Bigotry, Gay Marriage, Michael Sam & Tony Dungy

[flere-imsaho]

In an effort to clean up the NFL thread, I thought I'd try to split off the conversation about Michael Sam & Tony Dungy (and so, so much more...) to a new thread. Which is this one. The one you're reading, you poor soul.

For reference, the discussion started here (http://www.osatwork.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=88133&page=39) and as of this writing is on page 42 of that thread.

Have at it, folks!

Oh, and as a bonus I've included a poll, because I believe people like those things.

[Suburban Rhythm]

If we allow gay marriage, next thing people will want to marry trouts!

[flere-imsaho]

Edit: For flere-imsaho, I am not saying these challenge are in any way as bad of threats of violence and family alienation that being homosexual can have in some places, with some people. I'm just answering your question. Yes, some people do actively campaign to limit religious expression.

Fine. Next, I would like you to realize that if there's such a serious difference in outcomes, and thus no equivalence, bringing it up is essentially not relevant to the discussion.

[molson]

Fine. Next, I would like you to realize that if there's such a serious difference in outcomes, and thus no equivalence, bringing it up is essentially not relevant to the discussion.

I didn't bring it up.

But maybe you're right and I should check with you before I express any thoughts here.

[NobodyHere]

Does this whole debate remind anyone of the "Death Camp of Tolerance (http://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s06e14-the-death-camp-of-tolerance)" South Park episode?

[flere-imsaho]

You want me to write a book report with sources supporting my opinion that there are people who think that those who oppose gay marriage are the scum of the earth and worse than criminals?

Honestly, just a few examples would do. Otherwise you're just being handwavy. But yeah, it's up to you to decide if you want people to take you seriously or not.

[flere-imsaho]

But maybe you're right and I should check with you before I express any thoughts here.

Me or common sense.

[molson]

I shared a personal anecdote about own my experiences and perceptions and peer groups regarding tolerance for religion and prayer. It was in response to a point Chief Rum and a few others were making about tolerance of religious beliefs. And his and my broader point beyond that was I thought people are too quick to throw out terms like bigot and hypocrite. I never claimed that I had it worse than somebody who was attacked because of the sexuality or anything like that. (I literally described it as being " a little awkward")

Your response was to mock me for things I didn't say, and to generally be pretty hostile. There were other hostile responses too. People get irrationally pissed and can't even read clearly when you state anything other than the "correct" black and white view on this.

And like I said over there, I get the "not being tolerant of intolerance" thing, but I don't even think that's what I'm doing. Whether it be someone who did something racially intolerant, Joe Paterno with the Sandusky thing, someone who opposes gay marriage, or a real anti-religion bigot (and I know people really angry when anyone even acknowledge the existence of those!), I've always been interesting in trying to understand where those feelings come from. I don't think Dungy is being hypocritical at all, I think if you understand Christianity, you understand the distinctions. With Paterno, I certainly didn't condone him, but I think I pissed people off in that thread for basically expressing an understanding about how a product of a prior generation can botch a situation like that. Maybe I try to do this because I had a couple of grandparents who were truly intolerant about a lot of things, and I tried to reconcile that with the admiration I had for them for other good things they did.

Ultimately they're just opinions, that's all we do here. You don't have to agree with them, but it makes things smoother and easier and more productive if you try to understand them or at least respect them. (Edit: The other option is of course to just label me as "intolerant", and then you don't have to respect or tolerate my opinions at all!)

[stevew]

Tell me more about these girls...

[NobodyHere]

Honestly, just a few examples would do. Otherwise you're just being handwavy. But yeah, it's up to you to decide if you want people to take you seriously or not.

Maybe not what you're looking for but the Southern Poverty Law Center says that being anti-gay marriage now qualifies you as a hate group.

[AENeuman]

Gimme a break.

Do you really think campaigning to prevent expression of your beliefs is the same as denying people the right to marry, adopt, employment, access to healthcare, etc...?

To each side these issues represent a great personal injustice. So, I would say both are similar in that they motivate an electoral base like few other issues. They are also massive money makers for political candidates, talk show hosts and swag.

[AENeuman]

I wouldn't admit to most of my peer group that I find value in religion and prayer. It'd be a little awkward after they've told me so often how stupid religion is and how people who find value in it are brain-dead lemmings and such. .

I agree with this, it is very popular to be anti-god. IMO, most who rant against god are silly and sophomoric.

Man is selfish and lazy. Man will do/create whatever is necessary to fulfill both desires. Be that political, religious or economic systems. All are equally abstract, corruptible and experienced fundamentally different on micro and maco levels.

To pick one, albeit massive, man made institution and put it above all others as uniquely evil is ignorant.

Rant done. This summer is dragging, back to tiki drinks.

[flere-imsaho]

I agree with this, it is very popular to be anti-god.

It's surprising to see this on a board devoted to sports in general and football in specific because of the preponderance of athletes invoking "God" when talking about their success (and a great many other things) is quite widespread.

Whereas, where do we see a concentration of "anti-god" in popular culture?

Again, there is no equivalence. Unless you want to show me some equivalence.

And anyway, despite declines, God and all things godly remains quite strong amongst Americans themselves: Poll: Americans' Belief in God Is Strong--But Declining | CNS News (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/poll-americans-belief-god-strong-declining)

I am, however, open to other facts.

[korme]

CAN WE PLEASE NOT TALK ABOUT HOW FUCKING RETARDED RELIGION IS

[Kodos]

How can the answers be hidden in this poll? HOW?!

[Chief Rum]

But is anyone with these biases activly campaigning to not give equal rights to Catholics, Jews, etc...

Lathum, not to ignore the rest of your comment in the other thread, but just to point out, you went forward on a tangent there I did not originally address, at least not in our direct discussion, and that wasn't relevant to my original statement.

The relevant part of my quote...

I see hate on both sides of this debate. Hate for gays and lesbians. And hate for religious people. It's sad, but it is what it is.

I never stated anyone was actively trying to limit the civil rights of the religious right. I was just noting that the tenor of the discussion of this debate, both here and in the media and in the world in general, is rife with hate and prejudice, and that it runs towards both sides, not just hatemongering towards the homosexual community.

[flere-imsaho]

When you say something like "I see hate on both sides of this debate", you introduce a Fallacy of False Equivalence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence). Unless you then subsequently address the false equivalence you've introduced you are, de facto arguing for that equivalence.

And, you are then wrong.

[molson]

Are you saying that intolerance towards religion just doesn't exist? You can go to say, /r/atheist, to see examples of actual hatred and intolerance towards religion. Like I said, nobody here goes close to that far, at least outwardly. But people do seem to get offended when you even talk about this concept.

One of my best friends in Idaho rants against religion all the time. I still decided to be friends with her because she adopted a bunch of old dogs. I find adopting old dogs a to be a greater sign of good character than being a little ignorant and intolerant about religion is an automatic sign of bad character. Tolerance is a skill, none of us are perfectly tolerant about everything.

[AENeuman]

It's surprising to see this on a board devoted to sports in general and football in specific because of the preponderance of athletes invoking "God" when talking about their success (and a great many other things) is quite widespread.

Whereas, where do we see a concentration of "anti-god" in popular culture?

Again, there is no equivalence. Unless you want to show me some equivalence.

And anyway, despite declines, God and all things godly remains quite strong amongst Americans themselves: Poll: Americans' Belief in God Is Strong--But Declining | CNS News (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/poll-americans-belief-god-strong-declining)

I am, however, open to other facts.

Just the stuff I have experienced recently:
Penn jillette's podcast Sunday school
Bill maher movie and show
Science guy, Dawkins debates and lectures
Rickey Gervais, Kathy griffin
South Park/ Book of Mormon

Most of it is humor, which is where I think it is currently the most prominent in pop culture

[flere-imsaho]

Are you saying that intolerance towards religion just doesn't exist?

No, I am not saying that. I am disagreeing with the statement:

it is very popular to be anti-god

[JonInMiddleGA]

No, I am not saying that. I am disagreeing with the statement:

Those celebrity examples pretty much highlight where you're wrong.

edit to add: As does the existence of this thread

[flere-imsaho]

Just the stuff I have experienced recently:
Penn jillette's podcast Sunday school
Bill maher movie and show
Science guy, Dawkins debates and lectures
Rickey Gervais, Kathy griffin
South Park/ Book of Mormon

Most of it is humor, which is where I think it is currently the most prominent in pop culture

And this list, you feel, supports your contention that "it is very popular to be anti-god"?

With the possible exception of Ricky Gervais, South Park and Book of Mormon, none of those examples are mainstream popular culture (and classifying these three as mainstream popular culture is a stretch), and certainly not in the way sports stars are mainstream.

Plus, again: (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/poll-americans-belief-god-strong-declining)

74% of adults believe in God
72% believe in miracles
68% believe in heaven
64% believe in the survival of the soul after death

alternatively:

47% believe in Darwin's theory of evolution.


I do not find the statement "it is popular to be anti-god" to be easily supported, given a standard understanding of the word "popular".

[flere-imsaho]

Those celebrity examples pretty much highlight where you're wrong.

I'd like to see your definition of popular, then.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'd like to see your definition of popular, then.

pop·u·lar
ˈpäpyələr/
adjective
adjective: popular

1.liked, admired, or enjoyed by many people or by a particular person or group.

As for that study you cited, there's obviously a lot of people claiming one set of beliefs & acting in an entirely different fashion. Again, that this discussion (the topic, not our sidebar to it) even exists is proof of that.

[BillJasper]

Are you saying that intolerance towards religion just doesn't exist?

It does. But many religious folks don't have much tolerance for people that disagree with them. Any time someone disagrees with them, they try to paint that person as intolerant of religion.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Are you saying that intolerance towards religion just doesn't exist? You can go to say, /r/atheist, to see examples of actual hatred and intolerance towards religion. Like I said, nobody here goes close to that far, at least outwardly. But people do seem to get offended when you even talk about this concept.

One of my best friends in Idaho rants against religion all the time. I still decided to be friends with her because she adopted a bunch of old dogs. I find adopting old dogs a to be a greater sign of good character than being a little ignorant and intolerant about religion is an automatic sign of bad character. Tolerance is a skill, none of us are perfectly tolerant about everything.

But is she saying she doesn't believe it/buy into it, or that it should outright be done away with?

LGBT rallies do not, to my knowledge, ask that Christianity be done away with. But anti- gay marriage rallies seek to do just that. Eliminate the ability for gays to marry.

[molson]

It does. But many religious folks don't have much tolerance for people that disagree with them. Any time someone disagrees with them, they try to paint that person as intolerant of religion.

A lot of people are like that, definitely. So you can see the cycle that generates. If you value religion or prayer or whatever, then some people get really upset if you claim people are intolerant towards those values, because so many religious people definitely do play those same claims as a card to justify their own intolerance. So it gets to be a tangled mess. It's easier to just not bring up, which is certainly my policy in real life.

Religion is extremely unpopular with my peers. I know the national demographic stats, I think it's harder to quantify for young, urban, educated progressives outside of the south. So I can only emphasize this is only my opinion and experience. I'm surprised that whole concept is so challenged, and wonder if other people have different experiences. How many of your friends your age go to church and talk about god? I went to a Lutheran summer camp and kept a lot of those friends, so I do know a few, but outside of that group, it's almost none. And I don't have a single friend or acquaintance that openly opposes gay marriage. (Edit: though I do have a friend in Colorado who says he'd never move to Idaho because of the politics of the state.....so I do have fun showing him my version of Boise when he visits. And I wouldn't admit it to him, but I find his whole position ignorant and intolerant. I don't admit how I feel because, well, you can see the response here when you go there.)

I don't think the people that bash religion to me are automatically bad at heart or anything. In fact, I do think most of my friends here, if I got real over some beers or something, and I was like, "hey, I pray, I find strength in my faith, it's just something I connect with, it makes feel stronger, but don't worry, I keep it to myself, I won't talk about it anymore, and I don't even go to church and I certainly don't dislike gay people, I think gay marriage is awesome", I'm sure they'd be cool, but I think they'd watch what they say around me, and I'd rather just drink the beer, it's not that important to me.

[nol]

Are we really going to be fudging dictionary definitions? If something's liked by a particular person or group, it's popular within that subset of people. Doesn't take much reading comprehension to see that the subset of people being discussed was society at large.

[panerd]

Just the stuff I have experienced recently:
Penn jillette's podcast Sunday school
Bill maher movie and show
Science guy, Dawkins debates and lectures
Rickey Gervais, Kathy griffin
South Park/ Book of Mormon

Most of it is humor, which is where I think it is currently the most prominent in pop culture

Outside of Dawkins your list goes a long way to explain why you think "most who rant against god are silly and sophomoric". It would be like me saying because the Duck Dynasty guy is very religious that...

I don't know if you think these examples are what atheism is truly about or you are just making a dumb argument. If it's the first I can give you a list of a few non-comedy based books about atheism to read. (Though Dawkins would be a good starting point)

[AENeuman]

And this list, you feel, supports your contention that "it is very popular to be anti-god"?

With the possible exception of Ricky Gervais, South Park and Book of Mormon, none of those examples are mainstream popular culture (and classifying these three as mainstream popular culture is a stretch), and certainly not in the way sports stars are mainstream.

Plus, again: (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/poll-americans-belief-god-strong-declining)

74% of adults believe in God
72% believe in miracles
68% believe in heaven
64% believe in the survival of the soul after death

alternatively:

47% believe in Darwin's theory of evolution.


I do not find the statement "it is popular to be anti-god" to be easily supported, given a standard understanding of the word "popular".

I'm not sure what you are asking for. A football player making one occasional statement is considered part of the culture, despite how they may actually live their lives? Yet, successful books, tv shows and movies devoted to anti god still do not approach the zeitgeist of the occasional religious?

Even something as small as the tv show "modern family", no one goes to or proclaims to be religious, except the Colombian wife who is portrayed as naive. Also, look at the way Sheldon's mom is portrayed on Big Bang. Mad Men is one big agnostic existential crisis.

I'm also not sure what you mean by your America is still religious stats. How does that relate to the notion it is popular to be anti god? Does the anti god movement need to be in the majority to considered popular? It is like saying there has never been a time where it was popular to be un American because every poll has said the majority believes in the constitution.

It seems you think this is an either/or question. I think both being religious and un religious can be popular at the same time. Much like how rap and country music can be.

[panerd]

Now onto the actual topic of the thread..

The last several months I have seen this debate over Michael Sam being framed as one side religion/the other side enlightened all over the place and while I guess I would be on the "enlightened" side on this one it's really a media driven load of horseshit.

I have been going to Mizzou games for years and the fan base of the Missouri Tigers is largely of the red state variety. However since Michael Sam is one of ours he has almost complete support of the fan base. Things are a little more divided in St. Louis with the Rams but support is still overwhelmingly in Michael Sam's favor. So it really isn't a question of what are your religious beliefs it is more of a question of is he on your favorite team or not. The gay marriage sideshow is just a media frenzy to have something to talk about during the offseason. Once Alabama or Georgia or UCLA... have an openly gay player the less of an issue it will start to be nationwide.

[BillJasper]

I don't think Dungy's current comments alone damn him. I'm sure a few teams passed on Manziel because they weren't sure what type of circus would be arriving with him. I think the media's fascination with Tim Tebow is the reason he isn't on anyone's roster. I'm sure that many front offices that had a need at DE talked about Sam and whether the potential reward outweighed the potential media circus.

What damns Dungy, is his past support for anti-gay groups and Michael Vick.

[AENeuman]

Outside of Dawkins your list goes a long way to explain why you think "most who rant against god are silly and sophomoric". It would be like me saying because the Duck Dynasty guy is very religious that...

I don't know if you think these examples are what atheism is truly about or you are just making a dumb argument. If it's the first I can give you a list of a few non-comedy based books about atheism to read. (Though Dawkins would be a good starting point)

Oh, besides Penn these are the examples I like. I didn't mean to show this as the list of the silly.

Where it goes sophomoric is the name calling, like zombie Jesus. It's silly to me for someone to dismiss how religion helped my mom get through the death of her husband by referencing the Inquisition.

More importantly, I don't see much difference between the belief in sin and the belief in liberty, or heaven and the American dream. Yet, many that I have experienced in the anti god crowd seem to think everything in their lives is rational and scientifically proven.

[molson]

Now onto the actual topic of the thread..

The last several months I have seen this debate over Michael Sam being framed as one side religion/the other side enlightened all over the place and while I guess I would be on the "enlightened" side on this one it's really a media driven load of horseshit.

I have been going to Mizzou games for years and the fan base of the Missouri Tigers is largely of the red state variety. However since Michael Sam is one of ours he has almost complete support of the fan base. Things are a little more divided in St. Louis with the Rams but support is still overwhelmingly in Michael Sam's favor. So it really isn't a question of what are your religious beliefs it is more of a question of is he on your favorite team or not. The gay marriage sideshow is just a media frenzy to have something to talk about during the offseason. Once Alabama or Georgia or UCLA... have an openly gay player the less of an issue it will start to be nationwide.

Agreed. Except I think it ties in with the previous posts. Even though Collins wasn't able to resume his career right away I think the fact that fans weren't chanting racial slurs at him anywhere calmed people down some. Because if you back to that thread, people were predicting disaster from the fans and the locker room. Which, I think, and I know this will piss people off, ties in with the mild ignorance and intolerance towards religion and red states generally. It wouldn't be that big a deal even here. There's a lot of people in my state gay marriage here of course, and within that group, definitely some real hateful bigots, but it's really not as hostile or unwelcoming a community as people imagine, I think.

[Chief Rum]

When you say something like "I see hate on both sides of this debate", you introduce a Fallacy of False Equivalence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence). Unless you then subsequently address the false equivalence you've introduced you are, de facto arguing for that equivalence.

And, you are then wrong.

If you perceive equivalence in my statement, that is on you, not me. You are attaching your own definitions/perspective to what I mean.

I am simply stating I see hate/prejudice towards both sides. If you want to argue that that (wrongly) elevates the "hate" for the religious side to a level that is not accurate by trying to equate it to the hate often expressed toward the homosexual community, that is your argument to make, but it is not, and never was mine.

Try to read my statement literally. I am saying I see hate on both sides. I don't go into further details about those two hates, their relative level in comparison to the other, and so forth. It's a simple fact statement, without further embellishment.

If you wish to have a discussion with me, discuss my words, not your presumptions about what I don't say.

BTW, I would say, of course, that the hate expressed toward the gay community is much more hateful and ugly than that expressed toward the strong religious community (which I describe elsewhere as a prejudice, really, not actual hate), but here on this board, the ones who are expressing more black and white, intolerant behaviors seem to me to be from the homosexual side of the debate.

[flere-imsaho]

It seems you think this is an either/or question.

Not really. I'm simply asking people to substantiate the assertion that "it is very popular to be anti-god".

So far the proof provided to support that assertion appears to be the existence of some B/C/D-list celebrities, a TV show, a Broadway musical and a subreddit.

I don't find that particularly convincing. Unless the definition of "very popular", or even just "popular" is quite different from the one I'm expecting.

[Chief Rum]

But is she saying she doesn't believe it/buy into it, or that it should outright be done away with?

LGBT rallies do not, to my knowledge, ask that Christianity be done away with. But anti- gay marriage rallies seek to do just that. Eliminate the ability for gays to marry.

You (or others and you) keep bringing this up. Why does prejudice to a group require that it must infringe upon that group's rights to legitamize it before we can consider it prejudice?

In my mind, prejudice is prejudice, whether it is held deeply within or actively acted upon toward others.

[flere-imsaho]

If you perceive equivalence in my statement, that is on you, not me. You are attaching your own definitions/perspective to what I mean.

I am simply stating I see hate/prejudice towards both sides. If you want to argue that that (wrongly) elevates the "hate" for the religious side to a level that is not accurate by trying to equate it to the hate often expressed toward the homosexual community, that is your argument to make, but it is not, and never was mine.

Try to read my statement literally. I am saying I see hate on both sides. I don't go into further details about those two hates, their relative level in comparison to the other, and so forth. It's a simple fact statement, without further embellishment.

If you wish to have a discussion with me, discuss my words, not your presumptions about what I don't say.

OK.

Bereft of additional context, the statement "I see hate/prejudice towards both sides" implies equivalence. If equivalence was not your intent, then the use of adjectives would have signaled the reader of that.

Placed within context, however, the statement implies equivalence more strongly. The context of the discussion was the level of intolerance towards gays. To respond to such assertions with a comment that intolerance exists on both sides is to offer a counter-argument, and imply strongly the presence of equivalence.

[Chief Rum]

OK.

Bereft of additional context, the statement "I see hate/prejudice towards both sides" implies equivalence. If equivalence was not your intent, then the use of adjectives would have signaled the reader of that.

