Hi again, everyone. In recent weeks the anti-gay rhetoric on this site has taken a particularly nasty turn, and it light of it I thought I would take a few minutes to discuss the ethical and moral implications of the violent attitudes which seem all too common among the anti-gay folks among the religious right.
Anti-gay violence is certainly no stranger to those of us who live in the sometimes nebulous "gay community.
FBI Hate Crime Statistics
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/hate.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/victims.htm
Even here in the relatively friendly confines of ProU, it is not all that uncommon to encounter those who if given the chance, would happily perpetuate violent acts against any gay person they could lay their hands on...if they were given the chance. For example...
"I can still remember when homosexuals were gleefully hung, and now they are permitted to promelgate in the streets. Once, women wearing men's clothing was a disgrace, and now trannyism is rampant. Social conscience has morphed and deteriorated, but God's word has remained unchanged." ~ ljmitchell
The last few weeks there has been a particularly nasty spate of reports about anti-gay violence around the globe, and I took a few minutes to grab just a few of these stories, both at home and abroad.
Catholic leader charged in attack on pro-gay activist
Police have filed an assault charge against the executive director of Boston-based Catholic Citizenship in the attack on a woman protesting the group's antigay rally Saturday outside City Hall in Worcester, Mass....She held a sign saying "No discrimination in the constitution." When Cirignano saw Loy, she said, he stepped down from the podium and lunged at her, tackling her to the ground.
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid40601.asp
Woman Charged With Beating Gay Marriage Supporter
A woman who was part of a conservative Christian group rallying Thursday at the Massachusetts Statehouse for a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is charged with assaulting a gay marriage supporter who was attending a rally across the street opposing the amendment....Diane Steele, 52, was arraigned Friday on charges of assault and battery.
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/06/061507massarrest.htm
Now, to keep this in perspective, the attacks above were relatively minor compared to what we see elsewhere in the world, but the attitudes of these people are the same, and we are fortunate in the United States that the Rule of Law helps to keep these violent fanatics in line.
Anti-Gay Panic Sweeps Poland
Catholic nationalists attack in the streets, the press, universities, and parliament.
A lesbian and gay culture festival was held in May in Cracow, Pope John Paul II's hometown, despite virulent opposition from local and national politicians, much of the press, and the powerful Catholic Church....The march "was blocked at the bottom of the Wawel castle by a few dozen thugs who then proceeded to 'chase the homos' all the way into the old town's central plaza. No doubt considering that it was bad for business, the police then stepped in to prevent further violence," Le Monde concluded....The Campaign Against Homophobia, Poland's largest gay civil rights group, which organized the march, identified the attackers as members of All-Polish Youth, the militant arm of the League of Polish Families, the main far-right party. The Campaign said that the attackers numbered "about two hundred" and that they pelted marchers with firecrackers, eggs, bottles, rocks, and even acid.
http://www.thegully.com/essays/gaymundo/040827_gay_lesbian_poland.html
Crowd Stones Romanian Gay Rights Marchers
Police in the capital of Romania have come to the aid of people marching in one of a number of gay rights parades this weekend....Officers using tear gas moved in when people started throwing stones at about 400 marchers Saturday.
http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/13475491/detail.html
Gay activists beaten and arrested in Russia
Riot police used violence to break up a gay rights demonstration in Moscow yesterday and arrested several European parliamentarians in what critics say is the latest violation of human rights in Russia....A group of gay rights activists came under attack from neo-Nazi thugs when they tried to present a petition asking Moscow's mayor, Yuri Luzhkov, to lift a ban on a Gay Pride parade. He has previously dubbed gay rallies "satanic". Witnesses said riot police watched as far-right skinheads chanting "death to homosexuals" beat up several activists....The police failed to arrest the skinheads but detained several of the Europeans - including the German MP Volker Beck, a member of the Green party, and the radical Italian MEP Marco Capatto. Riot police threw Mr Capatto into a police van. "Why don't you protect us?" he shouted....Religious orthodox protesters and skinheads hurled eggs and stones - injuring Mr Tatchell in the eye.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2089687,00.html
Jerusalem Anti-Gay Demonstration Turns Violent
Seven police officers were injured when members of an ultra-Orthodox sect staging a rally Sunday night to protest this week's gay pride parade in Jerusalem began throwing rocks and stones at them....An estimated 15,000 police were assigned to the haredi protest to ensure public safety....Haredi rabbis reportedly whipped the crowd into a frenzy, calling gays evil and warning that the gay march would bring disaster on the holy city....Last year's pride march was cancelled following a week of rioting in Jerusalem by the haredi....Thousands of sect members took to the streets for a week, setting fire to garbage cans and injuring more than a dozen people....But the march preceding year was marred by violence. More than a than a dozen protestors were arrested and three people were stabbed....Almost 1,000 protestors lined the parade route. Bottles of urine and bags containing feces were hurled at marchers....Shortly after the parade began Shai Schlissel, a haredi member, rushed into the marchers on Ben Yehuda Street stabbing a man and a woman...Others in the parade attempted to subdue him. The third victim was a marcher who went to the aid of the other two victims.
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/06/061807jerusalem.htm
Now, what do all of these situations have in common? In all of these cases, the radically religious right has resorted to violence while simultaneously proporting the "morality" of their cause. Well, I don't buy it and I think that fewer and fewer people (including the mainstream of the heterosexual and religious majorities) are buy it either.
The only way to effectively confront this sort of violence is to do just that...<i>confront</i> it. I am not advocating violence in return for violence (temping though it may be), but instead hold (or try, at least) to the principles behind this famous quote...
"The Fragrance of nonviolence to him was never sweeter than it was today amidst the stink of violence of the most cowardly type that was being displayed in the cities of India." ~ M. K. Gandhi
Thanks for reading,
percivale
...that violence against any portion of society is indefensible. Slightly out context as it were, my quote refered to the blue laws that were common even in these United States. Let's not forget that morality was at one point legislated heavily, right or wrong. Luckily, progress has marched on, and the decision is one's own...unfortunately some extremes to the left have swung into reforms that are less-than-productive.
The password is "peanut".
I am sorry, ljmitchell, but I'm going to have to call you on this lie. When you originally made this statement...
"I can still remember when homosexuals were gleefully hung, and now they are permitted to promelgate in the streets. Once, women wearing men's clothing was a disgrace, and now trannyism is rampant. Social conscience has morphed and deteriorated, but God's word has remained unchanged." ~ ljmitchell
...you were defending a desire to return to the "moral"--excuse me, I just threw up in my mouth, just a little--standards of the bible, and not trying to defend the progress of our society away from those standards as we fortunately have. The original blog was this one...
http://www.progressiveu.org/190000-a-woman-s-place-is-in-reverent-submis...
...and in it you also stated that you would kill disobedient children if you could. Frankly, this is the most blatant example of your dishonesty that I have encountered to date. If the statement above was written as you suggest, then it would not have been censored by the moderators (as it was). The discussion certainly had nothing to do with "blue laws." *rolls eyes*
You made the statement above as a threat, directed specifically at me and those like me, and your dishonesty in this only furthers the case against your utter lack of character, and demonstrates the base nature of those who, like you, would love the chance to murder anyone who doesn't knuckle under to your religous fanatacism.
percivale
P.S. And no, I'm not going to let you live this down until you actually grow up enough to honestly apologize for what you said.
