Ash Wednesday: Feel so weird keeping ashes on, but feel guilty washing them off!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, but I fail to see how Dawkins fits into an Ash Wednesday thread.

I am losing my patience with ranting atheist posters. I also have little patience with religious posters who claim or assume there is no morality without religion.

To the atheist and agnostic posters: isnt free thought just that....free? It's a tad ironic to hijack a thread about a basic religious observation that's not hurting you in any way, just to tell them they should think like you? If you enjoy the ability to be free from religion, you could observe the same principles. I know that this is not something all religious folk offer to us, but most of them do. Know when to speak up and when to STFU. No one is knocking on your door with this thread. No one is trying to legislate Ash Wednesday observance with this thread. It really doesn't affect us in the slightest.

I'm an atheist who simply posted about noticing people with ashes on their forehead last year, and recognizing it and not thinking of it because of having Catholic family members. No angry ranting involved.

I think one or two atheist or theist trolls isn't enough to paint an entire group.

I am an atheist. I was referring to the ranting, rude agnostic and atheist posters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I totally get where you are coming from. I have not thought of this specifically in terms of ashes on Ash Wednesday but I am an Episcopalian and used to take pains to avoid mentioning at work or with people I didn't know well that I went to church regularly. Even if it would come up, like "what are you doing on Sunday?" Because I was hesitant to be lumped in with the intolerant Christians that we hear so much about. But I finally decided that I was furthering the negative stereotype of Christians when I avoided mentioning it because it left the impression that there were only intolerant/bigoted ones out there. Anyway, with that in mind, my vote is to go to Ash Wednesday service whenever you want to go and leave the ashes on for the rest of the day. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a Christian and if normal, welcoming, non-bigoted people hide the fact that they are Christians, then no wonder others have a negative view!

I'm the PP who gets ashes at the evening service to avoid looking smug or pious, but I think you raise a very good point here. Church ladies, stand proud with your smudgy foreheads! BTW, I mentioned this thread to a friend who's an Asst US Atty and he told me a great story: years ago Patrick Fitzgerald, who later prosecuted Scooter Libby in the Valerie Plame case, was trying a case with closing arguments scheduled for Ash Weds. The defense moved to change the date b/c they didn't want Fitzgerald and his co-prosecutor, who are both practicing Catholics, to deliver their closing arguments while wearing ashes on their foreheads. The judge granted the motion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's always interesting to me that people rant and rave that religious groups and people of faith shouldn't lobby according to their beliefs. Never mind that lobbying by non-faith groups and atheists can result in changes in our laws that the rest of us might not like.

You may not like it, but separation of church and state is a basic right in this country. The church pressuring legislators to make laws according to their religious beliefs is wrong. Is anyone trying to pass laws that prevent you from practicing your religion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's always interesting to me that people rant and rave that religious groups and people of faith shouldn't lobby according to their beliefs. Never mind that lobbying by non-faith groups and atheists can result in changes in our laws that the rest of us might not like.

You may not like it, but separation of church and state is a basic right in this country. The church pressuring legislators to make laws according to their religious beliefs is wrong. Is anyone trying to pass laws that prevent you from practicing your religion?

I do understand the separation of church and state and don't think anyone should be forced to pray in schools, attend religious classes, etc. I still think everyone should be able to lobby or promote causes that are important to them. Otherwise, you're basically saying that only non-religious citizens' viewpoints should be heard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You may not like it, but separation of church and state is a basic right in this country. The church pressuring legislators to make laws according to their religious beliefs is wrong. Is anyone trying to pass laws that prevent you from practicing your religion?

By your logic, the fact that my morals and stance on some issues is driven by religion or faith means that my participation is not valid in the political process? My vote doesn't count? By your view, organizations like AIPAC should also be banned? And, I'm sorry, but being gay is not a religion. No one is trying to stop you from "practicing being gay". The right to have an abortion is not a religion.

And to answer the troll saying that no one has defended the Catholic Church's position on gays. Here's the defense:
The Church believes that the purpose of marriage and is procreation, and that sex should occur within the confines of a loving marriage. That's it. Therefore, sex or marriage between gay people will not result in children and is not "allowed". Sex with birth control is clearly designed not to have children and therefore not "allowed". And, obviously, abortion which would end the life of an unborn child is anethma to this belief.

You may find this outmoded. You might find this bigotry. You might find this silly in the light of the desire to prevent unwanted children or to stop the spread of AIDS. And there are many many many Catholics who agree with you. BUT, that is the reason for the Church's stance.

there, I've defended it. It's not based out of bigotry or hatred of any group. It's one of the logical outflows of a belief.
And, for the record, read the Apostle's Creed. This is the fundamental core of Catholic faith in case you're interested in learning. (I'm assuming you're not, but just in case) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed_in_current_use

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You may not like it, but separation of church and state is a basic right in this country. The church pressuring legislators to make laws according to their religious beliefs is wrong. Is anyone trying to pass laws that prevent you from practicing your religion?

By your logic, the fact that my morals and stance on some issues is driven by religion or faith means that my participation is not valid in the political process? My vote doesn't count?

I'm saying legislating religious beliefs into law is wrong. Call it morality if you prefer, but it is forcing others to practice your beliefs. Gay marriage is a great example. Gay people getting married is not going to harm the church. Marriage licenses are a function of state governments. The church stepping in to pressure legislators to make the state function conform to the dictations of the pope or your holy book is overstepping their authority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm saying legislating religious beliefs into law is wrong. Call it morality if you prefer, but it is forcing others to practice your beliefs. Gay marriage is a great example. Gay people getting married is not going to harm the church. Marriage licenses are a function of state governments. The church stepping in to pressure legislators to make the state function conform to the dictations of the pope or your holy book is overstepping their authority.

