Our own taliban

[rahmota]

This is an American situation I think. And I want it clear that I am not raggin on all "christians" or religious people. Also when I say you I am not referring to any one person in particular but the general universal you. I am an aethiest and particularly don't care what religion or other -ism a person believes as long as it involves consenting adults who want to believe that way and are happy doing so among themselves. As long as they DO NOT try and push, force or otherwise coerce me or others to believe the same way against our will.

And that brings me to our own little version of the Taliban here in America. A Christian Taliban. Those fundamentalists who are so uptight and self rightuous about their faith and beliefs that they feel that it is right and their duty from god to impose their moral codes upon others. Such as the anti-homosexual marrige amendments that where forced upon people by scare tactics and the worst kind of rumor mongering muck racking possible. And not only anti-homosexual but removing the whole concept of common law marriage from people. And yet some of the biggest sex scandels have involved religious leaders. The hypocrisy of these people knows no bounds.

Then there is the nudity and language and sex issues as brought about after the Janet Jackson incident. First off she had a pasty so you didnt see what you thought you saw . And second off its a boob. If you are so immature that you cant look at a boob without loosing your self control then maybe you shouldnt be allowed out by yourself in the first place. I mean I have satellite and I cannot stand to watch a movie because of all the bad overdubbing and choppy editing to remove the "bad" words and "Sexual situations" from these movies. And this is stuff that is on at 1 in the morning! All the little kiddies are supposed to be in bed by then and if they arn't then hey maybe the parents are aware the movie has language and allow the kids to watch the movie with it in it. Explaining that these words are not used in everyday conversation but for special occasions.

I mean I just read in the news recently about several episcopal churches seceding from the main church over a homosexual man being ordained and installed as a bishop. What does it matter who a consenting adult sleeps with as long as it is another consenting adult?

And then there is the whole attack on anything that even remotely seems to promote an alternative lifestyle than the one the fundies believe to be the only right one. Tv commercials, shows, songs all of it under attack by these people for perceived insults against religion and christ himself. I am quite sure that if christ was feeling insulted he would take action and deal with it himself. Thank the CT though they know and understand what christ and the christian god wants better than anyone else so they can take the proper actions against the infidels and heathens. Including as I have been told by a member of a nondenominational church that I got into a discussion with that the first amendment should be removed as the lack of religion in our government is want has ruined this country.

Hello McFly look at Afganistan and other theocracies in this world and see how wonderful paradises these places are and have been. (/sarcasm) I may not like the way thigns are but I definately do not agree that what we need is more religion. How about more understanding, tolerance or cooperation between people? You know that might not be a bad place to start. You have your life I have mine and as long as I'm not hurting you and youre not hurting me then thigns are all good. I count among my friends several religions. ONe friend is a homosexual wiccan priest. One is a friend (quaker) and the rest I guess you could say are borderline aethiest to lapsed christian. I used to be best friends with one guy but he got saved and sicne I wouldnt bend over and be forced to admit he was right about everything to do with religion or morals we had to part company.

I am sorry but it doesnt matter which -ism you follow. A fanatical zealot is still a fanatical zealot no matter the symbol they follow.

Thank you for listening.

[Rapscallion]

How common are the fanatical zealots in western society?

The media is there to gain and retain readers. They will and do concentrate on the prurient and interesting - things that will attempt to shock a jaded public. A leader of a small congregation says that the death of American soldiers in the Middle East is the result of allowing and accepting homosexuality? Fred Phelps is headline news, but his congregation is a couple of hundred (I think) in a national population of three hundred million or so.

The gay pride rallies? Look at the coverage - it's not people dressed in everyday clothes simply holding hands that end up on the photos, but the blokes in tiaras doing their best to try and shock 'normals'.

What I'm saying is that the 'threat' is probably overly emphasised by the media. People on the fundamentalist side are also doing their best to overstate the 'threat to the family' from things they don't particularly appreciate.

I think I speak for the silent majority who regard antics on both sides with indifference, though I would have to talk to everyone to be certain of this :p

The whole concept of religion is that it's trying to tell people how they should live their lives - don't eat certain foods, perform certain rituals, don't give in to this desire, do this instead of that etc. I don't have a problem with a relgious organisation stating what they think should be done, since that is their role in a society that holds free speech dear. I do object to some of the things they want, and I do object to some of the reasons why they want this, but it's their right to say it. It's also the duty of free-thinkng individuals to speak their minds if they think those speaking from religious platforms are wrong.

Some of the things you state - such as certain programs should be removed - I would agree with, despite being an atheist. I object on different grounds - 'gangsta' rap music is one I would happily see discarded to the oubliette of history, since I consider it to be a destructive force in society. However, banning it would just increase its attraction to the younger element of society. That's a side issue.

