Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: roo_ster on July 30, 2012, 12:54:19 AM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/douthat-defining-religious-liberty-down.html?_r=2
It may seem strange that anyone could look around the pornography-saturated, fertility-challenged, family-breakdown-plagued West and see a society menaced by a repressive puritanism. But it’s clear that this perspective is widely and sincerely held.
It would be refreshing, though, if it were expressed honestly, without the “of course we respect religious freedom” facade.
If you want to fine Catholic hospitals for following Catholic teaching, or prevent Jewish parents from circumcising their sons, or ban Chick-fil-A in Boston, then don’t tell religious people that you respect our freedoms. Say what you really think: that the exercise of our religion threatens all that’s good and decent, and that you’re going to use the levers of power to bend us to your will.
There, didn’t that feel better? Now we can get on with the fight.
Do read the whole thing.
-
Funny how the ones who cry "Diversity" the loudest are the first ones to shun the beliefs of others.
-
Ahh, Mrs. Smith, those crying diversity the loudest have an abridged dictionary that is their handbook.
-
The writer is a legend in his own mind.
-
The writer is a legend in his own mind.
I'm not familiar with the columnist, but if this is an example of his clarity of thought then I'd like to read more of him.
-
Funny how the ones who cry "Diversity" the loudest are the first ones to shun the beliefs of others.
Yup.
(There's a (slight) possibility in the near future of moving into a new job. Different employer. One with a "Human Resources" department. "Diversity training" is the thing I am most dreading. And explaining to them how most that use the word "hate" don't know the meaning of it.
Probably won't happen, anyway. )
-
I'm not familiar with the columnist, but if this is an example of his clarity of thought then I'd like to read more of him.
I believe he was just recently published.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1439178305
-
I'm not familiar with the columnist, but if this is an example of his clarity of thought then I'd like to read more of him.
Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics (http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Religion-Became-Nation-Heretics/dp/1439178305). Looks interesting, but I'll probably never get to it.
-
He's a decent writer, although my mind always wants to pronounce his name "Douchehat" so it's somewhat distracting when I see his byline.
-
A lot of the modern puritanism is sponsored by progressive "feminists".
-
So, we agree that say, forced marriage or honor killings are universally immoral in America, reguardless of what the christian bible says (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21%3A17&version=KJV) about (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:9&version=KJV) it (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev%2021:9&version=KJV); but genital mutilation of minors should be protected religious freedom? (Of males, that is. Female genital mutilation is also obviously bad. But it's cool for males.)
-
So, we agree that say, forced marriage or honor killings are universally immoral in America, reguardless of what the christian bible says (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21%3A17&version=KJV) about (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:9&version=KJV) it (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev%2021:9&version=KJV); but genital mutilation of minors should be protected religious freedom? (Of males, that is. Female genital mutilation is also obviously bad. But it's cool for males.)
Comparing circumcision and female genital mutilation just demonstrates that you don't really understand what either one is. It's rather like comparing foot binding and piercing a kid's ears.
-
Comparing circumcision and female genital mutilation just demonstrates that you don't really understand what either one is. It's rather like comparing foot binding and piercing a kid's ears.
FGM is a range of procedures ranging from the completely disabling to the only slightly so - all are illegal.
(So is tattooing your child's genitals, I would assume).
-
So, we agree that say, forced marriage or honor killings are universally immoral in America, reguardless of what the christian bible says (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21%3A17&version=KJV) about (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:9&version=KJV) it (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev%2021:9&version=KJV); but genital mutilation of minors should be protected religious freedom? (Of males, that is. Female genital mutilation is also obviously bad. But it's cool for males.)
Quoting Bible versus out of context just shows a lack of biblical knowledge and your lack of understanding regarding theology. Not to mention the history of Judaism and Christianity. Quoting versus as if it is a text book versus a historical narrative is usually a mistake made by fundamentalists as well as unbelievers.
For the record, by the time of Christ, one woman one man was the traditional understanding of marriage in Jewish culture as well as the nascent Christian church and the Roman Empire.
