President Carter -The Presidency And Faith

[Utoo]

The best approach to counter a vocal or influencial minority is to have a better argument - not to stiffle one side's argument.

Absolutely true.


I won't delve into the ability of a strong voice to arise in the face of organizations that draw money from the public's belief in spirituality....



Whew! I'm wiped---I think I'm done for the day. Thumbs up to everyone----this has been a great discussion! I hope everyone has a great evening!

 

[Irvine511]

The best approach to counter a vocal or influencial minority is to have a better argument - not to stiffle one side's argument.

i think you're mistaking the "stifling" of an argument with the pointing out that a particular argument is rooted in theology, not in logic.

if i were to hear that, "homosexuals must be put in jail for having sex with other homosexuals because it says in the bible that god made man and woman for each other," then it is not stifling a voice to say that this line of thought has no credibility in a secular country when it comes to making laws. in certain towns in certain parts of the country, you might even have a majority of people agreeing to the criminilization of homosexuality. however, that doesn't make the argument a good one, or one that has any place in a secular society. we do not look to religious texts as guidance for good government, and it is not stifling anyone to say that we should not do so, and that any argument that finds its evidence (*not* origin) in a religious text is, by definition, useless.

 

[nbcrusader]

Groups like the religious right have taken faith and spirituality and created "religion"---the human, social, political mutation of faith and spirituality. Such groups take their religious---political and social---views, and push to enact them into public practice/mandate under the guise of faith and spirituality. Morals and values---personal, spiritual issues---become marketed as social issues, even though not all members of society may subscribe to them.

How does this really differ in application when compared to a group like environmentalists? They take their political, social (and perhaps religious) views and push to enact them into public practice/mandate under the guise of what is proper for all of us.

I'm not sure the belief in the Absolute (God) makes a difference when, in application, the belief in absolutes apply across the board.

As for the religious right trying to create "religion," to the extent we identify this as the actions of people like Pat Robertson, I would agree with Melon's assessment that short term gains will be followed by long term losses.

 

[nbcrusader]

if i were to hear that, "homosexuals must be put in jail for having sex with other homosexuals because it says in the bible that god made man and woman for each other," then it is not stifling a voice to say that this line of thought has no credibility in a secular country when it comes to making laws. in certain towns in certain parts of the country, you might even have a majority of people agreeing to the criminilization of homosexuality. however, that doesn't make the argument a good one, or one that has any place in a secular society. we do not look to religious texts as guidance for good government, and it is not stifling anyone to say that we should not do so, and that any argument that finds its evidence (*not* origin) in a religious text is, by definition, useless.

emphasis added

I think you've made my point. You responded with speech, not a call to silence those who made the statement. Old laws regarding private sexual acts have been routinly tossed out based on an analysis of whether they should apply today, not because they were aregued to be rooted in religious belief.

And we've enacted many laws and adopted many basic legal principles that are found in religious texts - dating back thousands of years.

 

[Irvine511]

emphasis added

I think you've made my point. You responded with speech, not a call to silence those who made the statement. Old laws regarding private sexual acts have been routinly tossed out based on an analysis of whether they should apply today, not because they were aregued to be rooted in religious belief.

And we've enacted many laws and adopted many basic legal principles that are found in religious texts - dating back thousands of years.

then you've been making my point all along and you agree with why religious groups cannot use religion, alone, as justification for the enactment of whatever beliefs and values they may hold.

as you've noted, many basic legal principles in ancient religious text -- and, heck, i'm sure we could find them in the Egyptian Book of the Dead -- have stood up to time because we have found secular evidence that justifies their continued existence.

the insistence that God wants us to do one thing and not another, based upon nothing more than a religious text, is not fit for secular governance.

if you look at the language of many of the religious pressure groups, they start out with a religious belief, and then find "experts" to support them with the most specious of evidence, one obvious example, as i've gone through her, is the neo-Freudian reading of how the overbearing mother/distant father "creates" a homosexual son.

 

[BonosSaint]

no. you miss the main point if you compare an absolute belief with belief in the Absolute.

Clever wordplay. Nice point. Other than this, I'm staying out of the argument.

 

[melon]

if you look at the language of many of the religious pressure groups, they start out with a religious belief, and then find "experts" to support them with the most specious of evidence, one obvious example, as i've gone through her, is the neo-Freudian reading of how the overbearing mother/distant father "creates" a homosexual son.

The funny thing about that argument is that it falls under the same logic as psychic "cold reading." That is, they just pick a quality that nearly EVERYONE has dealt with, and put the blame on that. I think if we did a census figure on that question, I think you'd find many heterosexuals who had an overbearing mother and distant father. By that logic, I guess every child that grows up without a father should be gay? Maybe we should stop this war in Iraq then. We're going to have lots of gay children.

