Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
There is a book written by my fav, author Devdutt Patnaik The Man Who Was a Woman and Other Queer Tales of Hindu Lore (Haworth Gay & Lesbian Studies)The old vedic times were much more accepting about these ideas ...Cant fanthom where this understanding has gone???
Walker wrote: "They are totally intertwined....the more facts we know about science,,,the more God as Creator makes sense"Many scientists would disagree, strongly.
cHriS wrote: "Here is the UK we are loosing what is known as 'Family values' values that hold a family together and we need to stop this erosion. Preserving marriage and the word 'marriage' is essential to retaining these values."Citation please?
Celebrities have 24 hour marriages, others have been married time after time, other people are married and have a string of affairs often leading to children born outside of wedlock to the single mother, other marriages are nightmares of abuse and control by a violent partner, and more are miserable traps for two incompatible people who married out of expectation or financial security.
So obviously the answer is to stop the word marriage from including two people who actually love each other and want to show that love with commitment and loyalty...
?
Shannon wrote: "Churches who refuse to marry gay couples could be accused of discrimination and lose tax exempt status. Why do I envision some people, who are anti-religion, giggling and rubbing their hands together?"I mentioned that, and I think that "giggling and rubbing their hands together" is just a little insulting. That is equivalent to saying that "gays are cackling that straights might have to accept them as people."
Personally I cannot see a good reason (beyond historical precedent) for Churches to be tax exempt. Especially since at that point government gets into the game of deciding what counts as a legitimate religion or not. How many people are the threshold to form a religion and claim tax exempt status? How many evangelical businesses reap tax exempt profits? When does a cult gain the benefits of religion, when it achieves a rich enough lobbying group?
I fully agree with tax exempt status for charities that do charitable work with the needy, whether religiously motivated or not. However, why should the general population pay for a specific religion by making them tax exempt? Surely in the US that is a direct and blatant violation of the establishment clause?
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Churches who refuse to marry gay couples could be accused of discrimination and lose tax exempt status. Why do I envision some people, who are anti-religion, giggling and rubbing their hands together?"
I mentioned that, and I think that "giggling and rubbing their hands together" is just a little insulting. That is equivalent to saying that "gays are cackling that straights might have to accept them as people."
Really? How do you figure that, Gary?
Notice I said I envisioned some (not all ... don't believe in over generalizations) ... some, who are anti-religion, giggling and rubbing their hands together.
At the idea of churches having to close their doors ....
How do you figure that to be the same as ...
Your words, "gays are cackling that straights might have to accept them as people."
The word "cackling" is a nice touch, by the way.
The idea that some atheists are living for the day when churches meet their demise, looking forward to it with great excitement, is not akin to gays wanted to be accepted as people .... And, churches closing their doors (gay marriage link on your part, I guess) has nothing to do with atheists being accepted as people. In my opinion.
Heck, Gary. My cousin's pastor just "came out" as being an atheist. And, the guy is staying in the pulpit. No joke. Fascinating story, actually. He went to the church membership a year ago and talked about having control of their bylaws and such, within their church vs through THE church. Local control vs. .... They thought it was a fine plan. Local control. That's a thing in New England ... not just in churches. They voted for it. THE church no longer has oversight or control. Well, then, about year later, their pastor said he doesn't believe in God, hasn't for some time, is an atheist ... however, he intends to continue as their pastor. Yeah. Fascinating. Some attempted to complain to THE church. They said they no longer have oversight and can't do anything. Yeah, some left the church ... though, not because they think the pastor is no longer human. I think they have issue with an atheist giving communion. But, the majority stayed ... 'cause he's done a lot for their community and it is their church. So, yeah .... Not sure churches being open or closed is linked to atheists being accepted as people. In my opinion. I mean, this congregation has accepted an atheist as their pastor, singing hymns and giving the sacraments. (I'm a little confused as to how the pastor can do that ... given his convictions ... but, hey ....)
So, no ... I'm not going with your link ... that my saying some atheists would love for churches to close is like or is as bad as saying gays are cackling over forcing churches to accept them as people. Yeah, no....
But, again, I give you points for trying ... especially for using the word "cackling" ....
Atheists have been getting a lot of press in this country (US) of late. Some good and some bad. There's an organization, can't remember the name of it, for atheists. I actually visited their website a month or so ago when their "president" or ... can't remember his title ... was in the press. It was rather interesting, as an aside. The website had all of these pull-down items regarding things discussed here ... like inconsistencies in the Bible, the Quran, etc.... What to say if a believer says ...? Found it fascinating.
At any rate, the head of this organization has been making lots of comments of late about various things. Given some of the things he's said, given some of the things other atheists said in regard to those comments or that incident, given some of the things that have been said by some of the atheists on this thread, I can, indeed, see some atheists giggling at the idea that churches will refuse to perform marriages and will face investigations for discrimination else they'll have to give up their tax exempt status and face, possibly, closing their doors.
Do you truly deny that?
I don't see how you can....
Perhaps, instead of saying ... giggling and rubbing hands together ... I should have simply said ...
I bet some people who are anti-religion are "living for the day when" these churches face investigation or will need to give up their tax exempt status and, perhaps, be shut down.
Okay. I was wrong. I'll go with that ... "living for the day when" ....
Hell, Gary. Atheists on this very thread have admitted that. Living for the day when ... So, seriously ....
Now, if you want to talk tax exempt status in and of itself, that's another thing. I actually don't know a whole heck of a lot about it. If we were to talk about that, I'd need to do research. Then, the country would have to look at all of the organizations that receive such status. Not just churches. For example, I recently saw a report regarding all sorts of organizations that are tax exempt. It blew my mind. One does work for a particular political party. Why in damn hell would such an organization receive tax exempt status? A lot of the outfits noted in the piece were not charities. Not even a little bit.
So, if we wanted to really talk about that, I'd be game. But, the conversation wouldn't just be about the corrupt churches who benefit on the back of the populous. No. There'd be a real look at all of the people who benefit from that status .... It goes way past churches. (Personally, I'd be okay if no one received tax exempt status. No one. Wouldn't be okay with a tangled web being woven in the hopes of leading one "group" to its demise.)
I mentioned that, and I think that "giggling and rubbing their hands together" is just a little insulting. That is equivalent to saying that "gays are cackling that straights might have to accept them as people."
Really? How do you figure that, Gary?
Notice I said I envisioned some (not all ... don't believe in over generalizations) ... some, who are anti-religion, giggling and rubbing their hands together.
At the idea of churches having to close their doors ....
How do you figure that to be the same as ...
Your words, "gays are cackling that straights might have to accept them as people."
The word "cackling" is a nice touch, by the way.
The idea that some atheists are living for the day when churches meet their demise, looking forward to it with great excitement, is not akin to gays wanted to be accepted as people .... And, churches closing their doors (gay marriage link on your part, I guess) has nothing to do with atheists being accepted as people. In my opinion.
Heck, Gary. My cousin's pastor just "came out" as being an atheist. And, the guy is staying in the pulpit. No joke. Fascinating story, actually. He went to the church membership a year ago and talked about having control of their bylaws and such, within their church vs through THE church. Local control vs. .... They thought it was a fine plan. Local control. That's a thing in New England ... not just in churches. They voted for it. THE church no longer has oversight or control. Well, then, about year later, their pastor said he doesn't believe in God, hasn't for some time, is an atheist ... however, he intends to continue as their pastor. Yeah. Fascinating. Some attempted to complain to THE church. They said they no longer have oversight and can't do anything. Yeah, some left the church ... though, not because they think the pastor is no longer human. I think they have issue with an atheist giving communion. But, the majority stayed ... 'cause he's done a lot for their community and it is their church. So, yeah .... Not sure churches being open or closed is linked to atheists being accepted as people. In my opinion. I mean, this congregation has accepted an atheist as their pastor, singing hymns and giving the sacraments. (I'm a little confused as to how the pastor can do that ... given his convictions ... but, hey ....)
So, no ... I'm not going with your link ... that my saying some atheists would love for churches to close is like or is as bad as saying gays are cackling over forcing churches to accept them as people. Yeah, no....
But, again, I give you points for trying ... especially for using the word "cackling" ....
Atheists have been getting a lot of press in this country (US) of late. Some good and some bad. There's an organization, can't remember the name of it, for atheists. I actually visited their website a month or so ago when their "president" or ... can't remember his title ... was in the press. It was rather interesting, as an aside. The website had all of these pull-down items regarding things discussed here ... like inconsistencies in the Bible, the Quran, etc.... What to say if a believer says ...? Found it fascinating.
At any rate, the head of this organization has been making lots of comments of late about various things. Given some of the things he's said, given some of the things other atheists said in regard to those comments or that incident, given some of the things that have been said by some of the atheists on this thread, I can, indeed, see some atheists giggling at the idea that churches will refuse to perform marriages and will face investigations for discrimination else they'll have to give up their tax exempt status and face, possibly, closing their doors.
Do you truly deny that?
I don't see how you can....
Perhaps, instead of saying ... giggling and rubbing hands together ... I should have simply said ...
I bet some people who are anti-religion are "living for the day when" these churches face investigation or will need to give up their tax exempt status and, perhaps, be shut down.
Okay. I was wrong. I'll go with that ... "living for the day when" ....
Hell, Gary. Atheists on this very thread have admitted that. Living for the day when ... So, seriously ....
Now, if you want to talk tax exempt status in and of itself, that's another thing. I actually don't know a whole heck of a lot about it. If we were to talk about that, I'd need to do research. Then, the country would have to look at all of the organizations that receive such status. Not just churches. For example, I recently saw a report regarding all sorts of organizations that are tax exempt. It blew my mind. One does work for a particular political party. Why in damn hell would such an organization receive tax exempt status? A lot of the outfits noted in the piece were not charities. Not even a little bit.
So, if we wanted to really talk about that, I'd be game. But, the conversation wouldn't just be about the corrupt churches who benefit on the back of the populous. No. There'd be a real look at all of the people who benefit from that status .... It goes way past churches. (Personally, I'd be okay if no one received tax exempt status. No one. Wouldn't be okay with a tangled web being woven in the hopes of leading one "group" to its demise.)
In preparation for ....
No, not all atheists are anti-religion.
Some, most definitely, are.
No, not all atheists are anti-religion.
Some, most definitely, are.
Shannon wrote: "Really? How do you figure that, Gary? ... Notice I said I envisioned some (not all ... don't believe in over generalizations) ... some, who are anti-religion, giggling and rubbing their hands together. At the idea of churches having to close their doors .... How do you figure that to be the same as ... Your words, "gays are cackling that straights might have to accept them as people." The word "cackling" is a nice touch, by the way."First 'cackling' is a synonym for grinning and rubbing their hands, both traditionally denote a certain amount of malicious glee.
Second, your first paragraph said this levity would be at churches losing tax exempt status, you didn't say anything about them being forced to close until the following paragraph.
Shannon wrote: "The idea that some atheists are living for the day when churches meet their demise, looking forward to it with great excitement, is not akin to gays wanted to be accepted as people .... And, churches closing their doors (gay marriage link on your part, I guess) has nothing to do with atheists being accepted as people. In my opinion."
Obviously, if you start with the assumption that atheists are jealous of Churches, or hate god, or want people to be unhappy then that illustration would be correct. Many atheists would probably welcome the ending of certain Churches in particular, if not in general, but that doesn't mean they would take malicious glee in it. Those atheists that detest religion usually see it as a dangerous injustice and would not be laughing at people, but celebrating their liberation.
So I felt your description implied malicious motivations which I can imagine theists accusing them of, but not from their point of view.
Speaking personally, if that day came, first I would hope it to be a choice of people, not an imposition, a choice arrived at be education and understanding. Otherwise all we replace it with is another authoritarian dogma. Second I would sympathise with anyone who had endured the gruelling and often traumatic path out of theism.
Shannon wrote: "Fascinating story, actually."
Indeed, fascinating and somewhat warming. I guess I cannot accuse that Church of discrimination then :-)
Strangely enough I can understand how an atheist can do that. Personally I am fascinated with the traditions and practices of celtic paganism, but I don't believe in it.
An atheist could sing a hymn, or read a religious story, and still get the beauty and even relevance of it, without believing it was literally true, like finding parallels to modern life in Shakespeare or being moved by the heroism of a little hobbit in Lord of the Rings. In fact that seems somewhat more honest than a pastor that issues dogma about social policy based on their interpretation on what is 'true' based on the bible.