-------------------------
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" but "That's funny..." ~ Isaac Asimov
I don't appologize to the ungodly or goats. At this point, I haven't decided in which column you belong.
The password is "peanut".
...since the central flaw of the religious fanatic is the inability to admit when they have been wrong.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
for demonstrating your misanthropy for all religious peoples. Your marked bias is charming. Your nose is undersized.
The password is "peanut".
...for religious people who are A) rational and B) reject the notion of violently killing people who don't share their beliefs. You are neither.
And please don't misconstrue my unwillingness to brown my nose with the crap that comes out of your backide as a lack in size. My schnoz is quite adequate, thank you.
At this point, I acutally find your hypocrisy to be rather humorous. You speak of celebrating the death of your fellow Americans, and then call them "misanthropes" for not being thankful to you for plotting their doom. That really is rich.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
In which scenario would you not have problems with a religious person? It seems as though you have no patience or sympathy for the religious, as, as you have stated, all religions are flawed due to circular reasoning. Therefore, the "logical" theist, in your view, is forced to conclude that God does not exist, thus removing them from the religious column, right? So before you say you have no problem with rational religious people, insert the caviot that your perception of "rational" is irreligious.
The password is "peanut".
I have already given you the scenario above. Since you seem to be a bit slow on the uptake, I will repeat it for you.
I have no problem at all with "religious people who are A) rational and B) reject the notion of violently killing people who don't share their beliefs."
Notice that I did not say that the religious person has to be "logical" (though, by definition, we know that they are not). There are ways to be rational without being logical.
Rationalism
In epistemology and in its broadest sense, rationalism is "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification" (Lacey 286). In more technical terms it is a method or a theory "in which the criterion of truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive" (Bourke 263). Different degrees of emphasis on this method or theory lead to a range of rationalist standpoints, from the moderate position "that reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge" to the radical position that reason is "the unique path to knowledge" (Audi 771).
In various contexts, the appeal to reason is contrasted with revelation, as in religion, or with emotion and feeling, as in ethics. In philosophy, however, reason is more often contrasted with the senses, including introspection but not intuition (Lacey 286).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
A blanket appeal to some undefined, unverifiable authority does not represent a rational point of view, and just saying "because the bible says so" is not a rational arugment.
The second quality is far more direct, and it is one that I have directly observed as being lacking in your posts. You have made some very threatening statements (humorous in to their impotence, but still) in our various exchanges, and it is in regards to the underlying violence that you have espoused that has predicated the most significant "problem" that I have with you, though the irrational way in which you argue your points certainly doesn't help.
And, if you are looking for some actual examples of christians that I do in fact get along with, you need but look around you hear on this site. The first that comes to mind if Fallon, who is religious and which whom I am quite friendly. There are others, of course, if you would simply take the time to read you would undoubtedly discover them for yourself.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Fallon isn't Christian though. Just for the record.
~C
Visit my blog: www.progressiveu.org/blog/mvenus929
Read the news: www.progressiveu.org/news
"In which scenario would you not have problems with a religious person?"
One does not have to be christian to be religious. If a christian can comport themselves consistently with the two conditions I have listed, we can (and probably will) get along just fine.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
I know, but you referred to Christians in the sentence before mentioning Fallon: And, if you are looking for some actual examples of christians that I do in fact get along with, you need but look around you hear on this site. The first that comes to mind if Fallon, who is religious and which whom I am quite friendly.
~C
Visit my blog: www.progressiveu.org/blog/mvenus929
Read the news: www.progressiveu.org/news
...and thank you for pointing out the inconsistency, and I am sorry for the confusion.
I think it is fair to say that most of the people on this site self-identify as christian, and it is only a particularly nasty sub-set of that religion's adherents that rile me up with their blogs (our "friend" above being one of them).
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Well, I'm coming to realize that a lot of the more prominent people on the site aren't Christian. There's you and DB, who are atheists. Fallon and I believe Fanaile Essence are both Pagans, Unnam (who I saw a lot of last contest, but not so much this one) is Muslim, and a few are Jews.
That being said, you're probably right that most people identify as Christians. And of course, we have our fanatics, however distasteful they may be. Maybe I'll do a poll next week...
~C
Visit my blog: www.progressiveu.org/blog/mvenus929
Read the news: www.progressiveu.org/news
Religious people who preach love and then turn around and violently attack gays deserve neither understanding nor tolerance, they deserve a good kicking. I know plenty of people won't agree with me on this but sometimes violence is a necessary tool for communication; there is no point wasting energy trying to communicate with violent thugs in a language they are too shitheaded to understand.
Too many people become victims of violence because they can't bring themselves to accept the fact that some people get their kicks out of beating and maiming other human beings. Many of these people like to mask that with some "righteous" crusade or other, just so they can claim to be doing it for some higher purpose than plain old sadism.
Cowards like this do not like fighting, they like beating people up. Generally if they think for a second that they are evenly matched or if the odds are even slightly out of their favour they will flee. Just look at neo-nazi skinheads for example, they never attack alone, there's always 10 of them to every one victim, and they nearly always jump people even at those odds. You don't see gangs of them rolling up into Compton ready for battle like the warriors they laughingly describe themselves as.
If the religious right have their militant wing kicking the shit of their extensive lists of people they hate with all their love, then I believe the opposition should have theirs. Like one Antifa anthem goes: "We are, we are, we are not the same. But we are, we are, in the same game".
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
It scares me and horrifies me that people are using violence against anyone. Violence is trying to force compliance on someone else by bodily injury.
Everyone should have the right to make up their own mind about what they believe without someone else harming them for it. That is free will. If they chose wrongly, they will ultimately realize that without someone banging them over the head for it.
There are Christians who say they are but who are not. Look at WBC for instance. And then there is the "church" that is not really a church, but a cult. Not all "Christians" and "churches" are equal; some are downright evil like the Pharissees in Jesus' day- the religious hypocrites who were always accusing Him of breaking the laws.
It absolutely astonishes me that this kind of blatantly disrespectful, greater-than-thou behavior remains prevalent-- even predominantly so-- in parts of the world. My best friends and roommates are openly gay, and there are still people, even in a liberal collegiate community, who send them hateful facebook messages about how shameful it is that they are so open about their sexuality, and to me (though less often) for associating with them. I just can't believe it.
Even my parents, who are pretty conservative but chose to raise their family in a liberal town in northern California, would never consider a violent act justified, especially not specifically against someone whose sexual preference was different than their own. They may still be slightly homophobic (in only the fearing, not hating, sense of the word), but this is more related to religious beliefs, isn't discussed or expressed verbally, and does not affect how they treat others (only how they feel about them).
Whether or not I can wrap my head around their phobia, I still respect that they recognize others' beliefs, that they don't discriminate against those they fear, and most importantly, that they do not hate what they fear.
I'm not sure what the term is that distinguishes someone who has a phobia and someone who has a hate, but perhaps that is relevant?
Jewish "bomber" seized before Jerusalem gay parade
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli police detained an Orthodox Jewish man carrying a small homemade bomb in Jerusalem on Thursday, as thousands of Israelis marched in support of gay rights in defiance of religious protesters.