Sure, they can and should put forward their views, but by the same token so should everyone who disagrees with them - that's democracy. You want the cable companies to be able to put more explicit movies on the screens? Lobby your politicians. Get a pressure group together called "More Smut" or something. If the politicians don't hear your voice, they won't be able to listen. If other people don't hear your views, they won't be able to think about your points. If you don't speak up, democracy is dead.

I think the situation is more prevalent in the US, but we have our share of loonies over here as well.

What I'd like to see are the moderates speaking up and being heard. Religious zealots will get heard when they say something ridiculous, but moderates are rarely seen. I'm not certain of the reasons - maybe moderates think that by speaking up, they're no longer moderates, or maybe they're not seen as interesting by the media, or whatever, but I'd like to see some of the more middle-of-the-road religious views put forward.

As to the theocracies in the Middle East, interestingly enough they have a tradition of dealing with offenders against the law in harsh way. Their crime rates are very low. There are benefits.

Rapscallion

[Giggle Goose]

I think it's just a matter of people's OPINIONS being written into the law. Personally, I'm against abortion, but I can't stop anyone from getting one! And I want to come to that decision because it's one made by me, myself, and I. That's the problem with all these marriage amendments and such. The beliefs of a select few politicians are supposed to be the LAW for everyone to follow? Talk about "pushing your beliefs onto others." Pfft. :p

[rahmota]

OK I'll agree that there are many things in society I don't like and shows that I don't see having a socially redeeming value but I just don't watch them or allow my children towatch them. I am responsible for my own actions. Many of the christian taliban or the hardcore fundies are however the type who would say I don't like this and it offends me so you shouldntbe allowed to watch it even if it doesnt offend you. Thats what I'm on about.

As for the fundies there are the big mouthpieces like Phelps and Connors and all who the media latches on as they make good soundbites. But there are quite a few other groups and persons at the grassroots level who are the quiet type who do not attract the attention of the media. I know because I've been fighting them for the past 6 years. I'll start with the homosexual marriage issue that was so divisive and close to violent here in Ohio as I have direct exposure to that.

I am not a homosexual but I don't care what gender two or more CONSENTING ADULTS are who want to be together in a relationship. Its not bothering or hurting me so no big deal. But to some of these zealots any action is acceptable if taken in the name of the lord to try and stop and prevent homosexuals from being given the same rights and benefits as anyone else.

As I was campaigning against the homosexual marriage ban amendment (which also banned any other recognition of anything except 1 man 1 woman with a marriage liscence) I had some of these religious people spit on me, egg my car, threaten me with violence among the usual statements they'll pray for me and I'm goign to hell. That sort of stuff I am used to ever since I walked away from the church. I was told by my own sister in law that homosexual behavior itself should be illegal. I should point out that they are members of the CT as my BIL is a preacher at a nondenominational church. they have called children services on people (including my wife and I) just for them being aethiest or not "christian enough" (their words) or supporting some pogrom of theirs against civil rights and freedoms. Also they had a major deal last year when the Concealed Carry Laws came about where they got everyone in the church to get a concealed carry. That sounds more like a cult than a real church.

I am basically saying that a good christian understand that others may not share their views and beliefs but still ives their life as an example in the hopes that others may join them because they want to not because they are forced into it out of fear and threats of reprisals.

As for rap music its music. Yes the lyrics are vulger and bad but people have also said that about hard rock, country music etc... Its not the thoughts but the actions taken that destroy or elevate a society.

[Rapscallion]

OK I'll agree that there are many things in society I don't like and shows that I don't see having a socially redeeming value but I just don't watch them or allow my children towatch them. I am responsible for my own actions. Many of the christian taliban or the hardcore fundies are however the type who would say I don't like this and it offends me so you shouldntbe allowed to watch it even if it doesnt offend you. Thats what I'm on about.


I can see your point.

TV executive A wants to screen pay-per-view executions from Afghanistan or from some other harsh regime in the Middle East. Should he be allowed to cash in on a sick market? Should that be allowed? After all, nobody's forcing anyone to view it.

I would imagine that your answer would be 'no', but that's a line drawn in the sand at a different place. The people you describe are trying to draw the line at a more restrictive extent. The thought that there would be a (limited, I hope) market for this is disturbing, but where do you draw the line?

If someone tries to get something banned because it's bad for society, then that's up to them to persuade the governing bodies (through the politicians) to do so. If enough speak in favour of a certain limit, that limit will eventually come to pass. Religion is about setting limits, and therefore the religious organisations have as much right as anyone else to their say.

When it comes to oppressing other people's beliefs, it becomes much trickier. There have been reports on CS about how some work-based religious groups have forced anything but religious music off their work radios. For me, freedom of religion contains freedom from religion, and therefore I wouldn't stand for such as that.

When it comes to intimidation, it depends on the circumstances. The stuff about when you were told they would pray for you - if that was when you were arguing with them in their church (I'm guessing here) then it was rather to be expected that they would pounce on you with their superstitions, but if it was in your home then it is harassment, plain and simple. The egging of your car is vandalism, and they should face the consequences of that action. The calling of child services with false reports should also result in legal action where it can be proven it was for the purposes of harassment.

