Not just LGBTs, but all men and women, are enslaved by religion

[IndianaGreen]

It was religion that gave us Prop 8. It was religion that justified slavery, separation of the races, and the established order. Religious freedom is abused by all the hatred and intolerance that are part of the Sunday homilies in far too many churches across our land.

We must mind the wise words of Emma Goldman who warned "that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination."

Religion, the dominion of the human mind; Property, the dominion of human needs; and Government, the dominion of human conduct, represent the stronghold of man's enslavement and all the horrors it entails. Religion! How it dominates man's mind, how it humiliates and degrades his soul. God is everything, man is nothing, says religion. But out of that nothing God has created a kingdom so despotic, so tyrannical, so cruel, so terribly exacting that naught but gloom and tears and blood have ruled the world since gods began.

Emma Goldman
Anarchism: What It Really Stands For (1910)

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1910s/anarchism.htm

[kwenu]

1. This post is abysmally intolerant and makes you no better than those you rail against.

Broad brushes are best used with actual paint. And yes, I am a Christian who is happy to let you be you and work for equal rights for all.

[IndianaGreen]

2. Now you know how we feel when we are attacked from the pulpit

Besides, Emma Goldman's words are as true today as when they were first written.

[kwenu]

5. I know what you posted and it is intolerant trash.

[IndianaGreen]

7. What I posted is good anarchist writing

I could have posted some of the stuff by Mikhail Bakunin who would have knocked your socks off.

The most "intolerant trash" is to advocate that those outside one's church are eternally damned!

[kwenu]

9. It's intolerant trash but you're entitled to your opinion.

Democrats by and large are not anarchists...and it takes a hell of a lot to knock my socks off.

[JuniperLea]

121. Just as you are being intolerant of another's view...

I might add. That knife cuts both ways.

[Deep13]

48. Wow, your painting with a pretty broad brush, aren't you?

You should be tolerant of those who disagree with you.

[Deep13]

47. Tolerance is no virtue. Truth is what matters.

To the degree that tolerance allows harmful ideas to go unchallenged, it must be resisted. Frankly everything in that quote about religion is completely accurate. People are enslaved by religion as children. By the time they are adults they have grown so accustomed to the chains that they are offended by the suggestion that they are wearing any and actively resist suggestions to take them off.

Challenging a person's ideas is not the same think as denigrating that person. We are talking about ideas here, not individual people. Frankly, I have to think that Christians who work for equality do so despite their religion and not because of it. Nothing in the Bible or Christian theology generally has anything to do with social equality or progress generally. The answer of Christianity is don't worry, god will take care of it and when he doesn't you will be okay after you are dead. You may not agree with this reading of it and since you live in a relatively secular culture you are free to disagree with the basic dogma of your religion. When Christianity was strong, you would have been hanged for it.

[Two Americas]

87. depends

The Christianity of the ruling class supports and promotes the interests of the ruling class. That is not the same as the religion of the common people.

Catholicism is very supportive of the fight for justice and equality - the every day people, not the hierarchy. In Catholicism, the answer most definitely is not "don't worry, god will take care of it and when he doesn't you will be okay after you are dead."

The teachings of Jesus were socialist and radical.

Of course, religion becomes corrupted and used by the ruling class - no more so than education, though. Of course there is a battle within religion between conservatives and the Left - that is true everywhere.

There is a stunning amount of shilling for the ruling class going on within the Democratic party.

[Deep13]

91. The ruling class gets its way because the rank and file support them.

There is no basis in fact to even suggest that the RC church is remotely interested in either injustice or equality. They actively fight against equality everywhere they are able to do it. How can they possibly stand for equality when they won't even allow women in their priesthood? As far as a distinction between regular Catholics and the episcopate, that's what religion is: ordinary people being directed by priests.

I agree that the purported teachings of JC were radical. This, of course assumes he existed and that the canonical gospels are an accurate reflection of his life. They can't be the latter of course because they contradict each other. I don't agree that he was a socialist because his teachings as a whole were unworldly. His emphasis was not on helping the poor and the sick, for example, but on ridding oneself of material trappings. The lilies of the field analogy, for example, tells people not to bother making a living because god will take care of everything. JC's message to Peter: go ahead and abandon your family to starvation and follow me. Didn't JC destroy a fig tree at one point because it did not have any fruit out of season? He tells his aptly described flock at one point that if they are unwilling to give up their families and their lives that they will go to hell. Isn't that what cults tell people?

JC was radical in another respect too. As bad as the god of the OT is, at least he leaves people alone when they are dead. I was not until JC came on the scene that the idea of eternal punishment for thought crimes entered the theological lexicon. Frankly, the standards of behavior that Paul and later the Gospels explain are designed with failure in mind. By setting an impossible standard of behavior, we are kept in a perpetual state of failure and of need for redemption. Love thy neighbor. Okay, easy enough. Love thy neighbor as yourself: impossible. First rule of marketing: create a need. If you think that JC is the high point of ethical and moral teachings, you really owe it to yourself to read some other philosophies. The Christian message on morality is derivative and inadequate.

Of course none of this really matters if one is free to disagree with JC or the other NT writers the way one might disagree with Aristotle or Spinoza. Unfortunately, claiming that JC is god means that everything in the NT must be completely true and the benchmark of all ethics. This is where irrational belief leads conscientious and decent people to burn their neighbors.

[JackBeck]

3. My question for you:

What gave us the defeat of the Briggs Amendment (Prop 6) over 30 years ago?

Was it the lack of Anita Bryant's involvement and the Religious Right, or the grassroots effort of Harvey Milk and his supporters?

[AntiFascist]

4. Interesting point in this sense...

we should not let the Religious Right get away with claiming that they are being persecuted for their "religious freedom" when what they want the freedom to do is persecute others based on their own religious beliefs. They are free to have those religious beliefs within their own church, but when it affects other people outside the church they do not have dictatorial control. This can still be one nation under God, without allowing one group to dictate what that means. Rick Warren is not the pastor for all of America, and he does not preach everyone's religious values.

