Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<He ignores the work many organized religions have done, for millenia, around the globe on behalf of the sick, the poor, the oppressed, and even HIV victims (regardless of how they got the virus).>> Oh, so if a religion has done some good things it is then impervious to criticism? This is completely analagous to the arguments we hear every year from the fraternities in my college-town city. "Okay, okay, yes, our Officers provided date rape drugs to our members during at least one party. Yes, we held kegger parties in violation of local law approximately twelve times since the beginning of the school year. Yes, our members were caught on videotape referring to our sorority guests as "b------" and "c----" numerous times. "But you need to take this in context. Our fraternity sponsors the "Dance for Liberation!" fundraiser every year! Every single one of our members participates in this week-end-long dance marathon that raises over FOUR THOUSAND dollars that is donated to local womens shelters! How DARE you refer to any of our members as anything but the perfect gentleman?! As brothers, we have collectively raised over FOUR THOUSAND dollars!!!" Give it up. Organized religions have done some wonderfully humanitarian things, for which they deserve credit. (They've also tried to make it look as though religion is the only source of altruism, which is completely untrue, but let's ignore that here.) So, okay, okay, so let's say a religion provides some clothing for the poor. Is that a license, then, for that church to make whatever attack it wants against another group of people? To demonize, for example, gay people, despite the anthropological evidence that gayness is just a natural part of the human condition? This whole "but we do good things" argument just doesn't fly when it comes time to justify advocating hate and discrimination.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 DVC_dad, I think you're confusing me with Michael Jackson. He's whiter than me. And gayer.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >> This could easily pass as a description for fervently religious poeple, too. Sometimes. You'll note I included some "religious" people in my description of those who see bigotry everywhere else but think they're not a part of it when they are. I know Elton John's opinion is only worth so much. I drew attention to it because 1. I haven't heard much criticism of it, and 2. We all know that many, many, many more people than just him have the same opinion. He just voiced it really loud. There ARE those who blame religion, and not just false or misplaced "religious" fervor, for the ills of the world. These are people who would stamp-out faith and religion completely, given the chance. It happens all the time, abroad and in the U.S. The problem here is the critics of "organized religion" are not differentiating between those who live a faith, and those who abuse it. There are those who sincerely use faith as an anchor in their lives, and have done much good with it. Others, who have no true faith at all, abuse religion, using it as a tool and a deception. They are no more "religious" than a doorknob. Organized religion is not the problem. Religions are organized across the globe and are responsible for an overwhelming amount of good things, for which they never get credit (and for which they don't seek credit). To paint them with the same broad brush as a humiliated televangelist or politically corrupt clergy is dishonest and religiously bigoted.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> Is that a license, then, for that church to make whatever attack it wants against another group of people? To demonize, for example, gay people, despite the anthropological evidence that gayness is just a natural part of the human condition? No. The license comes from freedom of speech ... the same freedom that protects peoples' right to criticize religions freely and openly. But, with few exceptions, I don't see religions attacking people. They are criticizing a behavior ... NOT an attraction, not a feeling, not an inclination ... just a behavior. Churches are saying we ought to rise above that, and honor the traditionally-established code of sexual conduct that can be found across nearly all faiths. That is not being cruel or bigoted. It's just laying down an expectation of behavior, the same thing liberals do with environmentalism. Only rarely have I heard religions raise the rhetoric to the level of personal demonization and attack. Indeed, Christian clergy typically reiterate, when criticizing homosexuality, their love for all people. They remind their followers to extend hands of friendship to everyone, despite their actions. But this does not matter to the extreme activist crowd, who can see only hatred because churches do not give their explicit stamp of approval. Such an expectation on their part is neither realistic, or fair, especially since they have no similar expectation of themselves.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> Mormon leader Boyd Packer, who has uttered some of the most offensive comments regarding homosexuality. What was it he said that was so terrible?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I've been attending Catholic Mass almost every week for 10 years. In those 500 plus masses I don't recall one time when homosexuality was brought up in the homily. If they are teaching hatred against gays then they are doing a good job of masking it.