DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Religious Belief Unhealthy for Society?
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 275, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/03/2005 12:09:13 PM · #51
Of other note:

Orphanages, Nursing, the Red Cross, and numerous charities. Much of which were from the inspiration of religious understandings.

Mind you, much of the first on hand and effective support delivered during Hurricanes Katrina & Rita came not from government but from churches & WalMart ( a large monstrous company hated by many for it's size, overbearing aggressive business model, and for it's christian based family values applied to censoring CDs, etc.).

Sure religions have their negatives and their failings in history. That is undeniable. But I find it quite the falsehood to describe American Christinianity in the terms of "extremism" for the mere reason that they disagree with the "liberal" viewset. This article, and likeminded individuals, claim that the "religious" are intolerant. But who, is in fact really being intolerant of who?

10/03/2005 12:44:55 PM · #52
Originally posted by theSaj:
[...] to make an association that such are due to their being "religions" people is extremely misleading. And the method is quite unscientific.

This article, the post, are all examples of absolutist beliefs that have no rationality and are mere casuality being used to express hatred, intolerance, and violent rhetoric.


I think you've misunderstood several things about this article and the study. First of all, Paul, the study's investigator, has not tried to show causality. He's not concluding or making the argument that religion causes higher crime rates, etc. He's merely showing a correlation between the "social dysfunction" factors and the more highly religious societies. Correlation is not causality, and Paul isn't saying that it is.

Second, it's the author of the article (Rosa Brooks), not Paul, who is drawing certain inferences from the study -- for example, that "too much religion may be a dangerous thing." She also allows for the possibility that, if there is a causal relationship, "it could be that high levels of social dysfunction fuel religiosity, rather than the other way around."

Originally posted by theSaj:
"This should offer ammunition to those who maintain that religious belief is a purely private matter and that government should remain neutral, not only among religions but also between religion and lack of religion. It should also give a boost to critics of "faith-based" social services and abstinence-only disease and pregnancy prevention programs."

Really, shows my point this guy is a biased individual and purely incompetant at science.

Likewise, I would consider this extremely poor example of scientific research immersed in rhetoric and bias to fall into the "socially dangerous dogmatic beliefs".


Again, you've confused the author of the article with the study's lead investigator. By the way, I don't understand what's so socially dangerous and dogmatic about saying that "religious belief is a purely private matter and that government should remain neutral, not only among religions but also between religion and lack of religion." If that's socially dangerous, then maybe you'd like to rewrite the Constitution!

Originally posted by theSaj:
"And since the history of Christianity is every bit as blood-drenched as the history of Islam, why should we doubt that extremist forms of modern American Christianity have their own pernicious and measurable effects on national health and well-being?"

Because....there is a great difference. Modern American Christianity is far from extreme en masse.


I don't know how the numbers break down between extreme and more mainstream, but I'd tend to agree with you on this point in terms of the attitudes of the majority of Christians in the U.S. There is also a progressive element among Christians in the U.S., although they're rarely heard from these days. There was, however, the recent case in Binghamton, N.Y., of the anti-war protesters who spilled their blood on, I believe, a military recruiting station, who said they were protesting against the Iraq war out of their religious convictions.

The problem is that the Republican party at the moment is, for the most part, doing the bidding of the extreme religious element. The more moderate and/or left-leaning Christians don't have a voice and don't have any influence politically at the present time.

Originally posted by theSaj:
Paul's entire study is easily discredited thru mere scientific guidelines and standards. Paul's study is what is commonly referred to as junk science.


If you're going to attack his study, you might want to first find out how he conducted the study and show where he breached "scientific guidelines and standards."

10/03/2005 01:01:18 PM · #53
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by RonB:
However, an increased sense of "morality" IS the answer, but it would appear that many, not just in the U.S. but throughout the world, prefer to bend the definition of "morality" to include only those "sins" that they, themselves, do not indulge in regularly. Ergo, abortion, adultery, pre-marital sex, fornication, homosexual behaviour, internet pornography, cheating on one's income taxes, dealing drugs, using drugs, looting when there is little chance of getting caught, stealing paperclips from one's employer, etc. are no longer considered immoral, as they once were.
And yes, the "religious right" attempts their best to reverse the slide into immorality, even though it often seems like bailing against the tide.



