Tired of liberal intolerance

[Anonymous]

a priest at church made an interesting point that society tries to "modernize" jesus and almost water down his entire message to the point where simply being "good" and "nice" to people is all it takes to go to heaven. he made the point that if the message was simply about being nice and good, then jesus wouldnt have been crucified cause its not as if that message is so extreme to warrant the backlash he got during life.

i say all this because whatever you believe, most people gravitate towards religion to have some sort of foundation to live up to. sure many of us had pre marital sex, drink, curse, eat pork, dont pray everyday or break a host of sins or rules laid out by our respective religions but at the end of the day, we all try to be good and live up to some standard outlined in the foundation set by whatever we worship.

elected officials shouldnt force religion down our throat or legislate as such. they can use the foundation of their religion (whatever it is) to help set the standard or guide them to doing "what is right" maybe but its nobody's right to make laws forcing people to do something because its right or wrong in their religious view.

im far from a strict by the book catholic but government shouldnt be telling the church what to do or how to think about abortion or gay marriage (in extreme cases). while i personally disagree with the church's stance, i dont think government should impose their will on the church towards the "right side" of the argument.

i just think both parties waste way too much time debating religion when its a personal preference

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:a priest at church made an interesting point that society tries to "modernize" jesus and almost water down his entire message to the point where simply being "good" and "nice" to people is all it takes to go to heaven. he made the point that if the message was simply about being nice and good, then jesus wouldnt have been crucified cause its not as if that message is so extreme to warrant the backlash he got during life.

i say all this because whatever you believe, most people gravitate towards religion to have some sort of foundation to live up to. sure many of us had pre marital sex, drink, curse, eat pork, dont pray everyday or break a host of sins or rules laid out by our respective religions but at the end of the day, we all try to be good and live up to some standard outlined in the foundation set by whatever we worship.

elected officials shouldnt force religion down our throat or legislate as such. they can use the foundation of their religion (whatever it is) to help set the standard or guide them to doing "what is right" maybe but its nobody's right to make laws forcing people to do something because its right or wrong in their religious view.

im far from a strict by the book catholic but government shouldnt be telling the church what to do or how to think about abortion or gay marriage (in extreme cases). while i personally disagree with the church's stance, i dont think government should impose their will on the church towards the "right side" of the argument.

i just think both parties waste way too much time debating religion when its a personal preference

I completely agree. And as luck would have it, government has done no such thing.

[Anonymous]

15:23 I agree it hasnt yet.

However, I would say that in the last 10 years where I have off and on attended church, enough to make this statement, I have never heard the priests spend so many sermons talking about political issues. When I was younger, youd get something every blue moon but its more common now as if the church is threatened by whatever government may impose on them.

From abortion, contraceptives, to gay marriage, the church to me seems worried that they will have to "support" the laws of the land on these issues and I can see their side of their argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We get it. You people hate Christians especially Catholics. In your ideal world you would have a country with no Christianity. This is sort of typical of the modern liberal, profess to be very tolerant and open minded except about things they disagree with. So go ahead and enjoy putting people of faith down and trying to force your view of morality down our throats while screaming tolerance.

You can call me a liberal, a libertarian, a progressive, or anything else you want, but let me be blunt: I think religious "laws", be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist, are irrational bulls--t. I believe our laws should be based on sound science, experience, maturity and logic and should be rationally directed to accomplish policies that improve the lives of every man, woman and child in this country, both today and in the future, in the least burdensome manner that can be accomplished. To me, restricting safe medical abortions will increase the number of unsafe, wire-hanger abortions in backrooms and alleys; restricting contraceptives and teaching abstinence-only sex-ed will result in unwanted children who cannot be adequately cared for. If you think abortions and contraceptives should be prohibited, because you are Catholic, Muslim, or Martian, you're an idiot. Am I being intolerant? I HOPE so, because I am tired of suffering fools and pandering to people whose minds are in the dark ages. Now, I know I have to "respect" your choices, and someday, when your daughter is in college and gets knocked up and has to drop out of school to care for the baby and ends up on food stamps because the only job she can get is on that pathetically inadequate minimum wage and she moves back to your home where your are living comfortably on your Social Security and your Medicare on your nice safe tree-lined street that my taxes paid for, on that day I will not complain that your daughter's and grandchild's futures were ruined or that you are all basically living off the sweat of my daily labor, but don't ever imagine that you made the right choices by following your religion's teachings or that you "deserve" my tolerance.