Shannon wrote: "So, no ... I'm not going with your link ... that my saying some atheists would love for churches to close is as bad as saying gays want to be accepted as people. Yeah, no...."
My link was that religious organisations being forced to pay the same tax as any other organisation is the same. In simple terms "social justice".
If you meant to say that they would be laughing at churches closing then you should have made that clear before you said it, not after.
And I would still disagree as it shows little understanding of why any atheist would want them closed. In their point of view, it is not about what people would lose, but about what people would gain.
Shannon wrote: "Do you truly deny that?"
I'd deny they'd laugh at the people who lost their place of worship. I would be willing to say that they may laugh at the type of hypocrites and bigots that lost their perch of authority over other people.
Shannon wrote: "Hell, Gary. Atheists on this very thread have admitted that. Living for the day when ..."
Living for the day when people no longer need religion. Not when they are forced to abandon it, which will just drive it underground and further into the hands of ruthless demagogues and extremists.
Shannon wrote: "Now, if you want to talk tax exempt status in and of itself, that's another thing. I actually don't know a whole heck of a lot about it. If we were to talk about that, I'd need to do research. Then, the country would have to look at all of the organizations that receive such status. Not just churches. For example, I recently saw a report regarding all sorts of organizations that are tax exempt. It blew my mind. One does work for a particular political party. Why in damn hell would such an organization receive tax exempt status? A lot of the outfits noted in the piece were not charities. Not even a little bit."
I'd have to research it too, but yes there are a lot of organisations that get tax relief that probably shouldn't. However, if government gives tax exemption to religion, how do you do that fairly without being bias to established "religions". Where do you draw the line? The TEA party have made "small government, low taxes" into an ideology that borders on (and includes) the religious, so could they become Tax exempt? Should atheist organisations also be tax exempt (if they're not already, I don't know).
There is an interesting Penn & Teller b****** episode which shows how the tax-exempt and US military backed US Boy Scouts are heavily dominated by the LDS church and the majority practice discrimination against atheist and homosexual children.
Shannon wrote: "(Personally, I'd be okay if no one received tax exempt status. No one.) "
I'd agree. I'd also agree with charitable tax exemptions only, with charities requiring to be non-discriminatory and based on real need.
Gary wrote: "First 'cackling' is a synonym for grinning and rubbing their hands, both traditionally denote a certain amount of malicious glee.
Second, your first paragraph said this levity would be at churches losing tax exempt status, you didn't say anything about them being forced to close until the following paragraph."
Ah.... Gary. I'm an English teacher. I know what the word "cackling" means. I also know it carries with it more negative connotations that the words I chose.
Regarding which paragraph I made which point in ... whether or not I said something in paragraph one vs. paragraph two ....
Really ...?
Second, your first paragraph said this levity would be at churches losing tax exempt status, you didn't say anything about them being forced to close until the following paragraph."
Ah.... Gary. I'm an English teacher. I know what the word "cackling" means. I also know it carries with it more negative connotations that the words I chose.
Regarding which paragraph I made which point in ... whether or not I said something in paragraph one vs. paragraph two ....
Really ...?
Gary ... In addition, you said, "Second, your first paragraph said this levity would be at churches losing tax exempt status, you didn't say anything about them being forced to close until the following paragraph."
If you're going to quote me, please really and truly quote me. I said,
"Something was mentioned today that concerns me. Churches who refuse to marry gay couples could be accused of discrimination and lose tax exempt status. Why do I envision some people, who are anti-religion, giggling and rubbing their hands together?"
If churches are accused of discrimination for not marrying gay couples, they'll be investigated and will likely face a whole host of bad, bad things. Or, they'll have the choice of losing tax exempt status. Both could lead to the church in question closing its doors. And, yes, I can absolutely see some atheists smiling and saying, "Yes!" at either prospect.
I think we're all intelligent enough to understand what would happen to a church if they're investigated for discrimination or if they have to pay out more money. (It would especially come to light by reading all of my words ...)
If you're going to quote me, please really and truly quote me. I said,
"Something was mentioned today that concerns me. Churches who refuse to marry gay couples could be accused of discrimination and lose tax exempt status. Why do I envision some people, who are anti-religion, giggling and rubbing their hands together?"
If churches are accused of discrimination for not marrying gay couples, they'll be investigated and will likely face a whole host of bad, bad things. Or, they'll have the choice of losing tax exempt status. Both could lead to the church in question closing its doors. And, yes, I can absolutely see some atheists smiling and saying, "Yes!" at either prospect.
I think we're all intelligent enough to understand what would happen to a church if they're investigated for discrimination or if they have to pay out more money. (It would especially come to light by reading all of my words ...)
Shannon wrote: "Ah.... Gary. I'm an English teacher. I know what the word "cackling" means. I also know it carries with it more negative connotations that the words I chose. "*Shrug* I'm English and the phrase "giggling and rubbing their hands" is a perfect synonym for cackling, with all the negative connotations.
Of course if by "giggling and rubbing their hands" you meant to imply a non-negative portrayal of joy at another's misfortune... well I can see the problem.
Shannon wrote: "Regarding which paragraph I made which point in ... whether or not I said something in paragraph one vs. paragraph two ....
Really ...? "
Yes. Sentence structure? Paragraphs? In English the use of sentence structure and paragraphs can significantly alter meaning can it not?
Long story short though, I found the statement offensive, and unfair, to atheists. Implying a malicious intent. Similar to when cs implied that the only reason he could think of for why a sexually active gay man would want to give blood was malicious intent.
Are you telling me I am wrong to take offence? Will you remember this next time something I say offends you?
Shannon wrote: "If churches are accused of discrimination for not marrying gay couples, they'll be investigated and will likely face a whole host of bad, bad things. Or, they'll have the choice of losing tax exempt status. Both could lead to the church in question closing its doors. And, yes, I can absolutely see some atheists smiling and saying, "Yes!" at either prospect."Would they be alone, or do you think that people who hold the opinion that tax exempt groups shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against minorities would be equally pleased? Do you think that atheists want Churches to close for their own petty satisfaction?
Shannon wrote: "I think we're all intelligent enough to understand what would happen to a church if they're investigated for discrimination or if they have to pay out more money. (It would especially come to light by reading all of my words ...) "
I understand, they would have to share the same burden and responsibility as any other organisation that could not be exempted based purely on what ideology they follow. Some may be forced to close, but is that unjust? By the same logic many others have never been able to open without the coveted label of 'approved religion'.
Again by government giving tax benefits to certain religions that means that government is establishing one or more religions over others. That isn't freedom of religion because the loss of revenue from those sources has to be paid for by the deficit or taxes from the general population, many of whom will not be adherents of that religion. So they are being forced to fund other religions.
So yes, some may smile, and so may those who support fairness and oppose injustice.
Gary wrote: Citation please?None needed, If you live in the UK you will know what I am saying and if you live in another part of the world this may or may not be relevant.
Celebrities have 24 hour marriages, others have been married time after time, other people are married and have a string of affairs often leading to children born outside of wedlock to the single mother, other marriages are nightmares of abuse and control by a violent partner, and more are miserable traps for two incompatible people who married out of expectation or financial security.
‘Some’ Celebrities have 24 hour marriages and ‘some’ others have been married time after time. And the other examples you give, are not reasons to abandon marriage.
So obviously the answer is to stop the word marriage from including two people who actually love each other and want to show that love with commitment and loyalty...
That is not the answer. That is how it is now from your view point. I am sure that the many gay couples who have given their commitment and loyalty to each other with a civil ceremony would not agree with you.
.."
Gary wrote: "Are you telling me I am wrong to take offence? Will you remember this next time something I say offends you?"
Absolutely not.
While, if memory serves, various people (mostly atheists) have told believers on several occasions that they shouldn't be offended, I've never told anyone they shouldn't be offended. Am I remembering correctly? I think I remember times when believers have mentioned something is offensive or that they're offended. Then, people, in various numbers, say it's wrong to take offense.
If we examined my words over the last few months, we'd notice that I've come out and admitted to being offended or finding something offensive. And, .... I've said .... Getting offended is a pretty normal thing. All of us, if we're truthful, feel offended from time to time. There's no reason, in my opinion, to deny that or hide that.
(I can't help but notice that the people who normally tell believers they are wrong to be offended or shouldn't be offended aren't telling you that you shouldn't be offended. It seems, to me, that there's a double standard at play. Believers shouldn't get offended. When they do, they're told they shouldn't. Yet, atheists have the right to be offended. I've "seen" atheists get offended here before ... not just you. And, when they do, there is silence. They're not called on the carpet in the same way as believers are.... Why?)
I'm not making that statement to be obnoxious.
It's all about perception. Isn't it? That's why I'm saying that ... to point out issues involving perceptions.
I mean, let's truly think about that for a minute. Think about it in a really deep way.
Everything, all of it, is about perception.
You, Gary, took offense at my statement ... and "misquoted" me. I put that word in quotes for a reason. You didn't include my full statement; it was part correct, yet .... You said I thought some atheists would giggle and rub their hands over the idea of churches losing their tax exempt status. Period.
Huh?
I'm guessing that might have been your perception, for whatever reason. I'm not saying you intentionally misrepresented me. I'm saying you read my line ... about discrimination investigations and tax exempt status and ... for some reason (your perceptions) only saw the tax exempt part. That's what I think. Unless ... you're going to tell me that you intentionally misrepresented my words to paint me in the worst possible light and in order to win an argument. I truly don't think you're going to say that ... nor do I think it's true ... whether you'd say it or not.
In addition, we could go into perceptions about words....
We could go into perceptions regarding how we treat people on the thread. Example, many an atheist over the last year or close to a year has poked at believers who start picking at people's use of words, spelling and grammatical errors, etc.... I actually can't remember the words used at this moment. But, I remember reading it time and again. I think, though I'm not certain, it's been argued that it's a bad debate tactic ... to bring up such things. In fact, I distinctly remember, I think, you joining the thread and saying you were pleased to see that doesn't often happen here.
Yet ....
I woke up this morning to a message, from you, regarding whether or not I should have included a sentence in my first paragraph or my second paragraph. No one said a word.
No one said a word to you ... except for me. The people, atheists, who have spoken out before ... against believers for doing it ... said nothing. Hmmmm.... Why? Are they on vacation? Have they left the thread? Have they decided not to make such judgments, in general, anymore? Or, since you're an atheist, do they not see it? Does it not even register that it's being done? Sort of like when Cerebus decided to conduct his poll. It was so obvious that there were bits of truth in what cHriS was saying. However, it's as if everything that had happened was literally invisible ...
Perception.....
That's what this is about, in my opinion.
And, ultimately ... whether believer or atheist ... whether we live in a world of science or religion ... we will always and forever have conflict if we don't deal with the real root of the problem ... or one of them.
Perception.
Believer vs. Atheist
Ideas vs. Fact
Shannon vs. Gary
Etc....
Do you have a right to be offended? Yes.
Was my comment flip? Yes.
Can I acknowledge that atheists might be offended? I'm pretty honest. I'm going to go for a "yes" on that one.
Can I envision, based on comments made by people on this thread, in life, and in the media, that some (SOME) atheists would ... I'm gonna say it again ... giggle ... or heck ... laugh their butts off over the idea that churches might be investigated for discrimination ... might lose their status ... might close. Yeah. Yeah, I really can. And, the reason? It would go to the things you mentioned ... that were supposedly flaws in my reasoning. Imagine it. The church ... the high and mighty church ... the church that has, throughout history, discriminated against people who were different time and again ... finally ... finally ... being called on that. Finally. Look at the discrimination of women, homosexuals, scientists, artists, etc... through the ages. And, finally, there it would be. A claim of discrimination. A law. Something that could be pointed to and proven. An investigation of the alleged violation. A finding ... of discrimination ... committed by the church. Yeah, frankly, I can see some atheists laughing their butts off over that. I think some atheists would find that to be just. It would also be the beginning of the end for the church. Tax exempt status. In an economic downturn, when fewer and fewer people are making charitable donations, I can see that being a problem. Given that fact, the church would, potentially, be between a rock and a hard place. Lose money and close doors or stay open and risk discrimination or be "forced" to do something without getting to that point as a congregation. (As has been mentioned before, more and more churches are becoming more liberal, becoming reconciling congregations, etc...)
Would some atheists laugh at the idea of people losing their faith, religion, etc...?
I didn't say that. Did I?
