World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[Sarge]

Apple,

I don't feel pity for you, any more than I feel pity for anyone else, including myself, for what my religion considers sin. I believe we are all fallen creatures. I do pray for everyone, believer or non-believer, gay or straight. I believe that there will be gays in heaven, for what it's worth, as there is nothing that the blood of Christ cannot atone for.

If you wish to classify my attempt to draw distinction between participating in a picture of marriage anathema to one's faith and hatred of an individual expressly for their sexuality as "homophobia apologism", then I have no real power to change that. Just be aware that, by that same measure, people of faith will take your statements as anti-religious bigotry, at least with the way you've presented your case. I'm not saying that you are, I'm saying that is how it will be perceived.

I know we'll never agree on this, but I bear you absolutely no ill will, and pray for your continued success in life.

[marurun]

I hate to use this example, because many Christians see this particular tack as akin to Godwin's Law, but when race was made a protected status against discrimination, many in certain corners of the Christian community objected vehemently that this was a violation of their religion. They claimed that their religious beliefs required them to discriminate against folks based on the color of their skin.

I'm sure there are many Christians who would prefer not to do business with Muslims or Athiests, and many Muslims who would prefer not to do business with Athiests, Jews, or Christians, or Athiests who would prefer not to do business with anyone of a strong faith, but federal law prohibits that. But the religious folks influenced by these requirements no longer really protest or complain. Why? Because it's the law.

A much smaller portion of the population now believe it is appropriate to discriminate based on race. I suspect the portion of those who claim a religious basis for that has also dropped significantly. Did religion itself change over this time? Actually, yes, in some ways it did. Changes in the the law affect society and culture, and eventually even religions change in response. Why is Islam so often militant? Because many of the adherents live in countries where government has minimal reach, and where it does reach it is plagued with massive corruption. Society is not modern at all in these places. If you look at Muslims in modern western societies, they are much more moderate. So society DOES change religion. And the problem is not Islam, but the conditions in the countries where Islam is the major religion. If those countries were largely Christian, we would be seeing lots of Christian terrorists and militants. I mean, look at the IRA and some of the conflicts in Africa. The Christians of various stripes give as good as they get.

Would it be easier if we finally took the plunge and made sexual orientation a protected status? If you look at existing protected statuses, skin color (race) and disability status are statuses that are involuntary. Sexual preference has largely been determined to be biological and thus involuntary, and thus not a matter of choice. Religion is also protected. Religion IS a matter of choice (not to mention great debate). The reason religion is protected is that it is culturally important to us as a nation.

So I think that is the answer. Sexual preference needs to be a protected status, just like religion. That will prevent people from using it as a basis for discrimination. Then it will become just another thing society has to accept, and eventually it won't be a big deal, just like the inability of businesses to legally discriminate based on race or religion. The law will change society, which will, over time, change religion, just as it already has in the cases of many branches of the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Disciples of Christ, and Lutherans.

[Sarge]

If those countries were largely Christian, we would be seeing lots of Christian terrorists and militants. I mean, look at the IRA and some of the conflicts in Africa. The Christians of various stripes give as good as they get.

While there certainly have been crimes committed in the name of Christianity, there are significant differences in the endpoints of Christianity versus those of Islam. A devout Christian, following the teachings of Christ, will become more peaceful, not less. Particularly in the case of the IRA, many will tell you that those involved in that conflict rarely ever darkened the doors of a church. In addition to this, given the largely Christian makeup of this country for much of its history, there should be much, much more terrorism from Christians than there is.

[dsheinem]

If those countries were largely Christian, we would be seeing lots of Christian terrorists and militants. I mean, look at the IRA and some of the conflicts in Africa. The Christians of various stripes give as good as they get.

While there certainly have been crimes committed in the name of Christianity, there are significant differences in the endpoints of Christianity versus those of Islam. A devout Christian, following the teachings of Christ, will become more peaceful, not less. Particularly in the case of the IRA, many will tell you that those involved in that conflict rarely ever darkened the doors of a church.