As always, proving such is going to be a bugger.

Are they actually right in their beliefs? All done and said, I don't care for the biases of the writer of a bronze age pamphlet, nor do I care for the rabble-rousing interpretations of people bending it to their own ends and focussing on a very few matters instead of the whole. I have a number of colleagues who are homosexual, and I'd rather stand with them than the harmful and intolerant idiots that society always seems to breed. I don't think that homosexuality is a choice, and nor do I think it is evil - it just is. I rather think that the intolerant seek a convenient minority to attack, since a smaller percentage is a better target than a larger one, rather like the scape goats of old.

More than anything, I believe that allowing the intolerant a voice is vital, as this will show them to everyone to be the scum that they are.

Rapscallion

[rahmota]

raps: I'll agree that line in the sand is a very tricky one. It would be in a different place for each person.

Your example of afghan executions for example. I personally would not watch it but I am sure like you said there are those who would. Where I draw the line is anythign that does not involve CONSENTING ADULTS. (Sorry for emphasizing that but thoe two words are beyond important in any discussion of things like this) If you are a consenting adult then supposedly you are responsible and aware of the consequences of your actions and willing to accept them.

The way many of the fundies act they do not believe that a person is an adult and needs to be treated like a child having their minds made up for them.

I'll agree that in a democracy everyone should have their say. But there must come a point where society goes hey you're an adult. i dont need to hold your hand while you go about your business take responsibility for your own butt. Unfortuantely too many people are either unwilling or unable to take responsibility for their own actions and lives. As for allowing the intolerant their own voice. Thats fine and dandy its just when that voice manages to outweigh the voice of reason and sanity that things get scary.

Actually most of the we'll pray for you and other commetns like that have come from encounters in public where I have been maybe not accosted but at least approached in a hostile manner about one thing or another that these people find offensive. Especially when i used to own my eagle talon that I had riced out with the words Devil Boy across the top of the windshield. That for some reason would set one of these people off if I encountered them. Although when my exbestfriend got saved and I refused to bow down to him I got the we'll pray for you from them.

But generally I agree I go into your church I expect to hear your faith and if I am in your church then that is because I want to be there. If I am in public then it is a tricky thorn but I still should have personal space that should be respected. In my own home then my beliefs rule. It all goes back to that personal responsibility thing. I dont go and pee in your pool you dont come and do so in mine.

Yes it is rather difficult to proove it was harrasment especially with Children's services. As they take a guilty until innocent approach to their job. And as for the vandalism on the car the ones who did it where never caught. Yippiee.

[Rapscallion]

Good point on the consent issue. There are people who get off on being tortured, and those who get off on torturing. They're consenting.

Would you allow that to be on pay-per-view?

Thinking about it, though, one of the very essences of the issue of sin is that we have a choice - we can chose to offend against the rules of a church or do as they bid us. If they manage to enshrine their beliefs into law - or vandalise someone's car, or otherwise blackmail them into acting in a way other than they would normally - aren't they effectively removing the element of choice and thus invalidating the strength of someone else's faith? You could try that one on anyone harassing you.

Rapscallion

[ditchdj]

That's exactly why I cant figure out why we're at odds with Iran. They run the EXACT same kind of government that a lot of right wing wackos in office want here. The only difference is that they do it all in the name of Allah, not Jesus. Oh yeah that's right: they're not "doing it right", so Iran's gotta go. Bye Bye.........

[AFPheonix]

I laughed when I heard that Aminidejad's party totally tanked on local elections.

He and Bush are WAAAAY more alike than they'd like to admit.

[rahmota]

Raps: I would probably allow that on Pay per view. Given that PPV is suposed to be done by people with credit cards (I dont use PPV so I am not at all certain on how it works) who are supposedly adults and able to decide for themselves about to watch it or not. and yes while it may be that kids will go behind their parents back with the PPV setups thats where the parental supervision/responsibility thing comes into play.

I tried the issue of free will vs predestination with some people. Some of them said that free will was an illusion and we are all predestined to do what we do. It turned into a very circular discussion very quickly when it was pointed out if we are predestined to be what we are then I was made by god to be an aethiest. Think your average SC logic only ramped up a notch or two for their response to that. :) Those that seemed to agree with free will said that they were using their free will to do gods will which is the ultimate good so all "reasonable" people should think that way and willingly go that way already and any actions they take in the pursuit of god's will are good and will be rewarded. Fortunately I've only run across a couple of people that deep. Those are the people who scare me the most though because as it was stated in Serenity they are "believers" and believers can do anything.