Placed within context, however, the statement implies equivalence more strongly. The context of the discussion was the level of intolerance towards gays. To respond to such assertions with a comment that intolerance exists on both sides is to offer a counter-argument, and imply strongly the presence of equivalence.

Do you understand where my original statement was coming from? I was making a general comment more about the tenor of the discussion around this debate, not about the active hate acts going on in the world toward each side.

I pointed this out to Lathum above.

[molson]

OK.

Bereft of additional context, the statement "I see hate/prejudice towards both sides" implies equivalence. If equivalence was not your intent, then the use of adjectives would have signaled the reader of that.

Placed within context, however, the statement implies equivalence more strongly. The context of the discussion was the level of intolerance towards gays. To respond to such assertions with a comment that intolerance exists on both sides is to offer a counter-argument, and imply strongly the presence of equivalence.

Do you think YOU'VE ever committed a thinking error, or incorrectly attributed a thought to someone else, or had your judgment impacted by bias? You are terrific at telling everybody else how they argue wrong. Have you ever made any of these mistakes? I've never seen you concede a point or put yourself out as anything less than perfect, or acknowledge there's something you might not know everything about.

[Chief Rum]

Do you think YOU'VE ever committed a thinking error, or incorrectly attributed a thought to someone else, or had your judgment impacted by bias? You are terrific at telling everybody else how they argue wrong. Have you ever made any of these mistakes? I've never seen you concede a point or put yourself out as anything less than perfect, or acknowledge there's something you might not know everything about.

Be careful. He'll probably throw the ole ad hominem at you. ;)

[flere-imsaho]

Do you understand where my original statement was coming from? I was making a general comment more about the tenor of the discussion around this debate, not about the active hate acts going on in the world toward each side.

Here's what you wrote:

I see hate on both sides of this debate. Hate for gays and lesbians. And hate for religious people. It's sad, but it is what it is.

That still implies equivalence. Do you really believe as much people hate the religious (which, per the poll, is 74% of the population) as hate gays?

[flere-imsaho]

Be careful. He'll probably throw the ole ad hominem at you. ;)

Thanks for providing an example. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

:p

[flere-imsaho]

Do you think YOU'VE ever committed a thinking error, or incorrectly attributed a thought to someone else, or had your judgment impacted by bias? You are terrific at telling everybody else how they argue wrong. Have you ever made any of these mistakes? I've never seen you concede a point or put yourself out as anything less than perfect, or acknowledge there's something you might not know everything about.

I'm pretty sure I have. ISiddiqui usually proves me wrong on SCOTUS cases, and if I haven't admitted that before, I should definitely atone for that now.

[Chief Rum]

Here's what you wrote:



That still implies equivalence. Do you really believe as much people hate the religious (which, per the poll, is 74% of the population) as hate gays?

The hate I see on both sides of the discussion is equivalent in my mind, yes. In this thread, in fact, I see a lot more intolerance from the anti-Dungy crowd than the religious side.

I meant my statement literally. Again, you can attach your own interpretations if you like, but that is on you, not me.

[molson]

Chief Rum, please show empirical data for your feelings regarding the tone of these threads.

[Chief Rum]

Chief Rum, please show empirical data for your feelings regarding the tone of these threads.

I'm working on a spreadsheet right now!

[AENeuman]

Not really. I'm simply asking people to substantiate the assertion that "it is very popular to be anti-god".

So far the proof provided to support that assertion appears to be the existence of some B/C/D-list celebrities, a TV show, a Broadway musical and a subreddit.

I don't find that particularly convincing. Unless the definition of "very popular", or even just "popular" is quite different from the one I'm expecting.

Ug, besides some anecdotal evidence based on your experience and interpretation of popular, is there any rational based evidence you would accept?

Or, how about this: would you game of thrones is popular? If so, 7 million people watched it, so does the anti god movement need 7 million people to become popular?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Are we really going to be fudging dictionary definitions? If something's liked by a particular person or group, it's popular within that subset of people. Doesn't take much reading comprehension to see that the subset of people being discussed was society at large.

He asked about "how it was defined", so I went with the obvious.

[JonInMiddleGA]

What damns Dungy, is his past support for anti-gay groups

Or redeems him.

Eye of the beholder, etc. etc.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm pretty sure I have. ISiddiqui usually proves me wrong on SCOTUS cases, and if I haven't admitted that before, I should definitely atone for that now.

Here (http://www.osatwork.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=745971&highlight=wrong#post745971) I retract several statements in a conversation with RA.

Here (http://www.osatwork.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=2868988&highlight=apologize#post2868988) I apologize to Jim for going to far (although fat good that did for me).

Here (http://www.osatwork.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=2286366&highlight=apologize#post2286366)I apologize to Senator for mischaracterizing him.

Here (http://www.osatwork.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=2187185&highlight=apologize#post2187185)I apologize to lynchjm24 for giving him the wrong impression about how I felt about him.

Here (http://www.osatwork.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=2131237&highlight=apologize#post2131237)I apologize to Cam for being too personal in my attacks.

Here (http://www.osatwork.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=2090565&highlight=apologize#post2090565)I apologize to SportsDino for being an ass.

Here (http://www.osatwork.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=1802148&highlight=apologize#post1802148)I apologize to Cam, again, for being an ass.

I feel there's probably more (I know I've apologized to Jon more than once for misunderstanding him, and recently too), but that's the best I can do with the search functionality so far.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Not really. I'm simply asking people to substantiate the assertion that "it is very popular to be anti-god".


from Wiki ...

Majority public support for same-sex marriage has solidified, as polls since 2010 consistently indicate support above 50%.

There's other examples of course but you don't really have to look any farther as far as I'm concerned.

[flere-imsaho]

If you're going to claim that being pro-gay-marriage means you're anti-god then yes, you have a defensible statement, though a faulty assumption.

[molson]

Here (http://www.osatwork.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=745971&highlight=wrong#post745971) I retract several statements in a conversation with RA.

Here (http://www.osatwork.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=2868988&highlight=apologize#post2868988) I apologize to Jim for going to far (although fat good that did for me).

Here (http://www.osatwork.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=2286366&highlight=apologize#post2286366)I apologize to Senator for mischaracterizing him.

Here (http://www.osatwork.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=2187185&highlight=apologize#post2187185)I apologize to lynchjm24 for giving him the wrong impression about how I felt about him.

Here (http://www.osatwork.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=2131237&highlight=apologize#post2131237)I apologize to Cam for being too personal in my attacks.

Here (http://www.osatwork.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=2090565&highlight=apologize#post2090565)I apologize to SportsDino for being an ass.

Here (http://www.osatwork.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=1802148&highlight=apologize#post1802148)I apologize to Cam, again, for being an ass.

I feel there's probably more (I know I've apologized to Jon more than once for misunderstanding him, and recently too), but that's the best I can do with the search functionality so far.

OK, I stand corrected on that, and apologize for asking a question/making an accusation that was just way too broad. My issue is just with how you respond to my posts individually, I really have no concept of how you relate to anyone else. So it could just be me.

[BillJasper]

Or redeems him.

Eye of the beholder, etc. etc.

Which I still don't understand? Of all the sinning that goes on in the world, why is being gay the thing that crosses the line? You guys don't treat people who work on the Sabbath in the same demeaning way you treat gay people. You don't try to strip them of their rights and dignity and not working on the Sabbath is one of the ten commandments. You guys don't demean and try to strip the rights of people who divorce, either. Jesus had more to say about divorce than being gay, if I remember my time in Church correctly.

But, being gay and just wanting to live like a normal person is somehow crossing the line.

[Fidatelo]

I'm not sure where I stand on God or religion, but I will say this: for most of my life one of my biggest issues with religion has been the attitude of "I'm right and you're wrong" from many people within those groups. IE if you don't believe in God, or you don't follow the same beliefs as I do, you're in idiot.

Now? The pendulum has swung. Most religious folks I meet nowadays seem to keep it pretty close to the vest. Conversely, there has been a massive rise in Atheist or anti-religious folks spouting how anyone who believes in God or religion is in idiot.

My opinion? You're probably an idiot either way if you so strongly think your answer is any more right than anyone else.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If you're going to claim that being pro-gay-marriage means you're anti-god then yes, you have a defensible statement, though a faulty assumption.

That's not an assumption, it's pure fact as far as I'm concerned. What I find indefensible, just bluntly, is anyone supporting it that then claims they're anything other than pro-sin.

That's really where a lot of the vehemence against the lobby comes from IMO. There's all manner of sins, there just aren't many that have such a vocal lobby pretending that they're not doing anything wrong.

I mean, there's not nearly as big a pro-murder lobby or pro-adultery lobby or pro-idolatry lobby. There's not this false pretense to defend those things, there's not a TV series devoted to showing the fun you can have via a thinly disguised knockoff of AshleyMadison dot com or something.

[Solecismic]

Your response was to mock me for things I didn't say, and to generally be pretty hostile. There were other hostile responses too. People get irrationally pissed and can't even read clearly when you state anything other than the "correct" black and white view on this.



Kinda sucks when people do this, doesn't it? And no one ever apologizes for it.

[molson]

Kinda sucks when people do this, doesn't it? And no one ever apologizes for it.

This debate here would be a lot different if 98% of scholarly papers were on one side of things. I am hostile to the idea that that's a fraud, or that the holocaust didn't happen, or that smoking doesn't cause cancer, or that 9/11 was an inside job. If I come off too harsh in expressing that bewilderment about the attacks to such an overwhelming consensus, I apologize. But I can't apologize for being bewildered.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Which I still don't understand? Of all the sinning that goes on in the world, why is being gay the thing that crosses the line?

I subsequently hit on that very thing about two posts later (hadn't seen you ask or I would have quoted you there). I think I covered it though, it's a fair question afaic, one I have no problem at least attempting to offer an answer for.

[BillJasper]

I subsequently hit on that very thing about two posts later (hadn't seen you ask or I would have quoted you there). I think I covered it though, it's a fair question afaic, one I have no problem at least attempting to offer an answer for.

But there are Christians who break the Ten Commandments every single week by working and yet I see no concerted effort to strip them of their rights. It just seems like a massive disconnect. You've taken to trying to strip people of rights because it is mentioned to be wrong a few times in the Bible, yet completely ignore the millions who break one of the ten commandments continuously.

I think I would have less issue with Christians if they followed more of the Bible with the same passion they persecute gay people. I'd still think they were fucking looney, but, at least, they would be consistently looney.

In my opinion though, I think the worry is more that the "gay" will somehow rub off on red-blooded Americans. I think they hide behind the Bible.

[AENeuman]

That's not an assumption, it's pure fact as far as I'm concerned. What I find indefensible, just bluntly, is anyone supporting it that then claims they're anything other than pro-sin.

That's really where a lot of the vehemence against the lobby comes from IMO. There's all manner of sins, there just aren't many that have such a vocal lobby pretending that they're not doing anything wrong.

I mean, there's not nearly as big a pro-murder lobby or pro-adultery lobby or pro-idolatry lobby. There's not this false pretense to defend those things, there's not a TV series devoted to showing the fun you can have via a thinly disguised knockoff of AshleyMadison dot com or something.

Did you mean lump homosexuality in with the 10 commandments?

Some would say the pro-choice movement and NRA are pro-murder lobby's

If you are saying homosexuality is a sin because of lust then there are lots of media that actively portrays that. Desperate housewives comes to mind.

Btw, there is an organization that shows how much fun you can have on the sabbath... SEC. :D

[JonInMiddleGA]

It just seems like a massive disconnect. You've taken to trying to strip people of rights because it is mentioned to be wrong a few times in the Bible, yet completely ignore the millions who break one of the ten commandments continuously.

Among the biggest falacies with the entire pro-gay lobby is the notion that there is some sort of "right" that exists (re: marriage). The right to marry "whomever you want" does not exist, has never existed. I am very much in the "they can marry whatever person of the opposite gender they like" camp.

Honestly, I've taken this particular topic as the obvious one on the whole "pro-God / anti-God" popularity sidebar because it seems to be the obvious one giving the thread topic. Personally the whole "gay marriage" thing offends me exponentially more -- and the word choice is intentional there, it's not even close -- on an intellectual level than on a spiritual/religious level.

Calling a gay couple "married" is an absurdity on par with passing a law that redefines oxygen as being "a manmade substance commonly used as a taco seasoning". You can rename/relabel something until the cows come home but it still doesn't change what something actually IS.

[molson]

But there are Christians who break the Ten Commandments every single week by working and yet I see no concerted effort to strip them of their rights. It just seems like a massive disconnect. You've taken to trying to strip people of rights because it is mentioned to be wrong a few times in the Bible, yet completely ignore the millions who break one of the ten commandments continuously.

I think I would have less issue with Christians if they followed more of the Bible with the same passion they persecute gay people. I'd still think they were fucking looney, but, at least, they would be consistently looney.

In my opinion though, I think the worry is more that the "gay" will somehow rub off on red-blooded Americans. I think they hide behind the Bible.

I think the idea is that all people sin. It really doesn't matter if you break the 10 Commandments every week if you recognize the sinful behavior, and seek forgiveness. But embracing the sin, being proud of the sin - that's something else entirely. That's why the Vick comparisons don't hold up for me. Redemption from sin is the entire deal. There's nothing more Christian that giving a sinner a chance for redemption. That's literally doing god-like work. If Michael Vick continued to proudly kill dogs (assuming that's a sin, I really have no idea), that angle isn't there at all.

(P.S. I'm a terrible Christian for a lot of reasons, but one would be because I'd want Michael Vick thrown into this own dog fight pits.)

And since we're only allowed to state opinions with statistical backing, I'll throw this out too. Most people in the U.S. support gay marriage, and most also believe in god. There's a lot more overlap between those groups than you'd think. And (this one I don't have a survey for, but I don't think it's controversial), of those who believe in god but don't yet support gay marriage, only some portion of them are actively "persecuting gay people", or have real hate in their heart. It's not black and white, there's more than two teams here.

[BillJasper]

Among the biggest falacies with the entire pro-gay lobby is the notion that there is some sort of "right" that exists (re: marriage). The right to marry "whomever you want" does not exist, has never existed. I am very much in the "they can marry whatever person of the opposite gender they like" camp.

Honestly, I've taken this particular topic as the obvious one on the whole "pro-God / anti-God" popularity sidebar because it seems to be the obvious one giving the thread topic. Personally the whole "gay marriage" thing offends me exponentially more -- and the word choice is intentional there, it's not even close -- on an intellectual level than on a spiritual/religious level.

Calling a gay couple "married" is an absurdity on par with passing a law that redefines oxygen as being "a manmade substance commonly used as a taco seasoning". You can rename/relabel something until the cows come home but it still doesn't change what something actually IS.

You really haven't answered my questions, at all. But that's your right.

I do wonder why Christians are so against gay marriage though? The marriage we're talking about is defined by the State not by the Bible. Are you afraid you might have an inkling to take on some husky bear because you see two guys next door that are married and having fun?

[Arles]

I am not a religious person, but I would say I am very spiritual and pray regularly. I just don't go to one church or adhere to one specific religion. I don't judge those who do or don't, but the one thing that does bother me is this tendency by somewhat "anti-religion" people to equate all acts against "what is in the bible" or "what Jesus what would do". I don't think that someone is a hypocrite if they drink a couple beers every Friday night with a cheeseburger, work on Sunday - but also feel that they can't support gay marriage or abortion for religious reasons. Not everyone who is part of a specific religion needs to accept 100% of the history of that religion to not be a hypocrite. That's my biggest beef in all this.

The irony in all this is that the person who does work on Sunday, eat meat on Friday, drink a beer, is OK with interracial marriage and not agree that stoning is a great punishment is doing exactly what the anti-religion side should want. They are using their own sensibilities to determine what aspects of their religion they feel comfortable supporting and what they think isn't valid in today's culture. That type of behavior should be encouraged by the pro-gay marriage side as it will eventually end up with most religious people agreeing that gay marriage is OK in today's society. If every religious person was "not a hypocrite", the country would be in a much worse situation. There would be weekly stoning, a ton of preaching, crazy laws and no football on Sunday (and probably no FOF central :D ). Accepting that religious people have the freedom to pick and choose what aspects of religion/the bible make sense and work for them allows us non-religious people to have a chance at them eventually coming to the more progressive side. The last thing you should want to do is belittle them for using reason in regards to their religion.

[molson]

The irony in all this is that the person who does work on Sunday, eat meat on Friday, drink a beer, is OK with interracial marriage and not agree that stoning is a great punishment is doing exactly what the anti-religious side wants. They are using their own sensibilities to determine what aspects of their religion they feel comfortable supporting and what they think isn't valid in today's culture. That type of behavior should be encouraged by the pro-gay marriage side as it will eventually end up with most religious people agreeing that gay marriage is OK in today's society. If every religious person was "not a hypocrite", the country would be in a much worse situation. There would be weekly stoning, a ton of preaching, crazy laws and no football on Sunday (and probably no FOF central :D ). Accepting that religious people have the freedom to pick and choose what aspects of religion/the bible make sense and work for them allows us non-religious people to have a chance at them eventually coming to the more progressive side. The last thing you should want to do is belittle them for using reason in regards to their religion.

That reminds me of how the hobby lobby was criticized for giving their employees the option to purchase mutual funds that contain stocks for contraceptive companies, rather than restricting them to the more fee-laden funds that didn't have them. And the scrutiny in breaking down the 16 contraceptives they were willing to purchase v. the 4 they weren't, and how consistent that line was. If you're not "all in", some will see you as a hypocrite. But there's an infinite number of ways to find value in religion or spirituality and its your right to define that individually.

[BillJasper]

I think the idea is that all people sin. It really doesn't matter if you break the 10 Commandments every week if you recognize the sinful behavior, and seek forgiveness. But embracing the sin, being proud of the sin - that's something else entirely.

So Michael Vick would be okay to continually torture and execute dogs as long as he's not proud of it and asks for forgiveness after each time he does it? If someone continues to break a commandment, it would seem they really have no issue with it or think the commandment is stupid. I want to see the same concerted effort to destroy the lives of people who break any of the ten commandments on a regular basis. I'd love to see an actual religious politician start on the Sunday talk show circuit, talking about how working on Sunday is an affront to God and destroying America. That those people who do it should have their rights stripped from them. Of course, his funding would dry up immediately.

Things like the above is why Christianity never made a lick of sense to me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

You really haven't answered my questions, at all.

I genuinely thought I had (although my last post did take a sidetrip).

I do wonder why Christians are so against gay marriage though? The marriage we're talking about is defined by the State not by the Bible.

There's no shortage of Christians who oppose government sanction of sin.

I mean, the most obvious would be those with a religious objection to abortion. And there's still a fair number of "dry" counties out there too. (Again, not attempting a comprehensive list here, just throwing out some obvious examples)

Are you afraid you might have an inkling to take on some husky bear because you see two guys next door that are married and having fun?

"Fear" is one of the better strawmen created by the lobbiest.
Oppose <> Fear

[BillJasper]

The irony in all this is that the person who does work on Sunday, eat meat on Friday, drink a beer, is OK with interracial marriage and not agree that stoning is a great punishment is doing exactly what the anti-religious side wants.

Problem being, that not working on the Sabbath supposedly comes from God himself. I'm not sure how those particular pieces of religion would be up for any kind of debate/interpretation?

[larrymcg421]

The hate I see on both sides of the discussion is equivalent in my mind, yes. In this thread, in fact, I see a lot more intolerance from the anti-Dungy crowd than the religious side.

I meant my statement literally. Again, you can attach your own interpretations if you like, but that is on you, not me.

I have intolerance for people who are against gay marriage, against Michael Sam playing in the NFL, against gays in the military, benefits for gay couples, etc. My intolerance for them has zero to do with their religion.

Person A: Against gay marriage because it's "icky".
Person B: Against gay marriage because (insert bible verse).

I have equal intolerance for these two people. Stop making it about religion. It's about specific views, which not all religious people hold.

[molson]

So Michael Vick would be okay to continually torture and execute dogs as long as he's not proud of it and asks for forgiveness after each time he does it?


In a Christian sense, yes. If he had an addiction to dog killing, and was trying to stop, then sure, he'd find no shortage of people in a church willing to help him and pray for him and facilitate his repentance. Society would lock him up of course, but even in prison, the prison chaplin would not turn him away. Just like a prison chaplin wouldn't turn away a sexual sinner who wanted to repent. There is no sin salary cap. Murdering child rapists have priests with them when they're being executed.

So Michael Vick would be okay to continually torture and execute dogs as long as he's not proud of it and asks for forgiveness after each time he does it?

I'd love to see an actual religious politician start on the Sunday talk show circuit, talking about how working on Sunday is an affront to God and destroying America. That those people who do it should have their rights stripped from them. Of course, his funding would dry up immediately.


