Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

07/12/2010 10:03:33 PM · #4901

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Down with Massachusetts! Wait! The institution that is responsible for the Salem Witch Trials is ALSO responsible for legalizing gay marriage! What does THAT mean? ;P

Ray is so busy throwing stones he wasn't sure who the real target was. So the question becomes, is Massachusetts now guilty of Ray's point? or will he somehow say it is no longer a valid point? or will he say it was STILL the Church's fault?

You guys make it easy sometimes... :)

I guess that it's escaping you to see how far the state, or more accurately, the Commonwealth, of Massachussetts has come in open-minded thinking in the past 300 years, huh?

07/12/2010 10:23:47 PM · #4902

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I guess that it's escaping you to see how far the state, or more accurately, the Commonwealth, of Massachussetts has come in open-minded thinking in the past 300 years, huh?

Hehe. Ya, Massachusetts has rised head and shoulders above all the other institutions that are still prosecuting witches in this country.

But still, Ray is persecuting the Church for the Crusades. THE CRUSADES! They occurred quite a bit before 1692. I'd be more than happy, though, to say "well, we've come a long way baby!" So I'll forgive Massachusetts the Witch Trials if you (or Ray) lay off the Church for the Crusades. Actually Ray needs to forgive Massachusetts as well since he was the one to bring it up. Deal?

Message edited by author 2010-07-12 22:26:10.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

07/12/2010 10:42:38 PM · #4903

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But it seems that whatever attribute was meant to be illustrated by his example should be pinned on the commonwealth of Massachusetts. Read about Oyer and Terminer. The court was a special commission from the governor. Wouldn't that be as "secular" as anything else?

I said cause. What caused the mass hysteria and the witch hunts that led up to the trials? Why was witchcraft deemed so offensive that laws had to be ignored just so the accused could be put to death as quickly as possible? Now from what I've read there doesn't appear to be a singular cause. However, lets not ignore the 80 pound gorilla in the room (i.e. their religious beliefs). It's not like Salem was a secular community. They were very religious and they believed witches were the agents of the devil. Not very hard to see how a witch hunt might come about at some point.

07/12/2010 10:59:39 PM · #4904

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I guess that it's escaping you to see how far the state, or more accurately, the Commonwealth, of Massachussetts has come in open-minded thinking in the past 300 years, huh?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Hehe. Ya, Massachusetts has rised head and shoulders above all the other institutions that are still prosecuting witches in this country.

Wow......you really can twist and obfuscate when you want to, huh?

Okay.....how about that Massachussetts has come a long way from its own bad behaviors from a scary and unreasonable place to be different to a compassionate, and level place that understands equality.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But still, Ray is persecuting the Church for the Crusades. THE CRUSADES! They occurred quite a bit before 1692. I'd be more than happy, though, to say "well, we've come a long way baby!" So I'll forgive Massachusetts the Witch Trials if you (or Ray) lay off the Church for the Crusades. Actually Ray needs to forgive Massachusetts as well since he was the one to bring it up. Deal?

Okay, deal.

Umm.....I wasn't the one that brought up the Crusades, HOWEVER.....again, you're conveniently NOT discussing my point about root agendas. Remember.....the atrocities, which we do NOT accept and condone by people like Genghis Kahn and Stalin were world domination efforts. The Crusades were "for the right reason". At least from their point of view.

Hey......how is that different from Hitler's plan?

Now.......what about the molesters that have come to light here in Pennsylvania's Catholic diocese this last 50 years? Can we agree that's a problem?

ETA: Just for the record.....these were men molesting boys.

I had a snarky comment after that, but it's best left unsaid.

Message edited by author 2010-07-12 23:04:05.

07/12/2010 11:00:12 PM · #4905

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But it seems that whatever attribute was meant to be illustrated by his example should be pinned on the commonwealth of Massachusetts. Read about Oyer and Terminer. The court was a special commission from the governor. Wouldn't that be as "secular" as anything else?