I'll agree though about the freedom to choose. From what I understand of true christian doctrine god does not want to force you to obey him (at least in the new testament, old testament is a lot more into the force issue fire and brimstone smitings and all that). That you should choose to do his works and reject evil because that shows you are a higher person and willingly accepting him. Not just taking the path of least resistence and being assimilated to avoid the pain and punishment in this world.

I think the biggest problm some of these people have with believing in free will is that it means some people will willingly choose to turn away from them and their church and religion and they cannot accept that.

[Rapscallion]

Heh - http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2006/12/soy_makes_you_g_1.html shows that fundamentalists have good comedy value.

As for what you would allow and what happens, again that's down to what society as a whole wants. Is there anything you wouldn't allow that does involve consenting adults?

True christian doctrine? Heh - define true in this case. The christian faith has had many splits based on different interpretations of the messages in the bible. Different orders of monks have based their ways of life on different aspects, and larger schisms (protestantism, methodism etc) have all based their faith on different things. It's a bit hard to say what a true christian doctrine is when there are so many variations. Islam has sunni and shi'ite options to add more confusion to the mix, so it's not just one religion that does this. I know of at least one variation of buddhism (jain), so there are probably more.

All done and said, I would hate to tell someone they are not behaving as their faith says they should - and I've seen people told that - because I could never be sure about what a christian believes.

Rapscallion

[rahmota]

Yeah I saw that Soy makes you gay BS. Speaking as a farmer who raises soybeans and is a major proponent for their use as a plastics and biodiesel and all sorts of things that was just so ludacris that I laughed and cried at the same time. It really does make me wonder what these people are smoking when they come up with stuff like this and if they seriously realize how messed up it sounds. Whats scary is that you know these people or at least some of them really believe this crud.

As for what I wouldn't allow that involes consenting adults. Well I'm pretty open. As long as they are harming themselves and not someone else , children are not harmed directly or indirectly and people who do not want to be involved are not forced into becoming involved then pretty much anything goes. Basically it all comes back to my statement on pesonal responsibility. As long as they are discrete, polite and responsible about things be happy.

True Christian Doctrine. Yeah true, with all the various branches and stuff maybe doctrine was the wrong word. Core values? Core beliefs that all good christians are supposed to hold to might be better choices. Such as do unto others and treat each as a brother and all that sort of thing. But yeah I don't like saying a person isnt acting all *-ism enough as I am an outsider and dont really care as well as if they're happy and all then more for them. All I ask is I am happy with my choice so leave me to it unless I open myself to you and ask for your input.

[rahmota]

OK since for some reason I can't get this this to edit my previous post I wanted to clarify what I would and wouldn't allow.

Basically I would like to see people take the time to stop and think and filter their actions through a few questions:
1: What will be the immediate results of this?
2: Will I be harming someone else?
3:Will I be benefiting from this action or benefiting someone else?
4: Will the benefits outweigh the harm done to myself or another.

So basically the biggest test would be the degree of harm vs help the actions are doing. A person who is responsible would attempt to minimize the harm they do to others while maximizing the benefit to themselves and others.

Because I see harm and benefit as more useful terms than good and evil. Good and evil are very relative and fluid terms that many differnt groups can disagree on and contradict each other on. One groups good is another's evil. But harm harm can be something that is measured and definitive. I take your money I am harming you. I injure you that is harming you. I fly a plane into your building that is harming you. I prevent you from living your life in your manner and intefere in your enjoyment of life liberty and the pursuit of happipness that is harming you.

I stop you from burning a dog that is harming you but benefiting the dog and society in general. I stop you from driving drunk this is harming you but benefiting society greater by keeping you from harming another. You drinking in your house to the point where you fall down your own stairs is you harming yourself so does not require my or societies interference. I stop you from raping a person by killing you. This is harming you by stopping you from harming another, ever. Permitting you to ride your motorcycle helmetless is potentially harming yourself and your loved ones but if it is your choice it is more harmful to force you to wear a helmet. Like I said a responsible adult should make choices and be aware and accepting of the consequences. Now these differnt examples of harm may not all be equal as harm comes in degrees but that is a relative example of what I am trying to say.

Part of my problem with religion is that too many people use religion to absolve themselves of responsibility for their actions. "Oh god willing" or "Its God's will" Or somethign along those lines when shite happens or they goof up is just making poor excuses. IMO.

[Ree]

The fact is, this country was founded by Christian people, or else 'God' would not have made its way into all the government and legislation, and any other areas from where non-believers now feel it now needs to be removed.
I don't think it was out of some evil plan to indoctrinate the whole world into Christianity, no matter what others may believe.

I was taught that God does have a plan for each of us, but we are born with free will, and, ultimately, man does create his own destiny.

I think a large part of what is percieved as these Christians forcing their views on others is a part of the Christian doctrine.

I know I was raised with a belief that if we see someone who is in danger of eternal damnation, we have a duty to guide them back to God, or risk the same fate by allowing the sin to continue.