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer HyperTyper, I have to admit that I started reading your initial post with the automatic assumption that you were wrong. I still think your emphasis on the bigotry of the left while only giving passing reference to the bigotry of the right shows your bias, I think in general your post brings up a good point. You can't judge the actions of an entire group by what some of it's members have done. Not all Christians condemn homosexuality or same sex relationships. And not all Christians are unable to see the log in their own eye when pointing out the speck in someone else's. I don't think it is up to us to accept or reject someone else's morality. That is between them and their conscience, unless their moral code damages my life or the life of the community. I personally think that legally recognizing same-sex monogamous relationships would be good for community stability, and the existence of a married same-sex couple doesn't threaten my way of life in any regard, for example. Others may find it offensive or distasteful, but are hard-pressed to give a compelling argument against it (in my opinion). There are many Christian denominations in the United States that welcome gays to their congregations and even to their leadership. My church, the Episcopal cathedral in Seattle, has a gay dean and a gay bishop, and even though there are far more heterosexuals in the congregation that homosexuals they are both well-loved members of our clergy. The United Methodist Church and the United Church of Christ both have welcoming arms for our gay brothers and sisters. God is love, after all, and if two men or two women love each other then God is present in that relationship. No human has the right to tear apart the two hearts that God has brought together. There has been a lot of evil done in the name of God, and organized religion has been used as a wedge of hatred and divisiveness by some. That's because humans are corrupt, faulty creatures that are still part animal. The challenge of a mature faith is to recognize that part of yourself and to try to mitigate it's effects on your relationships with the people and community around you. Unfortunately, too many people are still obsessed with being right and winning arguments than they are with doing right by each other. Organized religion is not the enemy, and neither are atheists or agnostics or gays. The enemy is that part of ourselves that thinks that we are better than everyone else, and that thinks we gain some advantage by putting each other down.
Originally Posted By jdub <<The enemy is that part of ourselves that thinks that we are better than everyone else, and that thinks we gain some advantage by putting each other down.>> Fantastic--and it applies not just to this realm, but to about every other, as well.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I should point out that I know that enemy is in me, as well, as I've so often demonstrated here in World Events.
Originally Posted By DlandJB The problem here is the critics of "organized religion" are not differentiating between those who live a faith, and those who abuse it. There are those who sincerely use faith as an anchor in their lives, and have done much good with it. Others, who have no true faith at all, abuse religion, using it as a tool and a deception. They are no more "religious" than a doorknob. Organized religion is not the problem. Religions are organized across the globe and are responsible for an overwhelming amount of good things, for which they never get credit (and for which they don't seek credit). To paint them with the same broad brush as a humiliated televangelist or politically corrupt clergy is dishonest and religiously bigoted.>> It is a long piece to c/p but I completely agree and couldn't put it better. To paint all Christians with one brush is as disengeous as to say that all gay people are promiscous, are predators or are unbelievers. Just ain't so. The media loves to hype the stereotypes, but that is because of their laziness, not because it is an accurate portrayal of anyone.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut I do agree with that. I have a problem with organized religions not the people involved. Its the hierarchy that causes the problems not the faith itself.
Originally Posted By DlandJB It is arrogance that causes the problems -- pride and greed. The simple truth through all of this is that we are all human and subject to human frailty and sinfulness. That can be the big time minister or the top pop artist -- and all of us "regular folk" too. We aren't called to be perfect, we are called to be faithful...and the most we can do is try.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>> Mormon leader Boyd Packer, who has uttered some of the most offensive comments regarding homosexuality. >>What was it he said that was so terrible?<< From the talk "To Young Men Only" originally delivered in the General Conference session of Priesthood, October 2, 1976, reprinted by the LDS Church as a pamphlet: "There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral [homosexual] acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist. While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done. After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, "I hit my companion." "Oh, is that all," I said in great relief. "But I floored him," he said. After learning a little more, my response was 'Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way' I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself." In short, Packer endorses physical violence as a response to homosexuality in this specific example. But there are his repeated harsh denunciations that only serve to demonize homosexuality to a church he is supposedly supposed to be leading by example.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<DVC_dad, I think you're confusing me with Michael Jackson. He's whiter than me. And gayer.>>> LOLOLOLOOLOOL This should be in the LP Hall of Fame quotes!!! Well put Inspector...took me a minute, but well put!!!