While I don't see the point behind circumcision myself, comparing it to the genital mutilation of young girls does not do justice to the horror of that procedure. If the Jews/most of the western world practiced the neutering of their male babies maybe it would be an apt comparison.
As a circumcised male I can assure you I am more than capable of not only having intercourse but enjoying it immensely. The victims of genital mutilation have that most basic of human joys stolen from them without their consent.
-
Quoting Bible versus out of context just shows a lack of biblical knowledge and your lack of understanding regarding theology. Not to mention the history of Judaism and Christianity. Quoting versus as if it is a text book versus a historical narrative is usually a mistake made by fundamentalists as well as unbelievers.
It's there in black and white. You yourself are quick to point out that words have specific, defined meaning. [Marriage] Figurative meaning beyond the literal what-it-actually-says meaning is subjective - it's filtered through social, cultural, and congnative biases; one can twist that mean almost anything one wants it to. I am refering to what is actually printed in the book. I would expect that would be an acceptable source of truth reguarding a particular religion.
While I don't see the point behind circumcision myself, comparing it to the genital mutilation of young girls does not do justice to the horror of that procedure. If the Jews/most of the western world practiced the neutering of their male babies maybe it would be an apt comparison.
As a circumcised male I can assure you I am more than capable of not only having intercourse but enjoying it immensely. The victims of genital mutilation have that most basic of human joys stolen from them without their consent.
I bring it up is to point out that we as a culture clearly denounce some things that are in most, if not all religious texts; and almost everyone agrees that is fine and proper. [FMG's and Honor killings, for instance] Yet government intervention of other practices [homosexual marriage, circumcision] is deemed trampling on religious freedom. The cultural standards have changed over time; or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Where do you draw this line? I would expect freedom oriented gun owners to say "your rights end where mine begin"; but that is not the case here. [Two homosexuals marrying does not personally impact you. Circumcision is body modification done to an individual without their consent.]
-
It's there in black and white. You yourself are quick to point out that words have specific, defined meaning. [Marriage] Figurative meaning beyond the literal what-it-actually-says meaning is subjective - it's filtered through social, cultural, and cognitive biases; one can twist that mean almost anything one wants it to. I am referring to what is actually printed in the book. I would expect that would be an acceptable source of truth regarding a particular religion.
Heh, heh, all you did there was restate your position showing your lack of understanding of both historical context as well as theology.
As far as circumcision is concerned I have no dog in that fight. It seems to be common practice in the USA, regardless of religious affiliation.
My point was that comparing it to FGM is something akin almost to a category error. The permanent damaging physical effects of FGM shouldn't be diminished by comparing it to circumcision.
The ramifications of letting our government in Orwellian fashion change the meaning of a word that has centuries of history as well as jurisprudence are not fully known. There have been threads where links have been posted regarding lawsuits against churches by gay groups here and abroad as soon as legal status was obtained, and here government is already demanding religious institutions violate their conscience and/or doctrine.
I wish this was really just the benign desire to have equal benefits bestowed upon them by the state. For many I'm sure that is really the case. Unfortunately the issue seems to me to be a Trojan Horse designed to weaken and damage religious institutions in the USA.
-
Religious values further the survival of the tribe, of the nation (strictly defined). Or they don't. It can take a while--a few existential conflicts--to determine the viability of practices. Until then it is just self-comforting theory. History is littered with proud faiths that failed to meet the test of adaptation to major crisis.
-
Heh, heh, all you did there was restate your position showing your lack of understanding of both historical context as well as theology.
You are correct in that I don't have much of a backgroud in theology. Care to elaborate for me?
-
You are correct in that I don't have much of a backgroud in theology. Care to elaborate for me?
The Bible verses you're quoting are a legal code for ancient Israel. They were valid for Israel because God delivered them in person, confirming His revelation with miracles visible to the nation. The New Testament expanded the worship of the Jewish God to all people, but not all the laws and practices of the Old Testament Jews.
Islamic teachings are quite different, stemming as they do from one guy who simply said a lot of stuff that some people happened to agree with for whatever reason.
