by designs 110 Replies latest social current
@Berengaria - Uhhh... that is English. You might want to put down the Bon Bons and turn down Maddow and start at page one of this thread. It will take a while because you will actually have to read and think. It should be a good change for you from throwing posters in a box and screaming RACIST, HOMOPHOBE, or waiting on your buddy Bizzybee and taking about male sexual organs.
Huh??? Again, this is quite senseless.
Yes Berengaria...it would appear to be prophesy.. Based on opinion with zero evidence to support it...LOL
it's just sensationalism and fear mongering. Ooooh, those scary athests, one day they will get together and be prejudiced towards all believers...of all nations...and all sects and beliefs...just you wait and see. It will happen. I KNOW.
I have said nothing like this. I have made a simple point as to the prejudice that some show toward all faith, regardless, and how such behavior in other areas has led to prejudices being acted upon. Pretty much the same comment that you made regarding religious belief.
So before this gets twisted into things that I never said or even implied, lets bring it back:
The problem comes when what is being said and preached affects peoples lives. And that is what happens with religious belief. One way or another it effects other peoples lives, not just their own. By creating prejudice against other people who do not believe as they do
. Or bigotry against people because of their self righteous ignorance. Still Thinking
And I replied that this happens in more areas than just religous beliefs: Political, national, heirarchal, racial, even some atheists have and/or create prejudice... such as this:
Comments labelling people of faith/religion being ignorant, superstitious, arrogant, afraid, deluded, etc... that they should not hold certain positions in science or law... this is what I am speaking of, and I have seen this.... tec
No fear mongering or sensationalism. Just the hope that some might be more aware of the similar attitude of creating prejudice against people who do not believe as they do. Believe me, I am well aware of the divides and prejudices that religion has caused. The infringment upon the rights of many people. I think it is disgusting. It is just not limited to the religious.
Peace,
tammy
Do they not deserve respect?
I respect their right to preach it...I don't respect what they preach.
And I do NOT respect oppressive religions that dictate that others must abide by their beliefs and god given laws. And I do not respect followers of a religion that inflict their beliefs on others in the form of shunning etc. I don't respect abusive or manipulative behaviour. It's fine to believe whatever you like...until it effects others that have no say, and takes away their right to not be treated that way.
I do not respect their Gods, any more than I respect the tooth fairy. But I respect their right to believe in their gods.
When religious belief gets to the point that lives are threatened because of a comic stip picture in a newspaper they claim 'offends' their belief. I do NOT respect their belief or their religion or the people who threaten others lives defending their belief.
One thing believers of all sort seem to hold in common is how easily offense is taken and claimed. They often do not want others to have the same rights they do, to not believe, and to say it. People are expected to tip toe and be respectful of their imaginary god, and belief in their imaginary gods...whilst they tell people that they are not 'fully human' without their gods. And they think their belief deserves respect. It's a joke.
Cagefighter,
I'm not one who wants to control what others say or think. Goes without saying - I don't have that power.
I respect anyone's right to believe what they want as long as it doesn't harm others. If someone wants to do a headstand in a corner of the room and kick their legs around in the air because they think it'll please someone who's watching from an invisible realm, I say hey - go for it.
My problem is when they use their positions of power to support discrimination or spew teachings that fill the air with distrust of whole groups of people that their religion preaches will be condemned to death (or worse) because they dare to live in a different way than their church preaches, I will say loud and clear that it is offensive.
If nobody on the Internet shared the very reasonable view that Jeffries and Tebow are making much money and commanding much attention by their self-promotion, then we'd only be hearing "happiness and rainbows" type stuff about these guys.
$128million campus building project requires the Pastor to line up the celebrity speakers his flock will whip out their check books for. Tim fits the Marquee.
The Tebow character and his sponsor both look like so many others of their ilk that talk big about sexual sins, and who (one day) are discovered to be doing precisely what they condemn so zealously. This could be a result of their internalised fear of their own personal inclination to homosexuality. So it may be that the stronger the attraction of these men to other males (and its mainly men that become so vociferous about men having sex with men), the more they condemn it in public, as part of a never-ending struggle against their own lust. It often becomes hypocritical when the public talk masks their secret sexual escapades with other men, witness the many examples in American public life.
Examples of this can often be seen in American public life. (probably the same in other nations also, but the American example is better documented) The odious McCarthy of the immediate post war era, conflated and demonised homosexuality with communism, and was surrounded by men who on rational examination were motivated by their own internalised homophobia. Here are some of the names of that era, who were secretly homosexual, but often loud in their denunciations of homosexuality. We could start with the most powerful (at tht time) man in the USA- J.Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI. Extremely powerful because his secret files were as good as the later East German Stasi, listing all the secret dirt on the who's who of US Society. Hoover was single all his life and lived with his 'best friend' Clyde Tolson, who was employed at FBI HQ by Hoover. It is now well-known that Hoover was same sex attracted.