But, would they be thrilled about the high and mighty church finally being put in its rightful place? Yeah, I think some would. (Ultimately, though, it wouldn't just be about the high and mighty church falling. It would also be about the parishioners. Unintended victims, perhaps.)
My opinion. Further, I think I have evidence for that opinion.
However, I'm willing to say the comment was flip and controversial rather than insightful. That doesn't lead to understanding, more often than not.
So, ....
I'm also willing and able to say I was wrong. I shouldn't have made that statement.
Making flip statements can be dangerous.
Perceptions can also be dangerous ... especially if people always see as either an eagle or as a mouse.
Absolutely not.
While, if memory serves, various people (mostly atheists) have told believers on several occasions that they shouldn't be offended, I've never told anyone they shouldn't be offended. Am I remembering correctly? I think I remember times when believers have mentioned something is offensive or that they're offended. Then, people, in various numbers, say it's wrong to take offense.
If we examined my words over the last few months, we'd notice that I've come out and admitted to being offended or finding something offensive. And, .... I've said .... Getting offended is a pretty normal thing. All of us, if we're truthful, feel offended from time to time. There's no reason, in my opinion, to deny that or hide that.
(I can't help but notice that the people who normally tell believers they are wrong to be offended or shouldn't be offended aren't telling you that you shouldn't be offended. It seems, to me, that there's a double standard at play. Believers shouldn't get offended. When they do, they're told they shouldn't. Yet, atheists have the right to be offended. I've "seen" atheists get offended here before ... not just you. And, when they do, there is silence. They're not called on the carpet in the same way as believers are.... Why?)
I'm not making that statement to be obnoxious.
It's all about perception. Isn't it? That's why I'm saying that ... to point out issues involving perceptions.
I mean, let's truly think about that for a minute. Think about it in a really deep way.
Everything, all of it, is about perception.
You, Gary, took offense at my statement ... and "misquoted" me. I put that word in quotes for a reason. You didn't include my full statement; it was part correct, yet .... You said I thought some atheists would giggle and rub their hands over the idea of churches losing their tax exempt status. Period.
Huh?
I'm guessing that might have been your perception, for whatever reason. I'm not saying you intentionally misrepresented me. I'm saying you read my line ... about discrimination investigations and tax exempt status and ... for some reason (your perceptions) only saw the tax exempt part. That's what I think. Unless ... you're going to tell me that you intentionally misrepresented my words to paint me in the worst possible light and in order to win an argument. I truly don't think you're going to say that ... nor do I think it's true ... whether you'd say it or not.
In addition, we could go into perceptions about words....
We could go into perceptions regarding how we treat people on the thread. Example, many an atheist over the last year or close to a year has poked at believers who start picking at people's use of words, spelling and grammatical errors, etc.... I actually can't remember the words used at this moment. But, I remember reading it time and again. I think, though I'm not certain, it's been argued that it's a bad debate tactic ... to bring up such things. In fact, I distinctly remember, I think, you joining the thread and saying you were pleased to see that doesn't often happen here.
Yet ....
I woke up this morning to a message, from you, regarding whether or not I should have included a sentence in my first paragraph or my second paragraph. No one said a word.
No one said a word to you ... except for me. The people, atheists, who have spoken out before ... against believers for doing it ... said nothing. Hmmmm.... Why? Are they on vacation? Have they left the thread? Have they decided not to make such judgments, in general, anymore? Or, since you're an atheist, do they not see it? Does it not even register that it's being done? Sort of like when Cerebus decided to conduct his poll. It was so obvious that there were bits of truth in what cHriS was saying. However, it's as if everything that had happened was literally invisible ...
Perception.....
That's what this is about, in my opinion.
And, ultimately ... whether believer or atheist ... whether we live in a world of science or religion ... we will always and forever have conflict if we don't deal with the real root of the problem ... or one of them.
Perception.
Believer vs. Atheist
Ideas vs. Fact
Shannon vs. Gary
Etc....
Do you have a right to be offended? Yes.
Was my comment flip? Yes.
Can I acknowledge that atheists might be offended? I'm pretty honest. I'm going to go for a "yes" on that one.
Can I envision, based on comments made by people on this thread, in life, and in the media, that some (SOME) atheists would ... I'm gonna say it again ... giggle ... or heck ... laugh their butts off over the idea that churches might be investigated for discrimination ... might lose their status ... might close. Yeah. Yeah, I really can. And, the reason? It would go to the things you mentioned ... that were supposedly flaws in my reasoning. Imagine it. The church ... the high and mighty church ... the church that has, throughout history, discriminated against people who were different time and again ... finally ... finally ... being called on that. Finally. Look at the discrimination of women, homosexuals, scientists, artists, etc... through the ages. And, finally, there it would be. A claim of discrimination. A law. Something that could be pointed to and proven. An investigation of the alleged violation. A finding ... of discrimination ... committed by the church. Yeah, frankly, I can see some atheists laughing their butts off over that. I think some atheists would find that to be just. It would also be the beginning of the end for the church. Tax exempt status. In an economic downturn, when fewer and fewer people are making charitable donations, I can see that being a problem. Given that fact, the church would, potentially, be between a rock and a hard place. Lose money and close doors or stay open and risk discrimination or be "forced" to do something without getting to that point as a congregation. (As has been mentioned before, more and more churches are becoming more liberal, becoming reconciling congregations, etc...)
Would some atheists laugh at the idea of people losing their faith, religion, etc...?
I didn't say that. Did I?
But, would they be thrilled about the high and mighty church finally being put in its rightful place? Yeah, I think some would. (Ultimately, though, it wouldn't just be about the high and mighty church falling. It would also be about the parishioners. Unintended victims, perhaps.)
My opinion. Further, I think I have evidence for that opinion.
However, I'm willing to say the comment was flip and controversial rather than insightful. That doesn't lead to understanding, more often than not.
So, ....
I'm also willing and able to say I was wrong. I shouldn't have made that statement.
Making flip statements can be dangerous.
Perceptions can also be dangerous ... especially if people always see as either an eagle or as a mouse.
Gary wrote: "So yes, some may smile, and so may those who support fairness and oppose injustice. "
Interesting ....
I think part of the point I made yesterday might be lost in what you've said today ....
I was totally behind gay marriage. Yup. Then, you made that statement and .... All of a sudden, it became a bit muddled, a bit confusing.
This isn't something I've considered.
And, while I want all people to be treated fairly and in a just manner, as evidenced by the way I've lived my life, I've also always believed in people's right to practice religion ... or not .... Furthering the idea of fairness ....
Given that, it seems I've hit a speed bump. A ... holy crapadoodle ... what does this mean ... moment ....
And, while the answer might be very easy for you to answer, Gary, it might not be easy for me to answer.
Here I am ... being honest and open about it ... admitting to these feelings ... yet admitting to cringing.
I don't know what to make of it.
I've got C-Cose saying it won't go down that way. I've got you saying it might and isn't it right that it does ... equality after all.
I'm in a predicament. One that I've been questioned about, respectfully, and one that, at other times, has been thrown in my face.
But, the kicker is ... I'm willing to admit it.
I have always fully supported the right of anyone to pick any religion or to say ... "Nope. I'm an atheist."
But, Shannon, what if the religion stands for things that are immoral, in your opinion? Right? That's been the question. For all of these months.
I also stand for fairness, equality, and justice. I've stood for and continue to stand for gay rights.
Yet, here I am ....
Based on what you said, Gary, .... If it actually happened as you've mentioned .... I can see people who practice a certain religion, in a certain church, being told they can't practice their faith unless and until they will marry gay couples in their church, which would, ultimately, not be part of their religious beliefs.
What to I make of that?
The rights of ... which ...?
Regarding tax exempt status, without having ever researched the topic, I'd say we should yank it from everyone. Yup. I would. Just to be ornery? No. If we were to truly be fair, as you suggest we be, churches would still fall under that ... given their charitable works. So, it would be a cluster. This is at first blush, of course, without having researched it or given it much thought. My one possible exception, at this particular moment, would be charitable organizations ... religious or secular ... whose profits go almost entirely to their charitable giving. Not paying their leadership, etc... But, again, I've not thought on this issue and can't really say.
What I'll say about the church and the idea you've proposed as a possible reality is .... I think this should be part of the dialog. I think it should be discussed. Acknowledged and discussed. Or, am I wrong? Is this a non-issue, as C said ... a game played at by politicians who ....
Ultimately, I just don't know.
Interesting ....
I think part of the point I made yesterday might be lost in what you've said today ....
I was totally behind gay marriage. Yup. Then, you made that statement and .... All of a sudden, it became a bit muddled, a bit confusing.
This isn't something I've considered.
And, while I want all people to be treated fairly and in a just manner, as evidenced by the way I've lived my life, I've also always believed in people's right to practice religion ... or not .... Furthering the idea of fairness ....
Given that, it seems I've hit a speed bump. A ... holy crapadoodle ... what does this mean ... moment ....
And, while the answer might be very easy for you to answer, Gary, it might not be easy for me to answer.
Here I am ... being honest and open about it ... admitting to these feelings ... yet admitting to cringing.
I don't know what to make of it.
I've got C-Cose saying it won't go down that way. I've got you saying it might and isn't it right that it does ... equality after all.
I'm in a predicament. One that I've been questioned about, respectfully, and one that, at other times, has been thrown in my face.
But, the kicker is ... I'm willing to admit it.
I have always fully supported the right of anyone to pick any religion or to say ... "Nope. I'm an atheist."
But, Shannon, what if the religion stands for things that are immoral, in your opinion? Right? That's been the question. For all of these months.
I also stand for fairness, equality, and justice. I've stood for and continue to stand for gay rights.
Yet, here I am ....
Based on what you said, Gary, .... If it actually happened as you've mentioned .... I can see people who practice a certain religion, in a certain church, being told they can't practice their faith unless and until they will marry gay couples in their church, which would, ultimately, not be part of their religious beliefs.
What to I make of that?
The rights of ... which ...?
Regarding tax exempt status, without having ever researched the topic, I'd say we should yank it from everyone. Yup. I would. Just to be ornery? No. If we were to truly be fair, as you suggest we be, churches would still fall under that ... given their charitable works. So, it would be a cluster. This is at first blush, of course, without having researched it or given it much thought. My one possible exception, at this particular moment, would be charitable organizations ... religious or secular ... whose profits go almost entirely to their charitable giving. Not paying their leadership, etc... But, again, I've not thought on this issue and can't really say.
What I'll say about the church and the idea you've proposed as a possible reality is .... I think this should be part of the dialog. I think it should be discussed. Acknowledged and discussed. Or, am I wrong? Is this a non-issue, as C said ... a game played at by politicians who ....
Ultimately, I just don't know.
Anjali wrote:IT is values, character ,behaviour which characterises a goood family unit along with spiritiual beliefs now some of you may not agree with the spritual beliefs part ..."...what family unit?
Shannon wrote: Finally, I don't, personally, think the use of a word can destroy or uphold values. For me, it's just a word. If that's what we're talking about, a simple word, how could it have the power to destroy values? Or, in all reality, are we talking about more than a word?I do.
A connotation is a commonly understood subjective cultural or emotional association that some word or phrase carries. (wiki)
The word marriage is such a word.
So, in the end of this, I'm requesting that you put your words in context ... because ... I don't want to assume things, be confused and/or take them the wrong way.
OK Shannon I will; The word 'marriage' should be kept for the marriage beteween a mam and woman. Regardless of whether they have children.
If a couple WANT children I think that they should be thinking about marriage at the same time. I understand your concern about a couple that can't have children and that is not an issue here.
I would be interested to understand why a civil partnership and ceremony are not enough for a gay couple. Is it more to do with gay rights than compromise?
footnote: I have no hidden agenda about this, what you see is what you get :)
cHriS wrote: "I would be interested to understand why a civil partnership and ceremony are not enough for a gay couple. Is it more to do with gay rights than compromise?"
I don't know how to answer that. I don't know much about it ... or ... enough about it.
One thought I have would be what I raised? Are there different rights involved? Does one have the same rights through a civil union as through a marriage? By civil union, I don't think I mean being married by a justice of the peace ... in the US. I know certain states put laws in place to allow for the civil unions of gay couples. Are all of the parts and pieces ... the rights ... totally the same as what one would have in a marriage? If so, maybe it would just be a word. (If the rights aren't the same, well, there's the answer ....)