I just hope that no child of yours or grandchild comes to you for help and support when they are pregnant or decide to reveal they are homosexual!

Why? Have I implied that in such situations I would disown them? Treat them badly? If so, where?

Originally posted by Riponlady:
To take the view that pre-marital sex or homosexuality are sins in this day and age demonstrates the worst side of religions.

It is not I who determined that these activities were sins. It was God who made that determination. For me, it is not a matter of "religion". Rather it is a matter of fact.

Originally posted by Riponlady:
It is comparable with believing that women should be subservient to men,...

Why so? God doesn't hold that to be true, and neither do I.

Originally posted by Riponlady:
...that alcohol is the work of the devil,...

More conjecture. God doesn't hold that alcohol, per se, is the work of the devil ( though He does frown upon drunkenness ). If He thought that alcohol was the work of the devil, then Christ would not have turned water into wine as his first recorded miracle.

Originally posted by Riponlady:
...that sex should be for procreation and not a natural enjoyable act.

More conjecture. Ever read the Song of Songs in the Old Testament? It hardly paints sex as being for procreation only.

Originally posted by Riponlady:
Many many people who live good lives, better than some so called religious folk, decide not to marry with in the church or not to marry at all. They commit their lives to each other without a ceremony. This is not a sin or at least not in my definition of a sin. What is your definition?

Sexual relations outside of marriage is sin. Not MY definition, God's definition. And I've never said that people can't lead "good" lives without religion, or without God. Nor that they can't act in a "moral" manner without religion. Quite the opposite.

Originally posted by Riponlady:
Homosexuality is a sexual preference people are born with and not some form of deviant behaviour they choose to take part in.

If you truely believe that, then you have no basis to believe that pedophilia is NOT a sexual preference people are born with and therefor NOT some form of deviant behaviour they choose to take part in.
You must decide for yourself whether sexual preference is genetic or not. If it is, then how can you decide which TYPES of preference are "deviant" and which are not?

Originally posted by Riponlady:
How can this be a sin? Did God make some people homosexual so they could live in sin without being able to have a choice except a physically loveless life?

No, he made ALL people with sexual inclinations. My own inclination is heterosexual. Yet, I CHOOSE to not be sexually promiscuous. I CHOOSE to NOT grope women. I CHOOSE to NOT make sexual overtures toward women other than my wife. Now I COULD give in to those desires, and live in sin, but I CHOOSE not to.

Originally posted by Riponlady:
Tolerance is the greatest attribute of any person and in my mind the most "christian". To be so intolerant is unchristian in every sense of the word.

P

So, are you tolerant of fundamental Christians and of their right to try to influence society through democratic means? Or do you, too, draw the line at what is tolerable, just as they do?
 10/03/2005 01:03:41 PM · #54
Originally posted by theSaj:


Really, shows my point this guy is a biased individual and purely incompetant at science.



I find it hard to understand how you come to this conclusion by reading a short article about the study.

I hope for you sake the "scientist" doesn't ever read your post. I'm no legal expert and do not understand the American legal system but maybe you should get some legal advice to make sure no one can construe your statement as libel.
 10/03/2005 01:10:09 PM · #55
Everything in moderation.

Too much of ANYTHING is bad. When religion is the only thing in your life, it's not a good thing. Just like alchohol, drugs, sex, work, you name the "vice."

Be religious, be gay, be straight, be angry, be a workaholic... just don't be overt about it. It shouldn't be all that you are. That's when it gets extreme and dangerous.
 10/03/2005 01:11:42 PM · #56
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
VARIOUS


"He's not concluding or making the argument that religion causes higher crime rates, etc. He's merely showing a correlation between the "social dysfunction" factors and the more highly religious societies. Correlation is not causality, and Paul isn't saying that it is."

But he's not...and this is my scientific gripe. His study was poor.

In order to make the correlation that he is endeavoring he would need several more pieces of evidence to logicly conclude even a correlation.

a) He denotes the U.S. has both higher religious level and higher violent crime level.

b) He denotes the South has both higher religious level and higher violent crime level. (Blue voters tending to be more secular.)

c) He also denotes that the northeast approaches close to the European secularism.

