Today I got a visit from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (a.k.a. Mormon) missionaries. It was a very sweet elderly couple who started off trying to flatter me into submission. I invited them in and we all got comfortable at the dining room table before I started in on them. I am fairly familiar with LDS (their term for themselves) doctrine so I brought the conversation around to my main issue with the church, their treatment of the LGBT community. We spent the next hour going around in circles about this. I'll paraphrase the arguments for the sake of brevity:
Me:I support LGBT rights and the church doesn't
Missionaries: Gay people are more than welcome as full members as long as they don't act on their feelings
Me: I think there is nothing wrong with their feelings and they should be free to act on them
Missionaries: The Scriptures say it is a sin
Me: Scriptures can and have been altered and misinterpreted
Missionaries: Not that drastically
Me: The Council of Nicea had a serious debate over the divinity of Christ which is now commonly accepted by Christians. I'd say that's pretty drastic.
Missionaries: The Prophet says it's wrong
Me: A Prophet can misinterpret signs from God or just lie
Cycle and repeat those arguments in various combinations. They even had the gall to compare being gay to being a robber so I'd like to set the record straight:
The church, as a private organization, has every right to limit or exclude who they will from their activities. And it is my right, as an individual, to not associate with organizations that practice discrimination. The LDS Church is such a discriminatory organization and their logic for why doesn't hold water.
Showing posts with label Religon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religon. Show all posts
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Two for Tuesday
So now that I have gotten my rant against FF out of the way I would like to touch on a socio-religious subject.
This weekend I was talking with a close personal friend and during the conversation we touched on Christian Sunday School topics (don't ask me how we got to that). As we were talking we realized that there is much contained in the Bible that children are kept blissfully ignorant of, intentionally or not, until they are indoctrinated enough to gloss over these shady facts. I believe there are two reasons behind this.
The first reason seems obvious. Any parent who takes their child to Sunday School each week has certain expectations. These expectations include their child knowing all the "classic" Bible stories like Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses, the birth of Jesus, the many miracles of Jesus, the Easter story, you get the picture. In some faiths it is even expected to admonition and to a certain extent frighten children with stories of fire and brimstone like Jonah and Daniel and even parts of Revelations.
Parental expectations do not extend to telling young children about the part in the story of Lot where Lot offers up his virginal daughters to a mob of rapists in order to protect guests in his household.(Genesis Ch. 19) They would also be less likely to take their children to Sunday school if their children learned how, after God led the Israelites out of the desert after 40 years of wandering he commanded them to kill every man, woman, and child among the Canaanites and destroy all of their temples and sacred places. (Dueteronomy Ch. 7 & 12)
The second reason is an attempt to "preserve the faith". I don't know if this is entirely intentional since many of the people perpetuating this system have themselves been brainwashed into blindly believing the doctrine they are taught. The lessons seem to start with the very basics of "God is good" and "God is everywhere" which are not so bad taken by themselves but are very difficult to establish if I child is learning the many atrocities that are outlined in the Bible that God appears to have either overlooked or openly endorsed. Things ramp up into ideas like "God is just" and all that that entails such as a system of reward and punishment based on actions and even thoughts centered around a black and white image of right and wrong. The absolute nature of this statement means that, in order for that to be true, you must make the leap to "God is always right". The problem is not with these statements alone but with their overlay with organized religion.
With time these statements morph as God becomes equivalent to the church thus: "the church is good", "the church is just", and "the church is always right". I'm sure the church would also attempt to be everywhere and see everything if it could, but this is not possible on our dimensional plane. It is this blind following that has resulted in the Crusades and other holy wars over the centuries.
We need more intelligent Christians in the world who can separate the concept of church from the root of their faith which should be God and Jesus Christ.
This weekend I was talking with a close personal friend and during the conversation we touched on Christian Sunday School topics (don't ask me how we got to that). As we were talking we realized that there is much contained in the Bible that children are kept blissfully ignorant of, intentionally or not, until they are indoctrinated enough to gloss over these shady facts. I believe there are two reasons behind this.
The first reason seems obvious. Any parent who takes their child to Sunday School each week has certain expectations. These expectations include their child knowing all the "classic" Bible stories like Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses, the birth of Jesus, the many miracles of Jesus, the Easter story, you get the picture. In some faiths it is even expected to admonition and to a certain extent frighten children with stories of fire and brimstone like Jonah and Daniel and even parts of Revelations.