"Police stopped a 32-year-old religious Jew who was carrying a homemade explosive device," police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said of the arrest before the annual Gay Pride march began.
Police have arrested more than 130 ultra-Orthodox Jews in recent days after learning of plots to disrupt the march and during protests in Jerusalem and religious Jewish towns, where officers used water cannon to battle stone-throwing protesters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR200706...
It is really stunning to me that there are still people in the world today who are willing to murder in the name of their religion.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
"It is really stunning to me that there are still people in the world today who are willing to murder in the name of their religion."
Radical muslims are murdering anyone who is not like them. They are doing it everyday. Suicide bombers, car bombs, etc.
If anyone hopes to stay alive/survive in this world, they need to grasp the fact that there is no limit to the evil and be prepared for anything. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. It would be a mistake to feel safe in society. Remember 9-11; those were religious fanatics of the Muslim genre. Americans felt safe and secure in our homeland but we were shown to be mistaken.
Yes, its stunning to see people murdering other people but its not just the religious fanatics. Religious fanatics are just one section of society today committing these hate crimes. Anyone who does these things is evil. Evil is a disease like cancer that spreads and rots society from the inside out.
> Radical muslims are murdering anyone who is not like them.
> They are doing it everyday. Suicide bombers, car bombs, etc.
I don't understand THEM either.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
is that they kill other innocent people just because they are not muslim
BUT If people actually listened to Osama's tapes rather than using them as a fear spreading tool, HE tells why and how he justifies his shit and muder of innocent people (secular reasons where he mentions israel/palestine/Saudi Arabia and US)
and quite frankly most of the muslims that join this horrible terrorist and insurgency tactic ONLY do it because they are sick of being placed second by their own gov't because they blame the US and they think that Israel is the biggest BUlly,
i know most people are thinking i'm taking sides but I'm the messenger. I can tell you everythng that my relatives say, they hate Isreal and US for helping them and then US in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Iraq now. The presence of the US in Middle East ANgers them ...they are sick of the US using them
especially pakistan, people have told me that if Us is such a great super power and wanted to find osama they would have done it by themselves and not needed us.
Why MOST of those people kill is not by personal and religious hatred... It's not.
I'm sorry but I have never thought that because I know of the how and why.
"Pride is concerned with who is right. Humility is concerned with what is right."
http://www.progressiveu.org/231615-this-is-a-muslim-girls-plight
" "love em all,trust a few,and fear none"....thats wassup.one love. peace." mos def
I know what you mean, whenever I try to talk about Israel and Palestine people just say I'm an anti-Semite or that I just want terrorists to destroy the country. But I understand some of the Arab "terrorists." The governments in the middle east fuck over people left and right. When you go into a building and blow yourself up, there is no way your enemy can retaliate against you.
____________________________________________________________________
Fuck Fuckity Fuck Fuck Fuck
halloo! have been bumming around here on proU, reading your posts: quite interesting. adding you to buddylist. expect comments in the future.
--stacie
I always need more buddies. :)
perci
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Here's an update on the haredi sponsored anti-gay riots that have been going on for more than a month in Jerusalem.
Militant Jewish Sect Battle Police Over Gay Pride Arrests
(Jerusalem) More than a month after a gay pride march in Jerusalem members of the haredi, an extreme Orthodox sect that rioted for a week prior to the parade are still battling with police.
Testifying before a Knesset committee Tuesday a senior police officer said that sect members almost nightly are setting fires in garbage bins in the city's Orthodox area and throwing stones at police officers.
They are protesting the detention of five sect members who attempted to disrupt the parade.
"Every night they protest the detention of five haredim who were arrested in demonstrations against last month's Gay Pride march," Assistant Commander Bruno Stein, told the Knesset's Internal Affairs and Environment Committee.
One of those still detained is a 32 year old man who was found carrying a homemade bomb. He was arrested moments before the pride march was to begin.
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/07/073107jerusalem.htm
And, just for those who don't like my source, here is a (less detailed) confirmation of the story from the Jerusalem Post...
'Haredi protesters commit violence every night'
Haredi demonstrators are committing acts of violence against policemen every night, Jerusalem Police's Zion sub district chief Asst.-Cmdr. Bruno Stein, told the Knesset's Internal Affairs and Environment Committee on Tuesday.
"Every night they protest the detention of five haredim who were arrested in demonstrations against last month's Gay Pride march," Israel Radio quoted Stein as saying.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1185789797293&pagename=JPost%...
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
I was raised in the church, as was my mother and father. My parents don't mind the gay people in our community, but they won't shake their hands. I believe in God and I try to abide by his word. That being said, I think being gay is as natural as having brown eyes. I don't think you wake up one morning and say, "I want to be gay." I still attend church, I still read the Bible, I still pray every night. Please do not think that everybody with a religious affiliation is going to be prejudice. I took to heart, "Love thy neighbor," not "Man shall not lie with man". I'm not going to go on to say my roommate is gay and try to prove that I'm "tolerant", I just want you to know if you came knocking on my door with your husband, you would be welcome to my house. People who wield hate in God’s name piss me off more than anything else.
~ I trust my soul, my only goal is just to be! ~
RENT
"I took to heart, "Love thy neighbor," not "Man shall not lie with man". "
But since both of these came from the Bible and since you are a Christian I assume you believe that the Bible is the word of God, do you not think it a little odd that you've decided yourself that God got it wrong in some parts of the Bible? If God says murder homosexuals, and you are a Christian who believes God and his word to be perfect, why would you need to ignore some of his orders and embrace others? Surely God's word is enough, or do you think you know better than God?
I personally don't believe that the Bible is the word of God, I believe it to be a self-serving crock of shit compiled by a group of men as a device by which they could exact control over masses of people under false pretences. But Christian who claim that Biblical Christianity isn't about hate need to check their Bibles again and realise that if they don't agree with what it says in it's entirety, then maybe they should wake up and realise that they've been lied to about the author.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
No, I'm sorry but you assumed wrong. God is perfect, and so is his word, it is man's many versions of the bible that I find fallible.
It is not a question of my faith, it is a question of who God is to you. The God I believe in is gentle, forgiving and loving. God does not judge people as we judge them. God judges people by the context of the character and by what lies in their heart. I don't selectively believe in one thing, and ignore another. And it may be wrong to other Christians, but I do not think the bible is how life has to be led, but a guideline. The Bible, in it's original form (because it's been translated so many times by flawed and powerful men who knows what was added or taken out), may hold something entirely different than what my Kings James version now states. I do, say, and believe what I feel is right. There is no simpler way to explain it.
~ I trust my soul, my only goal is just to be! ~
RENT
"And it may be wrong to other Christians, but I do not think the bible is how life has to be led, but a guideline."
So you belive God is perfect, yet you believe that some of his guidelines are not perfect. Yet you say the words he allegedly made these guidlines with are perfect. hmmm.
"The Bible, in it's original form (because it's been translated so many times by flawed and powerful men who knows what was added or taken out), may hold something entirely different than what my Kings James version now states."
But then again, it may not. I don't think holding on to the hope that a book you've never read may by some off chance have a different set of guidlines, is the best basis for justifying the savagery advised by the version you have read, the savagery that most Christians espouse as the perfect word of God.