Having said that, I'm trying to put myself in the head of a gay woman, for example. Would I see marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for homosexuals as a problem, even if the rights involved were the same? People would still be treated as different ... maybe as less than. Like, ... you and your relationship aren't worthy enough for marriage ... but you can have a civil union. You know?
Ultimately, I just don't know.
I don't know how to answer that. I don't know much about it ... or ... enough about it.
One thought I have would be what I raised? Are there different rights involved? Does one have the same rights through a civil union as through a marriage? By civil union, I don't think I mean being married by a justice of the peace ... in the US. I know certain states put laws in place to allow for the civil unions of gay couples. Are all of the parts and pieces ... the rights ... totally the same as what one would have in a marriage? If so, maybe it would just be a word. (If the rights aren't the same, well, there's the answer ....)
Having said that, I'm trying to put myself in the head of a gay woman, for example. Would I see marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for homosexuals as a problem, even if the rights involved were the same? People would still be treated as different ... maybe as less than. Like, ... you and your relationship aren't worthy enough for marriage ... but you can have a civil union. You know?
Ultimately, I just don't know.
Regarding the difference between civil unions and marriage ....
I looked this up, but it's only pertinent to the US.
http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_ci...
I looked this up, but it's only pertinent to the US.
http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_ci...
Have been spending time this afternoon/evening on the website I mentioned....
http://atheists.org/
Since I was talking about perceptions, I thought I should act like an eagle and look at things from a different vantage point. In particular, I read many of the "articles" regarding atheism and the information on the different religions, etc... located at the top in the pulldown menu. Is that what it's called?
It was truly fascinating reading ....
If any atheists know of reasons for me not to take this website or this information seriously, please let me know.
I truly think, even if we're believers, that we should familiarize ourselves with different viewpoints. I wasn't just going to preach it. You know ... like, really, Gary, and all of the other atheists ... try to be a mouse and an eagle. I decided to try out different perceptions myself. As I said, I'd read a bit a month ago. But ... I just read a ton.
Some of it was mildly concerning, though. As an aside ... Again, tell me if the site isn't reputable.
http://atheists.org/
Since I was talking about perceptions, I thought I should act like an eagle and look at things from a different vantage point. In particular, I read many of the "articles" regarding atheism and the information on the different religions, etc... located at the top in the pulldown menu. Is that what it's called?
It was truly fascinating reading ....
If any atheists know of reasons for me not to take this website or this information seriously, please let me know.
I truly think, even if we're believers, that we should familiarize ourselves with different viewpoints. I wasn't just going to preach it. You know ... like, really, Gary, and all of the other atheists ... try to be a mouse and an eagle. I decided to try out different perceptions myself. As I said, I'd read a bit a month ago. But ... I just read a ton.
Some of it was mildly concerning, though. As an aside ... Again, tell me if the site isn't reputable.
Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "I would be interested to understand why a civil partnership and ceremony are not enough for a gay couple. Is it more to do with gay rights than compromise?"I don't know how to answer that. I don't know much about it ... or ... enough about it.
One thought I have would be what I raised? Are there different rights involved? Does one have the same rights through a civil union as through a marriage? By civil union, I don't think I mean being married by a justice of the peace ... in the US. I know certain states put laws in place to allow for the civil unions of gay couples. Are all of the parts and pieces ... the rights ... totally the same as what one would have in a marriage? If so, maybe it would just be a word. (If the rights aren't the same, well, there's the answer ....)"
Greetings Shannon :)
As a gay man--recently married--in Canada, I can tell you exactly what the difference (and fear of) different words for the same commitment and ceremony are.
Canada has a long, varied and somewhat infamous history of making "equal but different solutions" to various problems:
1. Public v. Separate School Education--not to be confused with "Private Schools" which are governed under the Public system. In the Public every student learns more or less the same subjects with the hope of graduating--including those that attend tuition-based "Private" schools. Schools in the Separate School stream are ably to "modify" the instruction based (primarily) on religious grounds. As each province has control over their own education system, some have an RC Separate School system, others have included Hindu, Islam, Jewish and other religious faiths. Students from Public v. Separate schools do not necessarily have the same basic education (basic Science) and are unequally prepared for university / college; as a result, many of those in the Separate system seek further education in a "Faith based" university college.
2. The Residential School System--an attempt to "assimilate" First Nations students into the larger white society in Canada. This was perhaps one of the greatest atrocities imposed on the wider First Nations populace encompassing 150 yrs from the 1840's until the last school was closed in 1996. This system was managed by various religious entities and very poorly overseen by the provincial authorities--it was very hands-off. As a result, thousands upon thousands (some say tens) of First Nations children were abused, separated from their families and in some cases killed by those that were "instructing" them. Whole languages (written and spoken) have been lost due to this paragon of "right thinking".
3. The ongoing Sovereignty (ist) movement in Quebec--separation of Quebec from Canada as a distinct country. In this "equal but different" struggle, current leadership wants to maintain some benefits of being in Canada, while separating themselves into a separate legal entity--common currency, access to the Supreme Court of Canada as the ultimate arbiter, cherry-picking protections from various rights and obligations Codes.
So .... back to the fear that gay men and women had in Canada prior to 2006 ...
Calling marriage any other word allows for future restrictions to be placed on the commitment made by the two parties. If it was a "Civil Union", "Civil Partnership" or something else, it leaves the door open for some future government to change the dynamics, restrictions, and obligations without changing "Marriage" in a similar way.
For example ... in some future dystopian world ...
One of the pleasant results of a heterosexual marriage can be, and often is, children. Children exist as a biological product of male and female. If that's the case, then it would be possible to disallow "Civil Unions" from having / raising children because at least one partner doesn't have the necessary equipment. It would be legal as Marriage and Civil Unions are "equal but different" ... [Note: this isn't so future as I thought when writing it, as this argument is touted by any number of same-sex marriage deniers that consider children to be the driving force behind "traditional marriage".]
There could be different rights of inheritance, child custody, property ownership, etc. ... all because the two are "equal but different". One only need look at the recent kerfuffle over the divorce of two lesbians in Canada to see this mentality at work.
So no .... words / labels / legal definitions other than Marriage don't work (for me). In Canada, I now have the same rights, responsibilities, and obligations as any other married person.
Btw -- I have tons to say about tax-exempt status of the Church .... but it's filled with all those nasty references that some people don't like ... lol :)
cHriS wrote: "Here is the UK we are loosing what is known as 'Family values' values that hold a family together and we need to stop this erosion. Preserving marriage and the word 'marriage' is essential to retaining these values."I do live in the UK and I'm afraid you do need citation. First you need to define what "family values" that you believe hold a family together. Then you need to cite proof of the allegation that in order to preserve these values you must stop homosexuals from being able to use a certain noun.
Your own claim actually contains proof that it's wrong. Currently homosexuals cannot get married, and according to you family values are being eroded, so by your argument the keeping of the word marriage from gay couples has utterly failed to stop the erosion you claim is happening, therefore your suggested "fix" is already proved to be ineffective.
cHriS wrote: "‘Some’ Celebrities have 24 hour marriages and ‘some’ others have been married time after time. And the other examples you give, are not reasons to abandon marriage."
Who said anything about abandoning marriage? We are talking about expanding marriage to be inclusive instead of exclusive.
cHriS wrote: "That is not the answer. That is how it is now from your view point. I am sure that the many gay couples who have given their commitment and loyalty to each other with a civil ceremony would not agree with you..."
Citation needed.
First how homosexuals being allowed to marry will effect heterosexual marriages, either positively or negatively? Do you really think that people will stop getting married because now "the gays" can? Do you think that people who would refrain from making a lifelong commitment to their partner should make such a solemn commitment if they'd refuse to do it for such petty reasons?
Oh and citation needed. What gay couples would prefer a civil ceremony over marriage? As a guest at several gay "ceremonies" and knowing those couples, not one wouldn't have preferred to be allowed to call it and officially register it as a marriage. To their family and friends it was a marriage, but a marriage with the shadow cast over it of being forever labelled as 'different' and not a 'proper' marriage in the eyes of those that revile them.
I remember my friends father made a moving speech at his "Ceremony" and I am not ashamed that I was moved by the sadness that under English law he couldn't call this officially his son's marriage or even hope that the union be respected as a marriage, socially or legally, until the two tier system is finally gone.
Son's and daughters of good people are wanting to stop having to ride at the back of the matrimonial bus.
Shannon wrote: "While, if memory serves, various people (mostly atheists) have told believers on several occasions that they shouldn't be offended, I've never told anyone they shouldn't be offended."In context when atheists have said this, it is because they have stated their opinion (belief if you like) that the theist's god is mythological or imaginary, resulting in them taking offence. However, the same theists would quickly say the same about other believers, whether believers in god, gods, spirits or aliens.
If you're going to state your belief in one idea and infer that other ideas are wrong, it is wrong to take offence when people do the same in return.
However, if I took a small feature of a group and then used that as a descriptor to imply motivation to a significant number, then surely that would be fairly offensive. If my first response about Catholics was to say well some are paedophiles, or Muslims was to say that well some are terrorists, what I may be saying may well be true for some small portion, but by stating it first I am deliberately using a negative stereotype.
Shannon wrote: "It seems, to me, that there's a double standard at play. Believers shouldn't get offended. When they do, they're told they shouldn't. Yet, atheists have the right to be offended. I've "seen" atheists get offended here before ... not just you. And, when they do, there is silence. They're not called on the carpet in the same way as believers are.... Why?)"
Again, it is about why people take offence and I can see the reason it seems one sided. Theists tend to feel that statements of faith and belief should be respected and never questioned, and yet that very idea carries within it the bias that non-religious ideas are fair game.
How many times have I heard theists scoff at scientific theorems (based on their poor understanding of them usually)? It is fine for believers to say "ah well, how can you not have a creator for creation, that's silly", or the repeated "if evolution happens why are their still monkeys, it's all dumb", yet if someone says a comment about the "magic man in the sky" people take offence.
So yes there is a double standard, and I think it's culturally imposed. Faith is regarded as a virtue, and religious belief is meant to be respected, though it is fine to disrespect other ideas.
Shannon wrote: "I'm saying you read my line ... about discrimination investigations and tax exempt status and ... for some reason (your perceptions) only saw the tax exempt part. That's what I think. Unless ... you're going to tell me that you intentionally misrepresented my words to paint me in the worst possible light and in order to win an argument."
No. You made a statement that (whether the result would be tax exemption or churches closing) implied malicious glee on the behalf of some atheists. Now whether you meant to do so or not, it distinctly gave me the impression that you were saying that some atheist's primary motivation was to enjoy the misfortunes of others.
Shannon wrote: "I woke up this morning to a message, from you, regarding whether or not I should have included a sentence in my first paragraph or my second paragraph. No one said a word."
Actually if you're going to start with this game, you were the one who said to me that you'd mentioned stuff in a following paragraph, so I was responding to your discussion of grammar.
Shannon wrote: "However, I'm willing to say the comment was flip and controversial rather than insightful. That doesn't lead to understanding, more often than not."
You see, normally I wouldn't even bother saying when people write stuff that I feel is offensive to me, mainly because I do not feel that people have a right not to be offended, especially because as you have indicated offence can be highly subjective.
However, in this particular case I was surprised at you, because you do usually seem to take care not to overly generalise or to say things that could be viewed as mean or hurtful. Then you appeared to just suspend your personal rules when it came to commenting about atheists.
So thank you for the - if somewhat grudging :) - acknowledgement. No I wasn't trying to score points or win an argument. I suppose it is similar to when you have told me that sometimes I seem reasonable and other times extreme. This is a similar case, I sometimes seem to see in your posts a double standard, which makes your comments about double standards all the more stark.
So take from the observation what you will, my point wasn't that you shouldn't have offended me, but that if you believe that you shouldn't try to offend people perhaps you should apply that uniformly?
Gary wrote: "Son's and daughters of good people are wanting to stop having to ride at the back of the matrimonial bus. "Thank you Gary :)
Gary wrote: "So take from the observation what you will, my point wasn't that you shouldn't have offended me, but that if you believe that you shouldn't try to offend people perhaps you should apply that uniformly? "
Okay, Gary. I'm pretty sure I understand what point you were trying to make.
Okay, Gary. I'm pretty sure I understand what point you were trying to make.