Parental expectations do not extend to telling young children about the part in the story of Lot where Lot offers up his virginal daughters to a mob of rapists in order to protect guests in his household.(Genesis Ch. 19) They would also be less likely to take their children to Sunday school if their children learned how, after God led the Israelites out of the desert after 40 years of wandering he commanded them to kill every man, woman, and child among the Canaanites and destroy all of their temples and sacred places. (Dueteronomy Ch. 7 & 12)
The second reason is an attempt to "preserve the faith". I don't know if this is entirely intentional since many of the people perpetuating this system have themselves been brainwashed into blindly believing the doctrine they are taught. The lessons seem to start with the very basics of "God is good" and "God is everywhere" which are not so bad taken by themselves but are very difficult to establish if I child is learning the many atrocities that are outlined in the Bible that God appears to have either overlooked or openly endorsed. Things ramp up into ideas like "God is just" and all that that entails such as a system of reward and punishment based on actions and even thoughts centered around a black and white image of right and wrong. The absolute nature of this statement means that, in order for that to be true, you must make the leap to "God is always right". The problem is not with these statements alone but with their overlay with organized religion.
With time these statements morph as God becomes equivalent to the church thus: "the church is good", "the church is just", and "the church is always right". I'm sure the church would also attempt to be everywhere and see everything if it could, but this is not possible on our dimensional plane. It is this blind following that has resulted in the Crusades and other holy wars over the centuries.
We need more intelligent Christians in the world who can separate the concept of church from the root of their faith which should be God and Jesus Christ.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
The Sanctity of Marriage
Below is another wonderful picture from Facebook.
This one I approve of. Unfortunately FF (Former Friend- see previous post) has once again flaunted his lack of logic in being angered by the above photo. Here is his comments:
Preface to posted photo: Dear Mr. Hass: You're missing a critical premise in your argument, and just for your information, your surname means "Hate" in German.
Your counterargument hinges on the assumption that the U.S. Constitution is a higher authority than a given religious text. I think a few billion devouts worldwide would beg to differ, and thus, you will fail to encourage any change not achieved by a flamewar or a fistfight.
Sincerely,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Satanist Who Is Also Interested In Skepticism And Interfaith Dialogue To Further The Rights Of Everyone
Comment 1: I like to stimulate many things, including discussion.
I also like when people who are employing some sort of logic, to rebuke other people's arguments, actually understand what it is that is being argued before they answer it.
I had a whole conversation about this very same photo yesterday, in which I made it quite clear, someone who is arguing about the sanctity of marriage being violated is operating on the assumption that marriage is sacred. Therefore, trying to dismiss their ideas on the basis of "but marriage is a legal union" is like two ships passing in the night. It's completely missing the point and failing to address the original argument at all.
Comment 2: Here's a more reasoned rebuttal of the claim that gay marriage violates the sanctity of marriage:
Marriage is not exclusive to Judeo-Christian religions.
Therefore, marriage outside of the Judeo-Christian religions is not a threat to the sanctity of marriage within, any more than Islamic marriages, Hindu marriages, Sikh marriages, or atheist marriages are.
I would like to begin my rebuttal by discussing why I approve of the above image. Mainly, I appreciate the creator of this image showing linguistically how the argument "it violates the sanctity of marriage" is a religious argument and as such can not be used as a legal justification. He does not make the claim that gay marriage is good or bad, he simply points out that by our Constitution this particular argument is invalid. The opposition is welcome to present any other arguments they deem prudent but this particular one is void by our first amendment rights.
The problems I have with FF's comments I will explain chronologically:
1) Pointing out the meaning of the image creator's last name- this is irrelevant and is intentionally derogatory towards the creator. Its only aim could be to cast the creator in a negative light right from the start. Not a good foot to start out on.
2) "the assumption that the U.S. Constitution is a higher authority than a given religious text"- whatever an individual believes is a "higher authority" (a phrase that has religious tones in and of itself) is irrelevant when it comes to the establishment of law. The US was formed, in part, by a body of people seeking freedom from religious persecution. This is why we have the first amendment and it's preservation of freedom of religion. The US Constitution is the penultimate standard by which all secular laws are judged. Whether a particular church chooses to accept gay marriage or not is up to their religious laws but the US Government is not allowed to make that judgement as it is discriminatory against some segments of society.
3) "you will fail to encourage any change"- I missed where the image was implying a change. But, embracing FF's assumption, it is not necessary for every individual to embrace gay marriage. What matters in this argument is the actions and consequences of the government.
4) "flamewar or a fistfight"- I'm sorry, is FF honestly encouraging or at the least excusing the use of violence as the only way to achieve his ideals?
5) "Your Friendly Neighborhood Satanist Who Is Also Interested In Skepticism And Interfaith Dialogue To Further The Rights Of Everyone"- Like point 1, this comment is irrelevant and it's only aim seems to be to create a positive image of FF in the mind of the reader.
6) "someone who is arguing about the sanctity of marriage being violated is operating on the assumption that marriage is sacred."- Exactly, but the whole point of the image is trying to separate this, the religious argument, from the legal argument for/against gay marriage. Religious belief and legal action must be treated as two separate animals.
7) "Therefore, trying to dismiss their ideas on the basis of "but marriage is a legal union" is like two ships passing in the night."- I've already said that the image does not make an argument for or against gay marriage, it just refutes one argument against. Additionally, the image is only dismissing the sanctity of marriage as a legal argument, not an individual's ideas/belief about the sanctity of marriage.