That may seem ridiculous to others, and they may feel that what happens to them in the afterlife is their business, but to a Christian raised with those beliefs, it makes sense.

I was also told, however, that the best way to do that was to provide an example for others to follow.
It's not enough to just spout empty words. You have to back it up with your own actions.

I do not force my Christian views on people. I hope I live a life that illustrates my views. If I see someone that I feel is headed down a wrong path, I find it a lot easier to just offer a silent prayer for them without them knowing. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't.

Someone once wrote in my LJ, "...you are the one person out of everyone I've met that I could never, ever, EVER, argue abortion or birth control or religion with. Because you are walking the walk and you are part of the solution."
That was quite a compliment, and it blew me away to see it on the page.

I posted elsewhere on this site about a double standard that now exists, in my opinion.

I have a nephew whom I love dearly. He is at the age where he is discovering his own identity. I suspect that includes the fact that he is gay or at the very least, bisexual.
Even though I was raised with the belief that homosexuality is a sin, I have known this little boy from birth, and I know that he is not choosing to be this way. I have had to rethink my whole belief system in that regard.

I accept him as he is.

I spent a whole day with him a couple of weeks ago, just him and I. We had a long talk. He is a beautiful person with a wonderful social conscience. He is a model of Christianity, except for one thing. He has rejected Chritianity. In fact, he was so adamant in his condemnation of the Roman Catholic religion, that it was the only black cloud on an almost perfect day.

He spoke of my religion with such venom and almost hatred. I sat there and listened to him speak of so many things that he believes, and I accepted them without argument or condmenation, because if I had spoken up and called him on his beliefs, I would have been putting him down. I would have been guilty of hypocrisy because I was supposedly a Christian, but I wasn't acting like it because I was forcing my views on him, yet he was allowed to do the same to me unchecked.

Perhaps I have missed the point of this whole thread, and I am still arguing the point of my other thread, but it seems to me that, now it is trendy to not be affiliated in anyway with organized religion, especially Christianity, and in fact, the more one can suppress and malign any Christian views in any way, the better it seems to be.

[rahmota]

Ree, I am sorry if it seems like I am maligning all religion. I thought I had made it clear that I personally do not care what a person believes as long as they do not try to forc it upon another against their will.

You are not a person I would consider a christian taliban or fundie by your statements. In many ways I would consider you a good person overall which is more important than being a good whatever *ism you claim membership in. By living your life quietly and as a testament to your values then you are doing more to promote and encourage others to join with you than by forcing them to do so. You can get a person to kneel at the point of a sword but you cannot make them give you their heart.

I do have to disgree with you in that the founding fathers where not "Christians" as definde by the modern world. They where Deists. A subtle difference in that the personal relationship between a person and their god as more importnat than the church. One of the reasons the founding fathers where rebels and refugees from europe where the church was more important than the person. having been a history major I've looked into all of this and the relations the founding fathers had with the church and religion. It is the conclusion of myself and many other historians and legal scholors that the founding fathers would e very ashamed and upset with how much religion there is in the government. Adams, Jefferson and Madison all understood the danger of having too much religious control over the government as they where escaping and protesting the conventional european model of government. The God of the founding fathers is not the same god as the modern christians and most especially not the god of the religious right and fundies.

I dont really think its just "trendy" to hate the church or be upset at it. it seems like a backlash against the strangling oppression that many on the right are pushing. Much of it is the result of those on the far right being such irritants and dweebs by attacking anything that does not meet their approval of what it means to be "christian". I'll agree that there are times when the defense against the religious right gets a bit overzealous on its own but that is one of the danger of war.

i can understand your nephews attitude though. To many in the church being a homosexual is a step below being a cockroach. That it is erfectly alright to hate, discriminate, objectify, and persecute homosexuals just for being a person who has a different hormonal drive than a heterosexual. I am glad to see that you are intelligent and reasonable enough to accept and realize that he is not choosing to be a homosexual he simply is one.

And as for the christian doctrine of salvation where you should not stand by and let another burn. I agree that if a person is in danger of harming themselves then you are well within your bounds to say "hey you know you might hurt yourslf" but that is different then what the religious right do by saying I do not agree with that and do not believe that is right by my religion so I will stop you by any means necessary and use force against you. That is flowing into the realm of harm which equals evil. Again a responsible person accepts the consequences of their actions.

[Rapscallion]

I've not met your nephew, Ree, but I can respect his attitude. It's something I share - you don't need to follow religion to do what is commonly called 'good' or 'right'. I have met you, though, and I know you're not someone who tries to force their views on others in the way Phelps et al do. It's in much the same way that I don't picket the pavements outside churches as people are leaving waving placards saying, "You just wasted part of your life."

Actually, it would be funny to go to Phelpsville and do that ... but I digress.