Now we are left with some pressing insights that need an answer before any correlation can be properly made.

1) Most cities voted "blue". What percentage of the violent crimes were committed in cities in the "red" states. As such, without the knowledge the "violent crime" levels of the city populace compared to rural/suburban one is attributing to "red" that which belongs in category "blue".

2) The south has been known to be a poorer region ever since industrialism overtook cotton/agriculture. There have been many very strong correlations drawn toward poverty and violent crime. These alone pose a much stronger correlation.

3) If the northeast approaches European secularism. The northeast crime rates should likewise approach those of Europe. Do the crime rates of NYC, Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburg approach those of European cities? I've been told repeatedly that we have a much higher crime rate in our cities.

As such, this disparancy would go to actually oppose a correlation based on religion and point to other serious contributing factors.

4) In the case of murders & violent crime in the south, what percentage was done by regular attendees and adherants of the "religious" (those attending church regularly as opposed to just labelling themselves as Christians) and what percent non-religious? This determination would provide evidence of a possible correlation or not. In fact, if less murderers attend church regularly the correlation would be further weakened with the understanding that religion is in fact acting as a buffer and deterrent to violent crime as caused by other underlying conditions.

I could go on and point out other major fallacies and failed recognized "conflicts". Enough so that the attempted correlation is unsubstantiated. Simply stating "it's warmer in more southern lattitudes and that's why there are more violent crimes" has more substantiative evidence to support it than the attempt at correlation here.

Sorry, there was not enough proper science and analysis done here to make any claim of correlation.

" "This should offer ammunition to those who maintain that religious belief is a purely private matter and that government should remain neutral, not only among religions but also between religion and lack of religion. It should also give a boost to critics of "faith-based" social services and abstinence-only disease and pregnancy prevention programs." "

Fine with the first sentence, it's what follows that shows the exact opposite of the first stated sentence.

"The problem is that the Republican party at the moment is, for the most part, doing the bidding of the extreme religious element."

Sorry, the "religious right" is not extreme...it is merely status quo (old fashioned). They're not fighting for anything that hasn't been around for centuries. They're not pushing for advancement merely trying to stop what other perceive as advancement. Big difference....

- The Saj
 10/03/2005 01:14:08 PM · #57
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by theSaj:


Really, shows my point this guy is a biased individual and purely incompetant at science.



I find it hard to understand how you come to this conclusion by reading a short article about the study.

I hope for you sake the "scientist" doesn't ever read your post. I'm no legal expert and do not understand the American legal system but maybe you should get some legal advice to make sure no one can construe your statement as libel.


OMG...Silence The Saj (we disagree with him therefore it is libel)

And you guys gripe about the religious right. *lol*

No, there is enough evidence that I could easy justify my comments not only in U.S. courts but in European. Secondly, in America we have freedom of speech. What I said was not slanderous nor unjustified and can be substantiated (even if disagreed with) nor was it malicious. It was simply judgemental.

I find it funny, that you would even parlay such a threat of censorship and silence.
 10/03/2005 01:26:45 PM · #58
Wow theSaj, you're spammier than usual today - did this discussion touch a nerve? ;)
 10/03/2005 01:30:39 PM · #59
Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Riponlady:
Tolerance is the greatest attribute of any person and in my mind the most "christian". To be so intolerant is unchristian in every sense of the word.

P

So, are you tolerant of fundamental Christians and of their right to try to influence society through democratic means? Or do you, too, draw the line at what is tolerable, just as they do?


That's an interesting statement, Ron. On the surface, you're saying that the measure of the integrity of a man's "tolerance" is his willingness to allow others to destroy what he holds dear. There's not-so-fine distinction to be made between a willingness to tolerate other's points of view and an unwillingness to tolerate having them shoved down one's throat.

Voltaire said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". NOT "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to force the people by political (or other) means to live their lives according to your rules."

R.
 10/03/2005 01:39:48 PM · #60
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

No suggestion of the sort...rather, just want to keep one from infiltrating the other.


I neither want a "government to establish a religion" nor a "religion to establish a government"....