[RantingAtheist]

Anonymous wrote:15:23 I agree it hasnt yet.

However, I would say that in the last 10 years where I have off and on attended church, enough to make this statement, I have never heard the priests spend so many sermons talking about political issues. When I was younger, youd get something every blue moon but its more common now as if the church is threatened by whatever government may impose on them.

From abortion, contraceptives, to gay marriage, the church to me seems worried that they will have to "support" the laws of the land on these issues and I can see their side of their argument.

I'm not sure this is such a new thing. One of the core components of social conservatives is that they feel like they're under assault by the larger culture. It's what motivates them. A hundred years ago it was women wanting to vote. Then legalizing contraception. Then the government wanting to force churches to let black people marry white people. And now, as you say, we're at the point where the government wants to force churches to marry same-sex couples. Granted, there's no evidence of this, but what are you going to do? Reactionaries are going to be frightened of social change. It always was, and always will be. Obviously, this is a sub-set of "the church" given that the majority of Catholics disagree with the explicitly political stances that the far-right subset of the Catholic "leadership".

Anyway, the politicization of some subset of catholic churches is just an echo of the politicization of some protestant churches that happened in the 70s and 80s.

[Anonymous]

Separation of church and state- only to a point! If my religion dictates that we perform human sacrifices, should the government stay out of it? Honestly, sometimes the government SHOULD be telling religion what to do. Otherwise they can act with impunity.

[Anonymous]

RantingAtheist wrote:

Anonymous wrote:15:23 I agree it hasnt yet.

However, I would say that in the last 10 years where I have off and on attended church, enough to make this statement, I have never heard the priests spend so many sermons talking about political issues. When I was younger, youd get something every blue moon but its more common now as if the church is threatened by whatever government may impose on them.

From abortion, contraceptives, to gay marriage, the church to me seems worried that they will have to "support" the laws of the land on these issues and I can see their side of their argument.

I'm not sure this is such a new thing. One of the core components of social conservatives is that they feel like they're under assault by the larger culture. It's what motivates them. A hundred years ago it was women wanting to vote. Then legalizing contraception. Then the government wanting to force churches to let black people marry white people. And now, as you say, we're at the point where the government wants to force churches to marry same-sex couples. Granted, there's no evidence of this, but what are you going to do? Reactionaries are going to be frightened of social change. It always was, and always will be. Obviously, this is a sub-set of "the church" given that the majority of Catholics disagree with the explicitly political stances that the far-right subset of the Catholic "leadership".

Anyway, the politicization of some subset of catholic churches is just an echo of the politicization of some protestant churches that happened in the 70s and 80s.

No one is trying to force churches to marry same-sex couples. If a particular church doesn't want to perform the ceremony, that's fine. The couple can go to a justice of the peace or find a different church. Let's not start a fight over something that isn't so.

[RantingAtheist]

Anonymous wrote:

RantingAtheist wrote:

Anonymous wrote:15:23 I agree it hasnt yet.

However, I would say that in the last 10 years where I have off and on attended church, enough to make this statement, I have never heard the priests spend so many sermons talking about political issues. When I was younger, youd get something every blue moon but its more common now as if the church is threatened by whatever government may impose on them.

From abortion, contraceptives, to gay marriage, the church to me seems worried that they will have to "support" the laws of the land on these issues and I can see their side of their argument.