Melon

 

[nathan1977]

Seconds before the thread goes gay....3...2....1....

 

[melon]

Seconds before the thread goes gay....3...2....1....

If religion wants to play politics, then politics will intrude on religion. Christianity can't have its cake and eat it too.

This is also why I support the separation of church and state. It prevents mutual corruption.

Melon

 

[joyfulgirl]

I think if we did a census figure on that question, I think you'd find many heterosexuals who had an overbearing mother and distant father.

Melon

*raises hand* ooh ooh, me me! Hetero me!

 

[Irvine511]

Seconds before the thread goes gay....3...2....1....

you're right.

it's terrible that mainstream politicized conservative Christianity has essentially centered itself around homophobia as it's defining ideology and raison d'etre.

doesn't it also strike you that the hysterics that surround homosexuality and gay marriage on the part of many of the leaders of mainstream politicized conservative Christianity is a textbook example of someone taking a belief that is based not in science but in Scripture, and then grafting "scientific" evidence for this belief and combining it with an imagined sense of crisis ("the American family is in jepordy") as well as a boogeyman ("the gays") in order to then pass blatantly bigoted legislation?

its such a textbook example of how religion -- all religions -- strive to gain secular credibility to their fantastical beliefs.

(i'm also going to ignore the somewhat offensive term that a discussion of homosexuality and it's relevance to how religion functions in a political context is indicative of a thread "going gay" ... it sounds suspiciously like the whole, "i just don't like it when gay people flaunt their sexuality" line of logic that's discriminatory to the core)

 

[nathan1977]

you're right.

it's terrible that mainstream politicized conservative Christianity has essentially centered itself around homophobia as it's defining ideology and raison d'etre.

Here you and I certainly agree. The Good News of Jesus Christ was not to demonize someone else, but rather to proclaim freedom for those trapped in bondage, to open the eyes of the blind and to set captives free. It was for freedom that He came. To pretend that the message of Christianity is the demonization of another group is wrong and hurtful both to the cause of Christ and to His followers. Jesus did not come preaching hope to those who already had some ("I did not come for the righteous but for sinners"), but to those who knew their brokenness and poverty (physical, but also spiritual), and cried out for help.

I also agree with Melon's earlier post that Christianity works best when it runs counter to prevailing dominant ideology, not when it is the ideology itself. Christ was a revolutionary who essentially preached that living a life of holiness was inherently counter-cultural. (How many of the thousands He preached to came to His aid?) The corruption that invaded the church in the post-Constantine era is an example of the fact that Christians, no matter how God-fearing or well-intentioned, can be corrupted...JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

I'm going to leave the scientific debate about homosexuality that you raise for another thread and for people more well-informed than I am.

(i'm also going to ignore the somewhat offensive term that a discussion of homosexuality and it's relevance to how religion functions in a political context is indicative of a thread "going gay" ... it sounds suspiciously like the whole, "i just don't like it when gay people flaunt their sexuality" line of logic that's discriminatory to the core)

My point was that, sooner or later, every thread in FYM goes gay. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

This has been a very pleasant and enlightening discusssion, it would be nice if it could stay that way..just a general wish on my part, not directed at anyone in particular

 

[Irvine511]

Here you and I certainly agree. The Good News of Jesus Christ was not to demonize someone else, but rather to proclaim freedom for those trapped in bondage, to open the eyes of the blind and to set captives free. It was for freedom that He came. To pretend that the message of Christianity is the demonization of another group is wrong and hurtful both to the cause of Christ and to His followers. Jesus did not come preaching hope to those who already had some ("I did not come for the righteous but for sinners"), but to those who knew their brokenness and poverty (physical, but also spiritual), and cried out for help.

I also agree with Melon's earlier post that Christianity works best when it runs counter to prevailing dominant ideology, not when it is the ideology itself. Christ was a revolutionary who essentially preached that living a life of holiness was inherently counter-cultural. (How many of the thousands He preached to came to His aid?) The corruption that invaded the church in the post-Constantine era is an example of the fact that Christians, no matter how God-fearing or well-intentioned, can be corrupted...JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

we fully agree on this point.



[q]I'm going to leave the scientific debate about homosexuality that you raise for another thread and for people more well-informed than I am.[/q]

well, there's really no scientific "debate" about homosexuality -- the debate is about to what extent sexual orientation is created by biology. what happens when Christians and simplified neo-Freudian loose theorizing -- which is ironic in and of itself -- join foces is that we get attempts at "scientific" support for the idea that no one is born gay or that homosexuals are created by poor parenting.

it's akin to "intelligent design" -- the taking of scientific "evidence" and using it at one's convenience in order to "prove" an article of faith.

My point was that, sooner or later, every thread in FYM goes gay. Nothing more, nothing less.

what does that mean? "goes gay"? and was it inappropriate to this thread?