I've never quite understood the sabbath thing. I'm not sure how much it really comes up in the New Testament, if at all, or if Jesus chimed in. But I'd rather ask a religious pro football player than just assume that this proves all Christians are looney hypocrites. But I know there's plenty of Christians who believe the bible was written by man, and the concept of sin can evolve, and that sin is ultimately just whatever is damaging to your soul or to others.

[Arles]

Problem being, that not working on the Sabbath supposedly comes from God himself. I'm not sure how those particular pieces of religion would be up for any kind of debate/interpretation?
Do you think "God himself" would be against shooting someone who broke into your house and had your daughter at gun point? "Thou shall not kill" is in the bible. Working on Sunday has become a somewhat necessary act for many who seek employment in today's culture. I think that even the most ardent of Bible supporters would agree that certain aspects of the Bible need some interpretation. I think it's on the individual as to what aspects of the Bible they can "massage" and still be consistent with that religion's message.

[BillJasper]

I've never quite understood the sabbath thing. I'm not sure how much it really comes up in the New Testament, if at all, or if Jesus chimed in. But I'd rather ask a religious pro football player than just assume that this proves all Christians are looney hypocrites.

Like I said before, not working on the Sabbath is suppose to come from God himself. He wrote it down and passed it onto us for some reason? Put it in the same text as murder and adultery. Seemed like it was mighty important to him.

Of course, we know the almighty dollar is far more important than most of the ten commandments.

[molson]

Like I said before, not working on the Sabbath is suppose to come from God himself. He wrote it down and passed it onto us for some reason? Put it in the same text as murder and adultery. Seemed like it was mighty important to him.



Not all Christians believe God "wrote" the 10 Commandments. And the commandments are not the cornerstone of a lot of denominations. A lot of Christians are a lot more inspired by the Jesus and the Gospels and not so much the old jewish law which includes a ton of stuff beyond the Commandments.

And just educating myself on this, I saw this in wikipedia: "Moral imperatives mirroring nine of the Ten Commandments are repeated in the New Testament, but the commandment regarding the Sabbath is notably absent". So even by 2,000 years ago, the Sabbath thing was not a cornerstone of Christianity. The opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage is already not a cornerstone, or even a thing at all, for several denominations today. You can find a presbyterian church to get married in right now.

Edit: I know that all bugs people and I understand why. But every Christian and every church is different. Many, probably most, don't think that humanity had perfect connection to god and the universe 4,000 years ago. The understanding, and humans, will evolve. We'll always fall short, that's part of the gimmick.

[larrymcg421]

Do you think "God himself" would be against shooting someone who broke into your house and had your daughter at gun point? "Thou shall not kill" is in the bible. Working on Sunday has become a somewhat necessary act for many who seek employment in today's culture. I think that even the most ardent of Bible supporters would agree that certain aspects of the Bible need some interpretation. I think it's on the individual as to what aspects of the Bible they can "massage" and still be consistent with that religion's message.

But that's exactly the problem I have with many people who have made that choice. I am a Christian and I definitely don't follow everything literally. And if I'm not going to follow everything, then I'm certainly not going to pick something that is hurtful and discriminatory to others. By working on Sunday, these people have clearly acknowledged they can make a choice. I agree with that choice. But if they can make a choice and they choose to fight against equal rights for gays, then that's where I lose respect for them.

[BillJasper]

I think it's on the individual as to what aspects of the Bible they can "massage" and still be consistent with that religion's message.

Then it's, basically, all non-sense? That can be tweaked whenever someone has an agenda or finds something in it inconvenient?

I'm not trying to anger anyone here. But, the feel I get is that people only follow the Bible when it's convenient to their lives. It makes it all the harder for me to take their position on gay people and gay marriage seriously. How can portions of something that is supposed to be a chronicle of God and his son be written off easily, yet be used to deprive people of rights?

I don't like gay people, I start the Bible fire and brimstone speeches. I like shellfish and the NFL on Sundays, well, we'll just ignore that part.

[AlexB]

Among the biggest falacies with the entire pro-gay lobby is the notion that there is some sort of "right" that exists (re: marriage). The right to marry "whomever you want" does not exist, has never existed. I am very much in the "they can marry whatever person of the opposite gender they like" camp.

Honestly, I've taken this particular topic as the obvious one on the whole "pro-God / anti-God" popularity sidebar because it seems to be the obvious one giving the thread topic. Personally the whole "gay marriage" thing offends me exponentially more -- and the word choice is intentional there, it's not even close -- on an intellectual level than on a spiritual/religious level.

Calling a gay couple "married" is an absurdity on par with passing a law that redefines oxygen as being "a manmade substance commonly used as a taco seasoning". You can rename/relabel something until the cows come home but it still doesn't change what something actually IS.

What I don't understand in these situations is why people get worked up about gay marriage, to use this example? I don't understand how two men/women getting married actually directly affects the anti-gay marriage activist's life in any way?

[molson]

Then it's, basically, all non-sense? That can be tweaked whenever someone has an agenda or finds something in it inconvenient?

I'm not trying to anger anyone here. But, the feel I get is that people only follow the Bible when it's convenient to their lives. It makes it all the harder for me to take their position on gay people and gay marriage seriously. How can portions of something that is supposed to be a chronicle of God and his son be written off easily, yet be used to deprive people of rights?

I don't like gay people, I start the Bible fire and brimstone speeches. I like shellfish and the NFL on Sundays, well, we'll just ignore that part.

You're talking to three Christians right now who do not support depriving gay people of rights.

As for those who do, they're not perfect. You and I aren't either. That's the gimmick. We're not god. We're going to be way off on some shit.

I'm a Christian because of the way I was raised, the way I connect with a lot of the philosophies expressed there, they way I feel it gives me strength to be a better person and get through things. I always liked the quote from that South Park Mormon episode:

"Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life, and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don't care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice and helping people. And even though people in this town might think that's stupid, I still choose to believe in it."

I feel like that kid in that episode sometimes. That some people think you're some kind of "looney" for having certain beliefs and values, and so they just can't see past that.

[BillJasper]

What I don't understand in these situations is why people get worked up about gay marriage, to use this example? I don't understand how two men/women getting married actually directly affects the anti-gay marriage activist's life in any way?

I think having someone to hate is an important part in lots of people's lives (I hate the New York Jets). It makes them feel like they're working towards something that, in their skewed worldview, makes the world better.

A century ago, it was black people (though for some it still is), the Nazi's used it to incredible effect essentially turning a good portion of the German population against people of Jewish faith/ancestry and today we have folks focusing that hate on gay people.

[molson]

What I don't understand in these situations is why people get worked up about gay marriage, to use this example? I don't understand how two men/women getting married actually directly affects the anti-gay marriage activist's life in any way?

The concept of sexual sin, or to put it in a non-secular way, sexual unhealthiness, has been around thousands of years. Similar to boozing, or gambling. We're just more liberal today about what's considered unhealthy or sinful. But we still have sexual moral values, they've just evolved.

[Arles]

Then it's, basically, all non-sense? That can be tweaked whenever someone has an agenda or finds something in it inconvenient?

I'm not trying to anger anyone here. But, the feel I get is that people only follow the Bible when it's convenient to their lives. It makes it all the harder for me to take their position on gay people and gay marriage seriously. How can portions of something that is supposed to be a chronicle of God and his son be written off easily, yet be used to deprive people of rights?

I don't like gay people, I start the Bible fire and brimstone speeches. I like shellfish and the NFL on Sundays, well, we'll just ignore that part.
It's no more non-sense than an atheist who is OK with gay marriage, but against late term abortions and adultery. What is his/her logic? non-sense?

Religion seems to act as a guide to most people, giving them a path to try and be better people. It's no different than a "conscience" to people who aren't religious. But, you don't have to agree with the entire old testament to be an acting Christian. I think it's extremely reasonable for some people to feel that abortion is against the tenets of their religion, but that working on Sunday and having an occasional beer is OK. There is no reason to expect every person in a religion to be 100% in lock step with the Bible or even older practices of that religion. Just like there's no reason to expect that every person "with a conscience" should be against abortions or for the death penalty.

[BillJasper]

You're talking to three Christians right now who do not support depriving gay people of rights.



I do apologize. I'm not trying to paint everyone with the same brush. But, the face of Christianity today isn't a positive one. The image definitely needs a makeover.

[BillJasper]

It's no more non-sense than an atheist who is OK with gay marriage, but against late term abortions and adultery. What is his/her logic? non-sense?


But I'm not trying to claim that I'm following some higher authority.

[molson]

I do apologize. I'm not trying to paint everyone with the same brush. But, the face of Christianity today isn't a positive one. The image definitely needs a makeover.

It just depends on what Christians have your ear I think. If you're in certain communities, than ya, I get seeing that intolerance as the face of Christianity. If the face of Christianity in your life was ELCA Lutherans, I bet I could even get to you convert, if only for the women (generally descended from Sweden and Germany). Oh, and openly gay pastors.

[BillJasper]

It just depends on what Christians have your ear I think. If you're in certain communities, than ya, I get seeing that intolerance as the face of Christianity.

Unfortunately, they are the ones that get the majority of face time on the news and talk shows.

[Chief Rum]

I have intolerance for people who are against gay marriage, against Michael Sam playing in the NFL, against gays in the military, benefits for gay couples, etc. My intolerance for them has zero to do with their religion.

Person A: Against gay marriage because it's "icky".
Person B: Against gay marriage because (insert bible verse).

I have equal intolerance for these two people. Stop making it about religion. It's about specific views, which not all religious people hold.

You understand I am arguing within the context of the Dungy controversy, which is based around a guy who opposes gay marriage on the basis of religion, right? That this entire discussion is based around that?

I don't know why you feel the need to demonize my positon just because I am arguing within the relevant discussion. I didn't create this discussion. I am just a participant, like you.

[larrymcg421]

You understand I am arguing within the context of the Dungy controversy, which is based around a guy who opposes gay marriage on the basis of religion, right? That this entire discussion is based around that?

I don't know why you feel the need to demonize my positon just because I am arguing within the relevant discussion. I didn't create this discussion. I am just a participant, like you.

I still don't think you're getting my point. I don't care if Dungy's position is because of his religious beliefs or not. You are trying to paint the anti-Dungy people as anti-religion. We are not against religion. We are against this particular view.

[Chief Rum]

I still don't think you're getting my point. I don't care if Dungy's position is because of his religious beliefs or not. You are trying to paint the anti-Dungy people as anti-religion. We are not against religion. We are against this particular view.

And you don't get mine. That you took a statement outside of its context and made it Chief Rum's Opus Statement On All Things Gay Versus Religious. Every post you have made has taken my original statement outside of its context and just made it about what you wanted it to be about.

If you can't argue my statement within the context it was given, I frankly don't want you to respond to it at all.

[Logan]

Among the biggest falacies with the entire pro-gay lobby is the notion that there is some sort of "right" that exists (re: marriage). The right to marry "whomever you want" does not exist, has never existed. I am very much in the "they can marry whatever person of the opposite gender they like" camp.

Honestly, I've taken this particular topic as the obvious one on the whole "pro-God / anti-God" popularity sidebar because it seems to be the obvious one giving the thread topic. Personally the whole "gay marriage" thing offends me exponentially more -- and the word choice is intentional there, it's not even close -- on an intellectual level than on a spiritual/religious level.

Calling a gay couple "married" is an absurdity on par with passing a law that redefines oxygen as being "a manmade substance commonly used as a taco seasoning". You can rename/relabel something until the cows come home but it still doesn't change what something actually IS.

Of course there is a "right" that exists to get married. And as far as I know, the only limitations surround age and, I guess, species? But it's how I, as a Jewish person, am considered legally married to my wife despite not being a follower of the Bible. We signed a "Ketubah" which is a marriage contract under Jewish law, but in the eyes of the government, we were not legally married until we obtained, signed, and returned a marriage license that the state of NY issued.

The government has a role in recognizing marriage in this country. That's an indisputable fact. Since they do that, there is no reason they should be denying any subset of people the same misera-, I mean, amazing experience. What a religion says should have no role in this. If your church doesn't want to perform or recognize gay marriages, that should be their right.

[larrymcg421]

And you don't get mine. That you took a statement outside of its context and made it Chief Rum's Opus Statement On All Things Gay Versus Religious. Every post you have made has taken my original statement outside of its context and just made it about what you wanted it to be about.

If you can't argue my statement within the context it was given, I frankly don't want you to respond to it at all.

Okay, let me try to break it down, because I still don't think you're getting it.

You framed the argument like this

in fact, I see a lot more intolerance from the anti-Dungy crowd than the religious side.


My whole point is that you are incorrectly identifying the two sides in this debate. You can be intolerant of Dungy's comments and still be religious. You can be intolerant of Dungy and not intolerant of religion.

I'm not saying you're anti-gay or claiming you're trying to make "Chief Rum's Opus Statement On All Things Gay Versus Religious", so I'm not sure why you're getting so bent out of shape.

[Chief Rum]

Okay, let me try to break it down, because I still don't think you're getting it.

You framed the argument like this



My whole point is that you are incorrectly identifying the two sides in this debate. You can be intolerant of Dungy's comments and still be religious. You can be intolerant of Dungy and not intolerant of religion.

I'm not saying you're anti-gay or claiming you're trying to make "Chief Rum's Opus Statement On All Things Gay Versus Religious", so I'm not sure why you're getting so bent out of shape.

That specific statement you pulled out about anti-Dungy being more intolerant was specifically aimed at the respondents in this thread, and they are definitely anti-Dungy. So that statement is factually accurate, at least with respect to whom it was targeting.

I'm getting in a huff because you're trying to make it out like I am setting this debate as pro-gay versus religion. I am not. I am arguing within the context given. So when you continue to come after me as if I am framing it that way rather than accepting the context given, that can be annoying.

Frankly, I don't even know why that is such a big issue for you, either. Let it go.

[JonInMiddleGA]

What I don't understand in these situations is why people get worked up about gay marriage, to use this example? I don't understand how two men/women getting married actually directly affects the anti-gay marriage activist's life in any way?

To get any shot at understanding you're probably going to have to separate MY biggest objection with that of the large majority of those who have an objection.

For me, it's the tragic/comic absurdity of the repurposing of the word. Genuinely, honestly, sincerely ... calling such a union a "marriage" might be the single most utterly asinine thing I've encountered in 47 years. Opposing it, even being offended beyond description by it, is entirely consistent with my steadfast opposition to things at are ... y'know, there isn't a single polite* way I can come up with to phrase it. "So completely and utterly insane as to make me question the fitness of humanity to remain on the planet" is about as close as I can get.

* "Polite" doesn't really enter into the equation for me all that often, in this case it does because -- for better or worse -- I'm treating your comment as an indication of a genuine attempt to understand the point of view. I'm purposefully trying to avoid having that effort complicated by what might appear to be hyperbole.



I'm pretty sure that I'm in the minority of the opposition in terms of what I find MOST objectionable. But I've also tried to cover most of that point of view in my previous comments in this thread too. Maybe adding something about we're all "directly affected" by things that are wholly inappropriate / society is diminished by such acceptance (something I often end up covering with the phrase "excusing the inexcusable") could shed a little more light.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I agree with that choice. But if they can make a choice and they choose to fight against equal rights for gays, then that's where I lose respect for them.

And that you chose to fight for making sin acceptable is where I lost respect for you.

Those who stand against it will be just fine without your respect, as you'll undoubtedly be nonplussed by not having mine. Life goes on, the wheel in the sky keeps on turning, etc. etc. etc.

[larrymcg421]

That specific statement you pulled out about anti-Dungy being more intolerant was specifically aimed at the respondents in this thread, and they are definitely anti-Dungy. So that statement is factually accurate, at least with respect to whom it was targeting.

I never said they weren't anti-Dungy. I said they weren't necessarily anti-religious.

I'm getting in a huff because you're trying to make it out like I am setting this debate as pro-gay versus religion. I am not. I am arguing within the context given. So when you continue to come after me as if I am framing it that way rather than accepting the context given, that can be annoying.

And I'm arguing within this context. Your statement still implies that there is an anti-Dungy side and a religious side. And I think that is inaccurate even within the context of the debate in this specific thread.

Frankly, I don't even know why that is such a big issue for you, either. Let it go.

Who said it's "such a big issue for me"? I'm participating in the thread, just like you are.

[Suburban Rhythm]

To get any shot at understanding you're probably going to have to separate MY biggest objection with that of the large majority of those who have an objection.

For me, it's the tragic/comic absurdity of the repurposing of the word. Genuinely, honestly, sincerely ... calling such a union a "marriage" might be the single most utterly asinine thing I've encountered in 47 years. Opposing it, even being offended beyond description by it, is entirely consistent with my steadfast opposition to things at are ... y'know, there isn't a single polite* way I can come up with to phrase it. "So completely and utterly insane as to make me question the fitness of humanity to remain on the planet" is about as close as I can get.

* "Polite" doesn't really enter into the equation for me all that often, in this case it does because -- for better or worse -- I'm treating your comment as an indication of a genuine attempt to understand the point of view. I'm purposefully trying to avoid having that effort complicated by what might appear to be hyperbole.



I'm pretty sure that I'm in the minority of the opposition in terms of what I find MOST objectionable. But I've also tried to cover most of that point of view in my previous comments in this thread too. Maybe adding something about we're all "directly affected" by things that are wholly inappropriate / society is diminished by such acceptance (something I often end up covering with the phrase "excusing the inexcusable") could shed a little more light.

Genuinely curious...

Do you think Logan and his wife are married? As he described above, he did not have a "Christian" wedding.

What about couples- one man, one woman - who forgo a church wedding, but are wed by a JP? Married or no?

Or my parents - dad was raised Catholic, mom Jewish. Converted before marriage. Are they married?

[RainMaker]

What I don't understand in these situations is why people get worked up about gay marriage, to use this example? I don't understand how two men/women getting married actually directly affects the anti-gay marriage activist's life in any way?

This is what I can't wrap my head around either. I understand not liking something. I understand finding it deplorable. But if it is between consenting adults and has no impact on my life, who cares?

For instance I think smoking is a grotesque habit. But if some guy down the street wants to smoke 2 packs a day, it has no bearing on my life. I guess I don't understand this need to control other people's lives. It's almost a sign of how pathetic one's must be if they are so concerned with what others do.

[Autumn]

How come you don't hear as much upset over heterosexual anal sex as you do over homosexual sex? As i understand it, a Christian objection to homosexuality is that sex is naturally procreative and that it is deviance from this that is wrong. Isn't it just as wrong for a man and woman to have anal sex? If two men love each other but never have sex is that objectionable? I know this is apart from the particular issue of marriage, but every time I see homosexuality described as sinful I wonder how people make these distinctions. There are a thousand varieties of sexuality, from sadomasochism, to feet fetish, to anal sex. Are all of these sinful? If not, why homosexual sex?

[Logan]

Genuinely curious...

Do you think Logan and his wife are married? As he described above, he did not have a "Christian" wedding.

What about couples- one man, one woman - who forgo a church wedding, but are wed by a JP? Married or no?

Or my parents - dad was raised Catholic, mom Jewish. Converted before marriage. Are they married?

FTR Jon, feel free to respond and I'll make no judgment on you with your answer. I'll be thinking back to a couple PMs we have exchanged fairly recently and absolutely no hard feelings, as I expressed then.

[Danny]

How come you don't hear as much upset over heterosexual anal sex as you do over homosexual sex? As i understand it, a Christian objection to homosexuality is that sex is naturally procreative and that it is deviance from this that is wrong. Isn't it just as wrong for a man and woman to have anal sex? If two men love each other but never have sex is that objectionable? I know this is apart from the particular issue of marriage, but every time I see homosexuality described as sinful I wonder how people make these distinctions. There are a thousand varieties of sexuality, from sadomasochism, to feet fetish, to anal sex. Are all of these sinful? If not, why homosexual sex?

Because it is awesome

[AlexB]

To get any shot at understanding you're probably going to have to separate MY biggest objection with that of the large majority of those who have an objection.

For me, it's the tragic/comic absurdity of the repurposing of the word. Genuinely, honestly, sincerely ... calling such a union a "marriage" might be the single most utterly asinine thing I've encountered in 47 years. Opposing it, even being offended beyond description by it, is entirely consistent with my steadfast opposition to things at are ... y'know, there isn't a single polite* way I can come up with to phrase it. "So completely and utterly insane as to make me question the fitness of humanity to remain on the planet" is about as close as I can get.

* "Polite" doesn't really enter into the equation for me all that often, in this case it does because -- for better or worse -- I'm treating your comment as an indication of a genuine attempt to understand the point of view. I'm purposefully trying to avoid having that effort complicated by what might appear to be hyperbole.