Rahmota - you're right about those who attack religion being overzealous as well. However, I often see them going for the jugular as soon as they learn that someone has a faith. A friend of mine gets the same result - he's a vegetarian, but doesn't mind if people eat meat in his presence. If he is with people who he doesn't know so well and he asks if there's a vegetarian option, he invariably gets comments about how his shoes are made of leather etc. To me, that's just as bad as the extreme zealots who wave their holy texts around at everything.

Ree, you spoke about the way people wanted rid of all christian values. I suspect that in analysis, this isn't entirely correct. I've read the ten commandments, which are supposed to be the basis of actions in the old testament (give or take), and there are good points in there on most of them. Don't kill, respect your parents, not coveting your neighbour's ox looks to me like don't steal etc. Such things are those are needed to form a working society. I just don't see any need to blame or praise a supernatural force for them. I also don't think that most people would want the laws regarding theft and violence repealed.

I do see fuzzy religions starting off. David Koresh started his own brand of christianity within my lifetime, and we all know how that ended up. I've seen the rise of 'intelligent design', which is to me an acceptance of the way science has eroded faith to such an extent that some religious people are trying to shoehorn their beliefs into society in some way, no matter how ludicrous. That's a whole different thread.

For me, my problem with religion is not what it says, for the most part, but the reason why we ought to obey those strictures. It's a fear-based system, and that forces people to go along with the stupid aspects (not wearing clothes made of two different fabrics? are they kidding me?) as well as the sensible. That fear is then passed on by the zealots who warn of an unprovable punishment for anyone not doing what they say.

Rapscallion

[rahmota]

Yeah the far left is just as embaressing and irritating to me as the far right. It would be a lot nicer if more people could hang out in the middle.

And I didn't think about what Ree was saying about getting rid of christian values as the do not kill, do not steal I see as more universal values all reasonable people should hold to. Regardless of whatever *ism they are a member of.

And yes I'll definately say that a religion that needs people to be members because they are too afraid not to be is not exactly a very beneficial one. If you need to have your religion supported and backed by the force of law then that does not say much for your faith in your religion.

[AFPheonix]

I forgot where I was reading this, but a recent poll documented that about 80% of US citizens polled say they go to church. I imagine this also includes the people who do the go to church on christmas and easter thing, maybe leading to the inflated number.

I can see where your nephew is coming from, Ree. When I got excommunicated last year from the Brethren church I attended since I was a baby, I got a wide range of responses from various other members of the church. (I married a non-christian, and refused to apologize for it). A lot of people disagreed with the church leadership and let me know, a few people left, and then there were the people that wrote me and my new husband the most awful, cruel letters you could imagine.
It's these last few people, essentially the SCs of Christianity that people tend to remember. I understood why the church leadership felt the way they did and did what they did, and I'm not at all angry about it in the least. It was a difference of opinion, and it was really a relief to leave.

What bothers me most about church members getting more involved in politics is that it seems that it is really changing the face of the church, and not for the better. Politics is a dirty game, and I think it's dirtying up a lot of the pastors who are trying their hand at it.

[rahmota]

You got excommed because you followed your heart and married someone outside of the church and then wouldnt repent or be ashamed of that? That transcends Sucky into domineering, controllilng and abusive. I would think I would be happy to be out form under a place like that.

I will agree with you on the entaglement of politics and religion not being a good thing for either. It weakens and demeans both and just leaves everyone dirty.

[AFPheonix]

Biblically, they felt that I was unequally yoking myself in a relationship to a guy who wouldn't be able to help me with my Christian walk. I can understand that point of view. They would have let me stay if I had issued a statement to the church that yes, the marriage was a mistake, but that a divorce would be a bigger sin.

I do not feel that my husband was a mistake, I dated him for about 6 years before we got married. I thought long and hard about it, and yes, I knew that there would be some church friction over it. Frankly, I was hoping that I'd be able to just exit stage right quietly, but that was not to be, since my Mom, who still goes there, went to the elders to see if they could talk "sense" to me.
(Mom literally burst into tears of anger and sadness when I told her about the engagement. Most people would be happy with me hitching my wagon to a genuinely nice, kind, thoughtful man who has a history of working hard, and continues to do so. Hell, he even cuts his hair and doesn't have any tattoos but hey, whatever)
The Brethren church is a very conservative denomination. They follow every literal word of the Bible, and conform themselves to the original church written about in Acts. If you ever read Lake Wobegon Days, Garrison Keillor went to a Brethren fellowship in his youth and describes it to the letter.

[rahmota]

Ahh Lovely. Im sorry that your own mother couldnt accept your choice and your happiness. I just cannot understand that kind of closed mindset. Its almost like trying to deal with someone from alpha centauri or something.

When somone says they follow the bible litterally that always makes me nervous because there are several things in there that if taken litterally are not very beneficial for people. Mainly the stoning and such things.