[kwenu]

6. Excellent point.

Although I'm not sold on dictatorial control within the church either.

[IndianaGreen]

8. We are a republic under a constitution. There is no God in it.

Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. Founders such as Jefferson and Franklin were Deists, and were well aware of the religious persecutions in Europe by people of faith against other people of faith.

[merwin]

12. You don't have a freedom from religion.

Nowhere is that guaranteed. You have the right to practice whatever religion you see fit, and have the right to not be interfered with by the government in regards to religion.

For example, you can't make the argument that since Obama is a Christian he cannot be President. You cannot also complain that a church being built next to your house is a violation of your freedom from religion.

[girl gone mad]

13. This is an invalid argument.

Freedom of religion doesn't mean you are free to build a church wherever you please, use illegal drugs as a sacrament, give your pastor political authority, etc.

So judging by your standards, we don't have freedom of religion, either.

[merwin]

23. Actually, there is an argument for using drugs as a sacrament.

However, that's outside of the scope of this discussion.

As far as I know, as long as the property is zoned for it, you can build a church pretty much anywhere you please. Your pastor could also be given political authority should he be elected to government office. Remember Huckabee? He was a pastor who went into politics.

[bluedawg12]

19. Thank you Sen. Lieberman but we are free to be non religious.

There is no State sponsored Church that we must belong to.

It is each citizens choice whether to participate in organized religion or not.

"The First Amendment "Establishment Clause," stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is generally read to prohibit the Federal government from establishing a national church ("religion") or excessively involving itself in religion, particularly to the benefit of one religion over another."

As far as your hypothetical: "For example, you can't make the argument that since Obama is a Christian he cannot be President."

That's beside the point of freedom from imposed worship. That is already addressed in:

"The United States Constitution addresses the issue of religion in two places: in the First Amendment, and the Article VI prohibition on religious tests as a condition for holding public office."

[merwin]

20. Of course it's every citizen's choice to be religious or not.

But it's not your choice to have "freedom from religion". Freedom FROM religion implies that you have the freedom to keep religion out of your life. Well, you don't. The same right that allows us to freely congregate and be religious also allows for all citizens to push their religion onto you, as long as it's done through private funds, on private property.

Personally, I'm a Christian who has no interest in pushing my Christianity on others forcefully, but I'm simply making the argument that you cannot have freedom FROM religion. It's not possible and it's not one of our constitutional rights. We have the constitutional right to believe whatever we want to believe, and congregate how we wish, but we do not have the right to a secular nation. A secular government, yes, but not a secular nation.

[bluedawg12]

25. The right wing position: religion informs the pulbic square

Yet, you say, "A secular government, yes," where do you draw the line?

You are conflating religious free speech with freedom from religion.

I define freedom from religion as the right to be an atheist, as the right not to go to Church and as the right to demand that our Government does not endorse one faith over another, as for example placing a statue of Bible in a Court house.

[merwin]

28. And I completely agree with you. Our government is no place for religious objects.

However, an elected official does have the right to talk about religion and his own beliefs, provided that he is not breaking the establishment clause. It's ignorant to say that an individual's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) do not affect their judgment. However, the mark of a good elected official is the ability to separate his personal beliefs from the laws.

For example, the ability of an elected official being able to say that he personally doesn't believe in abortion, but does believe that everyone should have the right to an abortion if they so choose.

[bluedawg12]

34. Should Churches be allowed to promote candidates & parties?

Elected officials have the right to talk about anything (legal).

-->They just have to follow the law.

Elected officials have the right to campaign and speak of their personal faith.

-->The voters get to select if they want a politician who is faith focused or not.

Next:

What about the Catholic Church campaign against kerry, in 2004: "Catholics don't vote for Catholics who vote for abortion?"

Is that over the line?

[merwin]

36. I think that Churches need to follow established laws and their needs to be oversight.

A religious organization must not be able to to back a certain candidate. The members of a congregation can, however, get together and back a certain candidate, provided it is not coming from the leaders of the church.

What we really need is better oversight of Church involvement in elections.

[bluedawg12]

41. The problem is there can be no over sight outside of the puplit

for example, who would know if Father Murphy came to the local parishes picnic and just happened to mention and anti- candidate message?

Or, some are very clever, they speak only of theologic principles: like the Pope at his somewhat obscure Christmas message protecting "heterosexuals and reprudction" as if... they were under seige and the planet was under populated.

Consider the Catholic and Mor*on Churches partnering with fallwell's liberty group attroneys to fight for Hate8.

Organized religion has become the enemy for it's activism in the name of faith, against gay rights.

[AntiFascist]

46. That is the very essence of tolerance...

if Obama has the guts to express that point of view, in full public view, with respect to marriage equality, then I will stop calling him religiously bigoted.

[IndianaGreen]

30. People don't have the right "to push their religion" unto anyone. It is bad manners at best!

Proselytizing and telling people they are going to Hell for not believing is NOT OK either! Proselytizing is the religious version of "white man's burden," the concept that one's religion is so superior that it must be indoctrinated to what Kipling called the "new-caught, sullen peoples, half-devil and half-child."

Our society must become civil in that religion is confined to the 4-walls of the homes and places of worship of those that adhere to these ancient myths. Religion cannot be allowed to pollute the public airwaves, nor it can be used as a control mechanism by religious leaders to lead their followers into political action that subverts the concept that we are all equal.

[merwin]

35. I partially agree with you.

It should not be used as a control mechanism by religious leaders, which unfortunately is the case with many religions currently. But it must also not be confined to the 4 walls of the homes and places of worship.

What about when the members of a Church go out collecting food for a food bank (of which a church i attend did this winter, collecting over 4 tons of food)? Should they have just stayed home and NOT "imposed their religious beliefs" of helping those less fortunate than them?

And saying that religion cannot be allowed to pollute the public airwaves is crazy too. That knife cuts both ways. Saying that means that atheists also must not be given time on the airwaves, and religious discussions should not be allowed. Unless they are breaking broadcast laws, then what right do we have to stop them?