I'm pretty sure that I'm in the minority of the opposition in terms of what I find MOST objectionable. But I've also tried to cover most of that point of view in my previous comments in this thread too. Maybe adding something about we're all "directly affected" by things that are wholly inappropriate / society is diminished by such acceptance (something I often end up covering with the phrase "excusing the inexcusable") could shed a little more light.

Cheers for trying to explain it: the question was genuine - I deliberately used the third person in the question although I needed to quote your post to highlight what i was asking.

I'll be honest, still don't really get it as I don't have a strong religious belief to be offended in the same way, but it has cast a little light on it.

FWIW to completely clarify the genuine nature of the question, my views on religion are that although I don't buy into the whole God, heaven/hell aspect, the basis of the ten Commandments in particular, or at least those that apply to modern life, and the general attitude of Jesus' teachings in the Bible (which I take as "be a decent person and be considerate to others") provide an excellent moral code on which to live life.

[RainMaker]

How come you don't hear as much upset over heterosexual anal sex as you do over homosexual sex? As i understand it, a Christian objection to homosexuality is that sex is naturally procreative and that it is deviance from this that is wrong. Isn't it just as wrong for a man and woman to have anal sex? If two men love each other but never have sex is that objectionable? I know this is apart from the particular issue of marriage, but every time I see homosexuality described as sinful I wonder how people make these distinctions. There are a thousand varieties of sexuality, from sadomasochism, to feet fetish, to anal sex. Are all of these sinful? If not, why homosexual sex?

Because that is something that they might want to do someday. It's the same reason you don't hear a ton of uproar over premarital sex. Or getting divorced. Or having pre-marital sex. Or eating bacon and shellfish. Or wearing gold.

If I like something, that part of the Bible doesn't count.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't necessarily want to get into the rest of it here (y'all know my position anyways), but one thing I MUST address: THE SABBATH IS ON SATURDAY! SUNDAY IS THE LORD'S DAY, NOT THE SABBATH.

Jeez Louise, why people get this so wrong is beyond me. The Lord's Day is the 8th Day, the New Creation. The Sabbath was on the 7th Day.

I read quite a well stated premise (by N.T. Wright) that the Sabbath was a signpost - a taste and forward look to the time when God comes to be with His people. Kind of like how the Temple is a taste and forward look to the place of God when he comes to live with His people. When Jesus comes, the forward look is complete - the Temple is everywhere, in believer's hearts (or whatnot). In the same manner, the Sabbath, the day of rest and peace is all over Creation - the peace in the hearts of believers. Jesus indicated He was the Lord of the Sabbath for that very reason. Not only did Jesus do work on that day (and got himself in trouble by other Jews), but He did the ultimate work and rose from the dead on it.

Y'all can say all the other nonsense you want (it's in every religion thread anyways), but lets get the Sabbath stuff right, ok?

[stevew]

OK Walter

[flere-imsaho]

OK, I stand corrected on that, and apologize for asking a question/making an accusation that was just way too broad. My issue is just with how you respond to my posts individually, I really have no concept of how you relate to anyone else. So it could just be me.

No, it's not just you. You very often use the fallacy of false equivalence, and I often call you out on it. I don't do it specifically to persecute you, I do it because it annoys the fuck out of me. :p But I have no other animus towards you and generally enjoy your posts on other subjects.

That's not an assumption, it's pure fact as far as I'm concerned. What I find indefensible, just bluntly, is anyone supporting it that then claims they're anything other than pro-sin.

It's not a sin, to me, mainly because I don't believe in the concept of sin.

But you know this, and I know that in your worldview most of my beliefs are objectively wrong.


Which brings up an interesting point. If one has a worldview with certain absolutes (such as, say, "being gay is wrong") then creeping tolerance for the counter to that absolute ("being gay is fine") represents an active, not a passive, encroachment on the worldview of that person, and even their perceived rights. Put more specifically, if your religion tells you gay marriage is wrong (because being gay is wrong), then the legalization of gay marriage isn't some thing you must put up with, it's a direct assault on the views you hold dear.

I say this not to excuse it, but to indicate that it goes some way to explaining the level of vitriol among certain people with strongly-held views when this kind of thing happens.

The irony in all this is that the person who does work on Sunday, eat meat on Friday, drink a beer, is OK with interracial marriage and not agree that stoning is a great punishment is doing exactly what the anti-religion side should want.

Well, no. Because you're conflating the anti-religious with general progressives. By definition the "anti-religion side" would still not be OK with the person you describe.

A general progressive, on the other hand, would be fine (generally) with said person, and if any animus existed towards the religious person from the progressive, it would be in proportion to the religious person's efforts to restrict the progressively-defined rights of others (such as basic civil rights for everyone regardless of race, sexual preference, etc...).

And it's the general progressives, not the anti-religious fringe (i.e. the hardcore atheists) who drive the legislation in question. Mainly because the atheists are too busy yelling that god is dead.

That reminds me of how the hobby lobby was criticized for giving their employees the option to purchase mutual funds that contain stocks for contraceptive companies, rather than restricting them to the more fee-laden funds that didn't have them. And the scrutiny in breaking down the 16 contraceptives they were willing to purchase v. the 4 they weren't, and how consistent that line was. If you're not "all in", some will see you as a hypocrite. But there's an infinite number of ways to find value in religion or spirituality and its your right to define that individually.

No.

Given that Hobby Lobby won the case in part because its views were "strongly held", those examples were provided to indicate that in fact Hobby Lobby's actions related to this matter were not particularly coherent, and one would expect a "strongly held" belief to be supported by coherent and consistent actions.

[molson]

No, it's not just you. You very often use the fallacy of false equivalence, and I often call you out on it. I don't do it specifically to persecute you, I do it because it annoys the fuck out of me. :p But I have no other animus towards you and generally enjoy your posts on other subjects.



Why is it OK for you to attack me for points I never made (I actually said the opposite)? Why are you above this thing you complain about?

[flere-imsaho]

1. If you want to view me attacking your arguments because they're full of false equivalence as me attacking you, then that's your call.

2. If you don't understand, by now, what false equivalence is, and how your arguments are riddled with its usage (whether knowingly or not), then I really can't help you.

Edit:

3. I'm above what? Do I use false equivalences and am unaware of it?

[molson]

No.

Given that Hobby Lobby won the case in part because its views were "strongly held", those examples were provided to indicate that in fact Hobby Lobby's actions related to this matter were not particularly coherent, and one would expect a "strongly held" belief to be supported by coherent and consistent actions.

The government didn't even contest that the beliefs were sincere.

I don't think there's anything inconsistent between not wanting to pay for a particular kind of contraception to terminate an actual pregnancy, but being OK with employees using their own wages to invest in a mutual fund that invests in a company that manufactures those drugs, among other things. Especially when it's a better financially for the employees to use those funds.

And I don't think there's anything inconsistent with drawing the line between contraception that blocks fertilization, and contraception that destroys a fertilized egg.

You can think those things are all the same and that's fine, but ultimately its an individual or the group that gets to determine the parameters of their beliefs. That's the whole point of religious freedom.

But you're making Arles' point very well. In order for Hobby Lobby to be free of this criticism, and consistent, and in this case, even to deserving of this statutory protection, they have to be all-in. They have to be more stringent, they have to give their employees a worse retirement benefit, and they have to cut off ALL access to contraception. Isn't the way they do it better? Why do you want to encourage those with religious convictions to be more extreme? Is this how you want radical tea partiers to win regional elections just because it's better for you political team?

I'm not all-in. I don't have any problem with gay marriage or Christianity. Am I just as bad as Hobby Lobby?

[molson]

1. If you want to view me attacking your arguments because they're full of false equivalence as me attacking you, then that's your call.

2. If you don't understand, by now, what false equivalence is, and how your arguments are riddled with its usage (whether knowingly or not), then I really can't help you.

Edit:

3. I'm above what? Do I use false equivalences and am unaware of it?

I'm not sure if you understand the concept of false equivalences, but I think you do like to use it as a way to invalidate others' opinions or feelings that you have a problem with. Someone stating that they perceive religious bias being expressed in this thread, or that they believe it exists in society has nothing to do with false equivalences, that doesn't even make sense.

I was referring to your attacks claiming that I've said that religious intolerance that I and others feel exists is as bad as getting physically attacked because of one's sexual orientation. Nobody has argued that.

Edit: Every comparison or metaphor you disagree with is not necessarily a false equivalence. You just might disagree, and feel that the two examples can be distinguished. Someone else may think the similarities are enough to overcome those distinctions. Reasonable minds can disagree.

[molson]

Dola, for example, the Hobby Lobby thing. You seem to be arguing, if they think this, they must also do that. I could yell false equivalency at you, because I think that those activities are entirely consistent. But I don't think your argument is invalid. I just disagree, and ultimately think that it's the hobby lobby's call to make, under the words of the statute, at least when it's that close. I responded to the substance of your point instead of just name-calling and trying to undercut the validity.

[flere-imsaho]

The government didn't even contest that the beliefs were sincere.

And yet it features prominently in Alito's decision.

I don't think there's anything inconsistent between not wanting to pay for a particular kind of contraception to terminate an actual pregnancy, but being OK with employees using their own wages to invest in a mutual fund that invests in a company that manufactures those drugs, among other things. Especially when it's a better financially for the employees to use those funds.

It's not just the mutual fund thing. The mutual fund thing is just indicative of a pattern of inconsistency. Also (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/07/03/hillary-clintons-claim-that-hobby-lobby-wanted-to-stop-covering-all-contraception-procedures/):

Before the ACA became law, Hobby Lobby actually had provided coverage for all 20 FDA-approved contraceptive procedures required under the law. But once it became a mandate, the owners decided to object to four on religious grounds: Two “morning after” emergency contraceptive pills, Plan B and ella, and hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs).

And I don't think there's anything inconsistent with drawing the line between contraception that blocks fertilization, and contraception that destroys a fertilized egg.

Except that's not the line they drew by including IUDs in their ban. IUDs method of action is to make it very difficult for sperm to fertilize an egg. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iud)

But you're making Arles' point very well. In order for Hobby Lobby to be free of this criticism, and consistent, and in this case, even to deserving of this statutory protection, they have to be all-in.

No, on two counts.

1. There's a level of inconsistency here that's simply hard to fathom. If you can get by the above inconsistency, then you really have to ask how it's OK to invest in companies that make "morning after" pills, but do not provide coverage for their employees to buy them. Both actions result in the creation of the pills and enable their usage. These shouldn't be the kind of inconsistencies that are handwaved away.

2. There already existed a method (for religious non-profits) to not pay for contraceptives, but still have them covered under the plans. I still contend that would have been the least harm route, and in fact generous to Hobby Lobby given their lack of attention / consistency to their "strongly held" belief.

Why do you want to encourage those with religious convictions to be more extreme?

Ah, this again. If I am to be accommodating to those who attack my beliefs in the implied hope that by letting them be they'll eventually become more moderate, where should I draw the line if that doesn't happen?

And specifically in the HL case, they took action. Action was not forced upon them. By your logic I should be OK with this. Allow them to trample one of my own convictions because I don't want them to become more radical, right?

[molson]

And specifically in the HL case, they took action. Action was not forced upon them. By your logic I should be OK with this. Allow them to trample one of my own convictions because I don't want them to become more radical, right?

False equivalence! False equivalence!

Just kidding, I just wanted to see what that felt like. I feel dirty.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm not sure if you understand the concept of false equivalences,

Um, OK.

but I think you do like to use it as a way to invalidate others' opinions or feelings that you have a problem with.

I use it to disprove others' assertions. There's a difference.

Someone stating that they perceive religious bias being expressed in this thread, or that they believe it exists in society has nothing to do with false equivalences, that doesn't even make sense.

You're right. That wouldn't make sense. But no one made that statement in that vacuum. They made that statement as a converse to things like civil rights.

Edit: Every comparison or metaphor you disagree with is not necessarily a false equivalence.

The use of metaphor can be a different fallacy and would it would be challenging to use a metaphor to construct a false equivalence fallacy. I don't normally attack metaphors mainly because my experience is that such attacks (on metaphors) lead to tangential discussion over the veracity of the metaphor, which accomplishes nothing but unintentional hilarity.

I certainly haven't attacked every comparison as a false equivalence. Is that what you're asserting?

[flere-imsaho]

Just kidding, I just wanted to see what that felt like. I feel dirty.

My work here is done.

[molson]

And no, of course you can be reasonably annoyed and disagree with Hobby Lobby's decision, and the legal opinion that upheld it. I just don't understand why you'd be upset with them giving their employees better retirement options, or being willing to pay for a wide range of contraceptives, if not all of them. I think that's one of the redeeming things about Hobby Lobby. If you're willing to enter that whole cult-like thing, if you're on board with the prayer at meetings and all that, and especially if you share those values, it's a much better place to work than comparable big national chains. The fact that you get some freedom to make choices in spending your 401(k) money consistent with whatever your own values are, and the fact that many contraceptives are available to you are a nice perk, not a bad thing, I think.

[flere-imsaho]

I think that's one of the redeeming things about Hobby Lobby. If you're willing to enter that whole cult-like thing, if you're on board with the prayer at meetings and all that, and especially if you share those values, it's a much better place to work than comparable big national chains.

I would agree that that is great.

And no, of course you can be reasonably annoyed and disagree with Hobby Lobby's decision, and the legal opinion that upheld it. I just don't understand why you'd be upset with them giving their employees better retirement options, or being willing to pay for a wide range of contraceptives, if not all of them.

You still don't get this, do you?

Prior to the ACA, HL paid for any type of contraception. Once the ACA was passed, they made a stink. One can reasonably assume that paying for all types of contraception previously was an oversight. But if you have "strongly held" beliefs in this area, how do you make that oversight? Wouldn't you be looking at any and all benefits your health insurance provided to make sure none went against your "strongly held" beliefs?

[Arles]

Prior to the ACA, HL paid for any type of contraception. Once the ACA was passed, they made a stink. One can reasonably assume that paying for all types of contraception previously was an oversight. But if you have "strongly held" beliefs in this area, how do you make that oversight? Wouldn't you be looking at any and all benefits your health insurance provided to make sure none went against your "strongly held" beliefs?
So, essentially, if you were a CEO who was a big supporter of cancer research and donated the max allowed by your company to get a tax deduction (say, $10K). You do this for 4-5 years. Then, in year 6, a new CFO comes in and says "Hey, three years ago they changed the max deduction to $20K - why are we still doing $10K?". According to you, that CEO has to say "Well, we agreed to do $10K and even though donating to cancer research is high on my beliefs, changing now when I could have 3 years ago as well would just be inconsistent. I think we have to keep it at $10K or Flere will yell at us for not being consistent with our "strongly held" belief! :eek:

Maybe hobby lobby didn't investigate this until the ACA changed things. Maybe they didn't follow the rabbit hole on money for contraceptives until they were forced to relook at their policy by the gov't changes. There are a million reasons why they decided to look at it that are legit (and why they didn't look at it before the ACA). Either way, once they found out - they stuck to their "all in" guns. You should be proud for them for being consistent with their religion and not being a hypocrite once they found out. That's what you want, right?

[molson]

I would agree that that is great.

You still don't get this, do you?

Prior to the ACA, HL paid for any type of contraception. Once the ACA was passed, they made a stink. One can reasonably assume that paying for all types of contraception previously was an oversight. But if you have "strongly held" beliefs in this area, how do you make that oversight? Wouldn't you be looking at any and all benefits your health insurance provided to make sure none went against your "strongly held" beliefs?

It would have been pretty hilarious if the government argued that a company forfeits its statutory rights under RFRA if the government can identify an oversight or arguable inconsistency in the company's religious expression. But they have better lawyers than that. They would have lost 9-0 if they relied on that. It's contrary to the whole concept of freedom for the government to get to define those parameters. I've argued and written briefs on the government side on similar issues. Attacking the sincerity of the belief is a huge uphill battle and you never do it unless the insincerity is obvious. Evidence of some "oversight" isn't going to get you there. And I don't even think you really believe that this Christian thing is just a Hobby Lobby scam to save money. They could save more money by not paying their employees so well. Edit: So, attacking the inconsistency really wouldn't help the legal argument, and I don't even think you're saying that their expressed beliefs are a sham. So I don't get the angst over this. I hope though, that they don't respond to the criticisms by trying to be more "consistent" in other peoples' eyes and clamp down.

[flere-imsaho]

So, essentially, if you were a CEO who was a big supporter of cancer research and donated the max allowed by your company to get a tax deduction (say, $10K). You do this for 4-5 years. Then, in year 6, a new CFO comes in and says "Hey, three years ago they changed the max deduction to $20K - why are we still doing $10K?". According to you, that CEO has to say "Well, we agreed to do $10K and even though donating to cancer research is high on my beliefs, changing now when I could have 3 years ago as well would just be inconsistent. I think we have to keep it at $10K or Flere will yell at us for not being consistent with our "strongly held" belief! :eek:

That's not even remotely equivalent, and you know it.

Maybe hobby lobby didn't investigate this until the ACA changed things. Maybe they didn't follow the rabbit hole on money for contraceptives until they were forced to relook at their policy by the gov't changes. There are a million reasons why they decided to look at it that are legit (and why they didn't look at it before the ACA). Either way, once they found out - they stuck to their "all in" guns. You should be proud for them for being consistent with their religion and not being a hypocrite once they found out. That's what you want, right?

No, I'm using Occam's Razor. And the most likely explanation is that it wasn't a big deal to them until they decided to make a political point about ACA.

[flere-imsaho]

FWIW, I concede that in this case, and in light of RFRA and the fact that the legal definition of "person" includes corporations, SCOTUS ruled correctly.

I mainly take issue with the view that Hobby Lobby's actions here were somehow innocent of political goals. I also think that corporations shouldn't be included in the definition of "person" per U.S. code. And lastly I don't believe any employers should be allowed to place these kind of restrictions on employer-provided health insurance (but RFRA would need to be overturned, at the very least, or revised, as well as the concept of corporate personhood, to make this happen).

[Noop]

I find religious people and pro-gay people to be equally out of touch and stupid.

:|

[miked]

And no, of course you can be reasonably annoyed and disagree with Hobby Lobby's decision, and the legal opinion that upheld it. I just don't understand why you'd be upset with them giving their employees better retirement options, or being willing to pay for a wide range of contraceptives, if not all of them. I think that's one of the redeeming things about Hobby Lobby. If you're willing to enter that whole cult-like thing, if you're on board with the prayer at meetings and all that, and especially if you share those values, it's a much better place to work than comparable big national chains. The fact that you get some freedom to make choices in spending your 401(k) money consistent with whatever your own values are, and the fact that many contraceptives are available to you are a nice perk, not a bad thing, I think.

Can we be reasonably annoyed that you seem fairly intelligent but keep saying these drugs terminate existing pregnancies?

A pregnancy requires a fertilized egg and implantation. Given that implantation rates even with drugs are around 50%, and the goal of these drugs (and devices such as IUDs) are to prevent both fertilization and/or implantation, can't we agree that the goal is to avoid being pregnant and not terminate what is already growing?

[Arles]

That's not even remotely equivalent, and you know it.
It is if you don't go with the black helicopter/tin foil conspiracy theory. If you assume they both people just found out in both cases, your logic is the same.

No, I'm using Occam's Razor. And the most likely explanation is that it wasn't a big deal to them until they decided to make a political point about ACA.
Occam's Razor is not the "grassy knoll" conspiracy theory. When faced with these two options:
1. A company doesn't realize they are somewhat paying for contraceptions until a law changes and forces them to look at their policy. Upon finding they were doing it all along, they decide to contest it on the grounds that it is against their religion.

2. That same company actually finds out about this 5-6 years ago but instead of contesting it at that point, they decide to allow it even though it's against their religion. Because they think in 5-7 years, a new law will come out they will disagree with and contesting then will get them more political capitol. So, they just bite their lip each year and watch employees buy contraception on their dime waiting for the big pounce they can make half a decade later.

Most reasonable people would probably say that situation one is more likely. We can keep going back and forth forever, but I just can't get past the tendency of certain critics of religion to focus on how a certain religion isn't radical enough - instead of pointing out why their view on one issue isn't the best one for society. Take contraception. There's a very strong argument that restricting access to birth control (esp for younger people) is very bad for society. It puts a bigger burden on our tax system to pay for young moms with kids out of wedlock and (more importantly), you end up with more kids born in poverty. Make that point and even most religious people would probably agree.