-
To be fair to Islam, I don't recall any of their holy books calling for FGM.
You are correct in that I don't have much of a backgroud in theology. Care to elaborate for me?
Pro tip:
The author of The Song of Solomon ain't writing about deer hunting, no matter how many times he mentions the critters.
-
The Bible verses you're quoting are a legal code for ancient Israel. They were valid for Israel because God delivered them in person, confirming His revelation with miracles visible to the nation. The New Testament expanded the worship of the Jewish God to all people, but not all the laws and practices of the Old Testament Jews.
Gotcha. So this would be why the prohibition of bacon in Leviticus is not followed by Christians, but is by the Jewish?
-
Pro tip:
The author of The Song of Solomon ain't writing about deer hunting, no matter how many times he mentions the critters.
"What like towers?"
-
Gotcha. So this would be why the prohibition of bacon in Leviticus is not followed by Christians, but is by the Jewish?
Purr-cisely. I think this webpage does a passable job of explaining the issues.
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/kosher.html
As Paul states in Romans 14:14, foods are not unclean in and of themselves. While God has given rules concerning food in the past, they were laws intended to serve a particular purpose at a particular time, not moral absolutes. The laws given to the Israelites concerning food were in force during the time of the Old Covenant, not before and not after.
-
Thanks fistful. =)
-
I'm sorry if I, or my fellow Christians, get prickly about that. It's something so basic to understanding Christianity, but so ill-understood. It's easy for us to forget that people really don't know how all that works.
And then there are the Christians who should know better, but appeal to Old Testament law to condemn tattoos, and such. :facepalm:
-
I'm sorry if I, or my fellow Christians, get prickly about that. It's something so basic to understanding Christianity, but so ill-understood. It's easy for us to forget that people really don't know how all that works.
And then there are the Christians who should know better, but appeal to Old Testament law to condemn tattoos, and such. :facepalm:
Prickly Ron agrees with fistful.
-
Ah, no worries. It is my error for not doing my homework before posting.
I do recall hearing a discussion at work about this; one man was asserting that the Old Testament law is valid as Jesus had explicitly said it did somewhere in the New Testament, and the other man was saying that the words of Paul overwrote that. I don't know what came of the discussion, but since I don't know any Christians who shun bacon, I assumed the latter was correct. And, your link confirms that.
-
fistful makes it sound simple, but I wish it was.
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
--Jesus
Try reconciling the above with "old testament law no longer applies", which I admit is the general theme in the New Testament.
If old testament law no longer applies, why do people still teach the ten commandments to their children?
-
fistful makes it sound simple, but I wish it was.
--Jesus
Try reconciling the above with "old testament law no longer applies", which I admit is the general theme in the New Testament.
If old testament law no longer applies, why do people still teach the ten commandments to their children?
Well, I don't think Nick really cares to know every nuance that you and I might wish to discuss. An interesting question about the Ten Commandments, though, and one I've been pondering a lot, lately. It is interesting that the Jerusalem council didn't expect Gentiles to abide by them.
-
fistful makes it sound simple, but I wish it was.
--Jesus
Try reconciling the above with "old testament law no longer applies", which I admit is the general theme in the New Testament.
If old testament law no longer applies, why do people still teach the ten commandments to their children?
"The Old Testament" no longer applies is a simplification, as fistfil suggests.
However, a longer answer is that the Old Testament still applies completely. If you want to work your way to Heaven, you must follow the Law down to the smallest jot and tittle. Christ has come and already fulfilled that responsibility, should you accept His sacrifice for you. ("Becoming a Christian") This puts you under grace, not the Law.
However, "All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify." We still teach the Ten Commandments to our children for their own benefit.
(Interesting discussion to have on the politics forum.)
-
>appeal to Old Testament law to condemn tattoos<
Or get a tattoo of the Law against homosexuality (which, IIRC, is in the same section).
People will pick and choose whatever will support their biases, unfortunately.
