BS: Secularity vs Religion

Subject: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 01:55 PM

I am a secularist, who values knowledge gained from critical thinking over "knowing" gained from religious faith, tradition, assumptions and beliefs.

Rather than accepting anything presented to me as truth or fact "on faith", I engage in the art of asking essential questions to arrive at what I believe to be a proximity of truth (not THE truth, just truth).

I do not use Western modes of logic and reasoning in my analytical and critical thinking. I believe in a high standard for ethics and integrity, and the need to see them evenly applied to all, regardless of status.

I deeply appreciate the great mysteries of life and the universe, without aligning myselt to any one particular religious or spiritual tradition to contemplate or study them. I include scientific knowledge in the realm of the spiritual, and spiritual knowledge in the realm of scientific reasoning.

I believe strongly that no nation on earth should be governed using orthodox religion as the main tenet for governance or the rule of law. I believe strongly in the separation of religion and state, and believe we need to go to the next level, which to me is to ban religion from participation in the public square.

I fear society as we know it will be destroyed by religious fundamentalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 02:19 PM

Good by me.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: wysiwyg
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 02:25 PM

aT LEAST YOU KNOW YOUR TENET FROM YOUR TENANT. Me, I'm satisfied just in the effort to leave the Cult of Capslock.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 02:25 PM

I think I am one too then. Nice to have a name for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 02:25 PM

WHAT'S CAPSLOCK?

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 02:37 PM

I THOUGHT CAPSLOCK HAD AN 'H' IN IT; CAPSHLOCK:

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 02:42 PM

About the response I expected from the Mudcat Christians. It is painfully obvious they only take themselves seriously. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 03:46 PM

Sorry, Guest: I couldn't resist. I thought that your opening post was excellent... not inflammatory. I didn't mean to be dismissive. I wonder though, why you assume that those who responded kiddingly were Christian? We'se outnumbered about 50 to one in here. That said, I think that fundamentalist religion of any flavor is potentially dangerous, whether it's Christian, Muslim (probably not Buddhist) or Jewish.

I don't see any conflict between an analytical mind and faith. Many great, great thinkers and scientists have been equally committed to their faith. Having gone two years toward a Doctorate in Geology, with a strong scientific background in several fields, I've seen plenty of shamans posing as scientists.

Tell ya what, Guest... look at the range of perceptions on faith in the thread I started, and I'll continue to monitor and contribute to this thread in a respectful way.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 04:28 PM

Jerry, you are a vocal Christian on this forum, as is Susan. The two of you constituted the majority opinion among the four responses so far. No disrespect is meant to any of you, but that sort of response leads me to suspect you and Susan feel threatened by non-Christians of any stripe, expressing their views in your presence.

Now, as to the discussion at hand. I would like to point out that just because you believe in religious faith (which, according to your contributions to the "Faith" thread you aren't eager to have labelled as religious or proselytizing, doesn't mean that I, or "many great, great thinkers" accept that position. So to keep insinuating that everyone actually is a believer in a religious faith, which is what I perceive you to be doing when you make statements like:

"I don't see any conflict between an analytical mind and faith."

is pretty patronizing and off-putting to me as a secularist. It seems to me that you are saying, in essence, that you don't accept that someone can function morally and philosophically in this world, without accepting your religious definitions of faith as a universal truth.

My purpose for starting this thread was to point out that not everyone accepts religious/proselytizing "faith" as a universal truth, or even as a positive value. Can you accept that?

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 04:37 PM

GUEST 4:28 PM: what discussion? You, that is if you are also GUEST 1;55 PM, made a number of statements. None of them are unreasonable or at all contradictory to what I see as the opinion of the vast majority of people, whether or not they are devout adherents of the Christain religion or any other religion. What is your question?

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: pdq
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 04:40 PM

Jerry... If you are both a Christian and a geologist, you certainly will not take things for granite.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 04:45 PM

GUEST

I would posit very definitely that Jerry is not just a vocal Christian on the 'cat but also a real one in the world. I have posted very un-Christian things a few times, and Jerry has always responede the way a real Christian does. He tends to lead by example. I have learned from him.