Here's a pik of hoover and his gay partner relaxing together. (from Wikipedia)
Hoover made the bullets that McCarthy fired - not only against communists - but also against homosexuals.
Secondly, we could take Cardinal Francis Spellman, though I'm not quite sure that he had a strong 'internalised homophobia.' I think he really enjoyed his attraction to other males. As Archbishop of New York he also was extremely powerful (he became the richest Catholic prelate in the US Church). He is described as having a succession of boyfriends and holding discreet gay parties. Also a close friend and supporter of McCarthy, and a purposeful ally in the McCarthy witchhunts, he arranged an adoption for the McCarthy's when their marriage proved childless.
Another key figure was a psychiatrist, Harry Stack Sullivan who also lived with his male lover. Sullivan can surely be indicted as hypocritical and with an internalised homophobia. During WW2 he designed screening tests to weed out homosexuals in the military. Not sure how successful the tests were, that's something I'd like to research one day. I suggest that Sullivan worked with McCarthy to expose possible homosexuals in government.
And, then there is the infamous Roy Cohn, McCarthy's right hand man, a N.Y.Lawyer and McCarthy's fixer. Curious is it not, that Cohn' efforts led to McCarthy's downfall when Cohn tried to arrange special privileges in the US Army, for a David Schnide with whom he was infatuated. Cohn was the ultimate homophobic hypocrite. Nicholas von Hoffman, wrote a biography of Cohn, called Citizen Cohn. One of Cohn's former staffers described how he would drive Cohn to functions held by 'family first' type groups where Cohn would make vicious attacks on homosexuals (enemies of the state stuff, maybe???) On these occasions Cohn would be accompanied by his current boyfriend, and they would then go off to dinner together.
With so many 'friends of Dorothy' around him, it's easy to start wondering about McCarthy himself.
Internalised homophobia is well discussed in the academic circles concerned with emotional and mental health (although, there is discussion as to whether 'homophobia' is the best term).
It is clear that in western, Christian society with the terrible inner (emotional) tensions created by the doctrine that the 'spirit is against the flesh' (Galatians Ch 5), not just for the same sex attracted, but for heterosexuals also, it is little wonder that people finish up 'awkward' about sex. For those who are 'gay,' as we now describe this age-old phenonemon, the problem is exacerbated by past social condemnation. Since humans are social animals, this is a difficult problem. Little wonder that some same-sex attracted people become 'homophobic.'
That was interesting fulltimestudent...
The appaling comments made by some of faith regarding what makes someone 'human' makes you wonder what the hell is going on in their heads doesn't it?
God had created man and woman as a specific "duality" – "an essential aspect of what being human is all about."...THE POPE
And his comments about same sex marriage....
"When freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God," ....Pope Benedict
Both of those quotes can be found here in his Christmas speech where he is anti gay marriage and condemning it as 'against family values'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/pope-anti-gay-speech_n_2344870.html
Look, these kooks at this church in Dallas are total asshats for their public anti-gay stand and Timmy would probably be better served by distancing himself from them but if he feels the same way that's his business. His career will suffer but I don't think he really cares because he really believes what he believes.
As for people of either persuasion, Athiest or Faithful, being able to do a public service job without their beliefs spilling over into the job...not going to happen. They'll both be affected.
Also...
A minority does not often affect policies- This should win the award for Bullshit Statement of the Year
@Berengaria - I can tell you, but I can't make you understand.
For the rest- I guess yall really think the government should tell people what to believe if it really offends your sensibilities? You do realize this is a free county and if a "church" wanted to make child molestation (something I think we all find absolutely disgusting) as a part of their doctrine that is legal. In fact, they could even assemble on their own property and speak about their love of child molestation in meetings and services with their other members.
Now, the second one of them touches a child or aids another in doing so, it's straight to jail. Do I find it regrettable that someone would advocate something I find so wrong, sure. But, I also sleep well knowing their right to do so, is the same right that allows me to speak against it.
My point is, instead of trying to take away all our rights maybe some of you should spend more time either advocating for your cause somewhere besides the internet or work on amending the constitution to only allow freedom for those that don't hurt your feelings. Because these attacks against a speech that has yet to be given and people that you claim to know their hearts but do not is just plain cowardly.