By your tone of writing (ie: pollute the public airwaves), I can reasonably infer that you are not open to a true discussion, and in reality have better things to take up my time this fine afternoon.

[IndianaGreen]

38. Socialism will do away with the socio-economic condititions that create need for a food bank

There is no word for "charity" in Hebrew, but there is a word for justice. The Bible speaks volumes about justice, not charity!

[merwin]

82. Really? The bible doesn't speak about charity?

Have you even browsed through the New Testament? And if so, did you miss the whole Jesus thing?

[donco6]

40. Is collecting food for a food bank innately religious?

How could that be construed as "pushing your religion"? You're setting up a straw man. Nonreligious folk can and do donate food to food banks.

[JuniperLea]

123. Collecting food or other charitable work is NOT owned by religion...

Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and The League of Women Voters do the same thing. Now if you were going door to door forcing people to take communion or be baptized, that would be all shades of wrong. See the difference? I've never seen a non-religious communion (except that fun scene in the play Hair) or baptism done outside the tenants of religion.

[AntiFascist]

45. Would it be fair to say...

where "God" is ever mentioned by the State that, from an atheist's point of view, it could be referring to nothing more than the universe as a whole and the laws of the universe (from a scientific physics viewpoint) that must be followed? The whole idea of reconciling the idea of God with religious freedoms is that the way we define God should be left up to the individual, who is free to draw from their own church, organization, or creed for guidance.

Many of the founding fathers were deists, unfortunately this doesn't leave much room for Hinduism or other religions worshiping multiple gods.

[JuniperLea]

122. Well said... eom

[silverojo]

10. Quoting from Marxists.org isn't helping to win our hearts

Nor is being an anarchist.

I hate the Fundie Right as much as anybody, but that's because I hate ALL radical movements...including anarchism.

Religion didn't give us Prop 8. Extremists did. Just because their extremism is based on religion, and yours isn't, doesn't make either view any less extreme or tolerable.

[Creideiki]

16. And this logical fallicy is "ad hominem"

Don't attack the messenger, say why the message is wrong.

[bluedawg12]

21. It may open our eyes

to a different POV.

"Religion didn't give us Prop 8. Extremists did." - silverojo

That's not winning our hearts, or minds either.

A coaliton of Religious extremists did give us Hate8.

[merwin]

26. But that coalition of religious extremists do not define religion.

Just like a certain percentage of Americans voting for Bush doesn't mean we are all war-mongers.

[bluedawg12]

43. Religion is an abstract term. Religious activism is the issue.

[Deep13]

49. That is a lie.

The reason the extremists succeeded is because the religious argument made sense to a majority of the voters, many of whom were liberal Democrats. Apparently, they felt it was okay to make gays suffers in order to be tolerant to superstitious ignorance.

[tinrobot]

11. Martin Luther King was religious.

Yet, you indict religion as separating the races.

There are many shades of gray here. There are plenty of religious people who are on your side, but intolerance of religion as a whole will only drive a wedge between them and you.

[Deep13]

50. So what?

The civil rights movement had little to do with religion except that King used it as a common language that all of his supporters would understand. The civil rights activists may have been religious or secular, but the segregationists were religious uniformly.

The whole institution of slavery and then segregation was justified and sustained because of Christianity. The Bible explicitly authorizes slavery, genocide and racism. Most of the white Christians in this country, especially in the South were convinced that their way of life was required by god. You cannot point out the few Christians who disregarded the dogma of their religion unless you weigh it against the damage that religion has done.

[tinrobot]

61. The segregationists were religious uniformly?

Again with the broad strokes and false assumptions. You cannot claim that every single bigot during segregation was religious, or that religion was the sole reason behind it. Correlation does not imply causation. Just because a religious person is a bigot doesn't mean that religion is the reason for the bigotry. There were plenty of Christians in that time who supported equal rights and were not bigots.

As for slavery, the Quakers founded the abolitionist movement and Christian people ran the underground railroad. Yet you claim Christianity was the justification for slavery. How come these Christians didn't support it? Again, correlation does not imply causation. I would suspect that the economics of running plantations might have been a very strong non-religious justification for the continuation of slavery.

Yes, there are bigots who are religious, but the attacks need to be against their intolerance, not their belief. There are plenty of believers who support our side, we need not alienate them with such broad strokes.

[Deep13]

67. The causation has been amply demonstrated for anyone who cares to look. EDIT

Please don't hound me for a link. History is in books with footnotes to primary sources, not on websites.

Again, the Quakers were an exception and a very small one at that. Without religious justification, there is no basis for the morality of slavery. The Bible explicitly supports slavery and a number of other evils. Those who traded in human beings relied on that for justification just as they rely on theology to justify oppression of gays. Most people in the South did not own slaves or plantations. While the underlying motive of the plantation owners may have been economic, it was socially acceptable because of religion. Christian dogma and authority have opposed every advance in the human condition that has ever occurred.

It is worth noting that the one example of the liberation of slaves in the Bible, the Exodus, is also a racist message. The Jews were not liberated because they were slaves. They were liberated because they were Jews. And then it was only after 400 years of being ignored by god.

[merwin]

84. You're obviously anti-religion. So, unless you're a biblical scholar,

your interpretation of certain passages of the bible (especially in historical context) carry absolutely no weight to me. I'm willing to entertain a civil discussion with someone who really wants to learn what Christians believe, but all you seem to want to do is attack, which doesn't make for a healthy discussion.

Thus, I am done with this thread :)

[Deep13]

92. Disagreement =/= ignorance.

I know exactly what I'm talking about and that is why I'm anti-religion. It is arrogant and dishonest to assume that only people who are ignorant of the subject matter can disagree with you.

Your remark about Biblical scholars is an example of the fallacy of authority. What exactly is a Biblical scholar? If it is someone who studies the factual origins of the Bible, then most of them agree with me. If it is the kind that so-called evangelical colleges crank out, then I submit I know the subject better than they do.