I'm not sure this is such a new thing. One of the core components of social conservatives is that they feel like they're under assault by the larger culture. It's what motivates them. A hundred years ago it was women wanting to vote. Then legalizing contraception. Then the government wanting to force churches to let black people marry white people. And now, as you say, we're at the point where the government wants to force churches to marry same-sex couples. Granted, there's no evidence of this, but what are you going to do? Reactionaries are going to be frightened of social change. It always was, and always will be. Obviously, this is a sub-set of "the church" given that the majority of Catholics disagree with the explicitly political stances that the far-right subset of the Catholic "leadership".

Anyway, the politicization of some subset of catholic churches is just an echo of the politicization of some protestant churches that happened in the 70s and 80s.

No one is trying to force churches to marry same-sex couples. If a particular church doesn't want to perform the ceremony, that's fine. The couple can go to a justice of the peace or find a different church. Let's not start a fight over something that isn't so.

Right, but we're not talking about reality. We're talking about "what churches fear", as PP said. Or more precisely, the unfounded fears that certain clergymen are ginning up.

[Anonymous]

the info on churches marrying same sex couples is confusing.

no bill that i know of has ever said that the church has to perform a gay marriage. it also doesnt say that a church can "opt out" if it wants either. the latter is what some (emphasis on some) opponents of gay marriage are fearful of as are some religious institutions.

the new york bill specifically spelled out that religious institutions did not have to recognize married gay couples. when the MD bill was up last year, the language was 1-2 lines and could have been seen so many different ways that it probably did scare churches. the MD bill that passed recently spelled out the terms and was a better bill.

removing the bigots and homophobes, the gay marriage issue is this. religious institutions a) do not want to be told to "recognize" a gay marriage, whether by acknowledgement or performing a ceromny b)some also dont want gay couples marrying to be seen as an actually marriage so they are really caught up in terminology.

in this very simplified way of looking at it, option a is the most "credible" argument. option b has an emotional aspect to it that can eventually get mixed up with the bigots out there.

the emotional opposition is what makes headlines. the so-called rational argument is boring and gets into legal crap nobody cares about. what happens is both sides get so caught up, that everyone gets emotional and its a big back and forth

[RantingAtheist]

Okay, back up for a second. I'm not sure I know what you mean by "the new york bill specifically spelled out that religious institutions did not have to recognize married gay couples."

You realize that churches are not currently required to "marry" heterosexual couples right now, today, right? You can test this out: take some random opposite-sex person you're acquainted with and take them to your local Catholic church, Jewish synagogue, or Islamic mosque, and tell them you want to get married.

Or am I just not following you?

[RantingAtheist]

removing the bigots and homophobes, the gay marriage issue is this. religious institutions a) do not want to be told to "recognize" a gay marriage, whether by acknowledgement or performing a ceromny b)some also dont want gay couples marrying to be seen as an actually marriage so they are really caught up in terminology.

Rereading, this looks like three separate concerns:

a) churches don't want to perform a ceremony
b) churches don't want to "recognize" a marriage
c) churches don't want a same-sex marriage--performed by a different church/creed/sect--to be seen as legitimate.

Now of those three, a) sounds reasonable, and one can make a religious liberty case for it.

I'm not sure what b) would entail. Could you elaborate?

To c), I think the appropriate response in a pluralistic country is "tough shit."

[Anonymous]

RantingAtheist wrote:Okay, back up for a second. I'm not sure I know what you mean by "the new york bill specifically spelled out that religious institutions did not have to recognize married gay couples."

You realize that churches are not currently required to "marry" heterosexual couples right now, today, right? You can test this out: take some random opposite-sex person you're acquainted with and take them to your local Catholic church, Jewish synagogue, or Islamic mosque, and tell them you want to get married.