But I do want the members of government to be free to practice their religion (so long as it does not cause undue harm to the other members) and I do want the members of religion to be free to practice in the government as well. (likewise, so long as it does not cause undue harm to the other members)

I believe that is government is going to tax for social programs said monies should simply be devoted to getting the job done. And that both faith-based and non-faith based entities should be able to compete on equal footing. With the requirement being that all said funds received be dedicated to the deed and all U.S. citizens be eligable to receive thru said funded entity. With those goals achieved there should be no other debate on the matter.


I agree, I would like to see an expedient and efficient response to social needs by all organizations, but how are you going to assure that faith based organizations are not using the money towards prostelizing and conversion? As a jew I would not be happy if some of my tax dollars were going towards Christian groups that were not using 100% of their funding towards social programs (without religious undertones). At least NGOs have as their only mission their stated goals.

Operation Blessing was promoted as one of three organizations on FEMAs web site after Katrina hit last month to donate funds to, yet they have a questionable past in which donated funds that they stated were to be used for certain types of relief in Africa were used for other purposes. Do you think that because this organization's founder and CEO, who had donated large sums of money to the Bush campaigns had anything to do with their promotion?
 10/03/2005 01:47:49 PM · #61
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Riponlady:
Tolerance is the greatest attribute of any person and in my mind the most "christian". To be so intolerant is unchristian in every sense of the word.

P

So, are you tolerant of fundamental Christians and of their right to try to influence society through democratic means? Or do you, too, draw the line at what is tolerable, just as they do?


That's an interesting statement, Ron. On the surface, you're saying that the measure of the integrity of a man's "tolerance" is his willingness to allow others to destroy what he holds dear. There's not-so-fine distinction to be made between a willingness to tolerate other's points of view and an unwillingness to tolerate having them shoved down one's throat.

Voltaire said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". NOT "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to force the people by political (or other) means to live their lives according to your rules."

R.

Apt observation.
But my observation is that members of the "religious right" are deemed to be INTOLERANT if they object to having secular morality forced down THIER throats, but secularists are NOT considered to be intolerant if THEY object to having the morality of the "religious right" forced down THEIR throats. Does your observation differ?
Is it OK for secularists to destroy what the "religious right" holds dear, but not OK for the "religous right" to destroy what the secularists hold dear? Is this an acceptable double standard?
 10/03/2005 01:51:03 PM · #62
Originally posted by RonB:
Is it OK for secularists to destroy what the "religious right" holds dear, but not OK for the "religous right" to destroy what the secularists hold dear? Is this an acceptable double standard?


Ron, if I'm reading your statement correctly, neither is acceptable. Tolerance must come from both sides.
10/03/2005 01:55:46 PM · #63
Originally posted by bear_music:


That's an interesting statement, Ron. On the surface, you're saying that the measure of the integrity of a man's "tolerance" is his willingness to allow others to destroy what he holds dear. There's not-so-fine distinction to be made between a willingness to tolerate other's points of view and an unwillingness to tolerate having them shoved down one's throat.

Voltaire said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". NOT "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to force the people by political (or other) means to live their lives according to your rules."

R.


I'm not ron, obviously, but my experience has taught me that as a Christian, I am to be tolerant (definition = accepting, allowing, ignoring) of homosexuality, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, alcholism, drup use, etc. etc. yet if I say I am a Christian, I am expected to sit quietly and say nothing, because to say anything is to be shoving it down "your" throat.

Even if I say, "I honestly do not have a problem with homosexuals/bisexuals/transexuals, though I believe that particular lifestyle is wrong" I am bigoted and intolerant-- it doesn't matter that I show love and friendship to those around me that life that lifestyle.

If I say, "I believe Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, the Life" I am narrow-minded and discriminatory."

Look at this thread, even. If you boil it down, religion is bad for society. Doesn't seem really tolerant of my life or lifestyle, yet it is accepted and allowed. And it seems to be implying that Christian religion is the unhealthy segment, yet there are oodles and oodles of religion that would fit the same definition given.

I guess my whole beef is that I do not truly understand what "tolerance" is.