Gary wrote: I do live in the UK and I'm afraid you do need citation. First you need to define what "family values" that you believe hold a family together. Then you need to cite proof of the allegation that in order to preserve these values you must stop homosexuals from being able to use a certain noun.Yes, Scotland I think, judging from a previous post, and I won’t ask for a citation on that.
The term "family values" is well used in the UK as you should know, by both Labour and Tories, it may not be the quite same in Canada but I guess the term will travel well.
No, you are wrong, I don’t need citation because I am not suggesting change. But Wiki will give any information you need. Or check the SNP web site.
Your own claim actually contains proof that it's wrong. Currently homosexuals cannot get married, and according to you family values are being eroded, so by your argument the keeping of the word marriage from gay couples has utterly failed to stop the erosion you claim is happening, therefore your suggested "fix" is already proved to be ineffective.
Not at all. I am not really commenting on homosexuals. I am saying that the word marriage should pertain to a male and female making children. Shannon questioned me about a couple not being able to have a child; that is not the issue here. If a male and female are not able for what ever reason to produce a child, then if science can help and the costs can be met by the state, then that should happen.
Who said anything about abandoning marriage? We are talking about expanding marriage to be inclusive instead of exclusive.
With the decline in "family values" marriage is also declining.
Oh and citation needed. What gay couples would prefer a civil ceremony over marriage?
As I have said, not all gay couples want marriage, that is what has been said on radio and tv debates I have listened to, by gay couples. If you think that every gay couple want the option of marriage then explain how you have arrived at that assumption.
remember my friends father made a moving speech at his "Ceremony" and I am not ashamed that I was moved by the sadness that under English law he couldn't call this officially his son's marriage or even hope that the union be respected as a marriage, socially or legally, until the two tier system is finally gone.
Sadness can apply to both sides of the debate.
Son's and daughters of good people are wanting to stop having to ride at the back of the matrimonial bus.
I wonder how an atheist using a scientific analogy would define ‘love’.
Gary wrote: "However, in this particular case I was surprised at you, because you do usually seem to take care not to overly generalise or to say things that could be viewed as mean or hurtful. Then you appeared to just suspend your personal rules when it came to commenting about atheists.
So thank you for the - if somewhat grudging :) - acknowledgement. No I wasn't trying to score points or win an argument. I suppose it is similar to when you have told me that sometimes I seem reasonable and other times extreme. This is a similar case, I sometimes seem to see in your posts a double standard, which makes your comments about double standards all the more stark.
So take from the observation what you will, my point wasn't that you shouldn't have offended me, but that if you believe that you shouldn't try to offend people perhaps you should apply that uniformly? "
You know .... I do want to say one more thing.
You and I know what this is about, Gary. Though, I'm not sure that everyone else does. Yes, despite all of the many, many times I've stood up for atheists on this thread and have been respectful and open to atheists on this thread, I made a flip comment. And, .... It was very important to you to point that out. We know why.
Regarding the "game" I'm playing, you're right. (Interesting that one of the only people who admits to being wrong here is told she grudgingly admits to wrongs.) I got it mixed in my head. You made a statement. I gave my reasoning. You talked of paragraphs. (Interestingly, you're still not admitting to misquoting me.)
I was wrong on that. True.
I don't play games.
I could tell you why I got it mixed up in my head. I could tell you I'm going to a specialist on Monday because doctors found a mass four weeks ago. I could tell you, the same time I got sick, my cousin got sick and they found he had liver cancer. I could tell you I found out, Wednesday night, that he's terminal and they plan to do nothing for him. I could tell you I was in pain Wednesday night/Thursday morning, couldn't sleep, and got up and read this thread and emails and ... to take my mind off it.
But, if I were tell you that, I'd run the risk of a few things .... People wanting to give my sympathy, which I don't really want. People thinking I'm saying that to ... I'm not even going to guess.
It is the truth. And, I say it for this reason.... I'm guessing, at this moment in my life, while I might want to keep my mind off more pressing matters, my energy might be better placed elsewhere. I'm interested in some of the deeper matters in life right now ... not tit for tat.
So thank you for the - if somewhat grudging :) - acknowledgement. No I wasn't trying to score points or win an argument. I suppose it is similar to when you have told me that sometimes I seem reasonable and other times extreme. This is a similar case, I sometimes seem to see in your posts a double standard, which makes your comments about double standards all the more stark.
So take from the observation what you will, my point wasn't that you shouldn't have offended me, but that if you believe that you shouldn't try to offend people perhaps you should apply that uniformly? "
You know .... I do want to say one more thing.
You and I know what this is about, Gary. Though, I'm not sure that everyone else does. Yes, despite all of the many, many times I've stood up for atheists on this thread and have been respectful and open to atheists on this thread, I made a flip comment. And, .... It was very important to you to point that out. We know why.
Regarding the "game" I'm playing, you're right. (Interesting that one of the only people who admits to being wrong here is told she grudgingly admits to wrongs.) I got it mixed in my head. You made a statement. I gave my reasoning. You talked of paragraphs. (Interestingly, you're still not admitting to misquoting me.)
I was wrong on that. True.
I don't play games.
I could tell you why I got it mixed up in my head. I could tell you I'm going to a specialist on Monday because doctors found a mass four weeks ago. I could tell you, the same time I got sick, my cousin got sick and they found he had liver cancer. I could tell you I found out, Wednesday night, that he's terminal and they plan to do nothing for him. I could tell you I was in pain Wednesday night/Thursday morning, couldn't sleep, and got up and read this thread and emails and ... to take my mind off it.
But, if I were tell you that, I'd run the risk of a few things .... People wanting to give my sympathy, which I don't really want. People thinking I'm saying that to ... I'm not even going to guess.
It is the truth. And, I say it for this reason.... I'm guessing, at this moment in my life, while I might want to keep my mind off more pressing matters, my energy might be better placed elsewhere. I'm interested in some of the deeper matters in life right now ... not tit for tat.
Shannon wrote: "But, Shannon, what if the religion stands for things that are immoral, in your opinion? Right? That's been the question. For all of these months."This is the core of my issues with most religions. That indeed they try to impose a moral structure yet is that structure actually moral?
Shannon wrote: "I also stand for fairness, equality, and justice. I've stood for and continue to stand for gay rights."
I agree with all of those ideals, yet one of the reasons I do not follow a religion is that I find those three precepts incompatible with monotheistic religion.
Fairness.
How can you treat people fairly if you believe that some are morally superior due to their adherence to a particular religion? How can you treat someone fairly if your religion teaches you that obedience to a certain set of rules is correct and therefore others are wrong?
Equality
If one god exists and is the ultimate power from which all authority derives, then this says that the universe is fundamentally heirarchal and therefore unequal. In said universe, if some people receive revelation in the 'truth' and others do not receive that revelation or are 'created' in such a way that they cannot accept that revelation then how can people be treated equally?
Justice.
If there is an eternal god and he can grant eternal life, where is the justice? What finite crime can result in infinite punishment, what finite goodness deserves infinite reward?
Shannon wrote: "I can see people who practice a certain religion, in a certain church, being told they can't practice their faith unless and until they will marry gay couples in their church, which would, ultimately, not be part of their religious beliefs."
Being told? By whom?
I do not see any need for a Church to be told who they can or cannot marry. Certainly that is true today. Catholic churches do not have to marry non-Catholics, or even Catholics who have not attended mass enough.
So I do not see why a congregation would be told that they cannot practice their religion as they see fit. However, if they lose membership as people become aware of their prejudice and the Church is (once again) forced to adapt to keep up with developing morality, or risk closing, then I am going to go out on a limb and say that the demise of institutionalised prejudice is a "good thing".
Shannon wrote: "No. If we were to truly be fair, as you suggest we be, churches would still fall under that ... given their charitable works."
To me that would depend on how much charitable work the Church does for the general population, work that does not include preaching to the population or serving the Church's interests, but genuine altruistic aid for those in need.
Shannon wrote: "My one possible exception, at this particular moment, would be charitable organizations ... religious or secular ... whose profits go almost entirely to their charitable giving. Not paying their leadership, etc... But, again, I've not thought on this issue and can't really say."
Agreed, on both points.
Shannon wrote: "What I'll say about the church and the idea you've proposed as a possible reality is .... I think this should be part of the dialog. I think it should be discussed. Acknowledged and discussed. Or, am I wrong?"
Discussion is good. Unfortunately, under the current climate discussion is impossible, mainly because the Churches have so much to lose. The Pope is arguably the richest man on the planet, and other religions are both rich and tax exempt. (Mormons, Evangelicals etc.) Any attempted opening of dialogue will be viewed as an "attack" on religion.
Shannon, I'm so sorry to hear about your cousin, and hope that your appt with the specialist goes ok, and reveals nothing too serious.
Hazel wrote: "Shannon, I'm so sorry to hear about your cousin, and hope that your appt with the specialist goes ok, and reveals nothing too serious."
Thank you. My cousin .... Heck, give us something to fight. You know? What do you do when someone says, "Get on disability, go home, and get your house in order. There's no treatment that will benefit your condition." Nothing to fight there. Me? It read as a fibroid. But, it's very large. So .... We'll see. Supposedly, they're usually noncancerous in the uterus, but .... The kicker! Nothing to do. Don't know why they happen, no risk factors, nothing to do. Are you kidding? Except, drugs, potentially, or a hysterectomy. In this waiting period, I've been praying and trying to use my powers of persuasion to make it shrink. (I know you won't approve of those methods. But, when you have nothing to do and no other way of fighting ...? Well, I, personally, needed something to do and some way of fighting. So, I talk to it and tell it to shrink. ;) )
Thank you. My cousin .... Heck, give us something to fight. You know? What do you do when someone says, "Get on disability, go home, and get your house in order. There's no treatment that will benefit your condition." Nothing to fight there. Me? It read as a fibroid. But, it's very large. So .... We'll see. Supposedly, they're usually noncancerous in the uterus, but .... The kicker! Nothing to do. Don't know why they happen, no risk factors, nothing to do. Are you kidding? Except, drugs, potentially, or a hysterectomy. In this waiting period, I've been praying and trying to use my powers of persuasion to make it shrink. (I know you won't approve of those methods. But, when you have nothing to do and no other way of fighting ...? Well, I, personally, needed something to do and some way of fighting. So, I talk to it and tell it to shrink. ;) )
Gary wrote: "Discussion is good. Unfortunately, under the current climate discussion is impossible, mainly because the Churches have so much to lose. The Pope is arguably the richest man on the planet, and other religions are both rich and tax exempt. (Mormons, Evangelicals etc.) Any attempted opening of dialogue will be viewed as an "attack" on religion."Greetings Gary, Shannon et al :)
Well I guess I've decided to give some input on the whole taxation / charitable status discussion ....
There will be links .... I don't plan on giving a test though ... lol :)
The earliest incidence that I was willing to dig back for was during the time of Wihtred of Kent (late 7th cent. CE)--implied as this is the first recorded entry of tax exempt status given to a Church. The tradition of giving Churches a tax-exemption (monetary or in kind) continued with varying success in the UK from that point. It's interesting to note that one of the Edwards and Henry VIII attempted to change these codes while similarly stripping Churches of their property .... they weren't terribly successful.
The major motivation, as I understand it, behind this tax-exempt status was that the Church relied primarily on the good-will of (post)feudal land owners, their serfs and their own works. In exchange for being taken care of by the larger community, they provided "good works"--they also tended to be the most literate bunch so they were good to have around for all the gentry that signed their names with an "X" :)
Henry VIII's attempt not only to reverse this, but to strip the Church of their all its property, ultimately failed as the Church (both RC and protestant) had gotten too powerful and there were other elements at work like revolts, wars on the continent and other kerfuffles. As a result, tax-exemption for religious institutions has become an ingrained part of modern Western society.
So now we have a long history of giving this privilege to the Church with a variety of ways in which it is applied. The U.S. recognizes 28 types of organizations, Canada has its own regulations, and the UK has yet another set; all include some kind of consideration for recognized Religious institutions.
It's important to notice "recognized" above. I could create a church tomorrow called "The Eternal Dog Star", be ordained as a minister via any number of online sites, and still not get tax-exempt status.
The exemption, again as I understand it, is / was intended to offset the original condition of low resources v. "doing good works"--you scratch my back and all that. That former condition is no longer necessarily the case. As Gary mentioned, the Pope (as head of the RC) is variously considered to be the richest man on the planet. The Mormon Church (LDS) is sitting on a ton of assets in addition to the property owned by their various congregations. To quote, "Although the LDS Church is a tax-exempt organization, its for-profit entities generate "unrelated business income" that is subject to federal, state, and local income and other taxes." Any well-heeled accountant will tell / show you how to roll this "unrelated business income" into the larger income and extend the tax-exemption to include it.