8) "It's completely missing the point and failing to address the original argument at all."- Just to clarify, the original argument for this image was whether legalizing gay marriage "violates the sanctity of marriage". It was not about whether gay marriage is sacrilegious or trying to establish marriage as a solely secular practice. The argument made by the image is very narrow and must be seen as such.
9) Comment 2- I actually agree with the argument made in this comment. It is addressing a conflict quite different from that of the image, but it is still a valid argument.
I think FF is the one who should "actually understand what it is that is being argued before they answer it."
This one I approve of. Unfortunately FF (Former Friend- see previous post) has once again flaunted his lack of logic in being angered by the above photo. Here is his comments:
Preface to posted photo: Dear Mr. Hass: You're missing a critical premise in your argument, and just for your information, your surname means "Hate" in German.
Your counterargument hinges on the assumption that the U.S. Constitution is a higher authority than a given religious text. I think a few billion devouts worldwide would beg to differ, and thus, you will fail to encourage any change not achieved by a flamewar or a fistfight.
Sincerely,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Satanist Who Is Also Interested In Skepticism And Interfaith Dialogue To Further The Rights Of Everyone
Comment 1: I like to stimulate many things, including discussion.
I also like when people who are employing some sort of logic, to rebuke other people's arguments, actually understand what it is that is being argued before they answer it.
I had a whole conversation about this very same photo yesterday, in which I made it quite clear, someone who is arguing about the sanctity of marriage being violated is operating on the assumption that marriage is sacred. Therefore, trying to dismiss their ideas on the basis of "but marriage is a legal union" is like two ships passing in the night. It's completely missing the point and failing to address the original argument at all.
Comment 2: Here's a more reasoned rebuttal of the claim that gay marriage violates the sanctity of marriage:
Marriage is not exclusive to Judeo-Christian religions.
Therefore, marriage outside of the Judeo-Christian religions is not a threat to the sanctity of marriage within, any more than Islamic marriages, Hindu marriages, Sikh marriages, or atheist marriages are.
I would like to begin my rebuttal by discussing why I approve of the above image. Mainly, I appreciate the creator of this image showing linguistically how the argument "it violates the sanctity of marriage" is a religious argument and as such can not be used as a legal justification. He does not make the claim that gay marriage is good or bad, he simply points out that by our Constitution this particular argument is invalid. The opposition is welcome to present any other arguments they deem prudent but this particular one is void by our first amendment rights.
The problems I have with FF's comments I will explain chronologically:
1) Pointing out the meaning of the image creator's last name- this is irrelevant and is intentionally derogatory towards the creator. Its only aim could be to cast the creator in a negative light right from the start. Not a good foot to start out on.
2) "the assumption that the U.S. Constitution is a higher authority than a given religious text"- whatever an individual believes is a "higher authority" (a phrase that has religious tones in and of itself) is irrelevant when it comes to the establishment of law. The US was formed, in part, by a body of people seeking freedom from religious persecution. This is why we have the first amendment and it's preservation of freedom of religion. The US Constitution is the penultimate standard by which all secular laws are judged. Whether a particular church chooses to accept gay marriage or not is up to their religious laws but the US Government is not allowed to make that judgement as it is discriminatory against some segments of society.
3) "you will fail to encourage any change"- I missed where the image was implying a change. But, embracing FF's assumption, it is not necessary for every individual to embrace gay marriage. What matters in this argument is the actions and consequences of the government.
4) "flamewar or a fistfight"- I'm sorry, is FF honestly encouraging or at the least excusing the use of violence as the only way to achieve his ideals?
5) "Your Friendly Neighborhood Satanist Who Is Also Interested In Skepticism And Interfaith Dialogue To Further The Rights Of Everyone"- Like point 1, this comment is irrelevant and it's only aim seems to be to create a positive image of FF in the mind of the reader.
6) "someone who is arguing about the sanctity of marriage being violated is operating on the assumption that marriage is sacred."- Exactly, but the whole point of the image is trying to separate this, the religious argument, from the legal argument for/against gay marriage. Religious belief and legal action must be treated as two separate animals.
7) "Therefore, trying to dismiss their ideas on the basis of "but marriage is a legal union" is like two ships passing in the night."- I've already said that the image does not make an argument for or against gay marriage, it just refutes one argument against. Additionally, the image is only dismissing the sanctity of marriage as a legal argument, not an individual's ideas/belief about the sanctity of marriage.
8) "It's completely missing the point and failing to address the original argument at all."- Just to clarify, the original argument for this image was whether legalizing gay marriage "violates the sanctity of marriage". It was not about whether gay marriage is sacrilegious or trying to establish marriage as a solely secular practice. The argument made by the image is very narrow and must be seen as such.
9) Comment 2- I actually agree with the argument made in this comment. It is addressing a conflict quite different from that of the image, but it is still a valid argument.
I think FF is the one who should "actually understand what it is that is being argued before they answer it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)