Humour has a place in both the religious and secular world. So let me toss this one back. You said you are a secularist who values knowledge gained from critical thinking. Some critical thinkers have arrived at the conclusion that religion is essential to humankind. Are they allowed in your philosophy? (Don't mean that to sound snide.)

Also, you people gotta find a way to figure the difference between jokes and real questions. I'm askin' once more, politely: WHAT'S CAPSLOCK? Sounds like a really hot ingredient found in some sauces.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 04:51 PM

weird...I find myself in basic agreement with the 'guest, yet vaguely uncomfortable with the attitude.

I just ranted a bit in the 'faith' thread...I don't think I'll get into this one right now...*grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 05:00 PM

"You said you are a secularist who values knowledge gained from critical thinking. Some critical thinkers have arrived at the conclusion that religion is essential to humankind. Are they allowed in your philosophy?"

Allowed? ALLOWED? (That's in answer to your capslock question).

What would be the point of denying the existence of people with a particular opinion, just because I don't agree with them?

"I have posted very un-Christian things a few times."

Everything I post is un-Christian, because I'm not a Christian. The world is not made up simply of Christian/un-Christian dichotomies, no matter how badly Christians wish the world were so.

Christianity isn't the global default, people.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 05:03 PM

Hello, Bill D. I'm gonna go read your rant. #big grin#. Ah, there it is over the 8. *big grin*. I would have been much too embarrassed to start a thread abot this one, because I don't know what it's called. "Hey, I have lost my whatchacallit"--well, you can see where that would lead.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 05:05 PM

Good rant, Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 05:07 PM

I'm a secularist who believes in God. Chew on that.

Remember, the "God" I say I believe in may be nothing like the God you imagine when you hear the word "God". God may well be a secularist too, you know. :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 05:30 PM

Reckon he must be if you take all the assertions about his hobbies into account! :>) Either that or he is beiong projected by a lot o' WOMISTians...

A

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 06:10 PM

"You said you are a secularist who values knowledge gained from critical thinking. Some critical thinkers have arrived at the conclusion that religion is essential to humankind. Are they allowed in your philosophy?"

Allowed? ALLOWED? (That's in answer to your capslock question).

What would be the point of denying the existence of people with a particular opinion, just because I don't agree with them?

OK GUEST, then answer the question. Are they allowed in your philosophy, or are critical thinkers only real critical thinkers when they agree with your definition of critical thinkers? I don't want to have a pissin' contest with you, but maybe that's where this has to go. Your call.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 06:18 PM

Guest, I order you to work on Christmas and Easter.

I don't care if who you work for is closed. You cannot have those days off.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 06:19 PM

I gotta get a TV. Are they holidays now?

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 06:52 PM

Hey, Guest: Some comments: If you even casually read the thread I started on faith, I believe(whoops... that word again) you'd see that I welcomed all comments, including those by people I consider friends in here who are Atheists, and don't consider that they have faith in anything. (Wolfgang is a friend who stated that point of view.)And I have a real respect for him.

I agree with brucie, too, that a sense of humor is always recommended. No one was putting down your opening statement. As a matter of fact, I was very complimentary about it (which apparently went unnoticed.) You also intermix faith and religion, while I made a patricular point of separating them in the thread on faith. There are people who have a strong faith, but do not hold to any particular religion. I respect them all.

And why is my comment that I see no conflict between an analytical mind and faith off-putting to you? I don't see that as "patronizing" people who don't accept my faith. On the contrary, I have given high praise to people like Bill D, who I find very intelligent and open, who does not believe in God. I have too many loved friends (and family members) who do not believe in God to belittle them or their lives.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 07:01 PM

Secularity.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 07:02 PM

Hear, hear!

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 07:08 PM

Well, gol danged, GUEST. Lets not let intolernace = Chrisain. That ain't what Jesus taught and that ain't 'bout hwta a lot, I mean a lot, of Christains, think. Unfortunately, we gotta a bunch of folks with political agendas who ran most of the real Christains out of their own danged churches in the 60's and have just squatted in 'um as if that made them, ahhhh, like real Christains. Real Christains who take body of Jesus's stories and tried to fashion their lives after that "body" have either left those churches to the heathens, started new ones or found ones that held up the teachings of Jesus.

