Whenever I see an article like this, I keep thinking gay people should organise
themselves as a religion.
How is my refusing to practice or live by the dictates of your religion an
attack upon your religion freedom?
Dear conservatives: Criticism is not the the same as censorship.
Hutterite,Whatever gave you the idea that they haven't
already?When the anti-religious reference arguments such as "My
God says your wrong", they ought to do more looking in a mirror before
boasting their claims. The anti-religious try to force their opinion into law
without any regard for the democratic process while they try to convince courts
that they are somehow entitled to what others posses (recognition, property,
governing, etc).In America today there practically is a religious
war already going- it's called liberals vs conservatives, east vs west, and
anything else we can divide over. There are those who feel they are entitled to
govern others, and those who believe in freedom, democracy, and living by
agreements favorable or not to their beliefs. People accuse LDS Church members
and members of other faiths of trying to legislate their morality. Yet if I were
trying to legislate my actual beliefs, I would be voting the LDS moral paradigm
literally into law (even being gay would be considered lawfully wrong).The real threat isn't religion, it's those who say 'we
shouldn't listen to arguments from THAT crowd or that don't follow OUR
So 80% of the crimes where against either Jewish people or muslim people meaning
that all the other religions which goes well beyond just Christian accounts for
20%. violence and oppression are always wrong regardless, however, I would hope
that these two conservative CHristian groups would focus on actual violence
against religious groups and not using the suffering of others to justify their
politics agenda when it comes to healthcare.
Let's make a detailed report about the hostilities of religion against
those it disagrees with.
What's more interesting to me is how whenever the Deseret News publishes an
article like this, the same people are the first to respond on here. I can see
why religion would by hypersensitive in a world that is growing critical of
religion, but to be hypersensitive when others examine criticism and hostility
to religion- to then only turn around and jump all over it with even MORE
critical comments... I could call this irony incredible, but truthfully this is
something I have come to expect from those fighting religion.I've always understood agnostics. They make at least an amount of sense
to me. To doubt but understand and recognize possibility is only congruous with
our ability to reason. But those who oppose religious possibility, and therefore
any possibility not subjective to their own experience- those are the people I
cannot understand. The same would deny a subjective experience of a 14 year old
boy from New York. To deny the subjective I can only assume is accomplished
through hate. I can actually understand why people can hate, I just don't
understand how people feed it and live an entire life worshiping the doctrine,
@AVoice of Reason: I don't believe there are too many who actually hate or
even fight religion. I respect everyone's beliefs, oh. gasp, even the
Muslims, but I believe religion should be a personal and private relationship
with your creator, not fighting to have your beliefs imposed upon others,
including schools. There truly is no reason for that!
xscribe,I'm glad to hear that you respect beliefs. However,
there is a problem when people think religion is somehow imposing views just for
expressing or voting them into law.1) Voting isn't imposing,
it's voting. We agree to vote together and our constitution protects my
vote. There are no conditions on my vote and to create such a condition would
destroy freedom. I don't vote according to your conditions nor should you
to my own. We agree to a bill of rights and our votes are bound by that, nothing
else.2) Relativism. I have pointed out the problems with relativist
arguments and how "you can't legislate morality" arguments just
aren't rational. The greatest philosophical teachers from Socrates to
Michael Sandel have all asked their students to explain the dilemna behind
relativism and to this day it still has not happened.I'll be
happy to hear your arguments or anyone else's, but where my arguments come
from do not discount them- that is ad hominem and logically fallacious. Every
legal decision has a moral impact, your votes are no more or less exempt from
that than my own, religious or not.
A Voice of Reason, Unlike xscribe, I do not respect religious faith.
I do take issue with irrational belief as it impacts all of us. Let's take
one of the most obvious examples: homophobia. Human history has not been kind to
gays, and this has mostly been because of irrational religious group-think. In
the course of human history it is only now that gays are finally defending
themselves. Likewise, we atheists are finally gaining the numbers, strength, and
courage to say "stop the nonsense!" With all the incredible knowledge
we have today, it is simply not right to teach the virgin birth, etc. I advocate
sticking to the truth, and have a problem with those who do not.
A voice of Reason said:However, there is a problem when people think
religion is somehow imposing views just for expressing or voting them into
law.Expressing is absolutely protected, however you are no longer
"Expressing" when you vote to remove someone else's freedoms to fit
your religious beliefs. Express all you want, but don't pretend that your
vote isn't a physical attack against someone else's belief's
because then you involving laws prohibiting their freedom.Logic and
religion as it's been presented thus far are not compatible.