If the facts cause you to think it is an attack, then the problem is the facts and not the messenger.

[DainBramaged]

14. DU where attacks on religion is a bloodsport, and is allowed unquestionably

It wasn't religion, it was the bastardization of religion that helped get Prop 8 passed, and it was the fear of "the gay" that got it passed. When people stop being ignorant and realize worrying about someone else's sexuality is none of their businesa, then maybe equality will become reality. Until then, blaming religion on the ignorance of man is just stupid.

[immoderate]

15. Isn't there a connection between religion and controlling sexuality?

--IMM

[donco6]

17. Now stop getting all "broad-brushy" on us.

Everybody knows that's not religion's fault, just . . . some . . . religious people. Who control the church. And write all the dogma. And control all the leadership. And implement all the doctrines. It's just those people.

:eyes:

[merwin]

24. I don't know about you but most of my Christian friends have no interest

in controlling other people's sexuality.

You are referring to certain branches of Christianity (who's members very greatly on their own personal opinions). Try actually doing some REAL research before defining all religions as sexually controlling.

[bluedawg12]

27. Let's be specific about religious sects.

The Catholic Church opposes same sex marriage rights.

The Mormon Church opposes same sex marriage rigths.

The Southern Baptists leadership opposes same sex marriage rights.

As far as I know,the Evangelical leadership, opposes same sex marriage rights.

That amounts to a significant portion of organized religion.

You are lucky to know Christians who are not biased against gay marriage rights.

How many mainline Christian Churches that you know of are in favor of same sex marriage rights?

[donco6]

29. The only ones I know of:

Episcopal (though they're splitting over it)
Unitarian Universalist (though most evangelical on down would consider them non-Christian altogether).

??Others??

[merwin]

31. There are many that support equal rights for same sex couples.

Here is the first thing I could find that listed a few:
http://www.iwgonline.org/marriage/

You can't broad brush each religious organization, as most of them have some sort of democratic hierarchy, so each individual Church makes its own decisions on certain issues. For example, the Church that I go to is Presbyterian, and the pastor is pretty much a socialist. That affects the makeup of the church congregation, and ultimately its views on issues. So even if the leaders of the religious organization believe one thing, it doesn't mean that it follows completely down the line to the individual churches or its congregation.

[donco6]

37. Most of those are not denominations, nor are they mainline.

I know Presbyterians have More Light churches, but they are practically underground offshoots in most cases that I've seen.

And to say that the church may have an official stand that the members disagree with is kinda bizarre. Official is official; if the members disagree, what's stopping them from changing it?

[bluedawg12]

39. This is a truism: Mainline faiths oppose same sex marriage.

Catholic, Southern Baptists, Mor*on, Muslim ( that's a guess), some orthodox and conservative Jewish branches.

In short, the there is greater than 50% of mainline Churches that oppose gay marriage than not. Just my opinion, am at work, and can't hunt for citations, but that is a pretty good estimate from real life.

Just curious:

Does your Church support gay marriage rights?

Does your pastor perform same sex religious marriage rights?

Out of the whole there are but a few that support gay marriage.

Many religious organizations, including some that do not recognize religious same-gender marriage,

OK that's not same sex marriage rights.

either directly support civil marriage for same-gender couples, support equal rights for same-gender couples, or are opposed to the denial of equal rights for same-gender couples.

OK that's CU's, not same sex marriage rights.

These include ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal, American Friends Service Committee, California Council of Churches, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Church of Religious Science, Ecumenical Catholic Church, Hawai'i Council of Churches, Interfaith Working Group, Pacific Congress of Quakers, Presbyterian Church (USA), Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, Unitarian Universalist Association, and Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches.

So, within Judaism, Christianity and the Quakers there are a few grops that to some varying degree support something about gay rights.

[immoderate]

42. My point is...

Where there is control of sexuality, it comes from religion, or the rationale presented is religious.

I am, of course, excepting certain cultural and legal restrictions against public sexuality, non voluntary sex, and protection of children, etc. Interestingly, not every religion follows those rules.

--IMM

[bluedawg12]

44. Where there is control of consenting adult sexuality

it tends to come from religious reasons that are grafted on to policy and law.

[immoderate]

55. You open an interesting line of discussion...

that I had to think about when I wrote my post. I'm not an anthropologist, but I thought about some "natural" restrictions we put on our own sexuality and where they come from. Other species restrict sexuality without religion. What I conclude is that religions adopt some of these restrictions to give weight to their dogma. Then they can point to it and say it comes from god.

--IMM

[bluedawg12]

59. Good point. When it comes to nature, it turns out same sex love is natural.

I looked this up a few weeks ago to edumacate myself and it turns out that many animals, including the "higher" animals, such as primates engage in same sex bonding and sexual expression.

The most touching example was of the two male penguins who had become mates and the zoo keepers gave them an abandoned penguin egg, which the couple nurtured and raised successfully.

You are so right, many religions promote their anti-gay beliefs using select or inaccurate scriptural references as a justification for their prejudice and then carry their anti- gay Crusade into the public forum to influence law.

There was a good Newsweek cover story a few weeks ago about the Biblical reasons to be joyous about love, commitment and that includes same sex marriage. If you didn't see it, it's free on line, just go to Newsweek.


If you are interested here is the link to that thread about same sex relationships in nature.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=89744&mesg_id=89744

GLBT - Because it is Natural.
......

:hi:

[IndianaGreen]

63. "The French kiss is the bonobo's most recognizable, humanlike erotic act."

It's not entirely clear what the pope actually said this time: some of the reporting of his comments seems rather overblown. That's the Christmas silly season for you. However, it's pretty clear he thinks homosexuality nothing less than a calamitous disaster for the human race. It is as if homosexuality were as infectious as the common cold. Soon everyone will be sneezing. What kind of fantasies about homosexuality does that imply?