Hey, if you aren't "saved", I'll be the last one in the world to pass judgement. At least you have an open mind and that is imparative if you are evr to accept Christ as more than a prophet or good story teller. I'll take a 1000 of you's, GUEST, over one danged intolerant fundamentalist.

Peace.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 07:54 PM

Some people really do take offence remarkably easily, as if they are looking for it. It seems to me a good policy never to assume that offence is intended, unless it is so unambiguous and direct that it couldn't possibly be anything else. (And then the next thing generally is to ignore it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Art Thieme
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 11:40 PM

Why do I feel like I'm being reeled in whenever I look into these threads?? Somebody is trolling for me out there I'm just about certain.

Don't think I'll bite.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 09:55 AM

"Some critical thinkers have arrived at the conclusion that religion is essential to humankind. Are they allowed in your philosophy?"

Well, here is the Webster's definition of secular:

Main Entry: 1sec·u·lar
Pronunciation: 'se-ky&-l&r
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetime
1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal b : not overtly or specifically religious c : not ecclesiastical or clerical
2 : not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation
3 a : occurring once in an age or a century b : existing or continuing through ages or centuries c : of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration
- sec·u·lar·i·ty /"se-ky&-'lar-&-tE/ noun
- sec·u·lar·ly /'se-ky&-l&r-lE/ adverb

That definition includes people who believe in tenets of the Christian religion (but apparently not Muslims, Buddhists, or Jews, if the examples they provide are anything to go by--pretty Xtian-centric!), but who are either not "overtly" religious, or who don't ascribe to any specific Christian denomination.

My answer of course, is yes.

The question is what raised concerns for me. One thing that bothers me a lot are the daily, real life repurcussions for secularists, atheists, and agnostics particularly, of living in this age of religious tyranny.

And I do view attempts by Christians to make secularism religious, when the contemporary meaning via usage and context means that it is NOT religious. Most secularists I know and have read do not ascribe to a belief that religion is essential to humankind. In fact, the secularists with whom I identify have the opposite opinion, ie that not only is religion not essential to humankind, but that it is holding humankind back in the Dark Ages.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 10:15 AM

I suspect I may be a purely secular mystic! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Ringer
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 10:17 AM

"...living in this age of religious tyranny"

Just what religious tyranny are you subject to, Guest? Good grief: 400 years ago people could have been (many were!) burned at the stake for their belief, and you talk of religious tyranny in America in 2004? Get a sense of proportion, do.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 11:14 AM

Ah, yes, but the Spanish Inquisition is just about to pounce on Guest, and subject him/her to the most hideous tortures...and remember...NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!   :-)

What I was saying "Hear! Hear!" to up there was Jerry Rasmussen's post, by the way.

Like Amos, I appear to be a secular mystic with an interest in all religious traditions, but bound to none of them. I appear to fit sections 1(b), 1(c>, and 2 in Guest's quote of Webster's definition of secular.

I believe in numerous tenets of various religions...such as the tenet of reincarnation, the tenet of an immortal soul, etc, etc, etc...and yet I am quite free of either engaging in or suffering religious oppression.

Methinks Guest is subconsciously reliving some kind of nasty experience from a previous life...perhaps being siezed by the Inquisition in 1540 or something. Either that or Guest is the angry child of a rigidly religious family. Preacher's sons are often the most vociferous of all atheists, in my experience.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 11:15 AM

GUEST:

We have a common ground at last.

There is a religious tyranny beginning to develop in this world. If that is your concern, I see your point and agree with you. That is substantially different from where this 'argument' started out. Thanks. Nice not to have a contest.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 11:32 AM

The infiltration of religion into politics in the US, Arab states and various other countries is a scenario that needs to be monitored, although I don't know that I'd be buying guns just yet. The fundamentalist factions are scary, but that's because they're crazy, not because they exert all that much control. I think they are wined and dined by the White House, but mostly because it's a nice block of voters to get.