Instead, some critics get mad because the company against paying for contraception just aren't "all-in" enough in their religious beliefs. If they went ahead and stoned their employees for being late and called on a pack of locusts to attack their competitors - THEN I would be OK with their stance on contraception. But, because they aren't all-in, I just can't support their stance because they are hypocrites. :banghead:

Let these people have their individual religious beliefs, just argue why their belief is worse for society and hope that they will alter their beliefs slightly over time as more things because universally accepted. This "going after religious people for being hypocrites" actually undermines the very good case often sitting right in front of everyone on issues of contraception, gay marriage rights and other social issues. Let everyone keep their religion as they see fit, argue the merits and see where that takes you. You'll find many religious people may not be as radical as you expect and might actually agree sometimes.

[flere-imsaho]

We can keep going back and forth forever, but I just can't get past the tendency of certain critics of religion to focus on how a certain religion isn't radical enough - instead of pointing out why their view on one issue isn't the best one for society. Take contraception. There's a very strong argument that restricting access to birth control (esp for younger people) is very bad for society. It puts a bigger burden on our tax system to pay for young moms with kids out of wedlock and (more importantly), you end up with more kids born in poverty. Make that point and even most religious people would probably agree.

And yet we have situations where the role of contraception in curbing teenage pregnancy is clear and well-supported, yet GOP leaders from George W. Bush to Rick Perry do everything they can to push abstinence-only sex education.

You and molson continue to make the contention that if we only provide facts in a reasonable manner to religious people who shape legislative policy, they'll see the light and be reasonable. Despite all evidence to the contrary.

Instead, some critics get mad because the company against paying for contraception just aren't "all-in" enough in their religious beliefs. If they went ahead and stoned their employees for being late and called on a pack of locusts to attack their competitors - THEN I would be OK with their stance on contraception. But, because they aren't all-in, I just can't support their stance because they are hypocrites. :banghead:

I'm not entirely sure of your point, as neither stoning employees for being late, nor using locusts as a part of corporate competition seem to be found in the bible.

Again, the problem here is that from a precedent standpoint the bar for "strongly held beliefs" is set very low based on Hobby Lobby's actions. If HL had always, and consistently, restricted choice in their plans, that would be one thing. But based on their actions, "strongly held beliefs" basically means "whatever I say right now". And yes, I have a problem with that, because it means withholding a proven public health "good" (in both senses of the word) on the basis of belief alone.

[flere-imsaho]

It is if you don't go with the black helicopter/tin foil conspiracy theory. If you assume they both people just found out in both cases, your logic is the same.

Are you seriously contending there's an equivalence between donating money to cancer research and withholding a proven public health item?

That's like saying there's no material difference between a pinch hitter and a relief pitcher. They're both used as a temporary advantage. What they actually do is immaterial.


Occam's Razor is not the "grassy knoll" conspiracy theory. When faced with these two options:
1. A company doesn't realize they are somewhat paying for contraceptions until a law changes and forces them to look at their policy. Upon finding they were doing it all along, they decide to contest it on the grounds that it is against their religion.

2. That same company actually finds out about this 5-6 years ago but instead of contesting it at that point, they decide to allow it even though it's against their religion. Because they think in 5-7 years, a new law will come out they will disagree with and contesting then will get them more political capitol. So, they just bite their lip each year and watch employees buy contraception on their dime waiting for the big pounce they can make half a decade later.

If Hobby Lobby didn't do a comprehensive review of what was offered by their health insurance plan prior to ACA (and I think that's likely, a.k.a. your Option 1), then quite simply I don't think their opposition to the provision of contraception meets the bar for definition as a "strongly held belief".

To me, if it was a "strongly held belief", such a review would always have been in place. And happily, there are examples. Many religious non-profits operate in exactly this manner, because they do have "strongly held beliefs".

[Marc Vaughan]

I do wonder why Christians are so against gay marriage though?

Generally most religious people I find are dead 100% set against the 'sins' in the bible which they aren't likely to commit themselves.

As such many devout heterosexual men and women of God will often be found railing against homosexuality.

Similarly the majority of those railing against unmarried sex or contraception, abortion and suchlike are either married (and thus likely to want/have kids) or past their childbearing years.

The sins they're more likely to commit - lying and suchlike ... well everyone does those so they're not as important ... is those other sins which count honest ;)

[Noop]

You really haven't answered my questions, at all. But that's your right.

I do wonder why Christians are so against gay marriage though? The marriage we're talking about is defined by the State not by the Bible. Are you afraid you might have an inkling to take on some husky bear because you see two guys next door that are married and having fun?

Because they are closeted.

[flere-imsaho]

Let these people have their individual religious beliefs, just argue why their belief is worse for society and hope that they will alter their beliefs slightly over time as more things because universally accepted. This "going after religious people for being hypocrites" actually undermines the very good case often sitting right in front of everyone on issues of contraception, gay marriage rights and other social issues. Let everyone keep their religion as they see fit, argue the merits and see where that takes you. You'll find many religious people may not be as radical as you expect and might actually agree sometimes.

Based on the evidence in this thread I'd contend that "arguing why their belief is worse for society" is considered "going after religious people for being hypocrites".

[Arles]

You and molson continue to make the contention that if we only provide facts in a reasonable manner to religious people who shape legislative policy, they'll see the light and be reasonable. Despite all evidence to the contrary.
So, the religious people have "won" on issues like abortion, gay marriage and other contraception? My wife gets free contraception paid by my health care plan every month. I know of many people who have had abortions when they were younger by accredited professional doctors in a safe environment without fear of being arrested/attacked. There some states that already recognize gay marriage and more on the way.

Seems like the reasonable side is doing pretty well without needing to play some kind of muddled "hypocrite" card and focusing on why certain policies/stances are better for society. We are moving in the right direction socially and will continue to do so at a quick pace if we stick to the facts and stop taking pot shots at religious people who oppose it.

Again, the problem here is that from a precedent standpoint the bar for "strongly held beliefs" is set very low based on Hobby Lobby's actions. If HL had always, and consistently, restricted choice in their plans, that would be one thing. But based on their actions, "strongly held beliefs" basically means "whatever I say right now". And yes, I have a problem with that, because it means withholding a proven public health "good" (in both senses of the word) on the basis of belief alone.
OK, so it means "whatever I say now" - let's take the worst case (which I don't think is likely as I doubt they were just OK with it before the ACA). So a few companies like Hobby Lobby don't pay for birth control. What's the big deal - people know that going in and can decide if the other benefits they get (higher pay, good 401K, better other health benefits) are worth losing the $50-$70 a month on birth control. Where's the harm in that? It's not like Hobby Lobby is saying if you use any kind of birth control you can't work there. The job market is a changing environment and there may come a time whether other work places have the same pay/benefits, but cover birth control and some people choose to leave Hobby Lobby for that reason. I just don't see the "victims" here. If you make $300 more a month in pay/benefits working at Hobby Lobby over Target, but have to pay $50 for birth control - how are you worse off? If you are in a situation where it is more expensive, then you can easily find another company that covers it.

[Arles]

Based on the evidence in this thread I'd contend that "arguing why their belief is worse for society" is considered "going after religious people for being hypocrites".
No, they are completely different:

1. Hobby Lobby are hypocrites because they don't completely follow the Bible and didn't have a problem with paying for contraception before the ACA.

2. A major company not covering contraception in their health care policy is not a good thing for society. Most people that work hourly wages are younger (maybe even still in high school) and can't afford to support a child at this point in their life. Covering birth control makes it almost free for them to use and can help them avoid having kids out of wedlock and reduce the burden on society while also ensuring fewer kids are born into poverty.

Now, argument #1 may make self-righteous anti-religion people feel better about what they think is a "gotcha" moment. Still , argument #2 is much more persuasive and doesn't put religious people who may be conflicted about the issue on the defense. I'm just glad that people who really do argue for social policy change tend to use argument number 2 instead of Flere's approach in number 1 or we may not have all these progressive changes in this country that we currently enjoy.

[Suburban Rhythm]

FTR Jon, feel free to respond and I'll make no judgment on you with your answer. I'll be thinking back to a couple PMs we have exchanged fairly recently and absolutely no hard feelings, as I expressed then.

Honestly wasn't trying to cause any strife here. Just curious if everything that falls outside Jon's prescribed version of marriage is now not a marriage.

[flere-imsaho]

Now, argument #1 may make self-righteous anti-religion people feel better about what they think is a "gotcha" moment. Still , argument #2 is much more persuasive and doesn't put religious people who may be conflicted about the issue on the defense. I'm just glad that people who really do argue for social policy change tend to use argument number 2 instead of Flere's approach in number 1 or we may not have all these progressive changes in this country that we currently enjoy.

It's fun to make a caricature of me, but in general I promote more even-handed approaches. For instance, from 2008 (http://www.osatwork.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=1860337#post1860337):

Tangent: Politically, this is the problem. I'd guess the majority of the pro-choice crowd would be OK with a ban (or not seek to overturn such a ban) on 2nd/3rd trimester abortions were it not for the fact that the pro-life crowd would (and does) simply use such a ban as a foundation upon which to build support for a full ban (and abstinence-only sex education, and raising the age of consent, and a ban on some contraception methods, etc...). Conversely, I'd guess a large chunk of the pro-life crowd would be OK with a certain flexibility during the 1st trimester, especially in cases of rape, incest or severe medical danger to the mother, fetus or both, but will never agree to this since it's tacitly conceding defeat to a portion of the pro-choice crowd's argument.

In addition, I'm on record as saying single-payer would be a preferable system in part because it would completely remove the possibility of strongly held religious beliefs being compromised, which seems, to me, to be a relatively even-handed proposal.

Edit: In addition (x2), also when we previously discussed this, I think I said (though maybe I'm just saying it now), that it would have been preferable to use the religious non-profit solution, which is to have the contraceptives provided, but paid for by the insurance companies (which, btw, the insurance companies support as it saves them money in the long run). That's an easily-implemented and, seems to me, pretty fair solution.

[Arles]

I didn't check your entire resume of posts, I'm going on your arguments in this thread. Which, primarily, have been trying to portray Hobby Lobby and other religious people as hypocrites. If you don't want to be perceived as using this kind of argument, my advice is not to use it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Cheers for trying to explain it: the question was genuine - I deliberately used the third person in the question although I needed to quote your post to highlight what i was asking.

I'll be honest, still don't really get it as I don't have a strong religious belief to be offended in the same way, but it has cast a little light on it.

Then I've at least accomplished something :)

I don't know if I've ever once posted anything here looking to "convert" anybody to anything. If that happens, hey, great & all but it's never really my goal. I do, however, occasionally try to actually explain some p.o.v. as best I can (sometimes not even my own but rather one that I believe I have some understanding of). Nice to know that at least once in a while I manage to succeed :)

[molson]

There's a level of inconsistency here that's simply hard to fathom. If you can get by the above inconsistency, then you really have to ask how it's OK to invest in companies that make "morning after" pills, but do not provide coverage for their employees to buy them. Both actions result in the creation of the pills and enable their usage. These shouldn't be the kind of inconsistencies that are handwaved away.


As I've said, I don't think that's relevant to the legal issues at all, and that's why the government didn't even try to make that argument, but as a total aside, from the non-legal and just being consistent standpoint, do you invest in any mutual funds, and do make sure that all of companies that are part of those funds don't do anything you object to? At least in terms of the values you "strongly hold"? I think I admire people or businesses that would go that far, but I've never thought to do it. I'm sure there's companies all over my investments that pollute the earth, but I don't think that makes my opinions and values regarding the environment fraudulent or hypocritical. (And that's my own personal investments, as opposed to just an option I provide employees as a benefit.) I'm definitely not making as big a difference as I could, but that's true of many things I care about.

[flere-imsaho]

As I've said, I don't think that's relevant to the legal issues at all, and that's why the government didn't even try to make that argument,

Again, I agree.

but as a total aside, from the non-legal and just being consistent standpoint, do you invest in any mutual funds, and do make sure that all of companies that are part of those funds don't do anything you object to? At least in terms of the values you "strongly hold"?

No, but:

1. There's an order of magnitude difference between the amount I have to invest and the amount Hobby Lobby invests.

2. I'm not seeking an accommodation for my "strongly held beliefs" at the Supreme Court.

See? I can do grey areas!

[JonInMiddleGA]

As I've said, I don't think that's relevant to the legal issues at all, and that's why the government didn't even try to make that argument, but as a total aside, from the non-legal and just being consistent standpoint, do you invest in any mutual funds, and do make sure that all of companies that are part of those funds don't do anything you object to? At least in terms of the values you "strongly hold"? I think I admire people or businesses that would go that far, but I've never thought to do it. I'm sure there's companies all over my investments that pollute the earth, but I don't think that makes my opinions and values regarding the environment fraudulent or hypocritical. (And that's my own personal investments, as opposed to just an option I provide employees as a benefit.) I'm definitely not making as big a difference as I could, but that's true of many things I care about.

FWIW, I think of that sort of thing but it's incredibly difficult to 100% completely avoid stuff short of applying isolationism.

Look no further than my frequent trips to WDW for how values/reality find themselves in conflict.

It's a whole lot easier for me to avoid Burger King from now on than to deny
your kid their favorite place on the planet.

[Logan]

Honestly wasn't trying to cause any strife here. Just curious if everything that falls outside Jon's prescribed version of marriage is now not a marriage.

Yep and I just wanted to be clear that if Jon, or anyone else for that matter, feels like my marriage is a sham, it's okay. I'm genuinely curious to the answer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yep and I just wanted to be clear that if Jon, or anyone else for that matter, feels like my marriage is a sham, it's okay. I'm genuinely curious to the answer.

Apparently I've missed a question / post(s) somewhere. Lemme scroll through & see what's what here.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Okay, NOW I found the post in question. I totally missed this one at the time (and you're not even on ignore ;) ), didn't mean not to respond.

Genuinely curious...

Do you think Logan and his wife are married? As he described above, he did not have a "Christian" wedding.

What about couples- one man, one woman - who forgo a church wedding, but are wed by a JP? Married or no?

Or my parents - dad was raised Catholic, mom Jewish. Converted before marriage. Are they married?


In each & every instance you cite, there's a joining of a man & a woman by "the powers vested in officiant X" (okay, I'm assuming that Logan isn't gay & I've just totally missed that until now). That's "marriage".

I suspect the confusion here is that you've assumed ('cause I don't believe I've said such) more emphasis on the Christian ritual aspect of marriage than I actually apply to the situation.

Would I prefer that Logan, his wife, your Mom, 4 hypothetical atheists, 2 Hindus and a dozen Buddhists were all Christians instead? Yeah.

Does that have anything to do with whether I consider them legally/legitimately married? Nope.

Sidebar 1: my sister & b-in-law were married by a JP.
Sidebar 2: My wife & I married in Vegas by a presumably Christian minister of a fairly indeterminate brand name
Sidebar 3: I've been to a joint Catholic/Jewish wedding, a priest & a rabbi (they start out by saying that they are not part of any jokes) worked it as a tag-team. One of the most interesting weddings I've ever seen. Those two guys were like a well-oiled machine as they swapped back & forth tending to the various parts of the service.

And although nobody asked, there's a certain consistency I apply here. The other side of this question would seem to be the impact of weddings on how I view those officiating them. Bluntly, because I'm doing about 4 things at once while writing this: any individual church (as some denominations allow a local decision on the marriage topic) and/or any organized religion (such as the recent Presbyterian vote) that recognizes gay marriage as legitimate is one that I no longer recognize as having any legitimate claim to being "Christian".

[bhlloy]

Genuine question here (and one you may have answered before, if so apologies) - do you consider a church that accepts divorce or divorcees any less Christian?

That's my major hang up when I hear Christians reject gay marriage, I tend to think you have the right to practice and believe whatever the hell you want but that particular double standard does get me going a bit

[cartman]

Genuine question here (and one you may have answered before, if so apologies) - do you consider a church that accepts divorce or divorcees any less Christian?

That's my major hang up when I hear Christians reject gay marriage, I tend to think you have the right to practice and believe whatever the hell you want but that particular double standard does get me going a bit

That's why I had to chuckle a bit when the Church of England came out against same sex marriage because it 'redefined the definition of marriage'. I guess Henry VIII wasn't wanting to redefine marriage when he named himself head of the Church as much as he was just tweaking the settings.

[Umbrella]

Like I said before, not working on the Sabbath is suppose to come from God himself. He wrote it down and passed it onto us for some reason? Put it in the same text as murder and adultery. Seemed like it was mighty important to him.

Of course, we know the almighty dollar is far more important than most of the ten commandments.

I'm hesitant to get into this because it never seems to do any good. Yet against my better judgment... ;)

I think Mark 2:23-38 and Matthew 12:9-13 references what you are talking about. My take on it is that God wants us to set aside time to work on our relationship with Him. However, I think the passages listed shows there are exceptions to this. If you need to work on the Sabbath to support your family, or help support the community, it is OK. But it is still important to take time out of your schedule to build your relationship.

Is it as important as murder and adultery? To us, that seems a bit absurd. But we're not God, so who knows? My feeling is that building a strong relationship with God will help with the other things that even non-believers would say are important.

On the topic of homosexuality, I believe it is a sin. I also believe that lust is a sin, yet it is a sin I am guilty of. Is my sin worse than the sin of homosexuality in the eyes of God? I have no idea. That is why you won't find me protesting gay marriage. Even non-believers know "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I have my own issues that I need to improve on, and I'm not worthy to judge the sins of others.

I'm not an expert theologian by any stretch. But these are the types of topics I enjoy bringing up during bible studies.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Genuine question here (and one you may have answered before, if so apologies) - do you consider a church that accepts divorce or divorcees any less Christian?

That's my major hang up when I hear Christians reject gay marriage, I tend to think you have the right to practice and believe whatever the hell you want but that particular double standard does get me going a bit

Honestly not sure whether I've commented on this much or not, but it's a fair enough question.

First it seems worth noting that my own particular specific church background (i.e. my regional version of Baptist, NOT (in big ALL CAPS) Southern Baptist in the national brand name sense) does not accept divorced & remarried persons for membership. Not only that but any divorced member that remarries is basically kicked out in terms of membership. (I believe the official phrase is "the church withdraws fellowship", the common phrasing in my neck of the woods is "turned out"). For those unfamiliar with this, in our practice it doesn't mean they'll call the sheriff if you show up again, it means that you cannot participate in certain ritual aspects, such as communion.

Now, with that background, I have a slight disagreement with our brand's application of Matthew 5:31-32. I think I sort of have to quote scripture here, not for the purpose of converting anybody but simply so that I can point out the disagreement I have with what we do.

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

In short, my brand ignores the underlined part. I've always had an issue with the unwillingness to allow what I'll call some sort of "show cause" hearing, instead they avoid that unpleasantness & just bounce anybody who remarries.

My own personal belief is that if you're the wronged party (and give ample opportunity for reconciliation that is rejected) then you're in the clear on the remarriage issue. For the record, I did a good bit of reading & prayerful consideration on this subject many years ago when I was quite involved in church life as it played very heavily in the life of a friend. It's not as though it's something I've never considered nor watched play out first hand.

Okay, that's my personal take. How do I apply that to the bigger picture, both spiritually & practically?

Honestly, I'd have no problem with divorce being exceptionally difficult to legally obtain at best. It's far overused in contemporary society, it's a last resort not a first option afaic or at least should be.

Spiritually, I don't have as much issue with divorce as I do with remarriage after divorce. See the scripture above, that's where you get on some shaky ground with that. But by the same token I don't know (generally speaking) what led you there, I don't know the measures you've taken to attempt to save the marriage, I don't know whether you're covered under that particular exception.

I don't spend much time at all in obsessing over the subject spiritually one way or another because there are things in your situation I'm not privvy to ... but if you dumped wife #1 so you could marry up with way hotter wife #2, spiritually I think you're on enormously shaky ground & to be honest, we ain't likely to be sitting on the same pew each Sunday.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Okay, NOW I found the post in question. I totally missed this one at the time (and you're not even on ignore ;) ), didn't mean not to respond.

Must...try...harder...:p




In each & every instance you cite, there's a joining of a man & a woman by "the powers vested in officiant X" (okay, I'm assuming that Logan isn't gay & I've just totally missed that until now). That's "marriage".

I suspect the confusion here is that you've assumed ('cause I don't believe I've said such) more emphasis on the Christian ritual aspect of marriage than I actually apply to the situation.

Would I prefer that Logan, his wife, your Mom, 4 hypothetical atheists, 2 Hindus and a dozen Buddhists were all Christians instead? Yeah.

Does that have anything to do with whether I consider them legally/legitimately married? Nope.

Sidebar 1: my sister & b-in-law were married by a JP.
Sidebar 2: My wife & I married in Vegas by a presumably Christian minister of a fairly indeterminate brand name
Sidebar 3: I've been to a joint Catholic/Jewish wedding, a priest & a rabbi (they start out by saying that they are not part of any jokes) worked it as a tag-team. One of the most interesting weddings I've ever seen. Those two guys were like a well-oiled machine as they swapped back & forth tending to the various parts of the service.