[AFPheonix]

She's gotten used to the idea now, she apparently was still a little bitchy about it at my wedding, but she had the good graces not to say anything to my face.
It helps that he really is a great guy too. Ya can't help but like him ;)

[rahmota]

Well thats good to hear. Sorry that sometimes it takes a boot to the head to get people to realize what they have.

[Luna]

I would have to say I detest people of both far right and far left. One for interfering in my life and one for making me look like an intolerant beeyotch to the people who don't.

I have no love for the Catholic church, as I was thrown out of it at 8 years old when my father divorced my mother leaving her single with 4 kids. Of all the times I needed guidance, I was sent home with a letter (which I of course read) telling us that we were "no longer God's children".

I would have to say though (sorry this is jumpy but my thoughts are racing today) why is it always called Christian core values. I'm not trying to be snarky, I just really want to know. I'm wondering why it is that when you insert any other religion in fron of ___ values - Christian is the only one that somehow has come to be synonymous with 'good'. *shrugs* Just something that I find interesting when you think about it.

On the issue of our founding father being Christian, if the biographies you read are correct - they were Deists, Freemasons, and free-thinkers who believed in the God of Nature or "Providence" and brotherhood of man.
I would find a link for this but there is none for the current issue. To help with any copyright: The following excerpts are from PanGaia: A Pagan Journal for Thinking People issue number 45. PanGaia.com has only up to issue number 42 listed online.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 'Notes on the State of Virginia'. " it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god...It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.


in the treaty of Tripolti President John Adams signed in 1797: The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion."


James Madison wrote in denial of the state of Virginia support one sect of Chritianity over another declaring that , "the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his religion according to the dictates of conscience is held by the same tenure with all our rights " and he went on to say an authority cannot establsih one in exclusion of all other sects and religions (in a much wordier fashion I may add!)

Now that I've gone completely off topic...

back to your regularly scheduled programming :)

[rahmota]

Actually no you have the right idea(s) Luna. I would say you've got a good grasp of what part of the problem is.

[rdp78]

Well, I never had a personal problem dealing with fundies but I almost became a Jehovah Witness (of course, they stay out of politics) and boy do they have some odd believes like that whole not celebrating any holidays or even their birthdays. Anyway on my mom's side her sister-in-law's family are quite religious (pretty much fundies) and I didn't know until couple of my cousins were living with their significant others but now everyone is married. Anyway they sent some nasty letters to the girl cousin and I don't think they like any of the significants becuase they had tattoos/piercings. I also don't remember any of them being at the weddings accept for the grandmother and maybe another one but this has almost a year ago (Sept. 05, Feb. 06).

Anyway I don't think it's anyone's right to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their lives unless I think they would end up in jail, hurt someone or someone would get killed. I mean I don't care what someone else's sexuality is or even if they are living with someone who they are not married since their not hurting anyone. However, if someone is having sex with a child or is with someone who is abusive yes, I'll say something maybe even report/help them.

[Misanthropical]

I was raised in a Pentecostal church, which is the only one true church. It's true, just ask them. :rolleyes:

I left when I was 18 years old, because of a huge disagreement with the pastor, over things that happened that he told me I must have deserved, because it was God's punishment. I wanted nothing to do with that type of God and left.

Of course, I got the calls telling me if I didn't come back I would go to hell and the stories of others who left the church and died horrible deaths. Of course, I didn't go back.

I was told I was marrying Satan, because my husband plays drums in a rock band. They hung up when I said I knew Satan would be good in bed, but shouldn't he be rolling in money? :cool:

The last time they got in touch, I told them I would never ever in a million years subject my children to their hate or their hate filled God. I would not have my children growing up fearing a wrath filled God just waiting to punish them.

I told them my children would learn of a loving God who loves them no matter what they do and is not out just looking for a reason to bring sorrow upon them.

They also told me that my stillborn son was "God's will" and not to question God. It was my punishment for daring to leave the "One True Church". I told them that I would burn in Hell before going back and they could shove their hatefilled God right up their ass. He was NOT my God.

Last I heard, the pastor told the church that no one is to talk to me if they see me, since I turned my back on the church, they are to turn their back to me.

They gave me a very bad taste for religion. I did attend a Luthern church for awhile that had a great pastor, but some of the men in the church had a problem with the pastor wanted me to be his assistant, since that is not a woman's role.

[Seshat]

I know I was raised with a belief that if we see someone who is in danger of eternal damnation, we have a duty to guide them back to God, or risk the same fate by allowing the sin to continue.

My problem with this is that it is so often done in a patronising, insulting manner. As if the person being preached to is unable to make up their own mind, and somehow unaware of Christianity's existence. (HOW? How can one be unaware of Christianity in this world?)

From what I know of you, and the other things you said in this post, Ree, I believe you wouldn't do it that way. But the Christians who do, make it harder for everyone.