One question for me is .... does the current value of "good works" offset the revenues lost in taxes from these organizations? I would argue certainly not in all circumstances. Specifically to the LDS church ... those missionaries that you may have seen knocking on your door are expected to volunteer 1.5 to 2 yrs of their life with no stipend / income and they are expected to pay their own expenses. On rare occasions they may receive help from the congregation that they serve or their home congregation. The only paid staff, of which I am aware, are the custodians and non-religious staff in the larger buildings.
Another question is .... do I foresee a day when churches will be "forced" to perform same-sex marriages in order to maintain their tax-exempt status? Nope. Many churches already have restrictions in place as to whom they will and will not marry. Also, some of those restrictions are left to the local clergy to enforce or not as they see fit. I have yet to see one of them lose their status.
We also have to remember, as I've already pointed out, that in the UK, U.S., and Canada, marriage is a civil agreement between two persons. It isn't legal unless it is registered and licensed by civil authorities. It turns out that the "little piece of paper" is much more important than some people give it credence.
Fearing that things will change is perfectly understandable. Arguing that things will change based on mis-information is not. It is disingenuous and does a great disservice to the facts as they are. It also back-stops useful and respectful discussion about the topic.
cHriS wrote: "Yes, Scotland I think, judging from a previous post, and I won’t ask for a citation on that."No actually, not Scotland, but that was the point of that post.
cHriS wrote: "The term "family values" is well used in the UK as you should know, by both Labour and Tories, it may not be the quite same in Canada but I guess the term will travel well."
I know, it's used by both parties and in my opinion holds nothing more than political jingoism. It's another circular argument akin to many religious arguments. "Family values" are good, therefore all the bad things in society can be defined as an eroding of "family values" as we have previously established that "family values" are good.
What are "family values"?
If you are talking about "traditional family values" are you talking about where the man runs the family, earns the money, while his woman "respects and obeys" him, bringing up his progeny that he has seen to bestow on her. Then rejoicing in male progeny being able to work to keep you in your old age, while selling off female progeny for their dowries?
I think that their are many woman, professional educated women, who would be horrified at the imposition of measures to return to such a time. When a woman should submit to her husband, and where social problems were covered up and not talked about, just as the bruises on an unruly wife were covered up and not talked about.
cHriS wrote: "No, you are wrong, I don’t need citation because I am not suggesting change. But Wiki will give any information you need. Or check the SNP web site."
You do need citation if you are claiming that a change will be negative. I can certainly cite reasons why a change would be positive, so if you cannot cite any reasons a change would be negative then it would be wrong to oppose such change surely?
cHriS wrote: "Not at all. I am not really commenting on homosexuals. I am saying that the word marriage should pertain to a male and female making children. Shannon questioned me about a couple not being able to have a child; that is not the issue here."
What about a man and woman who love each other but do not want children? (They exist. Some of my closest friends are such.) What about those who have an ideological objection to adding more population to an overpopulated world? What about those who almost certainly cannot have children, should they be denied marriage unless they can prove there is a chance? What about those who were married and have lost their partner without ever having a child. Should they consider their marriage a failure?
What I find a strange cognitive dissonance amongst some Christians is that at one point they will be citing the importance of the difference between us and animals, and the next minute they suggest the only purpose of marriage is biological reproduction.
cHriS wrote: "If a male and female are not able for what ever reason to produce a child, then if science can help and the costs can be met by the state, then that should happen."
What if science can aid a same sex couple to produce children (which actually isn't that difficult) Then should that happen? I can already imagine your response. "It's not natural", neither is intervening in a naturally infertile male female couple.
What is the difference, beyond a personal "it's icky" feeling, between the two couples?
cHriS wrote: "With the decline in "family values" marriage is also declining."
Again an empty jingoistic phrase, unless you define "family values" beyond meaning "the good bit" of marriages.
You also keep trotting the phrase out when we are talking about gay marriage, yet gay people cannot yet get married so how are they responsible for this decline?
cHriS wrote: "that is what has been said on radio and tv debates I have listened to, by gay couples. If you think that every gay couple want the option of marriage then explain how you have arrived at that assumption."
Because they would have the option. Not all heterosexual couples want to get married, but if you are trying to tell me that there are gay couples out their actively fighting for their rights to be taken away then please forgive me my current incredulous expression.
The point is the freedom to choose. No one is forcing heterosexual couples to get married (except sometimes their parents) but they can choose to if they want. Why can we not show the same consideration for gay couples?
remember my friends father made a moving speech at his "Ceremony" and I am not ashamed that I was moved by the sadness that under English law he couldn't call this officially his son's marriage or even hope that the union be respected as a marriage, socially or legally, until the two tier system is finally gone.
cHriS wrote: "Sadness can apply to both sides of the debate."
For example?
Personally if somebody is sad that two people are allowed to get married despite their personal disapproval of their relationship, then I can forbear their sadness with great fortitude. There is a word for people who find it sad when people gain rights that have absolutely no impact on their own life.
cHriS wrote: "I wonder how an atheist using a scientific analogy would define ‘love’."
A lot better than the theist saying love = man + woman making children. If your hypothesis is that love is nothing more than biological reproduction then that is colder and emptier than any scientific explanation which would factor in the principles of community, society and mutual respect.
Shannon wrote: "Well, I, personally, needed something to do and some way of fighting. So, I talk to it and tell it to shrink. ;) ) "Shannon ....
For what it's worth, all of the survivors that I've known had one thing in common in their way of "managing" their conditions. They got angry at it!!!
You keep right on "telling it to shrink"!!!!
Shannon wrote: "Have been spending time this afternoon/evening on the website I mentioned....http://atheists.org/
Since I was talking about perceptions, I thought I should act like an eagle and look at things from a different vantage point. In particular, I read many of the "articles" regarding atheism and the information on the different religions, etc... located at the top in the pulldown menu. Is that what it's called?
It was truly fascinating reading ....
If any atheists know of reasons for me not to take this website or this information seriously, please let me know."
First reason would be to reiterate a point I have raised many times. Unlike a lot of labels 'atheism' is defined by what it's not, not what it is. This sadly is perhaps why atheism is so easily and consistently misrepresented and maligned, and why atheists as a group face much bigger problems in addressing discrimination than a lot of other minorities.
Most minorities have a unifying factor, but the common factor of atheism is individuality. Atheists may agree in principle in the fact that certain things do not exist, but will happily dispute amongst each other what this means and why they think it.
To really mangle a metaphor it's like a stamp collector looking at a site called "Not stamp collecting".
This is one of the reasons I rarely use the label atheist of myself, except as a quick explanation to theists of my general position. It's a non-label for something people aren't not what they are.
Shannon wrote: "Some of it was mildly concerning, though. As an aside ... Again, tell me if the site isn't reputable. "
Well please share your concerns. Some may be entirely legitimate, though commonly I find that some theists find it hard to understand an atheists position on something, particularly when it seems to them to be innocuous. If you don't want to clutter this thread, feel free to start another or PM me.
I will say though, if you did find some ideas concerning, then imagine how atheists would feel about the world of theism if it was collected in one place, from harsh Islamic blasphemy laws, to apocalyptic preachers...
Shannon wrote: "You and I know what this is about, Gary. Though, I'm not sure that everyone else does. Yes, despite all of the many, many times I've stood up for atheists on this thread and have been respectful and open to atheists on this thread, I made a flip comment. And, .... It was very important to you to point that out. We know why."I guess part of it is that you keep having to point out the times you are respectful to "atheists", so the division exists in your mind at least. As I've mentioned on my other reply, atheists are about as varied a people you could get, but by labelling us all together it seems like you collate the 'bad parts' you perceive and are uninterested in any good parts.
I do not label you for the intolerances shown by other theists on this thread, I do not label you with a lack of introspection, rudeness, a lack of education or a lack of open mindedness which are all factors I could attribute to theistic comments made on this thread.
Shannon wrote: "Regarding the "game" I'm playing, you're right. (Interesting that one of the only people who admits to being wrong here is told she grudgingly admits to wrongs.)"
Wrong. Singular not plural. And it was with tongue firmly in cheek, I am sorry if the smiley didn't indicate that clearly.
Shannon wrote: "(Interestingly, you're still not admitting to misquoting me.)"
Actually I didn't know where I did misquote you. I remember paraphrasing, but I thought that was clear in context?
Shannon wrote: "I could tell you why I got it mixed up in my head."
Whatever your reasons and to respect your wishes I will simply say that I understand your point. I could respond with much lamer reasons why occasionally my arguments are poorly presented or sometimes erroneous. However, I never go out to deceive, because that would be pointless to my mind, and if I was playing games and scoring points, well, I'd play a video game.
Shannon wrote: "I'm interested in some of the deeper matters in life right now ... not tit for tat. "
Fair enough, I will endeavour to keep that in mind.
Gary wrote: "Some may be entirely legitimate, though commonly I find that some theists find it hard to understand an atheists position on something, particularly when it seems to them to be innocuous. If you don't want to clutter this thread, feel free to start another or PM me."
It's my opinion, Gary, that you so often paint me with a theist brush, given your experiences with other people and not with me. I wonder if you'll ever try to see this from my perspective. Not religion. But, what I just mentioned.
Some of the articles were written by scientists. People who hold Ph.D's and have very serious jobs. I've actually read a few professional articles written by scientists. Think childhood development. I also wrote a thesis for graduate school. It was drilled into me that I shouldn't show emotion or my personal views; that would detract from the argument.
The biggest concern I had was the tone of several of the articles. The did not read as professional articles. The tone was totally and completely different. I was rather shocked by that. At times, I wondered if the people were serious. Or, was it some joke I didn't understand. Like ... being intentionally ridiculous for the purpose of symbolism. Religious folk and their ideas are ridiculous, so I'm going to argue this, at certain times, in an equally ridiculous way. More specific examples would be ... the scientist who talked about whether or not to bash religions and labeled people as Type A or Type B and discussed their conversion ... further discussion people who follow religions as being of a low IQ ... but, then, there are those who are intelligent ... the point in helping them think and aiding their conversion to atheism would be to purposely use disrespectful language in order to throw water in their faces and wake them up. The tone of his piece didn't match his profession. In my opinion. Further, he (or another) continually used religious words ... like "evil" and "conversion" ... the evils of religion ... I tried to convert the religious. Why would an atheist use such terminology? I found myself sitting back and wondering if it was a joke. Needless to say, I was left thinking about the seriousness of the piece and not the argument ... which is why it was drilled into me to take the bull**** out of my thesis. I might think I was being cute, but .... It detracted from the argument. One of the others dealt with proving the existence of Jesus as a man who lived. The person went on about how they could prove one of the Roman caesars lived based on coins with his likeness. While the writer knew Jesus didn't have control over the mint, it must be said that the particular Roman leader's father was even pictured in some coins. Huh? So, there I was, reading this article that was supposedly educational and would ... what ... and I was wondering whether or not the person was joking or actually thought this was a way to prove Jesus never lived. Oh, I know.... Atheists don't need to prove anything. Therefore, perhaps, he was writing it as a funny, funny joke. It didn't work for me. I wanted information ... not horse manure.
It's my opinion, Gary, that you so often paint me with a theist brush, given your experiences with other people and not with me. I wonder if you'll ever try to see this from my perspective. Not religion. But, what I just mentioned.
Some of the articles were written by scientists. People who hold Ph.D's and have very serious jobs. I've actually read a few professional articles written by scientists. Think childhood development. I also wrote a thesis for graduate school. It was drilled into me that I shouldn't show emotion or my personal views; that would detract from the argument.