And although nobody asked, there's a certain consistency I apply here. The other side of this question would seem to be the impact of weddings on how I view those officiating them. Bluntly, because I'm doing about 4 things at once while writing this: any individual church (as some denominations allow a local decision on the marriage topic) and/or any organized religion (such as the recent Presbyterian vote) that recognizes gay marriage as legitimate is one that I no longer recognize as having any legitimate claim to being "Christian".

I think...no I know you are an intelligent guy. So while I'm getting why you personally don't believe in it, I don't think you've answered why it should not be allowed. I don't think people should smoke cigarettes. Ever. But as long as it's not directly affecting me, not sure my feelings have any merit.

So my followup is...what if they don't care to be "Christian"? Why does a couple who doesn't care if their marriage is viewed as legit by the Christian church care what Christians have to say?

What if BleepBloop says any two people who are in love can marry? And two men practice BleepBloop and want to spend their lives together. Why can't they be married by whatever official presides over a BleepBloopian wedding?

Hell...BleepBloop might already exist and I don't know. I do know, those two being married in the BleepBloop church doesn't change my Christian marriage, so why do I care? I don't

[Logan]

In each & every instance you cite, there's a joining of a man & a woman by "the powers vested in officiant X" (okay, I'm assuming that Logan isn't gay & I've just totally missed that until now). That's "marriage".

...

Sidebar 1: my sister & b-in-law were married by a JP.


Sorry to get nitpicky, but I'm really trying to follow your thoughts...since you used that word, you do consider your sister and your brother in law to have a "marriage", correct? I believe you're saying that a government official is an officiant but just want to be sure.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't think people should smoke cigarettes. Ever. But as long as it's not directly affecting me, not sure my feelings have any merit.

And yet we see actions of that sort enforced routinely.

So my followup is...what if they don't care to be "Christian"?

Then I'll pray for 'em (generally if not specifically, I mean, I can't literally know everybody

Why does a couple who doesn't care if their marriage is viewed as legit by the Christian church care what Christians have to say?

{shrug} Maybe they don't ... doesn't prevent me from believing they should.
And doesn't make me any less concerned by the attempt to legitimize sin.

It's probably worthwhile to remember that this IS me you're talking to. The only thing that prevents me from openly advocating a theocracy is the minor niggle that I don't have the power (yet) to define what the precise tenets of the ruling faith are.

I'm an authoritarian, and specifically one that cares naught about concepts like "rights of the majority vs rights of the minority". I care about the triumph of good over evil (or even over "not good") & ultimately the sole Earthly arbiter of which is which is me (within the confines of my interpretation of God's definition of same).

[Suburban Rhythm]

And yet we see actions of that sort enforced routinely.

Not, to my knowledge, in their own home.



Then I'll pray for 'em (generally if not specifically, I mean, I can't literally know everybody



{shrug} Maybe they don't ... doesn't prevent me from believing they should.
And doesn't make me any less concerned by the attempt to legitimize sin.

It's probably worthwhile to remember that this IS me you're talking to. The only thing that prevents me from openly advocating a theocracy is the minor niggle that I don't have the power (yet) to define what the precise tenets of the ruling faith are.

I'm an authoritarian, and specifically one that cares naught about concepts like "rights of the majority vs rights of the minority". I care about the triumph of good over evil (or even over "not good") & ultimately the sole Earthly arbiter of which is which is me (within the confines of my interpretation of God's definition of same).

Bolded is still my sticking point. And this is coming from a (maybe poorly?) practicing Catholic.

If the two people in question don't believe in your God, and therefore don't believe in your definition of sin, they frankly don't care what you think.

While I understand the desire to have everything "your way", you also have to be able to understand that's never going to happen.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Not, to my knowledge, in their own home

I was thinking publicly there.

If the two people in question don't believe in your God, and therefore don't believe in your definition of sin, they frankly don't care what you think.

But I don't care that they don't care, if you follow me here. Again, the only thing that prevents me from being a full-on theocracist (maybe not a word but you know what I mean) is details, not concept.


While I understand the desire to have everything "your way", you also have to be able to understand that's never going to happen.

Doesn't make it less of a worthy goal however. I'll never be perfect, never manage to live even a full day without some sin, some error somewhere. Doesn't mean I shouldn't try to come as close as possible. Heck, remove the spiritual aspect entirely, same principle. Because a pitcher is highly unlikely to throw a perfect game every time out, do we expect him to just lob the ball to the plate without a care?

While not quite an epiphany (since I already knew it) this actually reminds me of a workplace incident many years ago. I'm a young supervisor, dealing with an even younger employee

Him: You expect us to be perfect.
Me: No, I expect you to want to be.

That really sums up a really big part of my entire philosophy on life.

[Brian Swartz]

Because that is something that they might want to do someday. It's the same reason you don't hear a ton of uproar over premarital sex. Or getting divorced. Or having pre-marital sex. Or eating bacon and shellfish. Or wearing gold.

If I like something, that part of the Bible doesn't count.

This is the kind of argument all too often made by people who(usually) don't really know the Bible much at all. Not that a non-Christian should required to be a biblical theologian of course, but it would be a nice step in the direction of civility if a basic effort to understand the core beliefs of one's rhetorical opponents were to be engaged in. In this case, some of the ceremonial OT laws were specifically rendered obsolete in the NT by Jesus himself, so it's not necessarily -- though certainly it can be for individuals -- a case of cherrypicking, self-justification, or cafeteria Christianity to not concern oneself with them anymore. The 'bacon and
shellfish' example is specifically on point here.

Not everyone who is part of a specific religion needs to accept 100% of the history of that religion to not be a hypocrite. That's my biggest beef in all this.

I think it's on the individual as to what aspects of the Bible they can "massage" and still be consistent with that religion's message.

A lot of Christians are a lot more inspired by the Jesus and the Gospels and not so much the old jewish law which includes a ton of stuff beyond the Commandments.

There are other examples in the thread, but I really don't get the above lines of thinking. Based on what can individuals defining their beliefs in such situations be defined as 'Christian'? It seems to me to be a tortured and twisted definition of the term such that 'Christian' need not be associated with what the man known in the Bible as Jesus the Christ actually taught. I could with equal credibility in my mind call myself an orangutan. Regardless of how convinced I might be of it, it would most certainly not be true :).

Inasmuch as Jesus specifically validated all of the OT(and did so at the beginning of his most well-known address, in the most unambiguous terms possible), someone who isn't really interested in 'the old jewish law' isn't really interested in Jesus either, by definition. Furthermore, Jesus was rather repeatedly emphatic that those who love and follow him are those who obey him, so if someone is willing to 'massage' his teachings to fit modern culture/sensibilities or they simply have found the hard teachings therein incompatible with their desire to live in convenience, well, Jesus rather specifically addressed that as well and his words for that idea and concept were not welcoming, to put it mildly.

Such people may be things that many consider noble. They might be religious, spiritual, great neighbors and family men, moral in many ways, but it's an absurd bastardization of the term to refer to them as 'Christian' -- and a great distortion of and insult to Jesus to do so as well.

[molson]

This is the kind of argument all too often made by people who(usually) don't really know the Bible much at all. Not that a non-Christian should required to be a biblical theologian of course, but it would be a nice step in the direction of civility if a basic effort to understand the core beliefs of one's rhetorical opponents were to be engaged in. In this case, some of the ceremonial OT laws were specifically rendered obsolete in the NT by Jesus himself, so it's not necessarily -- though certainly it can be for individuals -- a case of cherrypicking, self-justification, or cafeteria Christianity to not concern oneself with them anymore. The 'bacon and
shellfish' example is specifically on point here.

There are other examples in the thread, but I really don't get the above lines of thinking. Based on what can individuals defining their beliefs in such situations be defined as 'Christian'? It seems to me to be a tortured and twisted definition of the term such that 'Christian' need not be associated with what the man known in the Bible as Jesus the Christ actually taught. I could with equal credibility in my mind call myself an orangutan. Regardless of how convinced I might be of it, it would most certainly not be true :).

Inasmuch as Jesus specifically validated all of the OT(and did so at the beginning of his most well-known address, in the most unambiguous terms possible), someone who isn't really interested in 'the old jewish law' isn't really interested in Jesus either, by definition. Furthermore, Jesus was rather repeatedly emphatic that those who love and follow him are those who obey him, so if someone is willing to 'massage' his teachings to fit modern culture/sensibilities or they simply have found the hard teachings therein incompatible with their desire to live in convenience, well, Jesus rather specifically addressed that as well and his words for that idea and concept were not welcoming, to put it mildly.

Such people may be things that many consider noble. They might be religious, spiritual, great neighbors and family men, moral in many ways, but it's an absurd bastardization of the term to refer to them as 'Christian' -- and a great distortion of and insult to Jesus to do so as well.

So we need to obey all those rants Jesus made against homesexuality. Could you tell me where those were again?

[molson]

http://atheistpictures.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/stutter.jpg

[ISiddiqui]

Well, let's be fair, Jesus encapsulated His teachings into loving God and loving your neighbors. I think there is wiggle room there.

In addition, what is the point for sending the Holy Spirit to help us, if it was all said back then?

One may, if one wanted to, say that ending slavery is 'massag[ing]' His (or at least, St. Paul's) teachings to fit in modern culture, no?

[Desnudo]

I strongly believe Tony Dungy and Michael Sam should be allowed to marry.

[Brian Swartz]

Jesus encapsulated His teachings into loving God and loving your neighbors. I think there is wiggle room there.

He certainly did. If someone wants to make an argument that their application of those concepts is better or more accurate than mine, I'm all for that and there are certainly people who better understand what he taught than me. The key thing though is they need to base it on everything he said, not just the parts they like. The statements my last post responded to were instead dismissing parts they don't like(such as the entire OT). that's something else entirely.

For example ...

we need to obey all those rants Jesus made against homesexuality. Could you tell me where those were again?

There aren't any, but he did specifically affirm the marriage institution as described in Genesis and the OT itself, both of which bear significantly on the subject. Those need to be dealt with, as well as the statements of Paul who was Jesus' hand-picked missionary to deliver his gospel to the broader Gentile world.

I've seen the picture you posted before, and I'll just say that it raises some questions. I know how I'd answer them, but as mentioned above I'm open to different answers. If someone is a Christian, they need to answer them in some way though. A couple of those questions:

** Shortly after saying 'judge not, lest you be judged', Jesus told the crowd to 'judge with righteous judgement'. Was he contradicting himself? If not, what did he mean?

** How does telling the Pharisees that they are 'sons of hell', a 'brood of vipers', and 'sons of their father the devil', calling them out publicly for things that they had merely thought but not said, etc. fit into the concept of what Jesus meant when he commanded that we are to love others? Is our concept of love and the one he defined in his biblical teachings the same, or does it differ in significant respects?

ending slavery is 'massag[ing]' His (or at least, St. Paul's) teachings to fit in modern culture, no?

Rather than get into a long discussion of this nuanced issue, I'll just say that in any such issue, when someone reaches the point of deciding what the Bible should say or shoehorning in their own meaning to unsupporting texts/ignoring those texts, the religion is no longer Christianity but Humanism. Erecting ourselves as our own God, defining our one moral compass as right and using whatever support from sacred teachings we can find to support it is one thing: allowing the Bible to sit in judgement of our opinions, behaviors, beliefs, and lifestyle is another.

[Blackadar]

Stephen Eric Bronner&rsquo;s The Bigot: Why Prejudice Persists, reviewed. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/07/29/stephen_eric_bronner_s_the_bigot_why_prejudice_persists_reviewed.html)

If you’ve spent much time debating LGBTQ issues with conservatives—especially deeply religious ones—this may ring a bell. The rise of marriage equality has thrust traditionalists, especially Southern Baptists and orthodox Catholics, into a panicky tailspin composed of equal parts anger and confusion. Their protean case against gay marriage shifts to fit the needs of each new stage of battle. Increasingly barred by basic decency from labeling gays immoral or disgusting, they now obsess over the institution of marriage itself. It’s not the tradition of anti-gay animus that they’re defending; it’s simply the tradition of opposite-sex marriage. No matter that those who attack gay marriage today attacked gay people yesterday.

Resisting bigotry involves clarifying the prejudices and privileges masked in policy debates so that everyday people can evaluate them appropriately. It also means holding those who disadvantage [minorities] and serve the bigot’s interests morally accountable. Too much hand-wringing has taken place over whether this or that person is really a bigot deep in his heart.

[ISiddiqui]

I actually took a bunch of classes under Professor Bronner at Rutgers. He was quite a friendly and brilliant man (He know I was a Republican and never, ever gave me any gruff for it, though he was a Socialist). Although he was fairly pompous as well - I liked him anyways.

[ISiddiqui]

Rather than get into a long discussion of this nuanced issue, I'll just say that in any such issue, when someone reaches the point of deciding what the Bible should say or shoehorning in their own meaning to unsupporting texts/ignoring those texts, the religion is no longer Christianity but Humanism. Erecting ourselves as our own God, defining our one moral compass as right and using whatever support from sacred teachings we can find to support it is one thing: allowing the Bible to sit in judgement of our opinions, behaviors, beliefs, and lifestyle is another.

My argument is this: that like in slavery, you had people saying that the new school (abolition) was deciding what the Bible should say based on modern morality, when the Bible was "clear" that slavery was ok and that there was definitely ignoring of those texts by the abolition folks.

FWIW, Humanism was actually created under Christianity - Erasmus and all that.

I believe in gay marriage not because the culture has told me that's moral, but because I believe that GOD has told me that it is moral and just. I didn't believe in gay marriage until I became a Christian and I became convicted following that.

[timmae]

Been lurking and just wanted to say thanks to all for trying to provide definition as to why they believe certain things... it has helped me define my stance on the issues as well. Bravo..

[molson]

I wonder if Professor Bronner finds whatever he would identify as "moral bigotry" regarding the opposition of gay marriage as better, worse, or the same as other more failings like committing violent crimes, or stealing.

Because "holding people accountable" is not usually a liberal and/or socialist talking point, at least in the mainstream. It's generally something that is much concern to a more conservative way of thinking. The general liberal mindset is more likely to see those thieves and violent criminals as products of an unjust system. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but from a criminal justice perspective, that's a common tension - between those who want punishment, who see the perpetrators as flawed people who need to be punished v. those who see many criminals as economic victims who are mistreated by the system, etc. It's a good tension, because it keeps either side from going too far. It's just interesting to me that when it comes to "bigotry", suddenly, for that left way of thinking, it's more a black/white good and evil thing. That's what the bigot label is all about, it minimizes people into these caricatures.

[flere-imsaho]

I became convicted following that.

Tell me more.

:p

[ISiddiqui]

Christian jargon

[ISiddiqui]

Because "holding people accountable" is not usually a liberal and/or socialist talking point, at least in the mainstream.

You have not met many socialists ;). They want to hold EVERYONE who contributes to the crimes of capitalism accountable it seems.

[molson]

You have not met many socialists ;). They want to hold EVERYONE who contributes to the crimes of capitalism accountable it seems.

Fair enough, I'm more familiar with the "liberal" mindset in the criminal justice system. I'm not sure what socialists generally think about crime.

[ISiddiqui]

You have heard the half-joking "They'll be first up against the wall", right? :)

[flere-imsaho]

So, non-mainstream socialists hold people accountable (per ISiddiqui), but mainstream socialists don't (per molson)?

Who are the mainstream socialists, btw?

[flere-imsaho]

Because "holding people accountable" is not usually a liberal and/or socialist talking point, at least in the mainstream. It's generally something that is much concern to a more conservative way of thinking. The general liberal mindset is more likely to see those thieves and violent criminals as products of an unjust system. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but from a criminal justice perspective, that's a common tension - between those who want punishment, who see the perpetrators as flawed people who need to be punished v. those who see many criminals as economic victims who are mistreated by the system, etc. It's a good tension, because it keeps either side from going too far. It's just interesting to me that when it comes to "bigotry", suddenly, for that left way of thinking, it's more a black/white good and evil thing. That's what the bigot label is all about, it minimizes people into these caricatures.

Put more simply, you'd assert there's essentially a sliding scale for bigotry, correct?

[JonInMiddleGA]

So, non-mainstream socialists hold people accountable (per ISiddiqui), but mainstream socialists don't (per molson)?

Who are the mainstream socialists, btw?

Shall I include a list of (D) member of Congress or can we just stipulate?

[molson]

I don't even know if the term "socialist" is relevant in a criminal justice context. I just know that police and prosecutors and state governments are often attacked by people I perceive to be on the "left", who have much sympathy for those who commit crimes and see many of them as victims of an unjust system, and also attacked by people I perceive to be on the "right", who think those entities are too soft on crime, and that criminals are broken people that we need to be protected from. When it comes to "bigotry" though, particularly in the context of opposing gay marriage - you don't get that same kind of tone from the left. Like, Professor Bronner said, the attitude seems more to be just about a desire to judge and minimize, and that we actively should not see these individuals as people.

[molson]

Put more simply, you'd assert there's essentially a sliding scale for bigotry, correct?

Nope. I'm just wondering why someone, let's take a specific friend of mine who is high up in the ACLU here, would see a violent criminal as someone who is a product of economic injustice who is being railroaded by the system, but that someone who opposes gay marriage is a nonredeemable bigot who is simply evil to the core and needs to minimized from society.

This is what I and Arles were talking about earlier, in trying to promote and encourage moderation, a move away from the extremes. I think there's people that really like the idea of a black and white world, some like to see crime that way, and some like to see morals and bigotry that way. My view of "Christianity" (which was shot down a few posts ago as being un-Christian) would be having compassion for and trying understand both.

[flere-imsaho]

Shall I include a list of (D) member of Congress or can we just stipulate?

If you think you can shed your normal biases and identify members of Congress who are a) actually socialist and b) "mainstream" (however we want to define that), I'd certainly be willing to listen.

[flere-imsaho]

Nope. I'm just wondering why someone, let's take a specific friend of mine who is high up in the ACLU here, would see a violent criminal as someone who is a product of economic injustice who is being railroaded by the system, but that someone who opposes gay marriage is a nonredeemable bigot who is simply evil to the core and needs to minimized from society.

Is this an actual example, or one you're making up?

If it's an actual example, then I'd contend a person with such a stark black-and-white view of the world is likely an outlier, and by extrapolating such a caricature (albeit a self-made one) to a group of people as a whole, you minimize that group (in this case "liberals" or "socialists") as, again, a caricature. Which is what I thought you were trying to avoid.

[molson]

Is this an actual example, or one you're making up?

If it's an actual example, then I'd contend a person with such a stark black-and-white view of the world is likely an outlier, and by extrapolating such a caricature (albeit a self-made one) to a group of people as a whole, you minimize that group (in this case "liberals" or "socialists") as, again, a caricature. Which is what I thought you were trying to avoid.

I tried, desperately, to avoid this same old attack from you by specifically saying that I didn't think either side was wrong in that tension, and in fact, it was great that that tension existed, because it kept either side from going to far.

[flere-imsaho]

When it comes to "bigotry" though, particularly in the context of opposing gay marriage - you don't get that same kind of tone from the left. Like, Professor Bronner said, the attitude seems more to be just about a desire to judge and minimize, and that we actively should not see these individuals as people.

The same could be said for various closely-held beliefs of the right, would you not agree?

[NobodyHere]

I'll go with senator Bernie Sanders, probably not as mainstream as you're looking for but he did get 71% of the vote in 2012 as an Independent.

[flere-imsaho]

I tried, desperately, to avoid this same old attack from you by specifically saying that I didn't think either side was wrong in that tension, and in fact, it was great that that tension existed, because it kept either side from going to far.

You don't find it interesting that in the examples you habitually use, the actor you choose to describe in detail, to use as illustrative of your argument, tends to be a caricature from the left?

BTW, I'm fine with your description of the "tension on both sides" and am in agreement with your conclusion. I just continue to be curious about your predilection for calling out liberal caricatures in your arguments. In this case, for instance, it didn't even seem necessary.

If it annoys you, just ignore my line of questioning.

[flere-imsaho]

I'll go with senator Bernie Sanders, probably not as mainstream as you're looking for but he did get 71% of the vote in 2012 as an Independent.

Sanders would be the obvious candidate, of course, although I rather doubt he'd be considered "mainstream" to the U.S. as a whole and him getting 71% is likely more a factor of longtime incumbency, though I wouldn't argue the point that he's "mainstream" for Vermont.

So, with those caveats. That's one "mainstream" socialists.