Our problems with NWO and multinationals is more pressing and scarier. That said, have a good day.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Strick
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 11:50 AM

Some people consider religion, what it is at it's deepest, so essential that the secular simply becomes yet another religion. The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, The People's Republic of China, every purely secular society eventually adopted the trappings of religion. What you're proposing is merely replacing existing religions in the public debate with secular ones, isn't it?

Likewise, reason is not given over to the secular sphere alone. That's so "modern". Post-modernists believe that either reason or faith alone is doomed to fail. There are questions that reason alone can't answer, things you can't prove as every pure mathematician or physicist knows. Faith is essential, even if it's so simple as having faith that basic technology will work as you expect it (except for automobiles and computers which are entitled to stop working anytime they please), but faith can't, was never meant to be the answer to all things, just the important ones. Forcing us to live by one or the other just weakens us. Forcing us to deny that we are acting on our faith would be forcing us to lie and what do you gain by that?

As to your suggestion that religious matters be removed completely form the public sphere, well that's a violation of the 1st Amendment, isn't it? If I'm against murder for religious grounds, that's my business and it's perfectly acceptable for me to say so. If I organize with people of my faith to work to change the world as we think it should be, that's no different from any other organization doing the same. You may not like what the changes I want or my reasons for wanting them, but how is that different from any two opposing views in any other case. How would you propose this change without changing the 1st Amendment, then? Amend the Constitution? What change, what reduction in our right to free expression wouldn't eventually be turned against us in other ways?

Fortunately, that kind of change would never take place. It's too serious a reduction of civil liberties and it would be opposed to by too much of the population. It would never survive an open public debate. Oh, that's right, you could skip that process. Why have a public debate and use the Constitution to amend itself when you can just use the courts to do it? ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 11:50 AM

Ah hah! Now I get what you're talking about with "religious tyranny". As to how it's being used to manipulate politics, yes, it is very disturbing indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: GUEST,Kaleb
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 11:58 AM

Put him in.............THE COMFY CHAIR!!

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 12:06 PM

Hey, good post, Strick.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Art Thieme
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 12:10 PM

Guest,

We agree.

Somehow I'm thinking about a definition Utah Phillips had for the word ANARCHIST:   "Someone who doesn't need a policeman to tell him what to do."

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 01:08 PM

Apparently, most of you love to respond to your own buttons, biases, and assumptions, and not to what is written.

"Just what religious tyranny are you subject to, Guest? Good grief: 400 years ago people could have been (many were!) burned at the stake for their belief, and you talk of religious tyranny in America in 2004? Get a sense of proportion, do."

Where did I say I was personally a victim of religious persecution or tyranny? Nowhere. To talk of religious tyranny in America in 2004, with the take over of the public square in the US by fundamentalist Christians, is valid and legitimate.

What I actually said was we live in an era of religious tyranny. I put no geographical boundaries on it. I did not say "in the US" although I include the US, as I do many parts of the world where many people suffer profound religious persecution, particularly women.

Then there was this question:

"What you're proposing is merely replacing existing religions in the public debate with secular ones, isn't it?"

No, that isn't what I'm proposing.

"Post-modernists believe that either reason or faith alone is doomed to fail. There are questions that reason alone can't answer, things you can't prove as every pure mathematician or physicist knows. Faith is essential..."

I think this is more suited for posting to the faith thread. I[m interested in dialog about living life without religion, and moving beyond a society bound by authoritarian religious diktats, and coerced conformity to religious values.

"As to your suggestion that religious matters be removed completely form the public sphere, well that's a violation of the 1st Amendment, isn't it?"

Here is the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I believe, just as a current example, that the proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage, would be an instance of Congress making a law respecting estalishment of religion.

Another example. The display of the 10 commandments, or any other symbols and vestiges of the Christian religion in government buildings. Again, a violation of the 1st Amendment.

3rd example. The Bush administration Faith Based Initiatives. Private school vouchers for religious schools.