It's also pretty clear that he thinks homosexuality unnatural. He paints a monochrome picture of the relationships between man and woman. Man looks like this; woman looks like that. Together they should look like the Joseph, Mary and Jesus on a million sentimental Christmas cards – putting to one side the fact that they weren't married and he was illegitimate. But if the pope won't take a lead from the Bible, in which I don't think there is a single example of a stable nuclear family, he might actually turn to nature and read about our evolutionary cousins, the bonobos. The primatologist Frans de Waal describes their loving in moving tones in his book Our Inner Ape.

"The French kiss is the bonobo's most recognizable, humanlike erotic act. Whenever I show an undergraduate class a film of my bonobos, the students get very quiet. They will watch all sorts of sexual intercourse, but invariably the deepest impression is made by a video clip of two juvenile males tongue-kissing."

If only De Waal could show that clip in the Vatican. I'd love to be a fly on the wall.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/23/pope-benedict-xvi-gayrights

[bluedawg12]

70. He focused on fertility and reproduction. As if celibate priests

were any more exempt from the Pope's exhortations and elevation of reproduction than gays, or any less of his perceived threat to human kind, at 6.5 billion and growing.

This article says it pretty well:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x108420

[immoderate]

72. Thanks for the links. I was aware of gayness in animals. But this is good stuff.

Another point I was trying to make is that there are other natural controls in sexuality. I think it's called ethnology. Consider the rituals that some birds go through, such as the displays and dancing of males before females will mate. Mammals have natural rules too, like wolves and other pack animals. I'm sure we are wired for some of these things by evolution, but religions seek to own them, substituting "god's commandments" for what is natural for us.

--IMM

[bluedawg12]

76. You are welcome and good point! n/t

[merwin]

83. It comes from power-hungry individuals/groups who see religion as an easy way

to accomplish their goals.

Pretty similar to what the neocons did to hijack the Republican party and turn it into what it is today. There are still a shitload of people who are decent paleo-conservatives but follow the Republican candidate because they don't know any better and are fed a bunch of lies from a few at the top.

[Deep13]

95. Yes and people trained from childhood to obey those individuals and groups. nt

[IndianaGreen]

32. And all of them put women in a subservient role to men

Bigotry is wrapped in religious cloth and suddenly it becomes acceptable and desirable!

[AntiFascist]

51. I think it is useful to point out...

that there is a lawsuit filed against Prop 8 specifically for the purpose of protecting religious freedom of a minority of churches, in this case they are the small minority of churches which do approve of same sex marriage. The issue in this lawsuit is not specifically GLBT rights, it is religious freedom as it should be protected under the Equal Protection Clause.

[immoderate]

33. Oh ye of little logic...

To contradict what I said, you would have to say "The people who want to control sexuality are not religious."

Is that what you are saying?

--IMM

[Sandrine for you]

126. Yeah and the Pope, who represent just a little minority,

choose christmas to begin a war against the homosexual.

[Deep13]

53. That puts it mildly.

Religion must insinuate itself into every aspect of human thought. Procreation is especially important because the churches must make people think that creation is always a result of god and they must get children early enough to make them believers for life. Also, anything pleasurable takes away from their message that any transcendental experience is their prerogative. For that reason the churches have ever opposed anything pleasurable. In the past, the prohibition extended to all forms of entertainment and all sources of objective information. To name a nonprocreative sexual practice is to name a prohibition on it.

[immoderate]

56. I wouldn't go that far...

While you correctly describe much of what goes on in religious thought in America today, there surely are exceptions in other times and other cultures. Some strains of Buddhist thought come to mind, also pantheist and pagan, and there are others.

Not to reprove you when you are agreeing with me,:) there are religions that don't seek to micro-control.

--IMM

[Deep13]

73. I am mostly refering to Abrahamic religions.

My limited understanding of Buddhism is that it is not necessarily a religion in the Western sense of that word, though it can be. When it is, my understanding is that it is as repressive as any other dogmatic religion. The funny thing about the pagans is that its lack of mind-control may be responsible for it being abandoned in favor of monotheism. There is no inherent prohibition on polytheistic systems for flirting with other gods. YHWH, on the other hand is rabid on the subject.

[immoderate]

90. Sounds right to me.

--IMM

[bluedawg12]

22. Voting to take away religious freedom would be an attack on religion

this is a discussion of different ideas.

"It wasn't religion, it was the bastardization of religion that helped get Prop 8 passed.."

Religion is an abstract term.
People are the adherents of religion.

People with a religious POV aggressively worked and donated to pass Hate8.

Those same people worked to isntill "the fear of 'the gay'," as you call it.

[DainBramaged]

57. But blaming R-E-L-I-G-I-O-N is the term used most extensively here

instead of blaming the ignorant. You CAN NOT lump ignorance and religion into one soup. It just doesn't wash. You can try as you may to say the root cause is religion, but I know and you know it's bullshit. It's PEOPLE who voted, not God.

[bluedawg12]

60. We blame bigots hiding behind religion as a shield. Clear enough?

[DainBramaged]

71. We blame bigots hiding behind the mask of heterosexuality and homosexuality

clear enough? Why bother, this is just a backhanded way of attacking religion here.

[Deep13]

52. You obviously have no idea what Christian theology actual says, do you?

Read the Bible sometime and see what it really says. If god is ones benchmark of morality, then the conservatives are right.

[DainBramaged]

58. You have no idea what my idea of or what my Faith is, so who are you to judge?

PS

You like to shoot. I believe that ANY form of deadly force by man is against God's will, and I do not believe in the death penalty. And I bet I get a lecture about guns too.:eyes:

[Deep13]

64. I thought I was on your ignore list.

And no, I have no idea what you believe beyond what you just told me. I am talking about what Christian dogma (theology) is. That dogma is that nothing in this world matters. Only getting into heaven matters. Morality on Earth (which means doing what god tells you and not necessarily what is right) is only a means to that end. To get into heaven one must believe that god had himself murdered and tortured in order to somehow absolve us of religious offenses committed by nonexistent ancestors.

For my own self, I think we are not guilty of anything unless we actually harm someone. As a side note, I have never shot anyone and expect I will never have to. I cannot agree with the pacifist view, however, since it is a recipe for suicide.

