian, and even Catholic church congregations. My hardcore pro-life, Catholic step-mother and her entire super Catholic family voted for Obama, because they considered his economic and social platform altogether more appealing than Romney's. Gay and female ministers are becoming more and more prevalent amongst Protestant denominations, and the leaderships of the more conservative ones are feeling the world around them changing. Let us not be so emboldened by the tremendous steps of our forefathers on the fronts of tolerance and egalitarianism that we make the mistake of leaning too far forward and falling over.
Keep in mind I believe the converse to hold true, that religious ideas are not to enter into government arbitrarily either, especially in the face of good science. This holds for issues like the teaching of evolution, climate change denial, young earth creationism, and gay marriage. But I cannot stress enough how minor these ideas figure into the larger picture of Christianity. I apologize in advance for the breadth and incoherency of the above
|
I only want to complain about only one thing. Polticians. They just force some fake tolerance towards somebody (homosexuals in this case), but they don't fucking ask people. How about a referendum? If 55% or more answer with "Yes", then it is fine.
Edit: Oh yes, I forgot that Obama has double standards. He declares himself as christian, yet he supports gays. Since when did christianity start supporting them?
|
I think it's entirely pointless. Just as no one black is going to want to join the BNP, no homosexual is going to want to get married by a church/priest who is begrudgingly doing it cause the law says he has to. What matters is that equal rights to get married are available to the homosexual community. Racism is socially shunned to the backwaters of society and so it is much easier to force them to do what we want. Faithheads aren't outcasted enough for being homophobic. It's their church, let them do what they want. the more we separate them and put them aside the more irrelevant they get.
|
On December 14 2012 08:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either. The secular world view is the one that says "actually we've done research on it and it turns out that children raised in a stable loving family with two mums or two dads do just fine, whatever it is you think you know based upon praying on the matter". The secular state is the child of the enlightenment in which traditional assumptions met the challenge of reasoned inquiry and the scientific method.
Where's the scientific experiment that tells you whether or not you should care about whether or not a child "does fine", and which tells you what "does just fine" means? Is that a rigorously defined and operationalized concept? Can it be?
The Enlightenment has its limits. Defending the Enlightenment is not exactly a comfortable position right now in the academy (I know because I do defend the Enlightenment to a rather unfashionable degree).
My point is not that you're wrong. I agree with you about all of this gay people stuff. My point is just that if you start dismissing things because they "aren't scientific," you're going to find that line of reasoning coming back to bite you in the ass, I promise. Kant avec Sade, and so on.
|
On December 14 2012 13:23 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 08:21 KwarK wrote:On December 14 2012 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either. The secular world view is the one that says "actually we've done research on it and it turns out that children raised in a stable loving family with two mums or two dads do just fine, whatever it is you think you know based upon praying on the matter". The secular state is the child of the enlightenment in which traditional assumptions met the challenge of reasoned inquiry and the scientific method. Where's the scientific experiment that tells you whether or not you should care about whether or not a child "does fine", and which tells you what "does just fine" means? Is that a rigorously defined and operationalized concept? Can it be? The Enlightenment has its limits. Defending the Enlightenment is not exactly a comfortable position right now in the academy (I know because I do defend the Enlightenment to a rather unfashionable degree). My point is not that you're wrong. I agree with you about all of this gay people stuff. My point is just that if you start dismissing things because they "aren't scientific," you're going to find that line of reasoning coming back to bite you in the ass, I promise. Kant avec Sade, and so on.
If they aren't scientitific, what are they? In a broader sense, anything which is testable and falsifiable is scientific.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