The moment you see the words "Family Research Council" attached to any
study, you can instantly disregard it. This group isn't known for the
integrity of their "research".Not letting a kid sing
"Kum Ba Yah" at a publically sponsered children's program is
"hostility towards religion" and included in a report along with the
Sikh Temple Shooting? What an absolute, nonsense-filled joke.Christians want to be able to avoid everything they find offensive, and yet,
be able to offend others freely. Groups like the Family Research Council want to
make it illegal for a person to privately watch porn at home, but force everyone
to view their 10 Commandments displays and Christmas nativity pageants.I'm absolutely hostile to being forced to participate in religion, just
as Christians are hostile to pornography. That's why the courts in this
country have decided that a publicly funded forum is inappropriate for both.Hostility is fine. Violence is not. And Hostility does not equal
violence. Christians are just mad that they can't bully people the way they
were able to in the past. They know that with more freedoms, religion will
continue to bleed members.
A voice of reason: "But those who oppose religious possibility, and
therefore any possibility not subjective to their own experience- those are the
people I cannot understand. The same would deny a subjective experience of a 14
year old boy from New York. To deny the subjective I can only assume is
accomplished through hate. I can actually understand why people can hate, I just
don't understand how people feed it and live an entire life worshiping the
doctrine, the lie."If I understand your reasoning here, it seems
to me that it goes both ways. I can see that a person insisting that a
14-year-old's subjective experience is false could be construed as hateful.
The first person is imposing an objective filter on the 14-year-old's
belief. However, is it not the same when the 14-year-old or his followers claim
that the experience was true, and thus making the claim objective rather than
subjective. Then is it not hateful to others' subjective beliefs? If I
construe the debate correctly, most irreligious people are fine with
others' subjective beliefs as long as they remain subjective.
I don't regard the Liberty Institute or the Family Research Council as
reliable sources of information. They are fanatical conservative advocacy groups
who imagine hostility towards religion where there is none. Whether it's
the HHS mandate on contraception for insurance carriers or the prohibition of
prayer in the public schools, the ten commandments in a courtroom, etc., these
groups invariably see it as yet one more attack on religion.The fact
is that Federal, state, and local government are required to follow a policy of
strict neutrality on matters of faith. These right-wing groups don't like
Searching . . .,First, if members were saying "I don't have
a testimony, but Joseph Smith saw this" that would be a claim without any
subjective substance. But to claim that "I prayed to God and received a
personal witness and testimony for myself" is a subjective experience. The
LDS Church doesn't teach "Here's what happened now follow and obey
blindly!", but instead for people to learn for themselves.I
don't preach that other religions are wrong, just that my experiences are
real. That is not inherently or charged as an offensive statement.However, your comment (intentionally or not) is a red herring.My
complaint is with those who attack religion on the grounds that "without
objective proof, I won't listen". The problem: 1) religious experiences
often are subjective and 2) such a criticism relies on the idea that any
subjective experiences have no merit (a dangerous doctrine incompatible with
peaceful discourse).My primary claim remains unchallenged- that the
explicit voting rights protected in the constitution should not be abridged!
-lest all human equality at it's core be destroyed. The constitution was
designed to protect expressing ideas; this nation has steered away from that
@VORthe problem is that you assume because that someone does not just
blindly accept your subjective experience as truth but instead looks at and
presents objective realities to challenge your views then we are attacking you.
We get to have different opinions and express our counter views to your argument
and even not adopt your view as our own without you being a victim and attacked.
A voice of Reason,Members of the LDS church claim to know that a
14-year-old boy conversed with God and that through him His religion would be
again restored to the Earth. To claim to know is a claim of objectivity. As
thus, it should have the ability to be proven or dis-proven. Implicit in story
is that all other existing religion were then, and are now, false. That could be
offensive to members of other religions, and they might also see it as
hateful.My point: 1)Religious experiences are almost always
subjective. 2) To claim knowledge that such a subjective experience is proof of
truth is raising the experience to an objective level and therefore should have
consistent, reproducible or concrete proof. 3) Claiming that a subjective
experience proves truth is a lie, no matter how strong the belief might be.
Peaceful discourse is possible when we realize that we are comparing beliefs and
not trying to convert the other to our own position.
So 80% of the alleged anti-religious hostility is directed at Jews and Muslims.
Of the remaining 20%, some portion must be for Bahais, Hindus, Santeria, and
other non-Christian faiths. That puts the so-called "War on Christmas"
and other purported assaults on Christian hegemony in the U.S. in perspective.
Maybe 10-15% of the cases, but almost of the airtime from the likes of Bill
O'Reilly. And somehow the report has the chutzpah to give moral parity to
the mass murder of Sikhs and the censoring of Kum Bay Yah.The
article does not say whether the report explores the identities of the
perpetrators of the hostility. Given that 80% or more is directed at
non-Christians, it is likely that the perpetrators are mostly Christian (in name
if not practice). Opposition to the Murfreesboro, TN, mosque and the
"Ground Zero" mosque was predominantly Christian. The Florida minister
who burned the Koran was Christian. Perhaps Christians should try some
introspection and see how they are living up to the tenets of their faith.