Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve19
I guess I feel a need to respond on a serious note in this thread as well.
In the interest of transparency, I have strong religious values. I hope it is obvious from my posts here that I don't believe that I have a right to impose my beliefs on anyone else.
|
That is well said Steve. And while I agree with almost all of what you say, when certain subjects are put to a vote, the statement that you (or me or anyone for that matter) "
do not have a right to impose my beliefs on anyone else" is not altogether factually correct...except for the fact you aren't voting over here from over there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve19
Like Sushi, I think that there should be some form of protection for gay couples, so that their assets can be protected and that they can find some level of stability in their lives. I'm not sure if she would call it marriage, but I would not. Call it civil partnership, whatever you like, but I believe that marriage is a divine institution between man and wife. That is what scripture says.
|
Then we need to not call civil marriages "marriages". As Prof points out, the term has long been co-opted to mean something other than a religious sacrament. You get a "marriage license" from the state. It legally and in practice has nothing at all to do with marriage as "a divine institution between man and wife" or because of "what scripture says."
Two atheists can get a "marriage license" and get "married". So the problem with your statement is that religion has long surrendered the term to include civil unions that are called "marriage". Unfortunately, I see no logical or legal rationale to allow you to take the word back from the state and the state's use of it.
And, when you put in the church and state issue, what scripture says is not adequate grounds in and of itself to have a law. See modern divorce, which is allowed in express contravention of Biblical directive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve19
Like Buckyle, I could care less what someone willing to put herself in a meat market proclaims about sexuality and marriage. What I do care about, a principle that I am quite frankly ready to sacrifice to maintain, is that of free speech.
It seems odd to me that whenever anyone takes a religious position anymore, we (and I include me) automatically assume that person to be intolerant and then react with our own intolerance. There is something wrong and very unAmerican in that (not casting aspersions on anyone here).
|
I previously said that free speech is not limited by public disapproval of the content of what you say. That is the market place of ideas. If the ideas that you say are pounced upon - even if unfairly - that has nothing to do with free speech limitation. That has to do with acceptance and marketing of ideas. The Nazi (and no, I am not comparing you to a Nazi, but is is the extreme example) skinhead who states his beliefs to universal derision and scorn is
not being deprived of his right to free speech - no matter how much his ideas are not accepted or his motives questioned. And if public response to even an articulate response borne of religious conviction is not received well, it is not free speech that needs correcting. She has it. Greater tolerance of others opinions might be at issue, but then, some find it more than ironic to speak of tolerance for those that seem to preach intolerance...which is to say, intolerance is found when others do not like your ideas, put not found when you don't like theirs. This, of course, works both ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve19
Although religion has reached new lows in America and Western Europe, it is reaching new highs elsewhere, according to the World Values Survey. It is a strange stage in the history of humanity when God becomes a dirty word but twelve channels of pornography play on our television at night. Lord knows, we've reached this stage more because of the intolerance of religious people for others' viewpoints than the reverse, but we have reached this stage.
When I listen to the views of people who are most violently opposed to religion, I often come away wondering if they practice some form of religious irreligion.
|
With all due respect, one can be opposed to certain church teachings but not opposed to religion. Protestants can be opposed to certain Catholic doctrines, but not be "anti-religious" because they are Baptist or Presbyterian. In like manner, I can be opposed to those who hold certain anti-gay rights views, and not be "anti-religious". It could perhaps be seen as intolerant to view those who do not share your particular flavor religious doctrine as "anti-religious". Again, intolerance is felt when
others do not agree
with me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve19
So, on a serious note, I guess I am saying that I listened to this woman's opinion and did not find it offensive at all, even if I strongly disagree with her. I hope that she speaks from a position of conviction rather than opportunism.
|
I find a fundamentalist view of gays: that gays are inherently immoral and sinful, and their gay behavior a sinful abomination to God, and, by extension, cause for denying gay marriage, to be an offensive position. And I need to temper that view and do a better job of dealing with that, and trying to look at other's viewpoints. I found this in-depth study by my church (PSUSA) to be of real value to me in addressing this issue. Back when I was an Elder, we spent some time reading and discussing this report. I recommend this reading to everyone here, no matter their views, as a way of thinking about this issue. And I have approached this discussion many times without following my own advice. We are, after all, every one of us flawed and imperfect.
Final Report as Approved by the 217th General Assembly 
For the non-Presbyterian, much of this may be uninteresting, but it is an attempt to come to grips with the "war" that is separating many denominations over the question of gay ordination of clergy and elders, etc. What was interesting is that it was a committee composed of people with entrenched positions on both sides, one side that wanted to leave the denomination for what they saw as false and dangerously liberal doctrine poisoning the church, and the other seeing that side as intolerant, mean bigots whose backsides hitting the door would be a good thing. Amazingly, after working together in close proximity for many many months, it became clear to everyone that even though they did not come to an agreement, that there was common ground and a way to respect each other's views, even if vehemently disagreeing. It was not at all suspected that the result would turn out this way.
See the points made at the top of page 12 of the report (16 of the pdf). That is what, I think, Steve is correctly talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve19
A lot of nasty things have been done in the world in the name of religion. But the folks who do that are not the religion. Religion, free of bigotry and dogma, has a lot to offer the world.
|
I agree with you there. But that is quite the challenge.
05-06-2009, 08:11 PM
Linear Mode