[JediKooter]

Nope. I'm just wondering why someone, let's take a specific friend of mine who is high up in the ACLU here, would see a violent criminal as someone who is a product of economic injustice who is being railroaded by the system, but that someone who opposes gay marriage is a nonredeemable bigot who is simply evil to the core and needs to minimized from society.

This is what I and Arles were talking about earlier, in trying to promote and encourage moderation, a move away from the extremes. I think there's people that really like the idea of a black and white world, some like to see crime that way, and some like to see morals and bigotry that way. My view of "Christianity" (which was shot down a few posts ago as being un-Christian) would be having compassion for and trying understand both.

There could be some cognitive bias going on with your ACLU friend?

[molson]

You don't find it interesting that in the examples you habitually use, the actor you choose to describe in detail, to use as illustrative of your argument, tends to be a caricature from the left?

BTW, I'm fine with your description of the "tension on both sides" and am in agreement with your conclusion. I just continue to be curious about your predilection for calling out liberal caricatures in your arguments. In this case, for instance, it didn't even seem necessary.

If it annoys you, just ignore my line of questioning.

I don't think its a caricature, it's a real tension. I don't find the "left" or the "right" inherently superior. I just find it interesting where those pure political philosophies fall when applied to real-life things, especially where they seem to go in different directions when you switch around the topics. I don't think that's hypocritical, I don't think that's "wrong" in any way, I just find it interesting, and I think there's some understanding that can be gained by trying to sort that stuff out.

Edit: Are you different than my "caricature"? How do you see those who oppose gay marriage? As bigots? I know what you think of the hobby lobby. And where do you stand on say, the strength of the 4th amendment when it comes to prosecuting crimes? About the harshness of criminal penalties generally? Where am I so off base with the general observations about tensions?

[flere-imsaho]

I know what you think of the hobby lobby.

I would be interested in how you would articulate what I think of the Hobby Lobby ruling, without looking at my previous posts.

[flere-imsaho]

Anyway, I think what people are looking at as a black-and-white stance (let's say on the use of the word "bigot") is the result rather than the intention of the person making that judgment call.

To me, the intention of people who end up calling anti-gay-rights people "bigots" is to have a particularly low bar for defining someone as a bigot. You seen this with many strongly-held beliefs across the spectrum. Take the right's view of the word "Patriot", for example, neatly encapsulated by Bush's "you're either with us or against us" announcement.

The word, then, in common usage, becomes shorthand as a pejorative for the "other side", even if the speaker fully understands there's still a sliding scale involved. Which is why, again, I caution against thinking that the use of the word alone connotes a black-and-white worldview on a particular topic.

[Blackadar]

I wonder if Professor Bronner finds whatever he would identify as "moral bigotry" regarding the opposition of gay marriage as better, worse, or the same as other more failings like committing violent crimes, or stealing.

Every one of the acts you described is not voluntary between consenting adults where the activity endangers no one.

[molson]

Well, what do you think. Would you call them bigots, and what does that word mean to you?

Do you think the Giants should have hired David Tyree? Some didn't.

New York Giants drop the ball with David Tyree hire - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york-giants/post/_/id/37199/david-tyree-hire-a-bad-move-for-giants)

Human Rights Campaign blasts New York Giants' hiring of David Tyree - ESPN New York (http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/11249783/human-rights-campaign-blasts-new-york-giants-hiring-david-tyree)

So he gets hired, and is now, at least outwardly, trying to proclaim his tolerance. He says he's changed his mind about a lot of things over the years. He says he'd have no issue with a gay player on the team. Great. I'm sure he had to make those kind of assurances to the Giants, at least on the last part. Still though, once he was labeled as anti-gay, there are some that just wanted him minimized and to never get hired.

[molson]

Every one of the acts you described is not voluntary between consenting adults where the activity endangers no one.

Agree, but that has nothing to do with the point I made.

Edit: Actually it was a question rather than a point, because I really know nothing about socialism. I just imagined that professor to be like almost every college and law professor that I've ever had, that would see violent crime as a product of economic and racial injustice. He would rant against the government and the system and capitalism - not the individual. And he'd have a lot of great points. But when it comes to bigotry, clearly, he doesn't want any "hand-wringing over whether this or that person is really a bigot deep in his heart." We need to hold those people individually "morally accountable" (whatever that means - I think it's minimizing them ala not hiring David Tyree, etc.). When it comes to opposition to gay marriage, he would not blame any system, he would not blame someone's background, he would not blame broad societal injustice. If someone opposes gay marriage, it's the individual that's the problem. I'm not saying those things are hypocritical, or even inconsistent. But as I've said, being involved in a field that faces many attacks from college professors and others I perceive to be on the "left", to me, it really stands out to me when that "left" seems to go in a totally different direction.

[molson]

Dola, I think we should try to be welcoming and understanding, to see the reasons why people are the way they are, and especially, encourage people to become more moderate. I've seen lots of peoples' views on gay marriage and homosexuality soften just by being around gay people and realizing they're not that scary. When someone has the courage to come out of the closet to their family, sometimes the family casts them off, but sometimes the family gets the hell over it. When the latter happens, we get societal progress. That's harder to to if we label all these people as bigots and try to minimize them and deny them jobs, etc. (And I'm open to the idea that when people use the word "bigot", I hear it as more harsh than they intend it.)

And to tie things in with the last post, I definitely lean on the side of wanting to be more harsh on criminals, so I maybe just want to see all of that liberal feel-good stuff that opposes me in that sphere apply here, when it comes to this other moral failing of being ignorant when it comes to homosexuality. If we can "fix" most of those criminals, we sure as hell can "fix" at least some of this ignorance. (And I actually believe it's much easier to change the latter, just because I've seen it happen more often).

[JonInMiddleGA]

If you think you can shed your normal biases and identify members of Congress who are a) actually socialist and b) "mainstream" (however we want to define that), I'd certainly be willing to listen.

I was strictly going for humor there. Carry on.

[Brian Swartz]

My argument is this: that like in slavery, you had people saying that the new school (abolition) was deciding what the Bible should say based on modern morality, when the Bible was "clear" that slavery was ok and that there was definitely ignoring of those texts by the abolition folks.

I understand that, I just don't think it's helpful to this discussion to get into who was right and wrong on the slavery issue. My view on the fundamental point(that the view of/approach to the Bible is what's paramount) stands.

I believe in gay marriage not because the culture has told me that's moral, but because I believe that GOD has told me that it is moral and just. I didn't believe in gay marriage until I became a Christian and I became convicted following that.

At this point then I would simply have similar questions to those I asked Molson a bit ago. And as mentioned it's far more important that we have honest answers to these than we have the same answers, since we aren't talking about a non-essential pillar of the faith by any means.

** In what way did God tell you this?
** How does it square with OT teachings on homosexuality, or with those of Paul?
** What did Jesus mean when he affirmed the Genesis model of marriage, or is this irrelevant for some reason?

Etc.

[ISiddiqui]

I understand that, I just don't think it's helpful to this discussion to get into who was right and wrong on the slavery issue. My view on the fundamental point(that the view of/approach to the Bible is what's paramount) stands.

Au contraire - of course its helpful when people speak of adding or changing Scripture. Anti-Slavery readings of Scripture were attacked in the same ways. No wonder it makes the accusers of conforming Scripture to modern mores uncomfortable.

** In what way did God tell you this?
** How does it square with OT teachings on homosexuality, or with those of Paul?
** What did Jesus mean when he affirmed the Genesis model of marriage, or is this irrelevant for some reason?

The Old Testament and New Testament teachings on homosexuality are based upon a different era and understanding of the nature of homosexuality. In that era, it was assumed that homosexuality was simply a product of unchecked lust and in Greek culture, the dominant male was fully within his rights to make a subservient male, whether a boy or slave submit to his sexual lusts. There was absolutely no notion or concept of sexual orientation or monogamous same-sex loving couples based on equality in their relationship.

Secondly Jesus's "affirming of the Genesis model" is bogus. Jesus was speaking about divorce. And was answering a question asked about whether or not people of God could divorce. His referencing of Genesis was in that context and spoken to the people of Israel in a way they could understand why Jesus was not allowing of divorce. Nothing was indicated that this was marriage and people who use this example are doing the changing to Scriptures to conform to their own biases.

Furthermore, unless you are Catholic, I'm thinking that your church allows for divorced people to worship at the altar? Even though Jesus has forbidden it? Or could it be that He was speaking for a specific era? In the same way, Paul not directly challenging the institution of slavery? Or telling Corinthian women to be silent in Church? These things are based upon a certain context that we realize is not for all people forever (well, unless you are Catholic or some fundamentalist Protestants when it comes to the divorce and women preaching thing).

In God telling me or others moral things - have you never been convicted by the Spirit? Has your conscious not gripped you in prayer or worship? Have you never been pushed or shoved by God?

[Brian Swartz]

Au contraire - of course its helpful when people speak of adding or changing Scripture. Anti-Slavery readings of Scripture were attacked in the same ways. No wonder it makes the accusers of conforming Scripture to modern mores uncomfortable.

The only people I 'accused' of doing that were people who overtly stated that was their approach. I try to avoid accusing people of conforming Scripture based soley on what their doctrinal position is simply because due to our human frailties different people see the same text differently, and I'm not comfortable claiming I'm more pious or knowledgeable than someone else. Regardless I still fail to see how the debate over who was right or wrong in abolition has anything to do with the subject of this thread: people have made scriptural arguments back and forth on a variety of issues and will continue to do so, but whether the issue is slavery or indulgences or the papacy or whatever, one issue is not necessary related to the others.

Nothing was indicated that this was marriage and people who use this example are doing the changing to Scriptures to conform to their own biases.

I'm glad you've put a lot of consideration into these things. At this point you are overreaching however, and I'll just point out that I don't see any way Mark 10:6 fits into your description of this text, and Jesus' blanket endorsement of the OT including the Genesis model makes the specifics of Mark 10 merely redundant. Even if you think it does, you might want to consider the possibility that your description here of people taking a contrary view is inaccurate and unfair. I'll also mention briefly that re: homosexuality there are many other concepts complete contrary to culture that the Bible not only mentions but overtly teaches, so because of that I find that explanation of Paul's writings completely unconvincing.

I'm thinking that your church allows for divorced people to worship at the altar?

We don't have an altar to worship at, but yes we do allow it. Those who divorce willfully without being willing to reconcile are removed from membership.

Or could it be that He was speaking for a specific era?

It could be, but I'd say the burden of proof decidedly is upon those claiming it's only era-specific, absent any biblical evidence to the contrary.

In God telling me or others moral things - have you never been convicted by the Spirit? Has your conscious not gripped you in prayer or worship? Have you never been pushed or shoved by God?

Of course, but by definition he never does so by contradicting Scripture, so fidelity to the Bible is how we must test the spirits in this case. I have also been deceived in thinking I was being convicted by the Spirit on something when in fact I was merely being neurotic or emotional, and of course people over history have felt led in completely opposite directions. Diametrically opposed propositions cannot both simultaneously be true, revealing the need for a standard by which such things must be judged.

FWIW I have tried to get to the point of being pro-gay marriage etc. as I think there are times when it becomes an obstacle to the gospel, particularly in our cultural environment. I certainly don't want to add anything human into the way. I can't get there, I think the Bible is quite unambiguous on the subject, but I do view it as definitely a non-essential, so not something I wish to be contentious about in terms of saying someone is being unchristian simply because they believe differently than I do.

[ISiddiqui]

one issue is not necessary related to the others.

I'll just point out that I don't see any way Mark 10:6 fits into your description of this text

I find this to be ironic.

FWIW, I also find it cherry picking a verse out from its context. The slavery discussion matters a great deal here. Because it is quite clearly a case where the interpretive viewpoint quite clearly indicated that slavery was ok under Biblical reading at some point. And then people decided, no, slavery was NOT ok to God. Interestingly, the first Christians who decided this were Catholics, who also had their Tradition to fall back upon. Protestants were the ones who rejected an anti-slavery reading to Scripture until forced to in the 1800s. And even then, you had Protestants vs. Protestants. And the ones dedicated to the status quo kept saying the abolitionists were conforming to the times rather than to what Scripture plainly says. How do you get around "slaves obey your masters" (the abolitionist retort, of course, was... interesting for this discussion... read further in the Epistle and think deeper about what that means)

In addition, no one is denying that God made men and women ;).

and Jesus' blanket endorsement of the OT including the Genesis model makes the specifics of Mark 10 merely redundant.

As indicated, you are cherry picking a verse out of its context. What, you thought that conservatives didn't do such things? I find Biblical conservatives to be some of the worst at cherry picking (even worse than Biblical liberals, who are fairly bad at it as well). As the famous quote goes: "I take the Bible too seriously to take it all literally" - the way to take the Bible to is to take it all seriously and struggle with all the passages and find out what God is trying to do - not say, ok, this jives with what I want and ignore what doesn't (which, once again both Biblical conservatives and liberals do in spades).

Also Jesus's "blanket endorsement" also included violating the Sabbath (at least under the view of the Pharisees) - a complete no-no under the Old Testament.

We don't have an altar to worship at, but yes we do allow it. Those who divorce willfully without being willing to reconcile are removed from membership.

Why do you allow something which is quite clearly against the words of Jesus?

It could be, but I'd say the burden of proof decidedly is upon those claiming it's only era-specific, absent any biblical evidence to the contrary.

The Scripture text was written 2000 years ago in a completely different time and era than we have at current. We need context for books written 100 years ago because they lived in a completely different time and took different things for granted. Why do Christians eat pork and shellfish? Is it because those proscriptions in the Law for a specific era, prior to the coming to the Messiah? Why is the NT, on only sex issues, so different?

Of course, but by definition he never does so by contradicting Scripture, so fidelity to the Bible is how we must test the spirits in this case.

Of course and my reading of the Bible tells me that loving others is the highest aim of being a disciple of Christ. That when people wanted to follow the Law to the letter, Jesus came and preached love. The Pharisees were CORRECT in their reading of the Law that an adulteress should be stoned to death (there is no other way to read the Torah on this matter). But Jesus said God's love and charity supersedes the Law's proscriptions.

There is plenty that was stated should be done in the Old Testament or even the New Testament that we believe was for that era - not eating pork, not eating shellfish, killing adulterers, mandating the rapists should marry their rapees (mandated for a very good reason in that time, mind), forbidden divorce except in cases of adultery, etc.

Not only am I sure that God's love and charity is for homosexual men and women to be embraced by the Church, but that His loving desire is for homosexual men and women to be able to be bound together in Holy matrimony in front of Him.

[RainMaker]

This is the kind of argument all too often made by people who(usually) don't really know the Bible much at all. Not that a non-Christian should required to be a biblical theologian of course, but it would be a nice step in the direction of civility if a basic effort to understand the core beliefs of one's rhetorical opponents were to be engaged in. In this case, some of the ceremonial OT laws were specifically rendered obsolete in the NT by Jesus himself, so it's not necessarily -- though certainly it can be for individuals -- a case of cherrypicking, self-justification, or cafeteria Christianity to not concern oneself with them anymore. The 'bacon and
shellfish' example is specifically on point here.

There are specific passages in the NT that seem to say the OT still applies. Matthew 5:17 being one of many.

And a few of the things I listed were from the NT. Adultery and pre-marital sex being just two. That's why it feels like cherry-picking to me. The pre-martial stuff is much more prominent in the NT than homosexuality and yet there is little focus on it. I think even drunkeness is talked about more. So from an outside observer, it seems like people turn a blind eye to the stuff they like but stuff they don't like, well the Bible says it's bad!

[ISiddiqui]

Don't forget that revilers won't inherit the Kingdom as well ;). Seems to me a lot of anti-homosexual Christians do a whole lot of reviling...

[RainMaker]

How many young Christian men would turn down a 3-some because orgies are specifically mentioned in the NT?

[Brian Swartz]

from an outside observer, it seems like people turn a blind eye to the stuff they like but stuff they don't like, well the Bible says it's bad!

There's multiple things going on here. One is that there are hypocrites. Another is that people object more to certain beliefs, those on homosexuality being among them. For example, in my experience the unbelievers that I know personally don't particularly object to drunkenness or premarital sex being called a sin. Sex for marriage only? They obviously don't agree but don't object to us calling it wrong. Homosexuality is different(as are things like abortion). I've experienced this within my own family, people at work, pretty much everywhere I've had occasion to discuss the biblically informed worldview. Suffice to say I think the controversy is due at least as much to the reaction of those outside the church to the doctrine as it is to those inside the church putting improper focus on it, but there certainly is more than enough blame to go around.

As for the OT it applies generally but some matters were clearly fulfilled/superseded by Jesus. An obvious one is the blood sacrifice system, other elements of the ceremonial law were specifically stated to be superseded by Jesus himself in the gospels, in Acts, there's a lot of discussion in Hebrews -- in general I'd just say it's a mistake to presume a hypocritical approach without knowing the person in question.

FWIW, I also find it cherry picking a verse out from its context.

That's very presumptive of you, and inaccurate. I'll note that this accusation, made twice in your post, has zero foundation. One can disagree with you on a passage without doing so from ulterior motives.

The slavery discussion matters a great deal here. Because it is quite clearly a case where the interpretive viewpoint quite clearly indicated that slavery was ok under Biblical reading at some point. And then people decided, no, slavery was NOT ok to God.

First, I still think slavery is ok to God in some forms. No, you didn't misread that. Go ahead and reread it as many times as is necessary to be properly offended -- and hopefully be willing to read the explanation. Personal autonomy/freedom/independence is a lie, a false hope, as demonstrated by Paul in Romans 6. There are two kinds of people: slaves to sin and slaves to righteousness. There is no third category. And of course the NT constantly uses the word doulos to refer to believers, and there's no other meaning for the word than slave. This is why my facebook profile lists my religion not as a denomination but simply as 'slave of Jesus Christ'. It would be good to reflect on the fact that this language was not significantly more acceptable in that day, considered a great insult -- but it was taught anyway.

This does not mean that Christians should not argue for more just and loving societal institutions(indeed we must, let justice roll down as the prophets declared). I would say both sides has flaws in their arguments in the abolition debate. The fact that Paul instructed slaves to obey their masters has nothing to do with whether God is ok with the institution of slavery. I still see no relevance at all.

As the famous quote goes: "I take the Bible too seriously to take it all literally"

There is no-one I've ever read or heard of -- completely literally -- who takes everything in the Bible literally. Moreover, I'm not a 'biblical conservative' in many ways.

Why do you allow something which is quite clearly against the words of Jesus?]

I'm not on the board, nor should I be, ergo it's not my decision to make but the decision of those the Lord appointed to lead our congregation. What is this line of questioning all about? Do I need to somehow establish bonafides somehow by defending what my church does even when(as I do on a fair number of issues) I disagree with it? I'm a 'big-tent' guy, I don't have to agree with people on everything to fellowship or I'd be worshiping alone. All that matters are the core tenets of the faith, what the gospel is, etc.

The Scripture text was written 2000 years ago in a completely different time and era than we have at current. We need context for books written 100 years ago because they lived in a completely different time and took different things for granted.

There's a difference between 'we need context' and 'the moral law has changed'.

Why do Christians eat pork and shellfish?

Because Jesus specifically declared it to be ok.

Why is the NT, on only sex issues, so different?

First, it's not on only sex issues. It's on things you've mentioned, like women in leadership. It's on things you haven't, like the sacraments of baptism and communion. It's on every aspect of the Christian life basically where we don't have clear revelation of a new command.

The NT is so different because it is the testimony of both Jesus and the early church that with it the canon closed. And to repeat, most of the OT is still in force.

The Pharisees were CORRECT in their reading of the Law that an adulteress should be stoned to death (there is no other way to read the Torah on this matter). But Jesus said God's love and charity supersedes the Law's proscriptions.

I really think this is a very, very bad example. To begin with, that passage is not in the best and earliest manuscripts: the best evidence indicates it was added after the fact. But on the general point, I would simply ask again for you to contrast your definition of love and that defined by Jesus. Jesus did love everyone. He did offer grace to everyone, but always with clarity on the cost involved -- indeed he urged that the cost be considered! It has been said, accurately, that Jesus would fail personal evangelism in virtually every seminary in America. He told would-be followers to be willing to die and deny themselves. He told them to 'let the dead bury their own dead'. He loved the rich young ruler but didn't say 'your materialism is ok and accepted in the kingdom'. In other words, love to Jesus means obedience: those who love obey, and if you don't obey you don't love, as he stated repeatedly in gospel of John. His love was not universal acceptance of any and all behavior. If we follow his behavior, ours cannot be either -- we must love everyone but not everything they do, ourselves included. .

Not only am I sure that God's love and charity is for homosexual men and women to be embraced by the Church

This part I enthusiastically and wholeheartedly agree with. They absolutely must be embraced(and it might surprise you that I've invited gay people to attend the fairly conservative church I attend, and bothered some of the members when they did come, and enjoyed themselves there). But they must be embraced in the same way we all are -- with the understanding that as children of God, we are to put to death those sins, those deeds of the flesh, that trouble us. Homosexual relations being among them.