10/03/2005 01:59:16 PM · #64
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
VARIOUS


"He's not concluding or making the argument that religion causes higher crime rates, etc. He's merely showing a correlation between the "social dysfunction" factors and the more highly religious societies. Correlation is not causality, and Paul isn't saying that it is."

But he's not...


He's not what? I don't understand this statement.

Everything that follows in your post just reinforces my view that you still don't understand what Paul's study found and what the author of the article is saying; and you also don't understand the difference between causality and correlation.

Here is the definition of correlation from the American Heritage Dictionary:

"Used to describe the observed relationship between instances of two events. A systematic pattern can be seen in the occurrences of events that are correlated. When the events involve numbers, a positive correlation means that as one increases, the other increases as well. A negative correlation means that as one increases, the other decreases. Correlation does NOT imply causation in any way. In other words, just because two events are correlated does not mean that one causes another, or has anything to do with the other - correlations deal only with observed instances of events, and any further conclusions cannot be inferred from correlation alone. Strong correlation, however, does often warrant further investigation to determine causation."

Now, according to the author of the article, Paul's findings were "robust," which means the relationship or the pattern was strong, which can be proved statistically. You're arguing that he looked at the wrong variables or screwed up the statistics by attributing crime rates to Louisiana that should have been attributed to New York because you can't believe his results based on your own biases. But have you actually looked at his scientific method, or are you just making assumptions about what he did? Where is your documentation?

The question still remains, if this correlation or relationship or pattern exists between high levels of religious belief and high levels of social dysfunction, and inversely a pattern or relationship exists between lower levels of social dysfunction and lower levels of religious belief, why is that the case? Certainly, if the relationship had been the reverse, the religious right would be shouting those results from the mountaintops!

10/03/2005 02:01:17 PM · #65
Originally posted by RonB:

Apt observation.
But my observation is that members of the "religious right" are deemed to be INTOLERANT if they object to having secular morality forced down THIER throats, but secularists are NOT considered to be intolerant if THEY object to having the morality of the "religious right" forced down THEIR throats. Does your observation differ?
Is it OK for secularists to destroy what the "religious right" holds dear, but not OK for the "religous right" to destroy what the secularists hold dear? Is this an acceptable double standard?

It's not a double standard. No one is forcing anybody to be promiscuous, or to have an abortion. It is only the religious right, through their minions in the Republican party, who are attempting to limit individual freedom and responsibility for personal choice. "Secularists" and civil libertarians are trying to minimize the ability of one group to control the activities of another.

Message edited by author 2005-10-03 14:02:01.
 10/03/2005 02:02:49 PM · #66
Originally posted by RonB:

Apt observation.
But my observation is that members of the "religious right" are deemed to be INTOLERANT if they object to having secular morality forced down THIER throats, but secularists are NOT considered to be intolerant if THEY object to having the morality of the "religious right" forced down THEIR throats. Does your observation differ?
Is it OK for secularists to destroy what the "religious right" holds dear, but not OK for the "religous right" to destroy what the secularists hold dear? Is this an acceptable double standard?


In theory, the difference would be this:

The "secularists" are willing to tolerate all forms of religious expression as long as they are "private", i.e. not institutionalized. The current trend of the "religious right" (for the purposes of this debate, as expressed by many IN this debate) is to attempt to institutionalize conservative, Christian values at the federal level.

You CAN make the argument that if your beliefs "require" a Christian state, then those who deny you that state are trampling on your beliefs, but I don't think it's possible to "tolerate" beliefs that incorporate into their very fabric the neccesity of control or power over others.

On a more pragmatic level, the argument is between those who feel that if a majority (51%) of the people want a thing, then the minority (49%) must agree to accept it, whatever it is. This is actually a perversion of the true art of democracy, which is to forge consensus among disparate elements so NOBODY feels "trampled upon" except extremists. And it is possible for a position to be both "extreme" and embraced by the majority.