I said cause. What caused the mass hysteria and the witch hunts that led up to the trials? Why was witchcraft deemed so offensive that laws had to be ignored just so the accused could be put to death as quickly as possible? Now from what I've read there doesn't appear to be a singular cause. However, lets not ignore the 80 pound gorilla in the room (i.e. their religious beliefs). It's not like Salem was a secular community. They were very religious and they believed witches were the agents of the devil. Not very hard to see how a witch hunt might come about at some point.

Surely you must see that nearly everybody believed in the "supernatural" in that age. You didn't have to be a Puritan to feel that someone could be in league with evil forces. And if my recollection of The Crucible serves me, wasn't the cause a young tween girl? Gimmeabreak.

But let's take this to its logical conclusion. If religious thought was the cause of such a trial in the time because religious thought was pervasive, wouldn't we likewise attribute pretty well all things (including all positive behavior and events) to a religious cause? Or are we just apt to try to give religion the bad things and keep claim on the good things as "humanistic" instead of religious? I think I know the answer already...

07/12/2010 11:09:15 PM · #4906

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think I know the answer already...

Then why bother......

With this continued statement, and putting words in all our mouths, why would we have any reason to suppose that you'd consider any answer we give, or any line of discussion we propose?

You ask these pointed, argumentative questions, then accuse us of being unreasonable in our responses when you haven't even heard them.

Not to mention that when a point arises that is hard, or nearly impossible to refute, you just don't discuss it at all.

To that point, DO you see the difference between someone like Khan trying to conquer the world for himself versus the Holy Wars to establish the "right" way to be?

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/12/2010 11:09:51 PM · #4907

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Umm.....I wasn't the one that brought up the Crusades, HOWEVER.....again, you're conveniently NOT discussing my point about root agendas. Remember.....the atrocities, which we do NOT accept and condone by people like Genghis Kahn and Stalin were world domination efforts. The Crusades were "for the right reason". At least from their point of view.

I don't get it. You think that Stalin, for example, didn't purge Russia for his own "right reasons"? He just said, "I know this is wrong, but I want to rule the world!"? I'd pretty well disagree with that.

The Crusades, BTW, are a heterogeneous group of events that span a timeframe about as long as our country has been a country. There certainly is no single "reason" for carrying them out and their cause was multifactorial. Some were justifiable. Others were not. Some were religious. Others were political. Why it has become such a poster child for church abuse, I will never know. Frankly it's probably a combination of ignorance on the attacking side in combination with ignorance on the defense who assume the "bumper sticker" version of the Crusades is the truth.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/12/2010 11:10:47 PM · #4908

Originally posted by yanko:

I said cause. What caused the mass hysteria and the witch hunts that led up to the trials?

It was ergot contamination in the rye bread, actually. Or so it has been speculated. Strange story.

R.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/12/2010 11:13:09 PM · #4909

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

...the Holy Wars to establish the "right" way to be?

This is exactly what I'm talking about before. I'll allow you any official source to show me where the Crusades were an attempt to establish the "right" way to be. The wars were about much more mundane things like capturing land and resources or protecting populations.

So to directly answer your question, no, I do not see any difference between the conquests of Khan and those of the Holy Roman Empire.

Message edited by author 2010-07-12 23:15:29.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/12/2010 11:17:06 PM · #4910

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Umm.....I wasn't the one that brought up the Crusades, HOWEVER.....again, you're conveniently NOT discussing my point about root agendas. Remember.....the atrocities, which we do NOT accept and condone by people like Genghis Kahn and Stalin were world domination efforts. The Crusades were "for the right reason". At least from their point of view.

I don't get it. You think that Stalin, for example, didn't purge Russia for his own "right reasons"? He just said, "I know this is wrong, but I want to rule the world!"? I'd pretty well disagree with that.

The Crusades, BTW, are a heterogeneous group of events that span a timeframe about as long as our country has been a country. There certainly is no single "reason" for carrying them out and their cause was multifactorial. Some were justifiable. Others were not. Some were religious. Others were political. Why it has become such a poster child for church abuse, I will never know. Frankly it's probably a combination of ignorance on the attacking side in combination with ignorance on the defense who assume the "bumper sticker" version of the Crusades is the truth.

This is correct. Actually, it's considered by many historians that the real "reason" is the Law of Primogeniture, where all the property of a landed family was passed to the firstborn son. Aside from being a Lord of a demesne, there were only two acceptable professions for sons of gentry: the Church, or soldiering.