Or am I just not following you?

im basically saying that institutions in new york arent forced to apply the law in some form or fashion. not sure of all the details but recall that was the hang up. if you looked at the NY bill and the MD bill last year, it was a college term paper versus a third grade book report.

and your last point is something ive already "tested" out. my church wouldnt marry my wife and i (she isnt catholic) until we went through some one on one's and only at that time did the priest "bless" our union. thats the most he did since we didnt marry in the church. thats besides the point on me.

im trying to say that you a right a church or other place doesnt just up and marry you without going through something and if im not mistaken, they wouldnt need to "accept" a homosexual couple unless you can correct me. im not here to say im 100% right here

[Anonymous]

RantingAtheist wrote:

removing the bigots and homophobes, the gay marriage issue is this. religious institutions a) do not want to be told to "recognize" a gay marriage, whether by acknowledgement or performing a ceromny b)some also dont want gay couples marrying to be seen as an actually marriage so they are really caught up in terminology.

Rereading, this looks like three separate concerns:

a) churches don't want to perform a ceremony
b) churches don't want to "recognize" a marriage
c) churches don't want a same-sex marriage--performed by a different church/creed/sect--to be seen as legitimate.

Now of those three, a) sounds reasonable, and one can make a religious liberty case for it.

I'm not sure what b) would entail. Could you elaborate?

To c), I think the appropriate response in a pluralistic country is "tough shit."

b entails "sure you guys can say you married according to law but in our eyes (of the lord) you guys/gals are just together" or something like that. in extreme cases the couple is sinning

[RantingAtheist]

Anonymous wrote:

RantingAtheist wrote:

removing the bigots and homophobes, the gay marriage issue is this. religious institutions a) do not want to be told to "recognize" a gay marriage, whether by acknowledgement or performing a ceromny b)some also dont want gay couples marrying to be seen as an actually marriage so they are really caught up in terminology.

Rereading, this looks like three separate concerns:

a) churches don't want to perform a ceremony
b) churches don't want to "recognize" a marriage
c) churches don't want a same-sex marriage--performed by a different church/creed/sect--to be seen as legitimate.

Now of those three, a) sounds reasonable, and one can make a religious liberty case for it.

I'm not sure what b) would entail. Could you elaborate?

To c), I think the appropriate response in a pluralistic country is "tough shit."

b entails "sure you guys can say you married according to law but in our eyes (of the lord) you guys/gals are just together" or something like that. in extreme cases the couple is sinning

Sure, but I'm trying to imagine some possible scenario in which the state can compel a religious institution to concede that a same-sex couple is not sinning, or that they're "really married". I don't mean that in a "it's unconstitutional" sense, but in a "it's nonsensical" sense. Granted there could be edge-cases, say where one partner in a same-sex couple works for a religious institution, and the institution is required to pay for the partner's health care. But it seems a stretch to couch that as a religious freedom issue.

[RantingAtheist]

Anonymous wrote:

RantingAtheist wrote:Okay, back up for a second. I'm not sure I know what you mean by "the new york bill specifically spelled out that religious institutions did not have to recognize married gay couples."

You realize that churches are not currently required to "marry" heterosexual couples right now, today, right? You can test this out: take some random opposite-sex person you're acquainted with and take them to your local Catholic church, Jewish synagogue, or Islamic mosque, and tell them you want to get married.

Or am I just not following you?

im basically saying that institutions in new york arent forced to apply the law in some form or fashion. not sure of all the details but recall that was the hang up. if you looked at the NY bill and the MD bill last year, it was a college term paper versus a third grade book report.

and your last point is something ive already "tested" out. my church wouldnt marry my wife and i (she isnt catholic) until we went through some one on one's and only at that time did the priest "bless" our union. thats the most he did since we didnt marry in the church. thats besides the point on me.

im trying to say that you a right a church or other place doesnt just up and marry you without going through something and if im not mistaken, they wouldnt need to "accept" a homosexual couple unless you can correct me. im not here to say im 100% right here

No, that's my understanding as well. That's why the claim that churches are afraid "the state will force us to gay marry against our will" seems so strained. Churches pretty much get to decide who they're going to perform ceremonies for.