Do you not think that maybe you're rationalizing to yourself the imperfect nature of the Bible as the alleged perfect word of God in order to ease the cognitive dissonance generated by your being confronted with evidence that suggests the Bible may just be the manipulative word of man from day one, as opposed to something which was perverted totally from it's pure state by mistranslation? As opposed to thinking rationally by weighing up the evidence and reaching a rational conclusion?
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
> Do you not think that maybe you're rationalizing to
> yourself the imperfect nature of the Bible as the
> alleged perfect word of God in order to ease the
> cognitive dissonance generated by your being
> confronted with evidence that suggests the Bible
> may just be the manipulative word of man from
> day one, as opposed to something which was
> perverted totally from it's pure state by mistranslation?
This is one of the most eloquent and piercingly "dead on" comments that I have ever read describing this particular penchant of the christian apologist.
+1
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
I'd be lying if I said I wasn't chuffed. That's a pretty big compliment coming from you, especially since I know you don't just throw them about casually. Having robbed a whole load of points from your canon of debunkery, it's nice to be able to give something back fella.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
I know how I feel. I feel there is a God, and I feel that He put me here for a reason. I feel as though He is active in my life, and yours as well. So, you can pick apart the Bible and Christianity and say I’m a fool for following something flawed. I will always feel as though there is a God, with or without proof. I don’t have to blindly follow the crowd in order to believe in something, or choose not believe. Your argument was indeed rational, it was strong and held conviction. Mine held heart, and that is what’s important to me.
~ I trust my soul, my only goal is just to be! ~
RENT
"So, you can pick apart the Bible and Christianity and say I’m a fool for following something flawed."
I never said you were a fool, people far more intelligent than me have followed the Bible and Christianity far more rigidly than you seem to. It's not about intelligence, it's about subseptability to persuasive technique and an individual's tendancy to persuade themselves when holes are pointed out to them in the argument that persuaded them originally.
You were, I assume raised in your faith, so it wouldn't be fair or accurate to call you a fool, by your writing it's clear that you aren't. But I would say that you've been conditioned with a bias that causes you to justify facets of the Bible, for which there is really no rational justification. Religious conditioning is stopping you from analyzing the Bible in the same rational manner you might a newspaper article.
For many people, if they had a hero that they'd loved since childhood, a hero they'd been led to believe was nothing but good, to suddenly be confronted with an article this hero wrote or something they enorsed that they do not agree with at all is an uncomfortable situation to be in cognitively. It will force even intelligent people to make excuses for their hero or to rationalize it to themselves by making assumptions like it wasn't really what they meant or they words are being taken out of context. It's because there is a great deal of cognitive dissonace created between your previously held belief that the Bible is the perfect word of God and the presented evidence which highlights that the Bible's word is far from perfect.
For you to face the fact that this evidence highlights the imperfect nature of the Bible is uncomfortable enough for you that you are left actively self-persuading rather than accepting the evidence that outlines the fallacy of the beliefs you were persuaded to believe through a religious upbringing, because accepting the evidence undermines the entire basis for Christianity. If the Bible is not the word of God, then it's contents are merely the opinion of far more primative men, who lived thousands of years ago in a time of far greater ignorance than today. So, by default the vary nature of God as according to the Christian Bible is nothing more than the product of the manipulative fantasies of these men.
"Your argument was indeed rational, it was strong and held conviction. Mine held heart, and that is what’s important to me."
Thanks for the comliment, much appreciated. But I must point out something to you about arguing with the heart. The heart, or more to the point, emotions, are exactly what propagandists and confindence tricksters want you to use when making decisions. In a confidence trick, the aim is to win the persons confidence by exploiting their emotions as a means to put down their defences. Your defences lie in the head, even 'that gut feeling' can be attibuted to the head, to the subconscious.
In a face to face encounter with somebody you don't trust, 'that gut feeling' could be attributed to your brain subconsciously reading the other person's body language and speech pattern as warning you not to trust this individual for reasons that you may not consciously understand, but feel none the less. When an untrustworthy individual knows how to use his head to make you ignore yours, by managing his body language and his speech carefully, he can win your confidence. Once the con arstist has your confidence, you stop reasoning with the head and start acting with the heart, but as we both know there is no brain in the heart, you may as well try to use your head to pump blood around your body. You would surely die, as surely as reason dies when people use their heart to think.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
The prothletizing atheists and agnostics (both purporting to be of a higher rationality) on this site cannot see themselves acting bigoted. Is it because they think they alone posses the only truth (kind of reminds me of why religious bigots call everyone else heathens)?
There is a world of difference in telling us how wonderful your beliefs are, and telling us how ours are horrible/stupid/The result of one big con.
Bigotry is at its heart intolerance, or the delusion that your beliefs/skin color/ sexual preference/ nationality have given you a form of superiority.
"fallacy of the beliefs you were persuaded to believe"
"exactly what propagandists and confindence tricksters"
"exploiting their emotions as a means to put down their defences."
"reason dies when people use their heart"
Another thing happens when the emotions and heart are included in your thoughts. Charity, mercy, compassion, and love enter the equation. Think for a moment where we would be without these non-scientific concepts. The most intelligent race on this planet has a long history of cruelty, ruthlessness, and cold blooded disregard for their fellow man. I am painfully aware that even religious people raised with values closer to the heart quite often follow their more animalistic and natural tendencies. The results delivered by godless societies have not proven themselves to be better. Reason and proof is what you are in support of right? Proof and rational thought require evidence. Not picking at beliefs you despise. That is hate.
A fact is always better than an ideal
"Is it because they think they alone posses the only truth"
Being an Agnostic, I believe that the only truth thus far established in man's existence regarding the 'one truth', is that no man, alone or otherwise, possesses the 'only truth' they claim, beyond them claiming that they don't know anything for certain.
The truth on which my position is established is a truth which is clearly evidenced right up to this second and I'd hazard a guess at for the foreseeable future, by the lack of conclusive evidence anybody has presented to definitively prove their 'only truth', to in fact be true..
"There is a world of difference in telling us how wonderful your beliefs are, and telling us how ours are horrible/stupid/The result of one big con."
But when telling you this is an fundamental part of my belief system, that is what I am free to do, or should the freedom extended to religions and their beliefs not be extended to those of us with more secular beliefs? Religions bash non-believers all the time, it's in some of their scriptures for crying out loud, just because they like to act all coy when many are confronted by it, many murdered people for refusing to convert. They've slaughtered 'heretics', 'heathens', 'savages' 'witches', etc for years and years, and now they want people to stop saying things that they think are nasty to them? Religious beliefs deserve no more respect than secular ones.
If I tell somebody else's child that I will hire a hitman who will shoot them in the kneecaps if they do a certain number of bad things over a certain period, most people would flip out and say I was a crazy bastard and to stay away from their kid. But if somebody tells the same kid that if they do a certain number of things wrong and don't follow the appropriate procedures, they will be tortured in a lake of fire by the Devil and all his succubuses and inncubuses, for enternity, where they won't see their mommy and daddy ever again, that's their religious beliefs, so that's totally fine, no reason to complain there?! The wonderful thing about my belief is that it helps me identify the big con unhindered by superstition and fear of divine retribution from some mythical smiter.