And what if I'm against gay marriage for reasons that aren't grounded in religion? Then, it's just a matter of you and I having political differences. THEN is it ok to advocate, vote, legislate against it? Otherwise you're forcing me to live in a society legislated by your beliefs. Why is it that your view of morality and what makes good law any more valid than mine? Now you've left a fight over religion and moved into the realm of politics. The point therefore of your entire rant is simply that you aren't tolerant of any view different from your own. In other words...a bigot.

[Anonymous]

I'm not the ranting PP. I'm more of a live and let live kind of girl. I fail to see how gay marriage is harmful to people who want to marry their opposite sex partner. If you'd like to fill me in on that, I'd be happy to try to understand. No one is asking straight people to engage in a gay marriage. Are they? How exactly does it harm you?

[Anonymous]

If I may add to my above post, why does your family deserve legal protection and mine does not? That's the real world impact of your argument. I could lose custody of my child if someone wanted to start trouble. In Virginia, being a lesbian can be used agasint me. How's that fair? And how can you argue it's right?

[Anonymous]

"A good reminder of the Freakonomics point that correlation does not equal causation!"

You do realize that has been a primary understanding of statistics long before the so-called "Freakonomics" came along... right? How depressing...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not the ranting PP. I'm more of a live and let live kind of girl. I fail to see how gay marriage is harmful to people who want to marry their opposite sex partner. If you'd like to fill me in on that, I'd be happy to try to understand. No one is asking straight people to engage in a gay marriage. Are they? How exactly does it harm you?

Thanks for clarifying that you're not the crazy person! Here's the thing from my view, I don't find arguments like "it doesn't impact you" to be good ones. I don't intend to evade taxes, but I do think there should be laws against it. I think hate crimes are abhorent and would never commit one, so one could say that relevant laws don't affect me and I shouldn't therefore care. But, as part of this community, I certainly want them to be criminalized. I know, those are extreme examples, but I'm in a hurry and they popped in my mind so hopefully you can see the analogy. I believe strongly that abortions are wrong in almost every instance, and while I won't ever have one, I do believe that they shouldn't be allowed to happen because they are wrong (in my mind). Since the ranting PP seems to be focused on gay marriage, for the record I'll say that I'm fine with civil unions, but I am opposed to gay marriage. Saying "it won't affect me" or that if I'm against them then "don't have one" is an argument that misses the point. If I don't want them happening (for whatever reasons I have), then I want them to not be permitted.

These things 'harm me' in that I believe they are wrong or misguided or inappropriate or whatever descriptor you want to use for any given activity, and don't want them occurring in the society that I belong in. Sounds like you don't agree with me, but does my explanation help you at least try to understand my thought process on these issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's always interesting to me that people rant and rave that religious groups and people of faith shouldn't lobby according to their beliefs. Never mind that lobbying by non-faith groups and atheists can result in changes in our laws that the rest of us might not like.

Just an observation here but I've been attending Catholic services at various churches for 40 years and I've never heard a priest call on parishioners to vote for a specific candidate. If anything, Catholics are very much swing voters because they are pro-life but they are very liberal on other social issues (serving the poor, death penalty, immigration, etc.). In fact, in the last presidential election, the majority of Catholics voted for Obama. The PP who was ranting about Catholics only voting for Republican candidates really needs to get her facts straight (and her head examined).

[Anonymous]

Not being able to marry has the potential to harm me and my family. You're ok with that because you disagree with it? The lack of protection harms loving families, but allowing gay marriage doesn't harm you. That's not right and denies me equal protection, which happens to be one of my constitutional rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not the ranting PP. I'm more of a live and let live kind of girl. I fail to see how gay marriage is harmful to people who want to marry their opposite sex partner. If you'd like to fill me in on that, I'd be happy to try to understand. No one is asking straight people to engage in a gay marriage. Are they? How exactly does it harm you?

Thanks for clarifying that you're not the crazy person! Here's the thing from my view, I don't find arguments like "it doesn't impact you" to be good ones. I don't intend to evade taxes, but I do think there should be laws against it. I think hate crimes are abhorent and would never commit one, so one could say that relevant laws don't affect me and I shouldn't therefore care. But, as part of this community, I certainly want them to be criminalized. I know, those are extreme examples, but I'm in a hurry and they popped in my mind so hopefully you can see the analogy. I believe strongly that abortions are wrong in almost every instance, and while I won't ever have one, I do believe that they shouldn't be allowed to happen because they are wrong (in my mind). Since the ranting PP seems to be focused on gay marriage, for the record I'll say that I'm fine with civil unions, but I am opposed to gay marriage. Saying "it won't affect me" or that if I'm against them then "don't have one" is an argument that misses the point. If I don't want them happening (for whatever reasons I have), then I want them to not be permitted.

These things 'harm me' in that I believe they are wrong or misguided or inappropriate or whatever descriptor you want to use for any given activity, and don't want them occurring in the society that I belong in. Sounds like you don't agree with me, but does my explanation help you at least try to understand my thought process on these issues?

I'm the one you're responding to and the 11:53 and 12:14 poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"A good reminder of the Freakonomics point that correlation does not equal causation!"

You do realize that has been a primary understanding of statistics long before the so-called "Freakonomics" came along... right? How depressing...

I'm the PP you quoted, and yes, I've taken enough Econ and stats to know this. Please don't Be depressed on this account! But they illustrate it so well for the casual reader that I called them out.