I have a nephew whom I love dearly. He is at the age where he is discovering his own identity. I suspect that includes the fact that he is gay or at the very least, bisexual.
Even though I was raised with the belief that homosexuality is a sin, I have known this little boy from birth, and I know that he is not choosing to be this way. I have had to rethink my whole belief system in that regard.


That's an extremely difficult thing to do. I respect you for choosing to do it that way. I'm sure your nephew is pleased to have a relative who simply accepts him, as well.


I spent a whole day with him a couple of weeks ago, just him and I. We had a long talk. He is a beautiful person with a wonderful social conscience. He is a model of Christianity, except for one thing. He has rejected Chritianity. In fact, he was so adamant in his condemnation of the Roman Catholic religion, that it was the only black cloud on an almost perfect day.


This can probably be placed on the doorstep of those 'Christians' who forget that Christ showed as much love for prostitutes, sinners, and lepers as he did for anyone else. Who forget that Christ's commandment was 'love one another as I have loved you'.

You showed that love for your nephew. But many, many people who call themselves Christian do not. Ironically, those who show him and people like him hatred are more noticeable, more visible, than those like you, or like the Lutheran pastor who married my husband and I.

Please consider the possibility (likelihood, in my opinon) that your nephew is rejecting the haters and unaware that in doing so, he is also rejecting the quiet, accepting Christians like you and like the pastor I just mentioned.


He spoke of my religion with such venom and almost hatred. I sat there and listened to him speak of so many things that he believes, and I accepted them without argument or condmenation, because if I had spoken up and called him on his beliefs, I would have been putting him down. I would have been guilty of hypocrisy because I was supposedly a Christian, but I wasn't acting like it because I was forcing my views on him, yet he was allowed to do the same to me unchecked.

The universe balances itself. I've sat with my parents, listening to their pastor preach against my type of belief to a whole congregation, yet sitting quietly for much the same reason that you sat quietly and listened to your nephew speak against yours.

Sadly, I've given up trying to talk to my parents about my religion. It always turns into a talk about how persecuted Christianity is in Australia. (Which confuses me, actually.)

It might be a good idea sometime to talk to your nephew at a time when he's receptive, and ask him to listen to your beliefs with as open a mind as you listen to his. Then you can introduce him to the Christ who took Mary Magdalene as a friend, and who cares about the downtrodden, and who is quiet. Tell him about your Christ, not the Christ of the crazy, loud haters.

If you choose to do this, however, I think it'll be important to make it clear that you're not asking him to share your views, just explaining yours to him. And very important to make it clear that you love him no matter what.


Perhaps I have missed the point of this whole thread, and I am still arguing the point of my other thread, but it seems to me that, now it is trendy to not be affiliated in anyway with organized religion, especially Christianity, and in fact, the more one can suppress and malign any Christian views in any way, the better it seems to be.

I think my viewpoint regarding Christianity goes as follows: 'Christ, save me from some of your followers!'

There are many people who call themselves Christian, some of them doing so very loudly, who I think Christ would look at, shake his head and sigh. They're not listening to his message, much less looking at his life.

Unfortunately, most people are not educated about Christ himself, much less about Martin Luther, the Jesuits, the Franciscans, and the many other schisms of Christianity trying to return to simplicity and loving service. They don't know enough to separate the message of Christ from the message of certain Christians.

Even some who do know (such as myself) choose not to be Christian per se. If anything, I'm probably closest to Buddhist. But the Buddhist eightfold path and the Christian life of 'loving one another as I have loved you' are quite similar anyway (at the level that I practice). The only real difference is that I don't worship or pray, I meditate.

[protege]

I was raised in a Pentecostal church, which is the only one true church. It's true, just ask them. :rolleyes:

I was wondering when someone was going to bring them up :p

But seriously, I dated a Pentecostal girl for awhile. Now *that* was interesting... Why? Well, at least locally, they have a reputation for being zealots. However, she wasn't like that. She was rather tolerant...because she understood why I no longer followed any religion. (I was raised Roman Catholic. However, I left the church when I was 14--It seemed my prayers weren't being answered, so I couldn't see the point.) Anyway, she never said a thing to me about it.

Her mother was another story :rolleyes: She never said it to my face, but I did hear from people that she was *not* happy about her daughter dating me. Something about how I was in the "wrong" religion. I took that with a grain of salt...since she was also the same person who, when her car broke down, kept claiming that "Satan didn't want me to go to church" that night. I think it was really rather simple: I had a better job, a nicer car, etc....and she was jealous.

After realizing that, I *could* have recited a certain list of Commandments, including the one about not coveting your neighbor's goods...but I'm sure that would have caused a mental meltdown :D

[AFPheonix]

You think pentacostals are nutty, 7th day adventists are even funkier. They don't feel that even other denominations of Christians are going to heaven because they aren't holy enough, since they don't worship on the true Sabbath (they think that's Saturday), and they partake of worldly things like caffeine and alcohol (wine at the breaking of bread). Yeah, fun.