"Bigotry is at its heart intolerance"
Bigotry requires a serious deficit in understanding. It's usually evidenced by a complete inability to explain your prejudice regarding why you are opposed to something, devoid of reason and completely unsupported by evidence.
Throwing around terms like 'bigotry', 'religious intolerance' and similiar gag words like 'racist', inaccurately, only serves to disempower their meaning, much like crying wolf. They can be very effective terms to sling in a propagandistic manner for provoking negative emotive responses towards critics from readers, but once it's abused enough the words mean nothing, they get reduced in meaning to school yard name calling.
"Another thing happens when the emotions and heart are included in your thoughts. Charity, mercy, compassion, and love enter the equation."
I'm not saying emotion has no place in thought, it is very powerful, it is exactly what is manipulated to overpower our head. The idea behind thinking with you head, doesn't mean killing all emotion to the level of a clinical psychopath, it means managing and contoling your emotions so they aid your reasoning, as opposed to hindering it. Foolish decisions in love which result from allowing our emotions to overpower our critical facaulties can result adultery, divorce, spousal abuse, murder.
"The results delivered by godless societies have not proven themselves to be better."
They haven't exactly had too many swings at the ball yet, to be fair. They tried to make society godless for one. Society doesn't need to be Godless, it just doesn't need all of the lies and wildly unsubstantiated claims about God's nature masquerading as certified truth like it's been doing for too long. The charlatans need to be allowed to bullshit each other out of existence, like I said, you put too many grifters in one spot and everybody knows the con before long. Too many cooks spoil the broth. Multiculturalism, coupled with the explosion of the information age, should hopefully play a big part in people pulling their socks up. I mean, if we can go from burning and hanging heretics and witches to not doing that in a relatively small amount of time, I think the chances are good that a whole host of religions could be relegated in a few generations. Consider that a person today who reads the New York Times cover to cover for 1 week, has taken in more written information than the average 17th century English man would have read in their entire lives. Then consider that people are smartening up.
"Not picking at beliefs you despise. That is hate."
It is warranted criticism. Calling it hate doesn't make it so, it just makes it look bad in the eyes of people who respond to such emotive ploys.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
...and on a human level I am glad to see that not all christians are as bigoted as being raised in the deep rural South sometimes makes it seem. I would normally take issue with the "cherry picking" aspect of your interpretation of the bible as the source of christian philosophy, but I'm feeling a bit out of sorts today, so I will simply shake your electronic hand and be glad to meet you.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
The "cherries" that supercede the rest are the words of Jesus Christ.
That is explained in Luke 13 and 14 to summarize: If you have to pull your Ass out of a pit on the Sabbath day it is OK, because "the Son of Man" (that's us!) is the lord of the Sabbath. God declared a Sabbath to help man, not trap him
There is a great deal of wisdom, and perhaps divine inspiration in the Old Testament and Apostles, but there is plenty that appears to serve the interests of church and state over those of God.
A fact is always better than an ideal
...that the laws of the old testament require? You say that the words of Jesus in the bible trump all other arguments, but is it not true that this character is attributed with these words, as well?
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:17-18)
You can wriggle and squirm all you like, but the fact remains that this violence is religiously motivated more often than not, and it seems a bit odd to me to direct your ire at the victims of the violence rather than at its religious perpetrators that are sitting next to you in the pews.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:17-18)
Jewish law, and the law of God are not equal. Jesus was put to death under Jewish law. Get over the 'book worship' that you call religion. All religious people are not responsible for foolishness done in the name of God. Are you responsible for every crack pot scientific theory ever discredited?
The laws of God require no human intervention. God is completely capable of enforcing them perfectly.
I am going to go out on a limb and SPECULATE as to the meaning of biblical passages condeming homosexuality. I do so at the risk of arming you with thoughts to ridicule, but that hasn't stopped me so far. ;-)
5,000 years ago people engaging in gay activities were most likely also engaged in very open sexual practices. This was a time when germ theory was unknown, but Jewish law had numerous cleanliness (Kosher) rules as well so they were not entirely clueless about the source of disease. Some sexually open practices undoubtedly resulted in disease. The 'law of God' promising death for these activities may have been based on observation of the result of them.
Another factor to consider is procreation. Families having 10+ children was barely sufficient to maintain the population. All religion for most of history has been sponsored by the state. If the country next door out numbered you it was only a matter of time until they conquored you. The state would have a vested interest in encouraging heterosexual marriage, and thus discouraging Homosexuality.
A fact is always better than an ideal
> Jewish law, and the law of God are
> not equal.
This comment seems to completely contradict your previous assertion that "the 'cherries' that supercede the rest are the words of Jesus Christ." Jesus was a Jew himself, let's not forget, and when he spoke of "the law" (i.e. nomos) in this verse, he was specifically referring to the writings of the Torah.
> Jesus was put to death
> under Jewish law.
This is factually incorrect. The gospels say that Jesus was executed for the crime of blasphemy, but Jewish law forbade punishment by crucifixion. And under Roman rule during this time period, local governments were not permitted to issue death sentences for local law infringements in any case. Crucifixion was a Roman form of execution, and could only be issued as a sentence for a violation of Roman Law. If Jewish Law had been in effect, the proscribed punishment for "blasphemy" was lapidation, not crucifixion.
The historical revision of Jesus' conviction for "blasphemy" was most likely a political invention by early new testament writers who were attempting to reconcile actual events with the hostile Roman government. At the time the new testament was being written, it was illegal to practice christianity in the Roman Empire, and this revision helped to shift the blame off of the Roman authorities and back onto the Jewish people themselves. This in turn gave legitimacy to the adherents of this new religion who had deified their martyr, while simultaneously expunging any guilt from the Empire itself and allowing the texts to be circulated without stepping on any Roman toes.
Here are a few research links for you to consider... 1. 2.
> Get over the 'book worship' that
> you call religion.
That's a bit disingenous, don'y you think? The bible, in all its myraid permutations is the definitive collection of writings upon which the modern religion of christianity is based. If you're going to associate yourself with a religion that draws its theology uniquivocably from a series of written texts, it does not seem unreasonable at all to me to consider the actual contents of those writings in a discussion of that religion. It seems to me that you have imagined a very nice version of the actual beliefs of christianity for yourself, but honestly your take on the religion allegedly taught by the man named "Jesus" has very little to do with what we actually know about this character's life and the times in which he lived.
> All religious people are not responsible
> for foolishness done in the name of God.
I never said that they were. *rolls eyes* However, when you associtate yourself with a historical figure, and say that you are basing your beliefs on that figure's life and teachings, doesn't it seem reasonable to you to at least try to find out what that figure's life was really like, and what those teachings really were?
> Are you responsible for every crack pot
> scientific theory ever discredited?
Nope. For one, scientific theories are not "revealed" in the manner of religion, and a responsible scientist evaluates the actual evidence before deciding whether or not to offer his support to a potential hypothesis. And secondly, the scientific community is not a heirarchal community, with the beliefs of all scientists being dictated by some anonymous source on high. Scientists are expected to act independantly, and to attempt to duplicate the results of the claims of other scientists in order to prove or disprove the validity of those claims. I can call myself a scientist without offering any allegiance whatsoever to any other scientist. It is the evidence that guides my opinion, and not my trust in the veracity of some ancient pronouncement.