[DainBramaged]

68. I cleared my list after the election (and WHY would you reply if you thought you were on ignore)

As to your replies, whatever. Jesus is a pinata on DU. Some people believe there isn't a heaven and that we are just souls on a never ending chain of lives. For those that take the Bible literally in the year 2008, they need are the enemy, not those of us who believe in equality. But what does it matter here. Rick Warren has become the face of Religion on DU. Why should we bother resisting such stupidity.

[Deep13]

77. You relied to me. That's why.

It is Christian dogma that has come under attack here. That of course includes the purported actions and teachings of Jesus. I don't see that as being any different that criticizing the ideas or acts of any other influential person.

I agree that those who take the Bible literally in 2008 are causing a lot of damage. I have to ask, though, how should we read it if not literally? If it is a metaphor, then a metaphor for what? If we are to pick and choose what to accept, then what is our criteria for doing so. In other words, in what sense is it a holy book if we cannot accept what it says?

[DainBramaged]

79. Stop, nice try, YOU replied to my post, Dogma my ass.

I have to go out. Enjoy your bashing.

[Deep13]

93. Telling the truth is not bashing.

And you put me on ignore, not the other way around.

[IndianaGreen]

78. I agree, Rick Warren has become the face of religion.

And whose fault is that?

:think:

[DainBramaged]

80. Face of religion on DU, and it isn't my fault

And your broad bush thread OP is as intolerant as the Fundofascists who worship with Rick Warren.

[bluedawg12]

65. Who do you think actively promoted "fear of the gay?" Man or God?

"It wasn't religion, it was the bastardization of religion that helped get Prop 8 passed, and it was the fear of "the gay" that got it passed."DainBramaged

[Name removed]

69. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pale Blue Dot]

102. Considering he's all-powerful, his believers have a pretty thin skin.

It's amazing to me the amount of hyperbole and gnashing of teeth whenever anyone dares criticize the uncritical acceptance of an omniscient, omnipresent God. You'd think he could take care of himself, but his believers don't seem to think so. You'd almost think that it's not this "God" they're protecting, but their own cognitive dissonance.

[TEmperorHasNoClothes]

18. interesting quote

I don't believe in god or religion any more than I believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. I think religion was created because people needed a way to answer questions about things they didn't understand and/or to avoid taking responsibility and credit, and/or to make themselves feel better. For those who believe in many religions, they can comfort themselves when a loved one dies, she's in a better place . When a loved one is sick and people don't know how to help, praying makes them feel like they're doing something. If they lose their house in a fire, it was part of god's plan. If they win an academy award or the superbowl, it's because god wanted them to.
I don't begrudge anyone who wants to find comfort in believing in fairy tales, but to ask me to buy into those myths is infringing on my right to my beliefs.
I don't mind religion as long as it's not shoved down my throat or being used to discriminate against me and anyone else.

[Deep13]

54. Religion will never be satisfied until we are all brought under the yoke.

I'm taking about the religion as a system of thought. I know many individual believers think that they are not apart of that agenda.

[bluedawg12]

62. Evangalism is part of many faiths their aim is to convert as many as possible.

Of course conversion means the whole package.

[IndianaGreen]

66. Evangelism is bad manners and uncivilized behaviour

We must not allow proselytizing for it is based on the view that one's religion is the true faith, and all others have no value.

[Deep13]

74. exactly. nt

[knitter4democracy]

75. How ironic, then, that it was Christians who fought so hard to abolish slavery.

Sure, there were Christians here in the US and in Britain that used parts of the Bible to justify their practice, but most of those in the abolitionist movement were Christians, and it was their faith that informed their behavior.

The Bible has far more to say about slavery than it does homosexuality. There's even an entire epistle in the NT written to a slave in which St. Paul tells him to be a good slave. There's nothing comparable in the Bible when it comes to homosexuality or abortion or any of the right-wing hot button topics. And yet, there were many Christians who put their own lives in jeopardy by helping run the Underground Railroad, speaking in front of mobs, and standing up to slave owners because they were convinced that slavery was wrong in the eyes of Christ.

I keep praying for the day that those of us in the faith will finally reach a tipping point and get through to all the homophobes in the faith and that they'll see that homophobia is wrong.

[bluedawg12]

81. I do think the arc of history is on our side.

Well said.

[Two Americas]

86. hey knitter

Long time, no see! Hope you are doing well.

I actually went to a Fundamentalist church for a service Christmas Eve, on an invite from a co-worker. 300 Warren admirers and one pinko commie dirty hippy librul lol.

I said the same things there that I say here. How come there is more stubborn resistance to what I have to say about equal rights here than there was there?

You would probably enjoy the latest orchard photos -

Knee deep snow, minus 8 degrees...

http://www.washingtonapplecountry.com/photos13.htm

http://www.washingtonapplecountry.com/photos14.htm

http://www.washingtonapplecountry.com/photos12.htm

Bailey's Sweet, Newtown Pippin, Grimes Golden...

http://www.washingtonapplecountry.com/photos7.htm

[knitter4democracy]

88. Why were the apples left on the trees?

Do you need me to come out there every fall and take some off your hands? ;)

I put up hardly any apples this year, just focusing on drying a couple of batches. Thank goodness for those new dehydrator trays--really upped the amount I could do in one batch. With the divorce and all, I just didn't get all the apples put up I needed to.

[Two Americas]

89. sorry...

"...the divorce?" Didn't know. Sorry to hear that...

[knitter4democracy]

98. Yeah, it's bad.

He admitted to cheating on me for the last six years back in October with at least two different women. I found out the Friday before Thanksgiving that he had gone back to his current mistress, and that's when he told me that he wanted a divorce. It's getting ugly and nasty, and he's refusing to move out, and it just goes on and on.

[Deep13]

94. What an absurd argument.

You may as well argue that atheism stopped the Nazis because Stalin's subjects killed so many of them.