I'm not attempting to denigrate Muslims here, I work with quite a few and know them to be good people. But they are good people because they do not follow some of the teachings of their holy book.

Um, you are familiar with the Crusades? The Inquisition? The Salem Witch Trials? These were explained and justified by many devout Christians, "grounded" in scriptures, reified by clergy and leadership, etc. just as much as any terrorism/jihadi actions by some followers of Islam are today...

[Sarge]

Um, you are familiar with the Crusades? The Inquisition? The Salem Witch Trials? These were explained and justified by many devout Christians, "grounded" in scriptures, reified by clergy and leadership, etc. just as much as any terrorism/jihadi actions by some followers of Islam are today...

Oh, I'm very aware of the Crusades. I'm also aware that classifying them as Christian terrorism is a gross misrepresentation of history. Were there abuses that occurred in the name of Christianity during the Crusades? Absolutely. But the primary focus of the Crusades was a response to centuries of Islamic incursion and persecution in previously Christian territories. That conflict is not so black-and-white as you make it out to be.

As for the Salem Witch Trials, religion was indeed used as a justification, but I can find no support for that position within the Bible, particularly the New Testament. There is no command in there to burn witches. Using that as an example is like using Westboro Baptist Church as the quintessential picture of Christianity.

[dsheinem]

Religion has always been used to condone most acts of discrimination and violence and also always used to condemn many of these acts. Historical contexts change, but these truths persist.

[Sarge]

Religion has always been used to condone acts of discrimination and violence and also always used to condemn these acts . Historical contexts change, but these truths persist.

Any ideology can be used to condone acts of discrimination and violence or condemn them, if twisted enough. I'd could say the same thing of extremists in, say, secular humanism, but I would not necessarily judge the entire ideology based on the actions of those individuals.

Not all ideologies (or as a subset, religions) are created equal. We all have ideals that we subscribe to because we believe them to be inherently superior to their alternatives. So lumping them all together really does us no good. Again, underlying philosophies are significantly different, and all lead to different endpoints. What you refer to is the innately human condition of justifying any behavior with anything, regardless if that thing actually supports the position or not.

[Erik_Twice]

If one thinks forcing someone to commit sin against their God is a small matter, that it is worth infringing on their religious freedom for flowers or pictures for a wedding ceremony (and not being denied solely based on sexuality), then there's nothing else I can say.

You are not a victim. You are a member of the single most powerful group in the United States complaining about not being able to discriminate against one of the most marginalized groups in existence.

So long as they are being respectful of you and your lifestyle and they aren't actively trying to denigrate you, rather speaking solely about their own belief.

As long as someone thinks that gay people doing something so inherent to basic human decency as loving and forming relationships is sinful and something "to atone for" they are everything but respectful.

And arguing that people should be refused service based on their sexuality is also as denigrating as it gets, really.

[MrPopo]

I don't feel pity for you, any more than I feel pity for anyone else, including myself, for what my religion considers sin. I believe we are all fallen creatures. I do pray for everyone, believer or non-believer, gay or straight. I believe that there will be gays in heaven, for what it's worth, as there is nothing that the blood of Christ cannot atone for.

This line, right here, is the incredibly condescending thing that many devoutly religious people do that rubs the rest of us the wrong way. If you want to celebrate God's glory or self flagellate because of our own perceived failings go right ahead. That's part of your personal religion and I welcome you to engage in it. If you want to get a group of like minded people together to engage in the same activities even better; you're making connections with the people around you.

But the second you start including the rest of us in that is where I get mad. You judge us as a sinner based on criteria we never agreed to. I don't care that you don't spend your time condemning us for it and are praying and hoping we get better, it's still incredibly offensive of you.

Note: I am not saying when you hear your friend's kid has cancer and you tell him "I'll pray for her" is bad. Every reasonable person will know it's your way of saying very strongly "I hope she gets better".

[samsonlonghair]

The hyperbole is palpable on both sides.

Can't we all just be nice and respect each others views?