> The laws of God require no human
> intervention. God is completely capable
> of enforcing them perfectly.
That's a wonderfully speculative, and completely unproveable assertion.
> I am going to go out on a limb and
> SPECULATE as to the meaning of
> biblical passages condeming
> homosexuality. I do so at the risk of
> arming you with thoughts to ridicule,
> but that hasn't stopped me so far. ;-)
My goal is not to ridicule you, but I really must warn you that unfounded speculations aren't very likely to get you very close to the mark of what we actually know about the historical periods in question.
> 5,000 years ago people engaging in
> gay activities were most likely also
> engaged in very open sexual practices.
> This was a time when germ theory was
> unknown, but Jewish law had numerous
> cleanliness (Kosher) rules as well so they
> were not entirely clueless about the source
> of disease. Some sexually open practices
> undoubtedly resulted in disease. The 'law
> of God' promising death for these activities
> may have been based on observation of
> the result of them.
Are you suggesting that the writers of the bible were ignorant, and that the laws recorded in the bible were based on primitive misconceptions rather than divinely inspired by the hand of "god?"
> Another factor to consider is procreation.
> Families having 10+ children was barely
> sufficient to maintain the population. All
> religion for most of history has been
> sponsored by the state. If the country next
> door out numbered you it was only a matter
> of time until they conquored you. The state
> would have a vested interest in encouraging
> heterosexual marriage, and thus discouraging
> Homosexuality.
That's an interesting sociological hypothesis. I would suggest that you read the following link for a more scholarly discussion of the history of this taboo in the original texts of the old testament.
All in all, your response seems to be a rather contorted attempt to avoid the fact that your beliefs really aren't based all that closely on the historical figure you cite for your inspiration. It seems that even the words of Jesus are only relevant to you when they happen to coincide with the point you want to make.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
It is fascinating how you can fasten the entire bible to me in order to oppose things I never said, and only moments later turn around to call the portions you choose 'revisionist.' May I suggest that ALL history is written by the victors? The Bible is only partially history, but the portions that are follow that rule. An awful lot of the Bible contains stories where the lesson to be learned (moral) is the key.
----------------------------------------------
The point ('they crucified Jesus Christ") I quoted Bob Marley making is one of these. I read it (this is me talking, I will stand by this and will further explain it if you like, unlike thousands of things someone else must have said to you.) as follows:
People who insist on justifying themselves by the law will die (be condemned) by the law. They will even kill an innocent person trying to help them if they feel threatened. This is true of the attackers I said it in reference to.
The final line is "don't you forget, NO WAY, who you are and where you stand in the struggle." I thought this applied to martyrs of every type.
The chorus of the song, which I did not quote, also condemns legalist people.
"They got so much things to say right now they got so much things to say"
The scholarly references you provided are nice, but don't you think the underlying lesson applies equally to anyone who thinks they help reveal the laws of God?
--------------------------------------------
"It seems to me that you have imagined a very nice version of the actual beliefs of christianity for yourself"
Exactly! I was beginning to wonder if you would ever listen to what I am actually saying. I don't mind if you agree with my exact, and perhaps unique, beliefs or not. I am happy with them. My objection here is the way you try to project YOUR selection of 'Christian' beliefs onto me.
-------------------------------------------
> The laws of God require no human
> intervention. God is completely capable
> of enforcing them perfectly.
"That's a wonderfully speculative, and completely unproveable assertion.”
Not speculative at all. Faith based. You may disagree with me; if you do you are joining the people who think they have to commit assault to enforce what they see as 'Gods Law.' They also do not see it my way. You could just as validly (IMHO) state them thusly:
>Natural laws do not require enforcement.
I know you think there is a difference, but MY GOD created the universe and all natural law. The second statement invites the error (IMHO) of thinking there is no meaning behind existence. I think this is why you don't like it.
---------------------------------------------
"Are you suggesting that the writers of the bible were ignorant"
Every human ever born is was and will be ignorant. Ignorance is a factor of our limited ability, and the vastness of reality.
------------------------------------------
A fact is always better than an ideal
...but unless you can back up your suggestions with something a little more substantial, it is unlikely that they will be sustainable under close consideration.
As for you use of a Bob Marley song as a source for understanding the contents of the bible and the semi-historical incidents described therein, don't you think that it is a bit risky to base your understanding of something so significant to the belief-system you espouse on a reference from population culture? If you can't even get the "real" story right, how can you even begin to think that you understand the underlying morals of the story?
> Not speculative at all. Faith based.
Hello? Faith-based beliefs are speculative. In order for them NOT to be speculative, you would need objective evidence to back them up.
> I know you think there is a difference,
> but MY GOD created the universe and
> all natural law.
So you say, but just saying it doesn't make the assertion any more credible. If you can't prove that what you say is true, it is intellectually dishonest to make claims of this sort. I would be willing to let it pass if you said, "I believe that my god created the universe," but when you attempt to make absolute statements of this sort, I really can't help but point out that you do not in fact have any evidence to back up what you say.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Breifly...........Bob Marley or Joe at the bar are both people I listen to with respect.
......And Persivale on the Blog.
My beleif system would be less valid if I shut any of them out.
Speculation IMHO is more narrow, topic based and specific.
I could speculate on the direction of the market.
I could speculate on the actual intent of an author when he is unclear or the statement is incomplete.
I could speculate on tomorrows weather.
I would make any statement based on speculation as indefinate by its nature. You could make a speculation as to my faith, or any aspect of it. And IMHO such a speculation by you about my thoughts should be indefinite. I try not to let your unorthodox style offent me, but some people might.
Faith based identifies it as my opinion. Not Fact.
Almost any statement that is faith based I would make in a definite voice because I beleive it.
A fact is always better than an ideal
> Faith based identifies it as my opinion. Not Fact.
> Almost any statement that is faith based I would
> make in a definite voice because I beleive it.
Don't you see the intellectual dishonesty in this? Demonstrative assertions carry with them an implied assurance that that they are known to be actual and true. If it is merely your opinion, then you should say that it is your opinion, rather than applying a disingenuous veneer of objective veracity that cannot be actually supported. This is one of the major problems that I have with apologetic theology.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
"Eh! But I'll never forget no way: they crucified Je-sus Christ;
I'll never forget no way: they stole Marcus Garvey for rights.
Oo-ooh!
I'll never forget no way: they turned their back on Paul Bogle.
Hey-ey!
So don't you forget (no way) your youth,
who you are and where you stand in the struggle."
---Bob Marley, So much things to say, Exodus 1977.
Perhaps I read a little too much history, but to me our present society is amazingly Non-Violent. Certainly the trend is progressing that way.
The same religious right (Pharisees) that is credited with every one of these attacks turned Jesus Christ in to the Romans, and then insisted on clemency for a thief (Barabas) to insure that he was crucified. I mention this because you seem to blame religion for the problem.
The other common fact in each news report is that the attacks took place during Gay Rights demonstrations. Think how far tolerance has come, and how recently. The first modern march of this type was a 1965 gay march held in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia. 42 years is so recent, that many of the people that find Gay Rights offensive grew up having never heard of it. In Russia, where one of these clashes occurred, Homosexuality was illegal until 1993.