Originally Posted By ecdc "The problem here is the critics of "organized religion" are not differentiating between those who live a faith, and those who abuse it. There are those who sincerely use faith as an anchor in their lives, and have done much good with it. Others, who have no true faith at all, abuse religion, using it as a tool and a deception. They are no more "religious" than a doorknob. Organized religion is not the problem." While I think there's a lot of fair comments in here, I don't think you can separate the organization from the sum of its members. Ultimately, the members of that religion are responsible for that religions reputation, especially if it is a proselytizing faith. Is the Catholic Church full of pedophiles? Of course not. But where has the members' outrage been? Where were the protests at the Vatican demanding real responses and real change? That's the problem with organized religion: It's members believe that the faith's divinity comes directly from God, and that they have no place to speak out even in the face of inexcusable behavior. So they remain silent. This isn't always the case, but I think in many cases it is. Organized religions that believe the church is theirs and that they are ultimately responsible for it are going to work better than organized religions where members believe the church is God's or Jesus' and they are just along for the ride, whatever that might be.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>That's the problem with organized religion: It's members believe that the faith's divinity comes directly from God, and that they have no place to speak out even in the face of inexcusable behavior.<< That's not a fair assessment, though. My church and the Anglican Communion in general is in the middle of a lot of arguments and debates and outright schism over the issue of gay clergy and gay marriage. There are groups within the Catholic church who are vocal in their opposition to a celibate priesthood, no ordained women, and even to the reforms of Vatican II. It may be hard to see disagreements from outside the church, but they are there. There are some members of the Catholic church are outraged by Rome's seeming protection of some priests from civil prosecution. I've met quite a few that have left the Catholic church for other liturgical churches, mainly because they don't trust the leadership of their former church. I've been part of pretty strenuous debates within my own congregation about the direction of the Episcopal church, and what we as the Cathedral of Seattle should say or do about it. People who didn't attend those meetings wouldn't know anything about the soul searching and honest exchange of ideas that happened there. And people from outside our church would merely see the large edifice on Capital Hill in Seattle and the occassional interviews and columns our Dean writes and think they know everything that happens inside the walls. We are a family. There are Catholics who are outraged. But like any other family, it isn't appropriate to express that disagreement publicly because that forces people to form battle lines instead of trying to work through a problem. The church is a family. If a member of your family breaks the law or does something really bad or shameful, is your first response to stand on the rooftop and shout your disapproval of your brother or sister to the world? Or is it to try to help them? It's no different in the church. There may come a time when you have to distance yourself, but before you reach that time most of your work and conversations and aide will be anything but public.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <There are some members of the Catholic church are outraged by Rome's seeming protection of some priests from civil prosecution. I've met quite a few that have left the Catholic church for other liturgical churches, mainly because they don't trust the leadership of their former church. < have to agree with the assessment of the unrest in the Catholic church - where I have been a lifelong member. It may not be on the front page everyday, but is there outrage over what has gone on and the seemingly 100% protective cloak thrown over the priesthood - for misconduct - which also includes more than a few cases or money misappropriation ( huge amounts ) also - you bet. I also agree marching on the streets over it also seems wrong. There are quiet forms of protest from with holding of donations - service etc. -- and plenty of groups who work through meetings and petitions to try and turn things around. It is not the faith that is bad, it is the abuse of certain members, and worse yet, coverups of wrongdoings that have led to even more. So to say Catholics ( for example) are not outraged is incorrect.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^ absolutely - also probably more things than either of us would think..but most are everyday things we take for granted but differences are good also, without them we would be robots.