When I say I want religion out of the public square, I don't mean I don't want religious believers to participate in the debate, because that would be a violation of their 1st Amendment rights. What I mean is, Christians shouldn't be allowed to impose and implement their personal religious beliefs in the public sphere, such as in the halls of government, through government funded and supported initiatives, etc.

"Oh, that's right, you could skip that process."

I said no such thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Strick
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 01:33 PM

"What you're proposing is merely replacing existing religions in the public debate with secular ones, isn't it?"

"No, that isn't what I'm proposing.

As a student of both history and comparative religion, I respectfully disagree. Human nature is such that it will occur regardless of your intentions.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

I believe, just as a current example, that the proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage, would be an instance of Congress making a law respecting estalishment of religion.

On the contrary, it merely formalized the definition of marriage that goes back to the beginning of recorded history and then only when the courts short-circuited the public debate on the definition of marriage. Since when is it your place to question why I do or not support any particular initiative in the public debate?

BTW, the last Constitutional scholar I spoke to, a liberal Democrat, admitted that the establishment clause doesn't go anywhere near this question. Anymore than the Federal law against polygamy establishs religion despite the fact it favors the religious practices of one group over others.

When I say I want religion out of the public square, I don't mean I don't want religious believers to participate in the debate, because that would be a violation of their 1st Amendment rights. What I mean is, Christians shouldn't be allowed to impose and implement their personal religious beliefs in the public sphere, such as in the halls of government, through government funded and supported initiatives, etc.

I'm confused. I can participate, but I'm not supposed to base my decisions on issues in public debate on my most basic beliefs? Or I can participate, but any issue in public debate should not be allowed to be settled in any way that you consider religiously based? How else could we decide what's allowed and what isn't except to make you an "impartial" judge? Gives you a lot of power doesn't it?

How would you settle the death penalty debate then? Aren't a significant percentage of those opposed to the death penalty opposed on purely religious grounds? Should this only apply only to certain "politically incorrect" issues? Wouldn't that simply impose some other basis for "diktats, and coerced conformity"?

Or is all what you want is for me to be silent on my religious beliefs? Then I can push for anything I want so long as I don't mention why? After all, how would you know what I believe if I'm silent. Or what my reasons are. That's sort of a backdoor violation of my 1st Amendment rights, isn't? A form of legal coercion that requires my silence while pretending to let me speak?

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 01:43 PM

On the contrary, it merely formalized the definition of marriage that goes back to the beginning of recorded history

I'm afraid you're not quite right about that one. There have been alternatively structured marriages throughout recorded history.

If the gay marriage amendment ever does surface, which it never should, it could be legitimately argued that it is an imposition of one sect's moral values on others, and based entirely on the creeds and moral dogma of that sect.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Strick
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 01:54 PM

"I'm afraid you're not quite right about that one. There have been alternatively structured marriages throughout recorded history."

Enlighten me. I'm aware of santioned homosexual behavior in cultures such as Sparta in Greece, but even there the participants were expected to marry hetrosexually.

"If the gay marriage amendment ever does surface, which it never should, it could be legitimately argued that it is an imposition of one sect's moral values on others, and based entirely on the creeds and moral dogma of that sect."

Ah, but there's the rub. Why any of the 60% or so of the US population is against gay marriage is none of your business. For that matter, I'm aware of 3 distinct religions (i.e., I don't mean just Christians) that oppose redefining marriage. Which sect were you refering to? If several often violently opposing religions agree, how is that establishing one religion? And what about those like me who oppose it on purely traditional grounds? I'm not entitled to a voice?

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: GUEST,Guest mick
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 02:31 PM

Guest ,you write:
"I do not use Western modes of logic and reasoning in my analytical and critical thinking .I believe in a high standard of ethics and integrity.............."
And yet you use words like logic, reason, critical ,ethics and integrity.Don't you think that the development and use of such concepts are closely linked to the development of "western modes of logic" ?

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 03:28 PM

I was thinking of Sparta and Greece, Mormans (poly-, not homo-)and plenty of others where harems and multi-mate arrangements were the mainstream. But in addition to that there have always been non-mainstream arrangements that were legitimized in fact because they were conducted in privacy. I haven't researched the track, but I'd bet there are plenty of documents out there on it that have.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 03:36 PM

Why do you oppose same-sex marriage, Strick? Are you worried that your children might someday be affected or something? I'm honestly asking this, not just trying to bug you.