Overcoming the historical evils of the world has been going on an awful lot longer. The American Civil war had to be fought, and half a million people killed to outlaw slavery, and the Jenna 6 demonstrations this week show that the struggle is far from over.
Although small societies and isolated cultures through history have achieved Tolerance, forgiveness, and charity that we could envy even today, every major population of humans has been ruled by force and oppression of minorities. A strong argument can be made that the present expansion of these values can be traced to a certain Jewish carpenters' teachings.
One of the most ridiculed statements Jesus ever made was probably "the meek shall inherit the earth" He said it at a time when strong men using swords were the law. Today corporations are probably the most powerful entities, and the most powerful is named MicroSoft (Small and Soft). Maybe he knew what he was talking about.
A fact is always better than an ideal
...but that doesn't change the fact that gay people in the United States face a rate of identity-motivated violence that is higher than than any other identity-based group, and roughly seven times higher than the general population. I think that it is undeniable that this violence is being ignored at best and actively encouraged at worst by the religious elements of this country. And since our country contains a vast christian majority...well...do the math.
On a larger scale, it isn't difficult to see the correlation between the holy books of the world's majority religions (judeo-christianity and islam) that specific instructions that say gay people should be killed, and the permissive and often active pursuit of violence against gay people.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
No, you are not imagining the attitudes those books encourage.
Progress requires struggle and sometimes sacrifice. By Compiling these stories, and discussing them You are helping in this struggle. I was aware of none of them, just the general situation.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots"
--Thomas Jefferson
Persivale, please try not to engage in God Bashing while you are decrying Gay Bashing.
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
--Thomas Paine
--------------------------------------------------------
A couple more by T. Paine that I think you might like and explain my position better than I can:
"My mind is my own church"
"Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law."
"That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests can not, or that the Bible does not."
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. "
A fact is always better than an ideal
...that because things are progressing in a positive direction, that violence of this sort is to be dismssed as a mere side effect of social change...that gay people who stand up for their rights are somehow responsible for the brutality perpetrated against them in response...that so long as there are fewer violent attacks today than yesterday, those attacks are not worthy of condemnation.
You attitude does not strike me as having any moral force behind it. Either you believe that attacking and killing gay people is okay, or you do not. If you do not, then it seems disingenuous to offer excuses for the perpetrators of this violence.
And, I am not "God" bashing, because I don't really believe that "God" exists at all. That figment is merely the excuse behind which the all-too-mortal followers of these religions hide behind to avoid having the full responsibility of their actions laid at their own feet.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
A victim hides from oppression, and activist marches out to confront it. These incidents are all activists confronting oppression. They should be applauded because without their sacrifice freedom cannot be advanced.
I am not gay, not by choice, but by glandular bias. I would consider it ridiculous to feel superior to you based on your glandular bias. Your attitude of intolerance toward religion is a choice, so you are to blame for it.
I do not support the attacks you are posting about here, but I see in your attitude the day approaching when they will be reversed. I would find it equally unacceptable for anti-gay marchers to be attacked.
Consider as an example civil rights in the south. Blacks were enslaved, beaten lynched and denied opportunities for centuries. Today if the KKK or John Birch society marched an army of police would be required to protect them. The Jenna 6 is another case. Thousands of people marched in support of 6 thugs that beat and kicked their victim unconscious until they were pulled off of him. Racism is not unidirectional, or dead.
I am not accusing you of violent physical attacks, just of justifying them.
The idea of turning the other cheek and loving your neighbor as you would yourself are not scientifically derived. Faith based morality has created an environment where gay rights marchers are able to march. Do not blame religion, blame hate. Then free YOUR attitude from it.
A fact is always better than an ideal
> Your attitude of intolerance toward
> religion is a choice, so you are to
> blame for it.
I am not intolerant of religion in general. Even while I disagree intellectually with the basic premise of all religions, I am not in the least bit opposed to sharing the public square with the adherents of any religion that is equally willing to share that square with me. I am only intolerant of those religions that teach their adherents that it is acceptable to kill in order to eliminate those who do not share the same beliefs. You have already granted that the attitudes of violent intolerance that I have described as stemming from the teachings of the judaeo-christian (and islamic) religions is not imagined. I cannot even begin to fathom how you expect to be able to defend the concept that standing up to those ideas and the people who are perpetuating somehow makes me "to blame" for anything. I am simply stating the truth of the matter.
> I do not support the attacks you are
> posting about here, but I see in your
> attitude the day approaching when
> they will be reversed. I would find it
> equally unacceptable for anti-gay
> marchers to be attacked.
As would I. I think that if we gathered up the evidence of every time an anti-gay marcher was physically by a pro-gay supporter, and compared it to the number of incidents where the opposite was true, there would be very little to compare.
> Consider as an example civil rights in
> the south. Blacks were enslaved, beaten
> lynched and denied opportunities for
> centuries.
Are you suggesting that this enslavement and violence should be considered acceptable? Are you suggesting that when the objects of this oppression began to fight back for their rights that they were "to blame" for the violence perpetuated against them?
> Today if the KKK or John Birch society
> marched an army of police would be
> required to protect them.
Factually incorrect. As surprising as it may be to some, the KKK is perfectly alive and well here in the Southern United States, at least. They hold regular rallies and marches here in Atlanta, and in several counties thoughout my home State of Georgia, and are quite common in a number of other Southern States as well. I am less familiar with the activities of these bigots elsewhere in the country, but no extraordinary police presence is required to protect them when they conduct their yearly march on the Georgia State Capital.
> The Jenna 6 is another case. Thousands
> of people marched in support of 6 thugs
> that beat and kicked their victim unconscious
> until they were pulled off of him. Racism
> is not unidirectional, or dead.
I never said that it was. This strikes me as a classic case of a straw man argument. The situation in Jena does not appear to be religiously motivated, even though historically that connection would have been very likely. The fact is however that anti-gay attitudes and even violence has a convenient friend in the religion of modern christianity.
> I am not accusing you of violent physical
> attacks, just of justifying them.
Whatever, dude. I have never advocated violence in this or any other forum. I believe in the non-violent confrontation of the sort taught by Dr. King and later by M. Ghandi (though I grant that my presentation is a bit more gruff). Your accusation that I would ever justify the use of physical violence to advance a political or even personal cause beyond an immediate act of self-defense is a frank pervarication.
> The idea of turning the other cheek and
> loving your neighbor as you would yourself
> are not scientifically derived. Faith based
> morality has created an environment where
> gay rights marchers are able to march.
Horsepuckey. The reason that the Gay Rights movement has been able to thrive is that the secular Rule of Law under which we live in this country does not permit religious-motivations to be used as an excuse for the kinds of actions which have been described above. Considering that you have already granted that the there is a causal relationship between the attitudes behind this violence and the holy texts of the very "faiths" that you defend, it strikes me as remakably inconsistent for you to then turn around claim that those same relgions are in fact responsible for any tolerance directed at the very people that those religions demonize in their teachings.
> Do not blame religion, blame hate.
> Then free YOUR attitude from it.