The biggest concern I had was the tone of several of the articles. The did not read as professional articles. The tone was totally and completely different. I was rather shocked by that. At times, I wondered if the people were serious. Or, was it some joke I didn't understand. Like ... being intentionally ridiculous for the purpose of symbolism. Religious folk and their ideas are ridiculous, so I'm going to argue this, at certain times, in an equally ridiculous way. More specific examples would be ... the scientist who talked about whether or not to bash religions and labeled people as Type A or Type B and discussed their conversion ... further discussion people who follow religions as being of a low IQ ... but, then, there are those who are intelligent ... the point in helping them think and aiding their conversion to atheism would be to purposely use disrespectful language in order to throw water in their faces and wake them up. The tone of his piece didn't match his profession. In my opinion. Further, he (or another) continually used religious words ... like "evil" and "conversion" ... the evils of religion ... I tried to convert the religious. Why would an atheist use such terminology? I found myself sitting back and wondering if it was a joke. Needless to say, I was left thinking about the seriousness of the piece and not the argument ... which is why it was drilled into me to take the bull**** out of my thesis. I might think I was being cute, but .... It detracted from the argument. One of the others dealt with proving the existence of Jesus as a man who lived. The person went on about how they could prove one of the Roman caesars lived based on coins with his likeness. While the writer knew Jesus didn't have control over the mint, it must be said that the particular Roman leader's father was even pictured in some coins. Huh? So, there I was, reading this article that was supposedly educational and would ... what ... and I was wondering whether or not the person was joking or actually thought this was a way to prove Jesus never lived. Oh, I know.... Atheists don't need to prove anything. Therefore, perhaps, he was writing it as a funny, funny joke. It didn't work for me. I wanted information ... not horse manure.
Gary wrote: No actually, not Scotland, but that was the point of that post.Ok, you have crossed the border, but we are still in the UK.
If you are talking about "traditional family values" are you talking about where the man runs the family, earns the money, while his woman "respects and obeys" him, bringing up his progeny that he has seen to bestow on her. Then rejoicing in male progeny being able to work to keep you in your old age, while selling off female progeny for their dowries?
No, I am talking about ‘family values’, you added the ‘traditional’ bit.
I think that their are many woman, professional educated women, who would be horrified at the imposition of measures to return to such a time. When a woman should submit to her husband, and where social problems were covered up and not talked about, just as the bruises on an unruly wife were covered up and not talked about.
I know they would, but I don’t see that happening.
You do need citation if you are claiming that a change will be negative. I can certainly cite reasons why a change would be positive, so if you cannot cite any reasons a change would be negative then it would be wrong to oppose such change surely?.
But I am not claiming anything. I am saying things should stay the same.
What about a man and woman who love each other but do not want children? (They exist. Some of my closest friends are such.) What about those who have an ideological objection to adding more population to an overpopulated world? What about those who almost certainly cannot have children, should they be denied marriage unless they can prove there is a chance? What about those who were married and have lost their partner without ever having a child. Should they consider their marriage a failure?
You are asking me all these questions as though I am about to change the law tomorrow. Nothing should change, therefore the examples are not relevant.
What I find a strange cognitive dissonance amongst some Christians is that at one point they will be citing the importance of the difference between us and animals, and the next minute they suggest the only purpose of marriage is biological reproduction.
I agree.
What if science can aid a same sex couple to produce children (which actually isn't that difficult) Then should that happen? I can already imagine your response. "It's not natural", neither is intervening in a naturally infertile male female couple.
Then you view is the same as what you are assuming mine would be, so are we both right or both wrong?
What is the difference, beyond a personal "it's icky" feeling, between the two couples?
Define icky?
You also keep trotting the phrase out when we are talking about gay marriage, yet gay people cannot yet get married so how are they responsible for this decline?
‘trotting the phrase’. More like suggesting. I have never said that they are.
….if you are trying to tell me that there are gay couples out their actively fighting for their rights to be taken away
If you mean marriage and the UK, how can gay couples fight for something ‘not’ to be taken away when they do not have that choice.
The point is the freedom to choose. No one is forcing heterosexual couples to get married (except sometimes their parents) but they can choose to if they want. Why can we not show the same consideration for gay couples?
That is the reason for this debate, some do what to give that choice, others want things to remain unchanged.
Personally if somebody is sad that two people are allowed to get married despite their personal disapproval of their relationship, then I can forbear their sadness with great fortitude. There is a word for people who find it sad when people gain rights that have absolutely no impact on their own life.
Debates are won and lost. I guess if we were here in twenty years, you may have won this one. But it is not quite so easy to resolve as some other issues in recent years.
A lot better than the theist saying love = man + woman making children. If your hypothesis is that love is nothing more than biological reproduction then that is colder and emptier than any scientific explanation which would factor in the principles of community, society and mutual respect.
I though so, you are finding it hard to answer the question.
.."
To connect the dots, just in case ....
My concerns surrounded whether or not this was a reputable site. That's why I asked. Given the tone and some of the things that were said ... though mostly the tone ... I wondered if it was reputable. And, if so, I suppose, if this is what many atheists stood for. Given the tone, it made me wonder.
My concerns surrounded whether or not this was a reputable site. That's why I asked. Given the tone and some of the things that were said ... though mostly the tone ... I wondered if it was reputable. And, if so, I suppose, if this is what many atheists stood for. Given the tone, it made me wonder.
Shannon wrote: Are there different rights involved? Does one have the same rights through a civil union as through a marriage?"In the Uk yes, that is why the civil partnership was introduced.
But then it caused issues between what we call common law husband and wife, as they did not have the same rights as gay couples.
Shannon wrote: "It's my opinion, Gary, that you so often paint me with a theist brush, given your experiences with other people and not with me. I wonder if you'll ever try to see this from my perspective. Not religion. But, what I just mentioned."Actually there are times when I will address generic theistic positions, but as for painting you with that brush, I would have to say that it would be influenced by the times you have stated that you choose to believe.
Shannon wrote: "The biggest concern I had was the tone of several of the articles. The did not read as professional articles."
Well if you would like to link me to the articles you described?
Shannon wrote: "More specific examples would be ... the scientist who talked about whether or not to bash religions and labelled people as Type A or Type B and discussed their conversion ..."
You disturbed by the desire to 'covert' people, the labelling or the 'bashing' of religion?
Shannon wrote: "further discussion people who follow religions as being of a low IQ ... but, then, there are those who are intelligent ..."
AFAIK there are statistical links to increasing IQ and decreasing faith. Personally I think this comes from the quality of being willing to question assumptions.
Shannon wrote: "the point in helping them think and aiding their conversion to atheism would be to purposely use disrespectful language in order to throw water in their faces and wake them up."
Not something I necessarily agree with, yet there often does seem to be too much timidity amongst atheists and freethinkers, compared to mainstream religions which use such language so uniformly that people don't even seem to notice that it is disrespectful.
Consider a street preacher yelling at people in the streets that they are sinful. Compare it to the response if an atheist stood in the streets and called religious people stupid.
Shannon wrote: "Further, he (or another) continually used religious words ... like "evil" and "conversion" ... the evils of religion ... I tried to convert the religious. Why would an atheist use such terminology?"
"Evil" is not a unique concept to religion. I personally am happy to use it (sometimes in an ironic sense :-D) but also it has its place as a convenient label for acts or attitudes that are malicious, vicious or selfish.
The difference between theistic and atheistic evil would be that the primary assumes an absolute for the evil to be measured against. The latter tends to recognise that concepts of evil may change and indeed are relative. Sometimes what is 'evil' to one group may be good to another.
As for 'conversion' well I have also heard the term "atheistic evangelism". Personally I would use terms like 'awakening' or 'epiphany' but some people may find the intrinsic assumptions somewhat arrogant?
Shannon wrote: "While the writer knew Jesus didn't have control over the mint, it must be said that the particular Roman leader's father was even pictured in some coins."
Sorry I didn't follow, could you link or expound please?
Shannon wrote: "Oh, I know.... Atheists don't need to prove anything."
That's a bit of a misrepresentation, or a joke perhaps?
The point isn't that atheists don't need to prove anything, the point is that if you make a claim then the burden of proof is on the claimant. The oft cited counter to this of "well you claim god does not exist", that counter claim cannot exist without the original claim that "god exists" so the burden remains unmoved.
Shannon wrote: "Therefore, perhaps, he was writing it as a funny, funny joke. It didn't work for me. I wanted information ... not horse manure. "
Another joke? Complaining about an article using inappropriate tone and emotive content by using inappropriate tone and emotive content?
As I say, I will happily take a look if you provide links. Without that it is hard to comment on your criticism of an article I have never read.
cHriS wrote: "No, I am talking about ‘family values’, you added the ‘traditional’ bit."Which is why I asked you to please provide your definition.
cHriS wrote: "But I am not claiming anything. I am saying things should stay the same. "
Saying things should stay the same is a claim as the assumption that this would be a good idea is intrinsic in the word "should".
cHriS wrote: "You are asking me all these questions as though I am about to change the law tomorrow. Nothing should change, therefore the examples are not relevant."
Nothing should change, why? People feel unfairly treated and discriminated against and your entire argument so far is that "things shouldn't change". With that attitude we should still be walking the savannah hunting with sticks.
Gary wrote: "What I find a strange cognitive dissonance amongst some Christians is that at one point they will be citing the importance of the difference between us and animals, and the next minute they suggest the only purpose of marriage is biological reproduction."
cHriS wrote: "I agree."
You agree that it is a strange cognitive dissonance?
cHriS wrote: "Then you view is the same as what you are assuming mine would be, so are we both right or both wrong?"
That didn't make any sense in response to the point. You are drawing a distinction between a male and female couple based on their ability to have children and then trying to apply that even if the ability to have children is not universal to male or female or indeed exclusive to them.
cHriS wrote: "Define icky?"
A subjective feeling of revulsion and disgust. Similar in the way that an Englishman may eat sea invertebrates (prawns) yet be disgusted by the eating of land invertebrates (snails/insects).
cHriS wrote: "More like suggesting. I have never said that they are."
Ok but your entire objection to gay marriage seems to be the idea that the word marriage needs to be protected from gay people and that marriage is in decline. If you are saying that gay people getting married is not effecting the decline of marriage then why do you keep mentioning the decline of marriage in this context?
cHriS wrote: "If you mean marriage and the UK, how can gay couples fight for something ‘not’ to be taken away when they do not have that choice."
Because most people feel that in a just society that they should be treated fairly, and current law takes away that intrinsic right to be treated fairly.
cHriS wrote: "That is the reason for this debate, some do what to give that choice, others want things to remain unchanged."
Yes some people want to give that choice and there are good reasons. Your reason for wanting things not to change so far has been that you don't want change. That isn't much of a reason.
cHriS wrote: "Debates are won and lost. I guess if we were here in twenty years, you may have won this one. But it is not quite so easy to resolve as some other issues in recent years."
Why?
cHriS wrote: "I though so, you are finding it hard to answer the question."
No. If you read the rhetorical point I made it contains the basis of the answer. Scientifically speaking love is an evolved capability based on neurochemical and social traits that encourage within people traits of loyalty, compassion, mutual respect and altruism. There are many facets to the simplistic label of love from sexual/romantic love to the love for family to the love of ideals, however they all seem to utilise similar biological mechanisms which is why in some individuals various aspects can get confused and manifest in strange ways.
I'd add more but to be honest I think I could write a book on the answer to that question, and there would be still parts we do not understand. Yet that is the richness and wonder of life.
It is certainly not just "the desire to make children".
Shannon wrote: "To connect the dots, just in case ....My concerns surrounded whether or not this was a reputable site. That's why I asked. Given the tone and some of the things that were said ... though mostly..."
To be honest, I don't know. I don't use it much myself though I have come across it in the past.
cHriS wrote: "But then it caused issues between what we call common law husband and wife, as they did not have the same rights as gay couples. "That's apparently because there is no such legal entity as a "common law" husband and wife. I know this mainly because of a solicitor friend of mine that goes into a rage when people refer to it as if it was a real thing. True story. :)
(Probert, R., Common Law Marriage: Myths and Misunderstandings, Child & Family Law Quarterly vol.20 issue 1 p.1)
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Oh, I know.... Atheists don't need to prove anything." That's a bit of a misrepresentation, or a joke perhaps? "
No. It's not a misrepresentation, Gary, or a joke. Seriously .... It would be simply lovely if you cut me the smallest bit of a break. Like, "Gee, Shannon, I don't know what you mean by that. Could you
clarify?" I've been trying to do that with people.
That statement was based on all of the things I read on the site .... It's a conspiracy of theists ... to make you, atheists, think you need to prove or disprove anything. You don't. It's the responsibility of theists to prove their points. You have nothing to prove. Don't fall into their trap.
I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of what was said ... over and over again.