Robt.
 10/03/2005 02:04:46 PM · #67
Christian practice is not threatened in the US and all religions are tolerated by the left. It is when they attempt to take over the machinery of the government that they are criticized. For instance, The Constitutional Reform Act of 2004 that attempts to make "god's law" the law of the land. Laws such as this would definitely threaten how non-Christitans live their lives, as well as, be a big threat to democracy.
 10/03/2005 02:15:11 PM · #68
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:

Apt observation.
But my observation is that members of the "religious right" are deemed to be INTOLERANT if they object to having secular morality forced down THIER throats, but secularists are NOT considered to be intolerant if THEY object to having the morality of the "religious right" forced down THEIR throats. Does your observation differ?
Is it OK for secularists to destroy what the "religious right" holds dear, but not OK for the "religous right" to destroy what the secularists hold dear? Is this an acceptable double standard?

It's not a double standard. No one is forcing anybody to be promiscuous, or to have an abortion. It is only the religious right, through their minions in the Republican party, who are attempting to limit individual freedom and responsibility for personal choice. "Secularists" and civil libertarians are trying to minimize the ability of one group to control the activities of another.

So in order to NOT be forced into constant exposure to immorality in their society, people of faith should be self-marginalized and keep to their houses. My kids should stay OUT of the public library if they don't want to see a guy viewing porn on the internet, even though my taxes support the library. I should pay EXTRA to send them to private schools if I don't want them exposed to the teaching that Homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable alternative lifestyle, even though my taxes support the schools. No, my taxes should support these things, but no one's taxes should be used to help me keep my kids away from exposure to them.
 10/03/2005 02:18:58 PM · #69
"Morality, it could be argued, represents the way that people would like the world to work--whereas economics represents how it actually does work."

"Decades of studies have shown that a child born into an adverse family environment is far more likely than other children to become a criminal. And the millions of women most likely to have an abortion in the wake of Roe v. Wade --poor, unmarried, and teenage mothers for whom illegal abortions had been too expensive or too hard to get--were often models of adversity. They were the very women whose children, if born, would have been much more likely than average to become criminals. But because of Roe v. Wade, these children weren't being born. This powerful cause would have a drastic, distant effect: years later, just as these unborn children would have entered their criminal primes, the rate of crime began to plummet [in the United States].
It wasn't gun control or a strong economy or new police strategies that finally blunted the American crime wave. It was, among other factors, the reality that the pool of potential criminals had dramatically shrunk."
--Freakonomics, by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner

10/03/2005 02:26:53 PM · #70
Originally posted by RonB:
So in order to NOT be forced into constant exposure to immorality in their society, people of faith should be self-marginalized and keep to their houses...


immorality by whose standards?
 10/03/2005 02:28:18 PM · #71
Originally posted by RonB:

So in order to NOT be forced into constant exposure to immorality in their society, people of faith should be self-marginalized and keep to their houses. My kids should stay OUT of the public library if they don't want to see a guy viewing porn on the internet, even though my taxes support the library. I should pay EXTRA to send them to private schools if I don't want them exposed to the teaching that Homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable alternative lifestyle, even though my taxes support the schools. No, my taxes should support these things, but no one's taxes should be used to help me keep my kids away from exposure to them.


So you're saying that if "people of faith" become a poltical majority, and succeed in legistlating matters of personal morality so that they and their children arten't forced to ocnfront examples of "deviant" behavior in public; if, I ask, the Christian Right succeeds in is, then; you would support the right of atheists and hedonists and homosexuals and cross-dressers and nudists to argue against this repression?

Ron, the world IS what it is; courruption and licentiousness have always been with us, and shoving them out of view of our children isn't gonna change a thing. We CAN'T legistlate morality; all we can do is raise our children to do the right thing. We do them no favors by trying to sweep the mess under the carpet where they can't see it, by trying to deny what manifestly IS. And no amount of legislation, no successful attempt to turn the nation into a Christian State, is going to change that.

R.
 10/03/2005 02:36:49 PM · #72
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by RonB:

Apt observation.
But my observation is that members of the "religious right" are deemed to be INTOLERANT if they object to having secular morality forced down THIER throats, but secularists are NOT considered to be intolerant if THEY object to having the morality of the "religious right" forced down THEIR throats. Does your observation differ?
Is it OK for secularists to destroy what the "religious right" holds dear, but not OK for the "religous right" to destroy what the secularists hold dear? Is this an acceptable double standard?