Hopefully these words will be received in the graceful spirit they are intended.

[Glengoyne]

A couple of things I'll note as I'm regretfully very late to the thread.

I don't have a problem with what Dungy said. He didn't comment on Sam himself, he just pointed out that from the perspective of a football organization there was a lot of baggage associated with selecting him. I think it is a valid perspective to say "My team doesn't need that media circus as a distraction". I could say that as a GM, and it wouldn't have any reflection of my personal point of view on the subject. So it doesn't necessarily follow that Dungy is a bigot.

I'll also add that I have more than a few problems with the church's cherry picking of homosexuality as the sin to end all sin. My understanding is that sin is sin. One is not greater than another. All sin is separation from God. So there is no difference in God's eye between a devout virgin Sunday school teacher and your run of the mill homosexual. Sin is sin. There is no sliding scale. So Christians that target homosexuality appear to me to be just as correct and upstanding as the pharisees that Jesus referred to as white washed tombs. One can point at scripture all they want to, but none of us are equipped to throw that first stone.

[ISiddiqui]

That's very presumptive of you, and inaccurate. I'll note that this accusation, made twice in your post, has zero foundation. One can disagree with you on a passage without doing so from ulterior motives.

You LITERALLY cherry picked a verse from its context. It's 100% accurate.

First, I still think slavery is ok to God in some forms. No, you didn't misread that. Go ahead and reread it as many times as is necessary to be properly offended -- and hopefully be willing to read the explanation. Personal autonomy/freedom/independence is a lie, a false hope, as demonstrated by Paul in Romans 6. There are two kinds of people: slaves to sin and slaves to righteousness. There is no third category. And of course the NT constantly uses the word doulos to refer to believers, and there's no other meaning for the word than slave. This is why my facebook profile lists my religion not as a denomination but simply as 'slave of Jesus Christ'. It would be good to reflect on the fact that this language was not significantly more acceptable in that day, considered a great insult -- but it was taught anyway.

So, word games meant to try to offend, but you really mean you have chosen to submit to the Lord?

Furthermore, there aren't two people - slaves to sin and slaves to righteousness. We are both, as Martin Luther says, simultaneously sinners and saints - therefore we are slaves to both. But, we are forgiven for the sin part. While we may say sin has no hold over us, we still sin - all except for Christ Jesus.

The fact that Paul instructed slaves to obey their masters has nothing to do with whether God is ok with the institution of slavery. I still see no relevance at all.

Yet, you can't see how you are doing the exact thing with homosexuality by cherry picking verses on abortion to declare the God is anti-homosexuality?

I'm not on the board, nor should I be, ergo it's not my decision to make but the decision of those the Lord appointed to lead our congregation. What is this line of questioning all about? Do I need to somehow establish bonafides somehow by defending what my church does even when(as I do on a fair number of issues) I disagree with it? I'm a 'big-tent' guy, I don't have to agree with people on everything to fellowship or I'd be worshiping alone. All that matters are the core tenets of the faith, what the gospel is, etc.

This is pure evasion. What is your view on divorce? If you are against, why do you go to a church that allows for remarried people to attend worship when they did something directly against God's own word?

There's a difference between 'we need context' and 'the moral law has changed'.

Not nearly as much you think there is. The moral law of 2000 years will not nearly apply to now, because society is vastly different.

Because Jesus specifically declared it to be ok.

Not quite - God the Father did, in a dream to Peter. Interestingly enough, I'd like to point out what God said to Peter:

"Do not call anything impure that God has made clean"

Right after that Peter went to eat with Gentiles, implying that it applies not just to food, but to people as well. This applies quite interestingly to the homosexuality debate, considering what we know of genetic sexual orientation.

First, it's not on only sex issues. It's on things you've mentioned, like women in leadership. It's on things you haven't, like the sacraments of baptism and communion. It's on every aspect of the Christian life basically where we don't have clear revelation of a new command.

You mean things that have changed? ;) Women in leadership, the sacraments being baptism and communion rather than the 7 in the Catholic Church - all have changed. But sex issues apparently must remain static for all time? Why the difference?

Regardless, this is going to be like one of those things like miscegenation. There were definitely more than a handful of people who thumped the Bible and said marrying people of different races was against Scripture (stuff like Curse of Ham). This is seen as a hopelessly antiquated and embarrassing position by churches today. Homosexuality will be the same. His truth is marching on (as the song says) on this issue as more and more churches embrace homosexuals into the community.

I really think this is a very, very bad example. To begin with, that passage is not in the best and earliest manuscripts: the best evidence indicates it was added after the fact. But on the general point, I would simply ask again for you to contrast your definition of love and that defined by Jesus. Jesus did love everyone. He did offer grace to everyone, but always with clarity on the cost involved -- indeed he urged that the cost be considered! It has been said, accurately, that Jesus would fail personal evangelism in virtually every seminary in America. He told would-be followers to be willing to die and deny themselves. He told them to 'let the dead bury their own dead'. He loved the rich young ruler but didn't say 'your materialism is ok and accepted in the kingdom'. In other words, love to Jesus means obedience: those who love obey, and if you don't obey you don't love, as he stated repeatedly in gospel of John. His love was not universal acceptance of any and all behavior. If we follow his behavior, ours cannot be either -- we must love everyone but not everything they do, ourselves included. .

Did He love those who will killing him? Did He yell to forgive them because they were unaware of what they were doing? What obedience were they offering?

As for the adulterae pericope was added later charge, the story was referenced as early as 125 AD (by Papius) and other early references before the Codex Bezae.

This part I enthusiastically and wholeheartedly agree with. They absolutely must be embraced(and it might surprise you that I've invited gay people to attend the fairly conservative church I attend, and bothered some of the members when they did come, and enjoyed themselves there). But they must be embraced in the same way we all are -- with the understanding that as children of God, we are to put to death those sins, those deeds of the flesh, that trouble us. Homosexual relations being among them.

I reject the idea that old notions of lustful homosexual relationships have any application to modern knowledge of homosexual orientation and loving monogamous relationships. Sin is a turning away from God - God does not merely say random crazy stuff just to see if we are being obedient (well, in the OT is may seemed like He did at times). He is not Simon Says. Obedience to God is found in the self-giving love and charity to our neighbors and our constant struggle to break our selfishness to help others. This is not merely social gospel - it goes far beyond that.

[larrymcg421]

I know Dungy has tried to walk back his statement and make it more benign by saying he was talking about media distractions, but I'm not buying it. His earlier comment of "things will happen" is not talking about a reality show or extra attention from the media.

You can always find reasons to do the wrong thing. What really disappoints me about Dungy (a coach I've always liked in the past) is that he found reasons to do the wrong thing instead of finding reasons to do the right thing. When I think about character and values, the person who does the latter wins out in my book.

[Brian Swartz]

You LITERALLY cherry picked a verse from its context. It's 100% accurate.

This is pure evasion.

No I didn't -- the context in my opinion supports my opinion of what the verse means, as I stated when I first brought it up.

Aside from that, go in peace. These comments make it clear to me that further discussion can serve no productive purpose.

[ISiddiqui]

The context is about divorce. Of course he's going to use Genesis language to try to convince His listeners that this supersedes what Moses allowed (there are very few things that would trump Moses to the ancient Israelites). It makes no further statement as to what is the only true form of marriage forever and ever. Not to mention that Jesus, as God, probably knows that the Creation narrative (well, Creation narrative #2) was a mythopoetic explanation of how humans evolved, through God's plan, to current state. He is doing a Jesus thing - using a story to illustrate a point and only using it for that point.

[stevew]

NFL made deal with Rams over selecting Sam (http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/nfl-made-deal-with-rams-over-selecting-sam/ar-BBqQMlD?ocid=spartandhp)

Hmm. Yet another Roger bungle

[Dutch]

NFL made deal with Rams over selecting Sam (http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/nfl-made-deal-with-rams-over-selecting-sam/ar-BBqQMlD?ocid=spartandhp)

Hmm. Yet another Roger bungle

I am sure if Sam wasn't drafted it was going to be a PR nightmare. Sam was a fringe player that created a no-win situation. Looks to me more like Godell tried to appease the media and hoped it didn't all come out in the wash.

[Ben E Lou]

I am sure if Sam wasn't drafted it was going to be a PR nightmare. Sam was a fringe player that created a no-win situation. Looks to me more like Godell tried to appease the media and hoped it didn't all come out in the wash.
Pretty much this. You had a bunch of nitwits who hadn't actually paid attention to the fact that he ran up sack stats against non-conference opponents and one or two bottom-feeder SEC schools screaming about "THE SEC DEFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE YEAR!!! MUST BE TEH DESCRIMININATION IF HE DOESN'T GO HIGH!!!" I don't remember the exact numbers, but something like 10ish of his 13ish sacks that "earned" him SECDPOTY came in just three or four games against bad teams. The NFL was in a bind with him and as much as I hold Goodell in low regard, I can't really blame him for this one (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=2901579&postcount=406).

[Logan]

Agreed. In another world, Goodell gets lauded for this. It's not like what he was holding against the Rams as leverage was something like going easy on a punishment or forfeiture of draft picks...it was getting out of a stupid TV show.

[flere-imsaho]

It will be interesting to see how everyone handles the next openly gay player who declares for the draft, based on all of this.

[Dutch]

It will be interesting to see how everyone handles the next openly gay player who declares for the draft, based on all of this.

It shouldn't matter. I'm sure the media will spend thousands of hours telling us how bigoted we are and we'll eat it up and point fingers at each other while they line their pockets with our money.

[digamma]

I'm not sure what to make of the article. It's kind of filled with innuendo and speculation, with no hard reporting. The interesting thing to me though is not the Hard Knocks side show, but the Ethan Westbrooks angle. If that's true, then it screams violation of collective bargaining arrangements in a lot of ways.

[Thomkal]

NFL made deal with Rams over selecting Sam (http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/nfl-made-deal-with-rams-over-selecting-sam/ar-BBqQMlD?ocid=spartandhp)

Hmm. Yet another Roger bungle

Not sure how I feel about this. I guess its good a gay athlete got drafted, but I don't like how they manipulated the draft-sets a bad precedent. I also don't like how they then, after achieving such an accomplishment, would then try to cover up exposure of it by not having the team on Hard Knocks.

[RainMaker]

Yeah wouldn't the bigger issue be that they manipulated the draft by offering a benefit to a team for taking a player they wanted to be drafted?

[Ben E Lou]

If that's true, then it screams violation of collective bargaining arrangements in a lot of ways.Effin' lawyers, always figuring out a way to mess up a good bidness move. :D

[Ben E Lou]

It will be interesting to see how everyone handles the next openly gay player who declares for the draft, based on all of this.Hopefully, it will depend on his talent. There will be greater media presence and all that, but my guess is that guy should be grateful that Sam got the "first" aspect out of the way.

[digamma]

Effin' lawyers, always figuring out a way to mess up a good bidness move. :D

Your bill is in the mail.

[panerd]

Pretty much this. You had a bunch of nitwits who hadn't actually paid attention to the fact that he ran up sack stats against non-conference opponents and one or two bottom-feeder SEC schools screaming about "THE SEC DEFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE YEAR!!! MUST BE TEH DESCRIMININATION IF HE DOESN'T GO HIGH!!!" I don't remember the exact numbers, but something like 10ish of his 13ish sacks that "earned" him SECDPOTY came in just three or four games against bad teams. The NFL was in a bind with him and as much as I hold Goodell in low regard, I can't really blame him for this one (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=2901579&postcount=406).

Eh...

You seem very knowledgeable about football. You realize there is more to defensive line then just sack statistics right? I mean he was selected as an all-American as well. He also played on a line with Marcus Golden, Shane Ray, and Kony Ealy who are having some success in the NFL. Maybe Auburn and Georgia blocked him at the expense of the other three? I guess what I am getting at is I have heard this rewrite of history about Michael Sam many times and think it could be said about every SEC POY and every great defensive players. Of course the top teams will prevent more sacks they have better personnel on their offensive line.

[BishopMVP]

Yeah wouldn't the bigger issue be that they manipulated the draft by offering a benefit to a team for taking a player they wanted to be drafted?I'm here. Forget the gay stuff, because it's 2016 and Michael Sam should be identified as a football player and receive the same treatment as others (I'd refer again to Derrick Gordon at UMass; instead of a constant media circus it was "cool, good for you" and within a month people were back to criticizing his shooting). But if Roger Goodell is getting involved in teams personnel decisions that's the bombshell to me, and not just because it seems like pretty obvious collusion and massive CBA violations. It's one thing if you hold Hard Knocks over their head as part of allowing them to move to LA, and a huge line being crossed if you're manipulating personnel decisions. I hope somebody does do the digging on that angle, although we all know it won't be ESPN...

[ISiddiqui]

I don't know if what the article headline claims is supported by what the article says... for instance:

It turns out, according to multiple sources, that the league agreed not to ask the Rams to appear that year on HBO's yearly summer series, "Hard Knocks," if they drafted Sam.

I read that as the Rams didn't want all the stuff about a gay player to be fodder for the Hard Knocks show and they made a deal with the NFL that if Sam was selected, the NFL would try to prevent a bit of the media circus.

[ISiddiqui]

Here's Deadspin's take (which I think is closer to the truth):

Did The Rams Draft Michael Sam Just To Avoid Hard Knocks? (http://deadspin.com/did-the-rams-draft-michael-sam-just-to-avoid-hard-knock-1766819207)

Now, there is a halfway theory that does make some sense. It’s very easy to picture the Rams willingly using their draft pick on Sam, but first informally reaching out to the league office to see if they could avoid doing Hard Knocks and bringing in a full documentary crew to cover a training camp that would have already been the furthest thing from normal. That would have been a real factor for Fisher and the Rams—we know they vetoed a planned Oprah Winfrey Network documentary on Sam that would have filmed in camp.

[BishopMVP]

Eh...

You seem very knowledgeable about football. You realize there is more to defensive line then just sack statistics right? I mean he was selected as an all-American as well. He also played on a line with Marcus Golden, Shane Ray, and Kony Ealy who are having some success in the NFL. Maybe Auburn and Georgia blocked him at the expense of the other three? I guess what I am getting at is I have heard this rewrite of history about Michael Sam many times and think it could be said about every SEC POY and every great defensive players. Of course the top teams will prevent more sacks they have better personnel on their offensive line.Or you know, they focused on blocking those players and let Sam go 1v1 vs their 5th best O-lineman? It's a huge rewrite of history if people are implying he was a scrub that didn't deserve an NFL shot, but everyone knew Ealy at least was a far better prospect, and anyone listening to NFL scouts knew his measurables were weak (and there's a long line of undersized DE's with great college production, some of whom like Freeney have amazing careers due to elite quickness, but many who flame out hard in the NFL), had heard the production questions, and had heard those thoughts that he was a 5th round pick at best.

[JPhillips]

Wasn't Sam's major problem that he was too small for DE and too slow for LB?

[albionmoonlight]

There are already folks who say that the collectively bargained draft process is very unfair to the potential draftees. Wentz or Goff, for instance, are going to be making a lot less money than they would if they could come in as unrestricted free agents. And they are so limited because of a CBA that they had no part in negotiating or signing.

That complaint is valid, but it is generally overcome by the idea that "Hey, the union was looking out for you and the overall system is good for everyone and fair."

That all breaks down if it turns out that the NFL is specifically directing teams to draft certain players. Then it is just sanctioned collusion.

However, despite the scandalous headline, the facts in the article seems to say that there was more informal discussions about the media ramifications than an actual "If you draft Sam, then we will keep you off Hard Knocks" under-the-table agreement.

[Ben E Lou]

Eh...

You seem very knowledgeable about football. You realize there is more to defensive line then just sack statistics right? I mean he was selected as an all-American as well. He also played on a line with Marcus Golden, Shane Ray, and Kony Ealy who are having some success in the NFL. Maybe Auburn and Georgia blocked him at the expense of the other three? I guess what I am getting at is I have heard this rewrite of history about Michael Sam many times and think it could be said about every SEC POY and every great defensive players. Of course the top teams will prevent more sacks they have better personnel on their offensive line.Or you know, they focused on blocking those players and let Sam go 1v1 vs their 5th best O-lineman? It's a huge rewrite of history if people are implying he was a scrub that didn't deserve an NFL shot, but everyone knew Ealy at least was a far better prospect, and anyone listening to NFL scouts knew his measurables were weak (and there's a long line of undersized DE's with great college production, some of whom like Freeney have amazing careers due to elite quickness, but many who flame out hard in the NFL), had heard the production questions, and had heard those thoughts that he was a 5th round pick at best.When it comes to giving out hardware, stats>talent, but when the NFL is drafting talent>>>>>>>stats. But people on this board (and some in the media) were complaining that he got "cheated" in the draft, and the justification for that almost always involved his status as SECDPOY. Nowhere have I suggested that he wasn't a solid player, and the "rewrite history" thing is laughable, since I'm quite sure that you can find that I'm merely suggesting the exact same thing that I suggested in 2014, prior to and immediately after the draft (and the posts are still there): that he had over-inflated stats and that led to him getting some recognition, but that there were enough better NFL talents at OLB/DE in the draft pool that year that he wasn't "cheated" by being drafted so late.

[Solecismic]

Unfortunately, when you get into that 255-270 pound range, you're often locked into that 34 OLB/43 DE pass-rushing category. Sam doesn't have the speed to drop a little weight and become a linebacker. He doesn't have the frame to bulk up and become a run-stopping, pocket-collapsing DE.

So he's competing against elite athletes for that pass-rushing position, and he doesn't have explosiveness. You look at his measurables and they're far from guys who get drafted high. Still, there's room in the NFL, and guys like Sam get drafted late or become priority free agents. They get a chance to show they're "football players" who can contribute without that elite explosiveness.

Sacks at the college level don't always translate well. I don't know the SEC well enough to know whether his DPOY was deserved, but there's nothing about his story that seems inconsistent. That, combined with what seems to be a shaky work ethic (especially this on-off thing in the CFL), doesn't add up to an NFL career. Sam's at that "tweener" size where there's a lot of competition for not as many jobs.

It's not necessarily "fair" that guys this size have such limited options (pretty much the only other option is tight end). The nature of football is a pile of giants crashing into each other at the line, surrounded by a bunch of fast people, with one quarterback directing traffic.

[BYU 14]

Wasn't Sam's major problem that he was too small for DE and too slow for LB?

Exactly

[mckerney]

Wasn't Sam's major problem that he was too small for DE and too slow for LB?

His measurables at the combine were terrible. At the time his 3 cone drill was the slowest among DEs in several years, so it's unlikely he had the lateral quickness to play LB.

[Arles]

I read that as the Rams didn't want all the stuff about a gay player to be fodder for the Hard Knocks show and they made a deal with the NFL that if Sam was selected, the NFL would try to prevent a bit of the media circus.
That's pretty much how I took it as well. As obtuse as Goodell is, I can't see him doing something to where he tells a team to draft a certain player. It always appeared to me that the Rams did this for a "PR credit" with the local fanbase and national media. Sam went to Mizzou and the Rams were coming off a last place finish in the division. This smelled from the start like an owner/GM "let's bank some good will" move. I'm sure Fisher didn't like the move from a distraction standpoint (and the fact that Sam was unlikely to make the team) - so it made sense that Fisher and/or the Rams would ensure that they wouldn't have a complete circus (and be on hard knocks) if the drafted Sam.

But, I do remember a lot of my St. Louis/Mizzou fan friends being very happy the Rams took Sam. I'm sure this wasn't lost on the Rams brass going into the final round of the draft.

[Logan]

The Michael Sam conspiracy lacks a real conspiracy - Yahoo Sports (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/the-michael-sam-conspiracy-lacks-a-real-conspiracy-192811669.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma)

[stevew]

I'm not sure what to make of the article. It's kind of filled with innuendo and speculation, with no hard reporting. The interesting thing to me though is not the Hard Knocks side show, but the Ethan Westbrooks angle. If that's true, then it screams violation of collective bargaining arrangements in a lot of ways.

Yeah, I thought the Westbrooks angle was way more troubling than anything else in the story.

[Julio Riddols]

I feel like it doesn't help Sam that he has kind of been a bit of a head case since departing the NFL.. But the league should have just let things be and dealt with whatever minor backlash followed. If Sam was truly talented, he would have caught on with a team and been an even better story than simply getting drafted. If he didn't, it would have essentially been a non story and would have faded into nothing but a faint echo of dissent by now.

The best way to make something a bigger deal than it is is to assume that it is a big deal in the first place.