Taken in context, I was talking about an article on the atheist website regarding whether or not Jesus actually lived. By prove anything, I meant regarding Jesus and religion. Not anything under the sun. If that's where you were going. It was regarding the topic at hand. The author even talked about the irony ... that atheists didn't have to prove anything yet ... I'll try to disprove that Jesus lived ... or that Nazareth was a place at the time ... or ....
I suppose I should have said ...
Oh, I know .... Atheists don't have to prove anything about religion or disprove anything about religion.
There.
That's what I meant.
No. It's not a misrepresentation, Gary, or a joke. Seriously .... It would be simply lovely if you cut me the smallest bit of a break. Like, "Gee, Shannon, I don't know what you mean by that. Could you
clarify?" I've been trying to do that with people.
That statement was based on all of the things I read on the site .... It's a conspiracy of theists ... to make you, atheists, think you need to prove or disprove anything. You don't. It's the responsibility of theists to prove their points. You have nothing to prove. Don't fall into their trap.
I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of what was said ... over and over again.
Taken in context, I was talking about an article on the atheist website regarding whether or not Jesus actually lived. By prove anything, I meant regarding Jesus and religion. Not anything under the sun. If that's where you were going. It was regarding the topic at hand. The author even talked about the irony ... that atheists didn't have to prove anything yet ... I'll try to disprove that Jesus lived ... or that Nazareth was a place at the time ... or ....
I suppose I should have said ...
Oh, I know .... Atheists don't have to prove anything about religion or disprove anything about religion.
There.
That's what I meant.
Gary wrote: because there is no such legal entity as a "common law" husband and wife. "Thats right, but many couples that are living together as common law man and wife still assume that they are protected by law.
cHriS wrote: "Thats right, but many couples that are living together as common law man and wife still assume that they are protected by law."And they'd be wrong. Yet that was your point was it not, that decline in marriage should be addressed? Fortunately there is an easy answer for heterosexual couples who want their relationship legally recognised, they choose to get married.
So the easy answer in general is to just have married or unmarried, heterosexual or gay. It makes things simple legally and therefore less likely to result in unfairness or loopholes.
Gary wrote: Saying things should stay the same is a claim as the assumption that this would be a good idea is intrinsic in the word "should". But there is no assumption that it would be a good idea. Ought rather than should, may be better.
With that attitude we should still be walking the savannah hunting with sticks.
Well the sticks may have changed but the hunting hasn’t.
You agree that it is a strange cognitive dissonance?
amongst some
That didn't make any sense in response to the point. You are drawing a distinction between a male and female couple based on their ability to have children and then trying to apply that even if the ability to have children is not universal to male or female or indeed exclusive to them.
It did make sense in response to this…..
“neither is intervening in a naturally infertile male female couple“.
A subjective feeling of revulsion and disgust. Similar in the way that an Englishman may eat sea invertebrates (prawns) yet be disgusted by the eating of land invertebrates (snails/insects).
What is wrong with liking prawns and not liking snails?
Ok but your entire objection to gay marriage seems to be the idea that the word marriage needs to be protected from gay people and that marriage is in decline.
No, you are putting words in my mouth, maybe even trying to suggest by subliminal messages that I am against gay people.
It is dilemma, trying to find a solution that satisfies both parties.
Your reason for wanting things not to change so far has been that you don't want change. That isn't much of a reason.
No, that’s again not correct. The reason for wanting things not to change is because I want the word ’marriage’ to be mean, ‘between a male and a female‘.
Yet that is the richness and wonder of life.
Is ‘wonder’ a scientific term as in idiom, whose meaning is not predictable from the usual meanings of its constituent elements?
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Therefore, perhaps, he was writing it as a funny, funny joke. It didn't work for me. I wanted information ... not horse manure. "
Another joke? Complaining about an article using inappropriate tone and emotive content by using inappropriate tone and emotive content?
As I say, I will happily take a look if you provide links. Without that it is hard to comment on your criticism of an article I have never read."
The difference being .... I'm not a scientist with a PhD writing an article that is supposed to be professional. Or, was it supposed to be professional? I was looking at it ... going into it with the idea that ... it would be an informational text. Some of the articles, parts of them, and the tone of some of the authors didn't read as such.
(Yeah.... I hadn't finished reading your post when I posted my reply. I just finished .... Hence, this post.)
Again, I'm just a person sharing my personal views, opinions and questions on a thread on GR. I think there's a difference between that and writing for an organization.
Further, Gary, I asked if it was a reputable site. I had some concerns. You asked why I was concerned, mentioning all of the concerns you thought a theist might have and stating that I should think about how concerned atheists might be reading religious information.
When .... I was asking if it was a reputable site ....
At that point, I shared my concerns, which dealt with the tone of the pieces. It seemed so odd. Not professional. It seemed like some of the things were written in a joking manner. However, I don't know. At that point, I wondered if the people who were writing actually believed some of the things they were writing ... or believed them to the extent they were written. Example, the bit about Jesus not being on a coin, which could make sense, but .... Not only do we have coins for whatever Roman leader, we even have coins picturing said leader's father .... Okay. Was that a joke? A poke at Christianity? Fine. Though, I started questioning the reputability of this organization. Are the on the level or not? Or .... Did this person actually think that was an appropriate way of proving Jesus and God didn't exist? I'm guessing it was a joke. But, .... If the person really thought it was a valid argument, I question the person's judgement. At which point, someone would likely tell me that was the point. Ridiculous argument for ridiculous argument ... in their eyes. But, I just don't know. So, I asked. For all I know, the American Atheist group might be some ... I don't know ... fringe group, not widely accepted or respected by atheists. Therefore, I asked. (Just like, as an American, I didn't know the Daily Mail was a questionable paper. I'm asking a question.)
Regarding links, I gave you and everyone the site. You can look. No, I'm not going to give you links to every article I read. I read almost all of them. So, feel free to access the entire site. But, I will tell you one of the articles I noted was called something like ... Whether or not to Bash ... or To Bash or Not. I can't remember which pull down menu it was under. I think it was under atheism. The other was about Jesus, though there were several. I think it was titled something along the lines of Proving Jesus Lived or something like that. Ultimately, though, if you don't want to look, don't. It's really that simple. I asked a question. Answer or not.
And, ... it's not up to just you to answer or not. Maybe another atheist who takes part would care to. Is this what you stand for ... what is written on this site? Maybe someone who knows this organization would care to comment. Or, the atheists who take part here can remain silent. Their choice.
Again, I'm going to say .... It's all about perception.
We can have sides and stick with our side.
Okay.
We can see from our perspective and only our perspective.
Okay.
Or, we could do something else.
We could say there aren't sides. We could say we want to learn and explore and grow as a group.
Interestingly, I, as a believer, have asked for that and have tried for that, though I'm not always successful. A man, a scientist, I believe, suggested we move toward that several months back. I think C has talked about that with relation to the way the question of this thread was posed. To date, I don't believe I've seen anyone else advocate for this. In fact, some have argued against it.
I'm still willing. But, if no one else is willing, I guess, in my mind, there's really not much point.
Another joke? Complaining about an article using inappropriate tone and emotive content by using inappropriate tone and emotive content?
As I say, I will happily take a look if you provide links. Without that it is hard to comment on your criticism of an article I have never read."
The difference being .... I'm not a scientist with a PhD writing an article that is supposed to be professional. Or, was it supposed to be professional? I was looking at it ... going into it with the idea that ... it would be an informational text. Some of the articles, parts of them, and the tone of some of the authors didn't read as such.
(Yeah.... I hadn't finished reading your post when I posted my reply. I just finished .... Hence, this post.)
Again, I'm just a person sharing my personal views, opinions and questions on a thread on GR. I think there's a difference between that and writing for an organization.
Further, Gary, I asked if it was a reputable site. I had some concerns. You asked why I was concerned, mentioning all of the concerns you thought a theist might have and stating that I should think about how concerned atheists might be reading religious information.
When .... I was asking if it was a reputable site ....
At that point, I shared my concerns, which dealt with the tone of the pieces. It seemed so odd. Not professional. It seemed like some of the things were written in a joking manner. However, I don't know. At that point, I wondered if the people who were writing actually believed some of the things they were writing ... or believed them to the extent they were written. Example, the bit about Jesus not being on a coin, which could make sense, but .... Not only do we have coins for whatever Roman leader, we even have coins picturing said leader's father .... Okay. Was that a joke? A poke at Christianity? Fine. Though, I started questioning the reputability of this organization. Are the on the level or not? Or .... Did this person actually think that was an appropriate way of proving Jesus and God didn't exist? I'm guessing it was a joke. But, .... If the person really thought it was a valid argument, I question the person's judgement. At which point, someone would likely tell me that was the point. Ridiculous argument for ridiculous argument ... in their eyes. But, I just don't know. So, I asked. For all I know, the American Atheist group might be some ... I don't know ... fringe group, not widely accepted or respected by atheists. Therefore, I asked. (Just like, as an American, I didn't know the Daily Mail was a questionable paper. I'm asking a question.)
Regarding links, I gave you and everyone the site. You can look. No, I'm not going to give you links to every article I read. I read almost all of them. So, feel free to access the entire site. But, I will tell you one of the articles I noted was called something like ... Whether or not to Bash ... or To Bash or Not. I can't remember which pull down menu it was under. I think it was under atheism. The other was about Jesus, though there were several. I think it was titled something along the lines of Proving Jesus Lived or something like that. Ultimately, though, if you don't want to look, don't. It's really that simple. I asked a question. Answer or not.
And, ... it's not up to just you to answer or not. Maybe another atheist who takes part would care to. Is this what you stand for ... what is written on this site? Maybe someone who knows this organization would care to comment. Or, the atheists who take part here can remain silent. Their choice.
Again, I'm going to say .... It's all about perception.
We can have sides and stick with our side.
Okay.
We can see from our perspective and only our perspective.
Okay.
Or, we could do something else.
We could say there aren't sides. We could say we want to learn and explore and grow as a group.
Interestingly, I, as a believer, have asked for that and have tried for that, though I'm not always successful. A man, a scientist, I believe, suggested we move toward that several months back. I think C has talked about that with relation to the way the question of this thread was posed. To date, I don't believe I've seen anyone else advocate for this. In fact, some have argued against it.
I'm still willing. But, if no one else is willing, I guess, in my mind, there's really not much point.
Gary wrote: "Without that it is hard to comment on your criticism of an article I have never read."
Finally, I think ....
This isn't really about my criticism of the article. I found this site and asked about reputability. I had some concerns and wondered if it was a reputable site. That simple.
A "yes" or "no" or "partially" would have been ... helpful.
It became complicated when you wondered if my concerns were like most theists, asked me to give you my concerns, and began critiquing my "critique" ... concerns.
Questioning is fine. But, sometimes, when it goes down as it did today, the original point is lost. Your commentary of my criticism really isn't required. Though, you have a right to do it, if it's important to you to do so.
The real question and real point ....
If one wants to look at things from a different perspective, would this site be an appropriate site to read?
That is the question.
If you or another atheist or atheists would like to say if this group is on the up and up and represents atheist views, I'd appreciate it. I read the page and wonder. Is what I read truly the atheist viewpoint?
Finally, I think ....
This isn't really about my criticism of the article. I found this site and asked about reputability. I had some concerns and wondered if it was a reputable site. That simple.
A "yes" or "no" or "partially" would have been ... helpful.
It became complicated when you wondered if my concerns were like most theists, asked me to give you my concerns, and began critiquing my "critique" ... concerns.
Questioning is fine. But, sometimes, when it goes down as it did today, the original point is lost. Your commentary of my criticism really isn't required. Though, you have a right to do it, if it's important to you to do so.
The real question and real point ....
If one wants to look at things from a different perspective, would this site be an appropriate site to read?
That is the question.
If you or another atheist or atheists would like to say if this group is on the up and up and represents atheist views, I'd appreciate it. I read the page and wonder. Is what I read truly the atheist viewpoint?
I was wrong, again.... Finally didn't last long and the article I referenced that was written by the scientist wasn't the article about bashing religions. Though, there is one on whether or not to bash religions.
The article I referenced specifically, written by the scientist, was ...
http://atheists.org/content/why-relig...
Again, though .... What I'm looking for is whether or not this site provides an accurate view of atheist opinions/standpoints .... Is it a reputable organization/site or is it not?
The article I referenced specifically, written by the scientist, was ...
http://atheists.org/content/why-relig...
Again, though .... What I'm looking for is whether or not this site provides an accurate view of atheist opinions/standpoints .... Is it a reputable organization/site or is it not?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Thanks