Of course Christians fought to end slavery. When the only option is to be a Christian, then anytime anyone does anything, it will be done by Christians. The people who ended slavery, believers and nonbelievers were fighting out of humanitarian concerns and not because of Christian theology which in fact supports slavery.

Christian theology including the Bible has always been very clear. Sex for pleasure is wrong and homosexual sex is a crime against god.

[knitter4democracy]

99. No, Christian theology has not always been clear.

The early Church fathers and mothers made it clear that they did not think sex was bad. The Eastern Orthodox Church alone of all the Christian Church has kept that theology. We don't have the same definition of Original Sin, and we don't think people are born evil and sinful, so please don't paint all of us with the same broad brush.

If you've read anything by the Christian abolitionists, it's clear from their writings that they felt Christian theology supported their stance. They focused on the Second Greatest Commandment, not the bogus interpretation of Ham or the other ways the Bible was used to support an economic decision that killed people. They focused on Christ's teachings, and it was through that work that they convinced so many people and won so many to their side. It also led to massive revivals and all sorts of change in the churches in the US, but that's another story.

As for homosexuality, there are, what, twelve verses in the entire Bible? Kind of flimsy to base any massive theology and hatred on. Many of us Christians think that the Second Greatest Commandment outweighs all of those.

[LeftyMom]

101. Forgive the extended quote, but I just read this last night and it addresses that argument directly.

"In assessing the moral wisdom of the Bible, it is useful to consider moral questions that have been solved to everyone's satisfaction Consider the question of slavery. The entire civilized world now agrees that slavery is an abomination. What moral instruction do we get from the God of Abraham on this subject? Consult the Bible, and you will discover that the creator of the universe clearly expects us to keep slaves:"

The author then quotes several old and new passages relating to treatment of slaves, and expectations of behavior by slaves: (edit to eliminate broken link) Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21 : 7-11 Ephesians 6 :5 1 Timothy 6:1-4

concluding that:

"It should be clear from these passages that, while the abolitionists of the nineteenth century were morally right, they were on the losing side of a theological argument. As the Reverend Richard Fuller put it in 1845, "What God sanctioned in the Old Testament and permitted in the New, cannot be a sin." the good Reverend was on firm theological ground here. Nothing in Christian theology remedies the appalling deficiencies of the Bible on what is perhaps the greatest- and the easiest- moral question our society has ever had to face.

In response Christians like yourself often point out that abolitionists also drew considerable inspiration from the Bible. Of course they did. People have been cherry-picking the Bible for millenia to justify their every impulse, moral and otherwise. This does not mean, however, that accepting the Bible to be the word of God is the best way to discover that abducting and enslaving millions of men, women and children is morally wrong. It clearly isn't, given what the Bible actually says on the subject. The fact that some abolitionists used parts of scripture to repudiate other parts does not indicate that the Bible is a good guide ot morality. Nor does it suggest that human beings need to consult a book in order to resolve moral questions of any sort. The moment a person recognizes that slaves are human beings like himself, enjoying the same capacity for suffering and happiness, he will understand that it is patently evil to own them and to treat them like farm equipment. It is remarkably easy for a person to arrive that this moment of epiphany- and yet, it had to be spread at the point of a bayonet throughout the Confederate South, among the most pious Christians this country has ever known."

-quotes from Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation

[Sanctified]

105. Sounds like Reverend Richard Fuller must have thought he was a Jew.

Since the Old Testament laws on the owning of slaves were written specifically for the Jews, how can a Gentile abide by the laws written specifically for Jewish customs? When do Gentiles celebrate their Jubilee? What are the laws of Gentiles owning Jewish slaves?

[IndianaGreen]

106. Paul wrote in one of his letters that slaves must be good to their masters

The Bible should be confined to the fiction section of the bookstore.

[Sanctified]

107. So because Paul said that slaves where not to revolt

that gives permission for Christians to own slaves? There is historical context on why Paul would have instructed slaves to obey, but even today we are to obey the powers above us. Even today you and I are both slaves to our Government, our Government can imprison us for going against it's wishes, take our possessions, our children, torture us and send us to war on it's behalf. We like to think of ourselves as so enlightened but we are still slaves.

[IndianaGreen]

108. Anarchism offers another way to live, free from the tyranny of government

Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations.

Emma Goldman
Anarchism: What It Really Stands For

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1910s/anarchism.htm

[knitter4democracy]

112. Philemon, his epistle to a slave.

And yet, Christians have fought against slavery, believing the Second Greatest Commandment to override St. Paul's writing.

[knitter4democracy]

113. Not all theologians would agree with that, actually.

Not everyone would say that, if it's in the OT and the NT, it's therefore law.

[LeftyMom]

114. Sure, you can get a theologian or ten to argue for any number of stupid things.

Most of them make a very good living arguing that the bible doesn't say half the thing it says, on account of them being ghastly, but does say any number of things it doesn't but probably should.

The fact remains that while there's detailed instruction on when you can't sleep with your wife because she's dirty, how far out of the encampment to bury your poo, and who you can and can't sell your daughters to, there's no mention of "hey, slavery is bad, so don't keep slaves, okay kids? Thanks, God." Which is completely typical for the time, but not exactly a good sign for those who wish to portray the bible as being a worthy moral compass for anybody or a particular motivator of abolitionists.

Which is not to say that the abolitionists weren't religious, but the times were religious times, and their opponents were too. While their opponents were on firmer theological ground, luckily reason won out over piety and slavery was abolished.

[knitter4democracy]

120. It depends on the kind of Christian the theologian is.

An OT Christian who depends on the law of the OT and the idea of a vengeful God for his faith or a NT Christian who depends on the Beatitudes and the Two Greatest Commandments for his faith.

Sure, NT Christians know those laws exist in the OT, but we believe that nothing can override the Second Greatest Commandment, loving our neighbor as ourselves. If anything seems to contradict it, we ignore it as a historical teaching that no longer applies, just as St. Peter revealed in Acts about keeping kosher, that it no longer applies to Christians. The issue of keeping kosher and being circumcised (much bigger OT laws than the ones you mentioned, though those were big ones the Jews followed, too) was settled in the very early Church as detailed in Acts by the apostles, and yet OT Christians keep trying to bring those back all the time.