In theory, the difference would be this:

The "secularists" are willing to tolerate all forms of religious expression as long as they are "private", i.e. not institutionalized. The current trend of the "religious right" (for the purposes of this debate, as expressed by many IN this debate) is to attempt to institutionalize conservative, Christian values at the federal level.

You CAN make the argument that if your beliefs "require" a Christian state, then those who deny you that state are trampling on your beliefs, but I don't think it's possible to "tolerate" beliefs that incorporate into their very fabric the neccesity of control or power over others.

On a more pragmatic level, the argument is between those who feel that if a majority (51%) of the people want a thing, then the minority (49%) must agree to accept it, whatever it is. This is actually a perversion of the true art of democracy, which is to forge consensus among disparate elements so NOBODY feels "trampled upon" except extremists. And it is possible for a position to be both "extreme" and embraced by the majority.

Robt.

Pragmatically, I have no fear of where the rampant immorality in the U.S. ( or elsewhere in the world, for that matter ) is headed. I am IN the world, but not OF the world. Scripture says that Lot was saved when Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because he was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard) -- if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. ( 2 Peter 2, verses 7-9 )
So, I am compelled to speak out against immorality, but am unaffected by it myself, other than being distressed by it.
 10/03/2005 02:49:48 PM · #73
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by RonB:

So in order to NOT be forced into constant exposure to immorality in their society, people of faith should be self-marginalized and keep to their houses. My kids should stay OUT of the public library if they don't want to see a guy viewing porn on the internet, even though my taxes support the library. I should pay EXTRA to send them to private schools if I don't want them exposed to the teaching that Homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable alternative lifestyle, even though my taxes support the schools. No, my taxes should support these things, but no one's taxes should be used to help me keep my kids away from exposure to them.


So you're saying that if "people of faith" become a poltical majority, and succeed in legistlating matters of personal morality so that they and their children arten't forced to ocnfront examples of "deviant" behavior in public; if, I ask, the Christian Right succeeds in is, then; you would support the right of atheists and hedonists and homosexuals and cross-dressers and nudists to argue against this repression?

Paraphrasing prior posts, the Christian right has no intent to FORCE people to give up internet PORN, as long as it's done in PRIVATE and NOT institutionalized ( e.g. legislated as permissible in the public library ). They have no intent to FORCE people to give up homosexual behaviour, as long as it ( along with all OTHER sexual activities ) is done in PRIVATE, and NOT institutionalized ( e.g. taught as "acceptable alternative lifestyles" in the schools ).

Originally posted by bear_music:
Ron, the world IS what it is; courruption and licentiousness have always been with us, and shoving them out of view of our children isn't gonna change a thing. We CAN'T legistlate morality; all we can do is raise our children to do the right thing. We do them no favors by trying to sweep the mess under the carpet where they can't see it, by trying to deny what manifestly IS. And no amount of legislation, no successful attempt to turn the nation into a Christian State, is going to change that.
R.

Almost right. We CAN, and SHOULD expose our children to ADULT concepts and behaviours and not sweep them under the rug. But ONLY when they are mature enough to deal with them intellectually and emotionally. NOT in the public library when they are 6 or 7 years old. And NOT in the public schools. If, as you say, you cannot LEGISLATE morality, then the LEGISLATURE ( i.e. school board ) should not be legislating the TEACHING of morality / immorality.

Message edited by author 2005-10-03 14:59:42.
 10/03/2005 03:02:49 PM · #74
Originally posted by RonB:
They have no intent to FORCE people to give up homosexual behaviour, as long as it ( along with all OTHER sexual activities ) is done in PRIVATE, and NOT institutionalized ( e.g. taught as "acceptable alternative lifestyles" in the schools ).


So two guys kissing while standing in front of a school waiting to pick up their adopted son is perfectly okay?
 10/03/2005 03:07:59 PM · #75
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by RonB:
So in order to NOT be forced into constant exposure to immorality in their society, people of faith should be self-marginalized and keep to their houses...


immorality by whose standards?

By the standards of that society consisting of "people of faith", as I thought I implied.

Are there activities that YOU consider to be immoral? If so, who sets YOUR standards?

People of faith can point to the foundational teaching that establishes their standards - and it never changes from year to year. Can you do the same?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 02:57:31 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 02:57:32 AM EDT.