OT, for the Christians of the board: y'all might find the series "Naked Archeology" on History interesting. Is all Biblical research...
-
>appeal to Old Testament law to condemn tattoos<
Or get a tattoo of the Law against homosexuality (which, IIRC, is in the same section).
People will pick and choose whatever will support their biases, unfortunately.
Is this the old canard about homosexuality only being wrong in the OT? It's condemned by both, actually.
-
The number of interpretations of any major holy writ is astounding. Pointing to something "in black and white" in any Bible is often a waste of time since some folks will adhere to the words as they understand they are written, some will adhere to the words as they openly reinterpret them due to some claimed variation in translation or context, some will reinterpret them based on other scripture or alternate translations of other scripture, or "revealed truths" given to this individual or that.
However, a longer answer is that the Old Testament still applies completely. If you want to work your way to Heaven, you must follow the Law down to the smallest jot and tittle. Christ has come and already fulfilled that responsibility, should you accept His sacrifice for you. ("Becoming a Christian") This puts you under grace, not the Law.
So should we transgress the law that grace may abound, Mak? ;)
And yes, there are a minority of Christians who shun bacon.
-
So should we transgress the law that grace may abound, Mak? ;)
God forbid! (I much prefer the King James translation for this verse.)
-
So should we transgress the law that grace may abound, Mak? ;)
Heh.
(Interesting discussion to have on the politics forum.)
Looks like it did manage to get the thread 'round to discussing Paul.
-
The number of interpretations of any major holy writ is astounding. Pointing to something "in black and white" in any Bible is often a waste of time since some folks will adhere to the words as they understand they are written, some will adhere to the words as they openly reinterpret them due to some claimed variation in translation or context, some will reinterpret them based on other scripture or alternate translations of other scripture, or "revealed truths" given to this individual or that.
So should we transgress the law that grace may abound, Mak? ;)
And yes, there are a minority of Christians who shun bacon.
From a completely non-religious perspective, there is generally a widely accepted set of doctrines and interpretations of the various holy scripts that define a religion. Christianity in broad general sweeps believes X. Islam in broad general sweeps believes Y. So it is possible to look at a group claiming to adhere to a religion, but to reject that claim based on their rejection or significant reinterpretation of the historic broad doctrines. So if you reject the concept that Christ is an actual historic figure, your group is not actually Christian no matter what you call yourself. And on and on.
-
From a completely non-religious perspective, there is generally a widely accepted set of doctrines and interpretations of the various holy scripts that define a religion. Christianity in broad general sweeps believes X. Islam in broad general sweeps believes Y. So it is possible to look at a group claiming to adhere to a religion, but to reject that claim based on their rejection or significant reinterpretation of the historic broad doctrines. So if you reject the concept that Christ is an actual historic figure, your group is not actually Christian no matter what you call yourself. And on and on.
Mostly true, I guess, but to do so you have to make your brush enormously broad. When discussing specifics - even ones that seem like a basic element of a religion you will find a massive variation in both beliefs as well as the "in black and white" evidence given by supporters of each different viewpoint. For instance, ask a few Christians about the nature of God and the relationship between Jesus Christ, God, the Holy Spirit (or holy spirit). Or ask some Muslims about the succession of Imams.
Most of the time if you dig deep enough you will find something that is - as defined by the organization - a basic tenant of belief which the member does not agree with or doesn't care the least bit about, but they stay with the organization because it was where their parents went, it was convenient to attend, their friends go there, they like the local leadership, they received financial assistance, etc.
My religious upbringing was from a group that became particularly Balkanized so I'm sure that has some influence on my viewpoint, but everything I've learned in discussions with others of a variety of different flavors of Christianity and Islam and Judaism has only strengthened my impressions. I admit I haven't talked to very many outside those faiths about their religions so perhaps things are different in other groups, but I tend to think that it is more the nature of human belief than a specific faith.
-
>Is this the old canard about homosexuality only being wrong in the OT?<
*SIGH*
Missing the forest for the trees, man? I'll explain...