This is why there were so many freaking WARS... And the church, which couldn't absorb all these individuals anyway, and only took in mostly those whose daddies could pay their way in, wasn't real keen on the idea of the peoples in its pervasive jurisdiction making war on each other year in and year out.

Hence the Crusades, the theory goes; fundamentally, a "good" way to thin out overpopulation in the gentry by persecuting Infidels, with the added benefit of treasure for the church.

R.

07/12/2010 11:24:59 PM · #4911

Originally posted by yanko:

I said cause. What caused the mass hysteria and the witch hunts that led up to the trials?

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It was ergot contamination in the rye bread, actually. Or so it has been speculated. Strange story.

R.

Yah.....speculated, and intelligently, but not given over as wholesale fact.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

07/12/2010 11:31:12 PM · #4912

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Really now... well if indeed that is your interpretation of the point I was trying to make then I am not he least bit surprised you find things easy. Reminds of of the story where the proud mother was watching a military parade and commented to her friend:"Look at my boy Jason...he's the only one in step" :O)

Ray

07/12/2010 11:32:18 PM · #4913

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I have actually heard this exact reason. I think I heard it from the classy James Burke on Connections. (or maybe it was one of his books)

07/12/2010 11:33:05 PM · #4914

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Down with Massachusetts! Wait! The institution that is responsible for the Salem Witch Trials is ALSO responsible for legalizing gay marriage! What does THAT mean? ;P

Ray is so busy throwing stones he wasn't sure who the real target was. So the question becomes, is Massachusetts now guilty of Ray's point? or will he somehow say it is no longer a valid point? or will he say it was STILL the Church's fault?

You guys make it easy sometimes... :)

Really now... well if indeed that is your interpretation of the point I was trying to make then I am not he least bit surprised you find things easy. Reminds of of the story where the proud mother was watching a military parade and commented to her friend:"Look at my boy Jason...he's the only one in step" :O)

Ray

Hehe. Cute one Ray. ;) But it doesn't get you out of your hole.

07/12/2010 11:33:57 PM · #4915

Let's do this Lincoln Douglas style! Seriously! Anybody up for it?

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/12/2010 11:36:50 PM · #4916

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Man! How can you keep doing that????

No, I don't think he had any justification outside of wanting to rule the world.......and was willing to walk over as many bodies as it took to get there.

WTF makes you think that a megalomaniac would ever think that what he's doing is wrong? That doesn't make him in the right, that just means that he doesn't care, he's going to do what he has to in order to accomplish his goal.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The Crusades, BTW, are a heterogeneous group of events that span a timeframe about as long as our country has been a country. There certainly is no single "reason" for carrying them out and their cause was multifactorial. Some were justifiable. Others were not. Some were religious. Others were political. Why it has become such a poster child for church abuse, I will never know. Frankly it's probably a combination of ignorance on the attacking side in combination with ignorance on the defense who assume the "bumper sticker" version of the Crusades is the truth.

Obfuscation. You simply cannot deny that for the most part, the church was heavily involved either directly, by condoning the efforts, or reaping the benefits of them, and as Bear stated, though I don't think he so much wanted to support the stance, wreaking havoc on the infidel population wasn't a bad thing from their POV. I'm not quite sure what your point is about the time frame.....remember how long that the Inquistion was on the books???? Again, ancient history, but what he have here are cases in point as to why discussions like we have now are hard for the church to swallow. In centuries past, if you disagreed with the church in power, you paid with your life. And there was a time when the church could simply point at someone, and state tthat they're an enemy, and that was good enough to be a death sentence. It *still* happens in some parts of the world. You may not like how some of us get little bit snarky and pointed about our comments against the church, but for all too long, there certainly was no free speech when it came to disagreeing with it. There is a long way to go before the scales even out, and you know what? Talk about being judged in kind.....what if that were to happen?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/12/2010 11:54:41 PM · #4917

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

...and as Bear stated, though I don't think he so much wanted to support the stance, wreaking havoc on the infidel population wasn't a bad thing from their POV.