For the abolitionists, it came down to the Second Greatest Commandment and the Beatitudes, and that's how they won hearts and minds over to their cause. They spent a lot of time, money, and effort on getting people to see that African-Americans were people (Uncle Tom's Cabin did a lot to further that cause, actually), and once seen as people, they were neighbors who had to be loved, not beasts of burden to beat.

[Two Americas]

85. maybe

Or maybe enslaved people are vulnerable to right wing political movements masquerading as religion?

[Sanctified]

96. Hey Democracy also justified slavery,

it's Democracy that made prop 8 possible and Democracy segregated this country, lets get rid of Democracy and I think everything will be better.

[IndianaGreen]

97. We are a republic, not a democracy.

The whole idea of the Bill of Rights was to put limits on government and on the people. Protecting the minority was essential to maintaining freedom.

[Sanctified]

100. Ok then a Constitutional Republica where ciitizens participate in Democracy allowed

for slavery, segregation and Prop 8. So what part of our Government should we ban first?

[ZombieHorde]

103. How does Discordianism, Wicca, or Thelema enslave people?

[IndianaGreen]

110. The author was specifically referring to Judeo-Christian religions

Now, if Discordianism, Wicca, or Thelema ever form an alliance with the capitalists and the government to oppress people, then the critique will apply to them as well.

[ZombieHorde]

111. I see, monotheism does have an interesting track record.

[IndianaGreen]

116. A track record of intolerance

Anytime you have "I'm the one true God" or "We are the one true faith," it always leads to persecution of everyone else.

[Sandrine for you]

125. Don't no about Discordianisme, but the Wicca look a lot

like the animism in Africa, and I know a lot of africans who tel me how they are enslave by this religion. Thelema is a philosophy not a religion.

[anonymous171]

128. Religion=Judeo-Christian beliefs

No other religion exists to some people here.

[kwassa]

104. Didn't you just praise the Episcopal Bishop John Chane?

Why the inconsistency?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8015756

[IndianaGreen]

109. There is no inconsistency

Religion is a private affair, as Lenin said. Lenin also added:

Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen’s religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated. No subsidies should be granted to the established church nor state allowances made to ecclesiastical and religious societies. These should become absolutely free associations of like-minded citizens, associations independent of the state. Only the complete fulfilment of these demands can put an end to the shameful and accursed past when the church lived in feudal dependence on the state, and Russian citizens lived in feudal dependence on the established church, when medieval, inquisitorial laws (to this day remaining in our criminal codes and on our statute-books) were in existence and were applied, persecuting men for their belief or disbelief, violating men’s consciences, and linking cosy government jobs and government-derived incomes with the dispensation of this or that dope by the established church. Complete separation of Church and State is what the socialist proletariat demands of the modern state and the modern church.

V.I. Lenin
Socialism and Religion

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm

[kwassa]

118. you never answered my question

quotes from Lenin don't do it.

[Odin2005]

115. To quote Bakunin "If God existed we would have to abolish Him"

The Judeo-Christian concept of the divine is totalitarian garbage, to put it bluntly. The notion that I am nothing but a cog in "God's plan" is disgusting and degrading. I think it was Cris Hitchens that called the Christian conception of Heaven a "celestial North Korea".

[IndianaGreen]

117. LMAO

Heaven as a "celestial North Korea." Any Deity that needs to hear a constant chant of praises and "how great thou art," is someone with serious insecurity issues.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

119. If God is all powerful why does he need to be praised?

Seriously???

As Mark Twain noted, he said "Thou shalt have no other gods before me".
That means you can have co-equal gods. You could worship the Judeo-Christian God (TM) as well as other gods if they were equal.

From Letters from the Earth by Mark Twain:

It is most difficult to understand the disposition of the Bible God, it is such a confusion of contradictions; of watery instabilities and iron firmness; of goody-goody abstract morals made out of words, and concreted hell-born ones made out of acts; of fleeting kindness repented of in permanent malignities.

However, when after much puzzling you get at the key to his disposition, you do at last arrive at a sort of understanding of it. With a most quaint and juvenile and astonishing frankness he has furnished that key himself. It is jealousy!

I expect that to take your breath away. You are aware -- for I have already told you in an earlier letter -- that among human beings jealousy ranks distinctly as a weakness; a trade-mark of small minds; a property of all small minds, yet a property which even the smallest is ashamed of; and when accused of its possession will lyingly deny it and resent the accusation as an insult.

Jealousy. Do not forget it, keep it in mind. It is the key. With it you will come to partly understand God as we go along; without it nobody can understand him. As I have said, he has openly held up this treasonous key himself, for all to see. He says, naïvely, outspokenly, and without suggestion of embarrassment: "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God."

You see, it is only another way of saying, "I the Lord thy God am a small God; a small God, and fretful about small things."

=============================

[Sandrine for you]

124. Because he is a fucking and nevrotic narcissistic, he prove it a lot.

[anonymous171]

127. You cannot abuse freedom. Please don't be a fascist.

[angryfirelord]

129. Perhaps the marxists.org writers should look at their own history

The Soviet Union killed pastors and Christians in the name of atheism, yet the article doesn't mention that. Hmm...

The problem isn't religion itself (which is just simply a spiritual philosophy of what you believe) but rather organized religions and institutions that replaces the role of "governing". When people immediately begin to let others do the thinking for them, it doesn't matter who's doing it, their judgment is going to be clouded. That's why organized religion is bad not only for the people who follow it blindly, but even for religion itself since the words and ideas that were written & preached get twisted for political means.

[hendo]

130. religion alone did not justify slavery

the need to free labor justified slavery. The belief that people of a different race were inferior justified slavery. Neither is tied to Christianity.

[hendo]

131. people reliant upon quotes to make thier point

show the lack of original thoughts.