Guy gets a tattoo of the Levitican verse against homosexuality. While ignoring that another verse of the same passage bans tattoos.
The fact that it's about homosexuality is completely beside the point, actually.
-
Just why would a person who is anti-homosexual be so against it that he would tattoo this on his body I have never understood.
-
Mostly true, I guess, but to do so you have to make your brush enormously broad. When discussing specifics - even ones that seem like a basic element of a religion you will find a massive variation in both beliefs as well as the "in black and white" evidence given by supporters of each different viewpoint. For instance, ask a few Christians about the nature of God and the relationship between Jesus Christ, God, the Holy Spirit (or holy spirit). Or ask some Muslims about the succession of Imams.
Most of the time if you dig deep enough you will find something that is - as defined by the organization - a basic tenant of belief which the member does not agree with or doesn't care the least bit about, but they stay with the organization because it was where their parents went, it was convenient to attend, their friends go there, they like the local leadership, they received financial assistance, etc.
My religious upbringing was from a group that became particularly Balkanized so I'm sure that has some influence on my viewpoint, but everything I've learned in discussions with others of a variety of different flavors of Christianity and Islam and Judaism has only strengthened my impressions. I admit I haven't talked to very many outside those faiths about their religions so perhaps things are different in other groups, but I tend to think that it is more the nature of human belief than a specific faith.
You're conflating individuals not knowing or adhering to orthodox doctrine, with a belief that there is no such thing as orthodoxy.
-
You're conflating individuals not knowing or adhering to orthodox doctrine, with a belief that there is no such thing as orthodoxy.
Maybe you guys are talking about different things?
-
You're conflating individuals not knowing or adhering to orthodox doctrine, with a belief that there is no such thing as orthodoxy.
I'm not quite sure how you mean this. There are two issues I brought up. First, various groups within any major religion have their own views on what make up the basic doctrinal beliefs of their church. These groups are to a greater or lesser extent accepting of other groups with similar beliefs and dismissive of groups with beliefs or behaviors that conflict too much. Second, within any group there is significant variation with regard to basic doctrinal beliefs of their organization.
Although I'm sure there are many who would disagree and state that their own beliefs are The Way, I don't think you could accurately say that there is a singular [Christian/Muslim/Jewish] orthodox (note the small "o") doctrine that encompasses even a vast majority of believers. For Christianity one of the Nicene creeds probably comes as close as you can get, but there is plenty of disagreement even on that and it is pretty slim on doctrine.
Do you disagree?
-
Don't blame homosexuals for the collapse of Western civilzation, blame the typewriter.
-
Don't blame homosexuals for the collapse of Western civilzation, blame the typewriter.
We are experiencing the fruition of post modern thought and evolutionary materialism (the philosophy).
I contend that our civilization will decline and collapse due to the undermining of the very pillars that hold it up.
There is no longer any such thing as absolute truth. All our realities are now viewed as mere social constructs.
There is nothing unique about humanity or earth for that matter.
Ultimately the end result is the full implementation of might makes right.
Science, sociology, psychiatry and modern philosophy do not provide a basis for the assumptions we make in regards to human rights and liberty.
Both(human rights and liberty) will be redefined and become the opposite (already well underway) of what they originally stood for to those who first discovered and promoted the ideas.
We are, I am afraid, in the twilight of the natural rights era, or as I see it, the twilight of the era of respect for the natural rights endowed to us by natures God.
-
Ron:
Yep.
1. De-valuing of citizenship.
2. Increasing unbelief in the common religion.
3. Moral decay.
4. Gov't profligacy & corruption.
5. Military adventures to no purpose.
6. Debasing the currency.
7. Increasing centralization of power.
8. Increasing dependency on gov't.
9. ...
It is not like we haven't seen this before in the world or in the West. The symptoms are all there. Re-birth is possible. I suspect that we will not linger, like Rome did, for hundreds of years after the Republic fell. History is happening much faster, these days. If there isn't another Great Awakening or such, the lucky folk ought to get ready for asiatic despot overlords. Unlucky folk will live under a neo-dark age.