I don't mind "supporting the POV"; it's a fact. The Holy Catholic Church, in specific, has been responsible for incredible amounts of pain and suffering and hypocrisy and, well... just about everything despicable... down through the centuries. Even to our modern times, Church positions on such issues as contraception are, from my point of view, ridiculously short-sighted and responsible for ridiculous amounts of suffering in third-world countries.

Jason makes a reasonable point when he asks why we should expect the church to be exempt from the foibles of mankind, and all I can say is I don't "expect" it to be, but nevertheless I'd wish, fervently, that those who position themselves as our moral leaders walk the walk as well as they talk the talk.

R.

Message edited by author 2010-07-12 23:55:13.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

07/13/2010 12:03:03 AM · #4918

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Surely you must see that nearly everybody believed in the "supernatural" in that age.

And why do you think that was?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But let's take this to its logical conclusion. If religious thought was the cause of such a trial in the time because religious thought was pervasive, wouldn't we likewise attribute pretty well all things (including all positive behavior and events) to a religious cause?

That's not a logical conclusion. I didn't say all bad things were the result of religion. I merely stated that given the conditions at the time (i.e. a very religious community in the 1600s) you can't ignore the obvious as the most likely reason. Now of course that doesn't prove anything but can you honstly say that the witch hunts would have taken place if Salem was an atheist community and not a puritian one? There would have been no reason to believe that witches, wiccas, pagans were evil or supernatural because those connections are only made within religious thought.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Or are we just apt to try to give religion the bad things and keep claim on the good things as "humanistic" instead of religious? I think I know the answer already...

No. Religion isn't all bad and I've never claimed that. I just think the gains made with religion are largely personal in nature. Outside of that context religion has a very bad track record, IMO.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/13/2010 12:27:14 AM · #4919

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Down with Massachusetts! Wait! The institution that is responsible for the Salem Witch Trials is ALSO responsible for legalizing gay marriage! What does THAT mean? ;P

It means you're repeating the same bit of misinformation for which I cited a correction earlier.

Message edited by author 2010-07-13 00:27:35.

07/13/2010 12:40:30 AM · #4920

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Jason makes a reasonable point when he asks why we should expect the church to be exempt from the foibles of mankind, and all I can say is I don't "expect" it to be, but nevertheless I'd wish, fervently, that those who position themselves as our moral leaders walk the walk as well as they talk the talk.

R.

Well, I can certainly agree with that and give a hearty "hear, hear!". I can't help it if I must rise to the defense when these crazy things are raised, but I have not painted myself into some corner where I must prove that all actions by Christianity in its history are somehow noble.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

07/13/2010 06:53:29 AM · #4921

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Nobody's asking you to either rise to the defense of these indefensible actions or state that they're noble.

All we ask is that the church, like the rest of us mere mortals, admit it when they step in it badly, try not to do it again, and move on. Stating that the act(s) were done for a higher purpose neither excuses nor validates the bad act.

Louis

Nikon D800

07/13/2010 09:29:19 AM · #4922

The "Crusades clichÃ©" is as spurious as the "Hitler and Stalin clichÃ©". The former says that the Crusades were an unspeakable act of evil; and that they were committed in the name of belief in God; and therefore belief in God leads to unspeakable acts of evil. The latter says that Hitler was an atheist (sic) and Stalin was an atheist; that Hitler and Stalin committed unspeakable acts of evil; and therefore atheism leads to unspeakable acts of evil. Irrespective of the truth value of either premise, the inferences simply don't follow, and it seems to me that this is a an example of the "characterization principle", a deadly logical trap that the ontological argument falls into. It suggests that one or other of these things necessarily has the description one has applied to it in order to make it that thing. Bad, bad logic.

So no more of this "religion is evil because" or "atheism is evil because" nonsense. One can argue the position of the atheist or the religionist without resorting to absurdities.

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

07/13/2010 11:16:53 AM · #4923

If you look for it, there is some good in almost everything......well, except maybe Obama.

07/13/2010 01:09:20 PM · #4924

Hey, Louis has something good to say! :)

Jeb, the church does admit wrongdoing from time to time. There have been official apologies by the catholic church, for example, for their silence about Jews in World War II. It's just an example.

Mousie