There is plenty of blame to go around, though for the life of me I have never understood those who feel the need to blame the victim of a crime for the violent actions of others. If your religion teaches its followers to be intolerant towards a particular group of people (and it does), I think it is perfectly reasonable to criticize your religion when those teachings are acted out upon the victims of the violence perpetuated by the adherents of that religion.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
"I believe in the non-violent confrontation of the sort taught by Dr. King and later by M. Ghandi"
I am glad to see that you adhere to the teachings of two professed diciples of jesus. Principle is often the important thing. I will even say that an adherance to non-violance may make you a better man than I am. I am not non-violent, and if I were present when gays were being assaulted would gladly jump in physically to protect them.
I already know that we disagree on the importance of loving God. That love is beneficial to me, without making me better to anyone that does not share it. It also not important to God at all, except in that He/She loves me, and thus wants the best for me.
Earlier I posed another responce as well, I don't know if you saw it.
http://www.progressiveu.org/095737-who-holds-the-moral-high-ground-anti-...
A fact is always better than an ideal
...doesn't mean that he is incapable of great compassion and moral fortitude.
I would however like to point out to you that Ghandi did not consider himself to be a christian, though he did have great respect for the teachings of Jesus. Ghandi considered himself to be a Hindu, though it could be argued that he was something of a Universalist, taking what good he found in the many religions of the world while abandoning the rest.
Once when the missionary E. Stanley Jones met with Ghandi he asked him, "Mr. Ghandi, though you quote the words of Christ often, why is that you appear to so adamantly reject becoming his follower?"
Ghandi replied, "Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."
From another source...
"When asked why he did not embrace Christianity, Gandhi has said that he had studied the scriptures and was tremendously attracted. But eventually he came to the conclusion that there was nothing really special in the scriptures which he had not got in his own, and 'to be a good Hindu also meant that I would be a good Christian. There was no need for me to join your creed to be a believer in the beauty of the teachings of Jesus or try to follow His example,' he said."
There are few things that I abhor more than agenda-motivated historical revisionism. From the earliest days of the catholic church to the modern revisionists of the fundamentalist movement, this sort of retroactive conversion has been an all-too-common invention in christian theology.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
and gaining a lot of info but I just wanted to make sure that people know that
Gandhi came first and MLK Jr. then followed what Gandhi did in India, in America.
besides that, i think I did not expect this blogging site to be one where people would so blatantly direspect people who had a different belief than them. I thought everyone here was more educated than that...guess not? and i have to say that most of the really closed minded people are the Christians on this site.
"Pride is concerned with who is right. Humility is concerned with what is right."
http://www.progressiveu.org/231615-this-is-a-muslim-girls-plight
" "love em all,trust a few,and fear none"....thats wassup.one love. peace." mos def
Confucius had some very similar ideas about 500 years before Christ. No connection can be proved...but even China to Isreal could be done quite a few times on foot in that time.
I like to think we are building onto all of them.
A fact is always better than an ideal
You are indeed correct that Ghandi's movement predated Dr. King's. Sometimes I let my fingers get ahead of my brain.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
"I am not in the least bit opposed to sharing the public square with the adherents of any religion that is equally willing to share that square with me."
If I was sitting at the back of a lecture room right now, I'm be the one pumping his fist in the air shouting "Right on", next to the guy that said "Nice one".
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
> Today if the KKK or John Birch society
> marched an army of police would be
> required to protect them.
"Factually incorrect"
Maybe you should read this. I'm not doubting that some of these KKK/Nazi/ultraRight groups march with moderate police protection and without incident. as you suggest, but I was not making up the accounts I have heard about that did not go so smoothly and here is another.
http://www.progressiveu.org/201118-neo-nazi-march-sparks-riots-in-ohio
Just for fun I'll butcher a little Shakespear for you:-)
"There are more things in heaven and on earth dear Persivale than are dreamed of in your philosophy."
A fact is always better than an ideal
...that goes against the norm, and I think that Ohio is probably a lot less tolerant of this kind of demonstration than the States of the Deep South.
> Just for fun I'll butcher a little Shakespear for you:-)
> "There are more things in heaven and on earth
> dear Persivale than are dreamed of in your philosophy."
There may be more on earth than is found in my philosophy, but I certainly think that there is less in "heaven" that are dreamed of in yours. (:P)
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
"Your attitude of intolerance toward religion "
oooh, you're one of those 'religious intolerance' card pulling little fellas, i knew it, that's why you gave me that 1 star rating.
Very sneaky.....
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
I am BUSTED. LOL
I am sincere, but strategic at times.
A fact is always better than an ideal
"I am BUSTED."
ha ha ha. I'm watching you Focher.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
"that because things are progressing in a positive direction, that violence of this sort is to be dismissed as a mere side effect of social change"
Every situation linked to in this blog refers to a conflict between gay marchers, and religious fundamentalists. I was thinking about this situation and what it implies when it occurred to me that these were only a subset of anti-gay violence. I would categorize the linked to occasions as organizational clashes. A gay civil rights group vs. a fundamentalist church. I agree with you that nearly every organization that opposes gay rights is a religious one.
A different category of violence would take place between small groups or individuals. I would characterize the victims of this type of violence as innocents, while the victims of the first sort know they are going forth to fight for their cause. I also think that this individual level of violence can be motivated by several non religious factors: fear of latent homosexuality, Bullying, Fear of anyone different from you, Peer pressure and more.
Religious teachings have contributed to the whole situation. Religious people who focus on those few passages are likely motivated by emotion created by the more human factors. Plenty of religious teaching is also non-violent.
I do not reject non-violence on an intellectual level. I am just emotionally and physically prejudiced to fight for my rights.
A fact is always better than an ideal
"I do not reject non-violence on an intellectual level. I am just emotionally and physically prejudiced to fight for my rights."
I see violence as a language. Sometimes it's the only language some people are willing to use to communicate or able to understand. In such instances, it is better to adopt their language, when you can clearly see that they don't understand any other.
For instance, if somebody is trying to physically maim you, possibly kill you, most people, if they believe they are physically capable, will resort to violence. But often it's too late by the time they realise that the only thing that could have saved them is violence.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
Violence as a tactic is a slippery slope, where is it acceptable and when does it become oppressive? There were cases where non-violence worked very well- it completely changed America and India but the leaders behind it unfortunately were both assassinated when their message of peace could not be stopped. Beyond death King and Gandhi still won the day so I suppose if you don't mind being a martyr it can work out rather well.
If it sounds like I am undecided on the subject that is because I do, in fact, have mixed feelings on the use of violence as while I admire non-violence and feel it is best I wouldn't want to be a martyr.
Oh, and to be clear- the violence I am mixed about is that done in self-defense---NEVER as used against an innocent party.
It is never too late to be what you might have been- George Elliot
With all the comments it took me forever. I decided to raid your blogs. (I call it a blog raid because when there are not any interesting blogs on here to read I decide to single out one person and comment.)
The very first comment in your post from someone on this site really sickened me.I wear men's clothing and I am not gay. It is more comfortable. But that isn't really an issue. This kind of violence disgusts me. But some people will always be ignorant.
http://www.progressiveu.org/043043-mom-i-can-finally-write-you-letter
Sorry to disappoint you, but I am voting for Lewis Black.
DrifterDani~