Good Old Neon

The difference, for me, is that democracy allows for change. At the very least, I get to vote in favor or against politicians, laws, bills, etc. Whereas, when the Vatican makes a rule, it’s final - you can bitch and complain and scream and shout that that change is wrong, but as he is infallible, the Pope’s word is pretty much final.

The truth is, I don't know what I would have done, as there is no way of knowing. But I have to imagine renouncing your membership to a group, is roughly about one billion times easier than picking up bags and moving oversees.

I agree. Yes - I don’t understand why anyone would choose to be a member of an organization that discriminates. For example, I’m a member of the Sierra Club, if, tomorrow, the Sierra Club decreed that, for whatever reason, they are joining the fight against legalizing same sex marriage I would quit. No questions asked. Now, as a citizen of this country, a country that discriminates against gays and lesbians in relation to marriage, rather than leave, which, for me, is 1000 times the magnitude of leaving a group, I would rather stay and fight for those rights - and I do and have done that by

I was responding to your response in which you took issue with my comparison between what the Nazi’s advocated and what the church is now advocating. As Matt pointed out, I’m fully aware of and appalled by the injustices perpetrated against gays and lesbians in this country - despite our differences regarding the role religion plays in this whole mess, you won’t find a greater ally in the fight against discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, etc. With that said, I find the comparison between remaining in an organization that discriminates, and living in a country with a history

As bad as the discrimination in the 50’s and 60’s was, and it WAS fucking horrible, it never reached the level of this, from the article: the church's provincial secretary told the Monitor newspaper in Kampala, Uganda, that jailing homosexuals was preferable to executing them. "If you kill the people, to whom will the message go? We need to have imprisonment for life if the person is still alive. Note the use of “if the person is still alive.” - which, might insinuate that killing them, though not as great as jailing them, is still ok. The police acted reprehensibly, but this is something

There’s glacier sized difference between choosing to remain in an organization that advocates jailing or executing homosexuals, and living in a country that discriminates against them - though, with the exception of marriage, we have laws against that sort of thing. At risk of trespassing against Godwin‘s Law, the last time an organization advocated and/or carried out jailing or executing homosexuals, its members wore swastikas on their sleeves.

What if instead of this - I don’t understand why anyone would want to be a member of a religious organization that would jail or execute or condemn someone for their sexual orientation. I said this - I don’t understand why anyone would want to be a member of a country club that would discriminate based on someone’s race or sexual orientation. And he responded with this: I guess I could respond with, cool, fuck it then, my country does the same thing. I was going to quit this bigoted country club, but fuck it, I’m staying. Pass the nine iron. I was also giving serious consideration

Now that is just silly.

I don’t understand why anyone would want to be a member of a religious organization that would jail or execute or condemn someone for their sexual orientation.

Awesome! Thanks Llynn - I'm not familiar with Spong, but I am now

From Andrew Sullivan, today: Cardinal: Gays "Will Never Enter The Kingdom Of God" In direct violation of Catholic doctrine, a leading cardinal has insisted that being gay is a choice and that those who choose to be gay are thereby excluded from God's kingdom. Benedict's church is slowly reversing the reforms of the 1970s that saw gay persons as made in the image of God and inherently not sinful, as long as they remained celibate and lived alone their entire lives. It began with Benedict's own policy of insisting that even celibate gays cannot become priests because they are mentally or psy

Isn’t this statement every bit as presumptuous and sure of itself as your claim that I know exactly what a world without religion would look like? As you’ve stated, we’ll never know, and I agree - but maybe the world would have been a very different place without the concept of sin, and that certain behaviors, some of them biologically based, would be punishable by an eternity spent in hell. Perhaps the concept of religion is a dangerous one, one we would have been better off never developing. I agree that religion often acts as a conduit, but perhaps the world would have been better place w

Witches – religion (heretics and devil worshipers) Indians – religion (not Christian) Blacks – religion (kept as slaves in the bible) Irish – religion ( from wikipedia - Negative English attitudes towards Irish culture and habits date as far back as the reign of Henry II and the Norman conquest of Ireland. In 1155 the Papacy purportedly issued the papal bull Laudabiliter which granted Henry II's request to subdue Ireland and the Irish Church: (we) do hereby declare our will and pleasure, that, for the purpose of enlarging the borders of the Church, setting bounds to the progress of w

What’s clear, is that in theocratic countries, where there is very little separation between church and state, Saudi Arabia for example, the punishment for homosexuality is much more severe, up to and including death. Which, if I'm not mistake, was the case here as well, before religion's grip was loosened a bit.

And Christianities discriminatory attitude towards women, I suppose that has very little to do with religion as well? Are we simply afraid of them too?

True, but we can look to more secular countries for clues – when we do so, we find that issues that are taboo here, same sex marriage, abortion, stem cell research, are more widely accepted.

Yes, which I find especially sad and frustrating - people who don’t necessarily disagree that it should be legalized, but vote against it because to do otherwise goes against their religious beliefs, even when they find themselves in conflict with those beliefs.

I’m not predisposed to give religion the benefit of the doubt because, in reality, there is very little doubt as to the role it has played in many of the issues we’ve discussed, in particular, same sex marriage. If, based on empirical evidence, one’s religious affiliation is the key motivator given for why someone votes one way or the other, then we have a responsibility to take that evidence seriously. If, when polled, a majority of believers say they are opposed to same sex marriage based on religious grounds, as has been the case, consistently, it leaves little room for doubt. Do I think

Public Opinion on Gay Marriage: Opponents Consistently Outnumber Supporters http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=424#4 The dichotomy between resistance to same sex marriage vs. same sex union is interesting, as a much greater number of religious voters are opposed to marriage, with a smaller percentage opposed when asked about same sex union - the catch being the word "marriage" - which, can we at the very least agree has religious connotations?

I disagree – I take them at their word. I believe opposition to same sex marriage is overwhelmingly based one’s religious beliefs. We can go back and forth on this all day, for weeks and months on end, but at the end of the day, opposition to same sex marriage is by and large religiously based. I apologize if I’ve put words in your mouth, that was certainly not my intent. As for the cultural and homophobia, I would argue that that too is largely a product of religion. But at the moment, I’m just sort of sick of arguing.

But you said yourself that same sex marriage should not be left up to the states (voters) to decide, otherwise, it might take forever until the right to marry is granted. If the organized resistance to same sex marriage is religiously based, why do you also think that religious folks who make up this opposition are more likely to see the error of their ways, as they are the ones who continue to shoot down equal rights amendments?

But that sort of proves my point – why, if they enjoy the company of gay people, treat them as their equal, would they then turn around and vote in favor of restricting their rights? The answer – religious influence. Many of them allow their religious beliefs to trump what they otherwise might not object to.

What is new about the new atheists? Atheists have been saying the same things for eons, the only difference, they’re on TV, and they’re a little more outspoken – as, for most of our history, much of what is now said publicly could literally get you killed. And still can in some places.

None taken – homophobia CERTAINLY exists, but well organized homophobia is almost exclusively the terrain of religion. It, homophobia, is much easier to defend when couched in religion terms, when removed from religious protection, most people view it for what it is, appalling.

I don’t know, but outside of groups that take their cues from religion, can you find me other organized groups who, if they had their way, would block attempts to treat all people equally, regardless of their sexuality, reverse the advance of civilization through the use of violence and intimidation, treat women as mere objects, with little to no rights, would, if they had their way, run this (and other) countries like a theocracy, I could go on of course, but I don’t think I have to. You can continue to claim other crazies would impose their agenda, but if that’s the case, outside of the r