What I mean is...I'm not gay and I have no wish to get married to someon of the same gender, but why should I care if someone else does? How does that hurt or threaten me?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Strick
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 04:14 PM

Amos,I think you'll find that homosexuality may have formed long relationships, but that those relationships were never considered marriage in any of the Greek city states or any other culture I'm aware of. Mormans, of course, are no longer free to practice polygamy in the US by Federal law. Things conducted in private that don't require a marriage license really aren't relevant here. People have practiced a lot of things in private you probably wouldn't like me mentioning.

Oddly enough, Little Hawk, I haven't said I do except on traditional grounds. I object to wholesale restructuring of the social order outside the public debate. If you want to lobby the legislature to make changes, go right ahead. People aren't doing that because for the most part public opinion, majority rule, elections, all those things you find so sacred in another thread, are clearly against them. Some courts and Heaven knows some mayors have bypassed the normal process and exceeded their powers.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 04:48 PM

To correct a small point of fact: The Ten Commandments are from the Old Testament, therefore they are not Christian, strictly speaking.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: mack/misophist
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 06:46 PM

1. "Some critical thinkers have determined that religion is necessary". I think that's what was said. The only such I'm aware of is Jefferson, who thought churches were necessary to keep the lower classes in line with the threat of hell. Even a Jefferson can have faults.

   2. Forms of marriage: let's not forget polyandry.

   3. Gay Marriage could be resolved in an instant if we were all willing to call it something else. Marriage is, after all, a religious institution (the civil marriage license is only a century old in this country) so let's give gays a form of legal commitment with rights and responsibilities equal to those of marriage. The fact is that gay and lesbian partnerships are often descriminated against in subtle and cruel ways, such as a gay being barred from a partner's deathbed because they're not the next of kin. Cruel.

   3. The Spanish Inquisition was mentioned in jest. It wasn't funny. Think a minute. All it takes is the granting of a handful of premises to turn the Inquisition into the greatest act of Christian charity in history. That's the threat of religion. Another Calvin, another Kramer, another Sprenger and the fires will be lit again.

   4. I have had some very bad experiences with Christians. As a group, I fear and distrust them. Having said that, I have to say that, although I've never met him, I must have read thousands of Mr Rasmussen's words, even had a few personal exchanges with him. On that basis, I think it would be safe to give him the key to my house and a power of attorney while I went away for a while. Pity there aren't more like him.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 06:54 PM

Yeah, okay, Strick, I understand. You're supporting a traditional viewpoint as you see it. I guess a change in this particular tradition just doesn't bother me too much. The main point to me is...no one is getting hurt here. I don't believe in victimless crimes as being crimes at all. For the same reason I do not support prosecuting people for simple possession of a drug (for personal use) or for its use...only for selling the drug or committing a crime under its influence...in which case the crime is what I would prosecute them for.

A crime is something that harms someone else, not just something that is unusual or non-traditional. But we all have our favorite traditions to defend, I suppose.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Strick
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 06:59 PM

"1. 'Some critical thinkers have determined that religion is necessary'."

I think that if you managed to banish all religion from the earth (at least religion in the sense I mean it), humanity would reinvent it in a generation. Look at China. They got so close and suddenly there's a resurgence of religion and not just through foreign evangelism (Christian or otherwise). Quite a bit of it is domestic and spontaneous.

"2. Forms of marriage: let's not forget polyandry."

I at least mean plyandry when you say polygamy. I tend to thing most mean anything but monogamy when you say polygamy. Certainly it should be included.

"3. Gay Marriage could be resolved in an instant if we were all willing to call it something else."

The most interesting thing about the events of the past month is that they almost assure that some form of civil union will become the rule fairly shortly.

"4. I have had some very bad experiences with Christians. As a group, I fear and distrust them."

I have had some very bad experiences with People. As a group, I fear and distrust them. Treat them with caution and only trust when trust has been earned.