For anyone interesting in a damn good rebuttal of the whole gay marriage thing, the economist had one of it's best editorials on it this week. Succinct, clear and concise, well wroth a read.

God I sound like tw.

You mean that many of us will be really, REALLY pissed off by it?

No, you don't. He would have posted the whole article.

A link might be nice, though, for those of us too lazy to look for it themselves ... (me) ;)

I'm not qualified to answer that. I'm only barely qualified to say what I said. The only reason I have any religious schooling at all is out of convenience--namely, it was important to my husband (because it was VERY important to my husband's mother), and when tempered with common sense and decency I believe it's a reasonable moral structure in which to raise children.

Which is why it bugs me when someone takes a wacky passage out of Deuteronomy and puts it forth as a fundamental tenet of Christianity. I used to be more than a little biased against religion, and it was a bit of a wake-up call when I did finally get a basic overview and understood how so many of those passages could still be in there.

It's just a question of low-level education--I think people would be a lot less intolerant on both sides if everyone had a simple understanding of exactly what it was everyone believed in the first place. I'm a fan of educating oneself.

Incidentally, who are the 1.5% you mention? Are you talking about the apocrypha? Either way, I certainly don't think that the majority should be tyrannical, or that religion should have ANYTHING to do with our government. Please don't assume that just because I believe in learning a little of everything that I BELIEVE everything I read. But I do believe that if a religion gives something a name, then that is what that thing is called for them. Not that it is TRUE, just that that is what's it's called. I'm not sure which point you were making because I don't know who the 1.5% are.

Actually, you end up with a whole different set of rules, more gods than you can shake a stick at (which is valid act in many pagan practices), and a lot more personal responsibility ... there's no get out of hell free card of 'accepting christ as a personal savior' in paganism ... you have to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

You also have to put up with a lot of crap, like Lady Morgahhna Moonshine Dewdrop and people who overuse glitter.

Oh, and the teens who want to freak out their rather straightlaced parents.

Here are two links.

join my church.

we're Pickandchoosists. you just take what you like from wherever you like it, and try to be a good person. Don;t persecute others based on their religious beliefs, and you get to go to whichever heaven you feel most comfortable with.....nirvana, valhala, heaven, whatever. and you dont have to go to church or anything.

Actually, you end up with a whole different set of rules, more gods than you can shake a stick at (which is valid act in many pagan practices), and a lot more personal responsibility ... there's no get out of hell free card of 'accepting christ as a personal savior' in paganism ... you have to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

You are correct -- personal responsibility is something I do not see in too many religious people these days, even though they are often educated in it. They seem to be much more concerned about enforcement of their ideas and the questioning of others'.

I have a lot of respect for people who are spiritual, but not so much for people who are religious.

Speaking for the total heathens, it's a great exercise to build your very own moral code based on philosophical principles instead of fairy tales. I heartily recommend it.

Without making this sound meaner than it's intended -- well, DUH.

I am an atheist. I do not feel bound by the "rules," beliefs, moral/value systems and/or Lists of Things That People Shouldn't Do that various religious organizations have cooked up. They simply do not apply to me, because I am not a member of any of those groups, nor do I feel the need to structure my behavior according to the standards of J. Random God in hopes of attaining salvation, reaching enlightenment or avoiding eternal damnation.

Am I actively working _against_ those things, or deliberately thumbing my nose at them by doing what major religions denounce? No. Whether or not (let's say) the Catholic Church disapproves of my behavior is as irrelevant to me as whether or not my neighbor's ferret disapproves. Their "rules" aren't my guidelines, much less something I should feel compelled to follow. Sometimes my behavior matches up, sometimes it doesn't, but worrying about whether I'm acting according to religions' "rules" or not isn't one of my priorities.

Can a religious person look at my actions, feel that I am in violation of his or her own moral beliefs, and disapprove accordingly? Of course. But I can do the same in return, and neither of our denouncements should mean much to the other.

The same analogy can be applied to competing religions -- should Baptists be concerned if the Unitarians follow different rules? Should Catholics adjust their doctrines to accommodate Islamic dissent? Should pagans give a rat's ass what the Jews or the Buddhists or the atheists don't like about their beliefs?

Nope. Because nobody "knows" for sure which group is right, and anyone who says otherwise is either deluded or selling something.

Why do so many religions have the "you shall dislike, with hate, X group of people"? And doesn't the rule that is included in those same religions "don't hurt other people, you twit" cancel out the previous? I only think of this because my own, personal set of ideals and beliefs are fashioned from the general ideas of, "Don't hurt others, don't damage other people's things, etc, etc." I didn't have to go to church to learn those basic ideals, either, and my set seems to get me by with a lot less friction and personal strife than what a lot of religions teach. Yet, when approached by anyone concerned with my "saved? status", I'm immediatly put down as an evil heathen for holding ideas so similar to their own minus the "be a dick to people different than you" rule.

Must be my beautiful looks.

Because organized religion differs from personal religious belief in one significant way -- one of its primary goals is to obtain and wield POWER. That's power as in influencing society through strength of numbers, through suppressing opposed groups (religious or otherwise) through various methods, and through maintaining a healthy level of zeal among its followers and receiving a correspondingly high level of donations and devotion to the church's goals.

It's so much easier to control people when you can present them with scapegoats and easy targets as to what's wrong with the world.

It's so much easier to control people when you can present them with scapegoats and easy targets as to what's wrong with the world.

This is why I think Shintoism kicks ass: they believe in all sorts of wild stuff, still go to temples to worship, but not once, ever, have they gone on the war path for anything based on that religion. No war was ever started because something in a book told the people who subscribe to Shinto to go kill The Unbelievers, Shinto never suggests that it is more correct than other beliefs, and they have rather nice ideas that there should be a nice balance between people and nature.

Yesterday I ran into something that was a little frightening: two of my co-workers, who I always considered to be the nicest of people (have wonderful families, do charity work, help out others that they don't even know, not racist in any way, considered almost family, etc) turned into something scary while enjoying a discussion over lunch. All it took was for someone to mention Disney, the other mentions Gay Day, and all of a sudden I'm hearing the most awful, uneducated hate that is usually reserved for members of the Klan being interviewed on Springer. I was really taken aback by this display and I'm still hoping it has more to do with the current media atmosphere than the actual feelings of the people I work with.

You begin to wonder just how far simple 'faith' can take you.

I was raised under a very strict christian roof and I turned out to be a lesbian. I have yet to come out to my family simply because of the fact that I lack moral value and I want their financial support.

The other day, while on the phone with my mother, I mentioned the joke of a gay friend of mine, and she began to spurt the most distasteful and hateful things about him and gayness in general. She ended her tyrade with a nice cherry topping of, Oh well, they'll burn in hell anyway.

it has more to do with the current media atmosphere than the actual feelings of the people I work with.

As the lesbian daughter of a woman who once told me that she would love me no matter what and support me in all I do, I can't help but wonder if she would continue to feel this way if I tell the truth. I'm actually scared to find out.

As the lesbian daughter of a woman who once told me that she would love me no matter what and support me in all I do, I can't help but wonder if she would continue to feel this way if I tell the truth. I'm actually scared to find out.

This is not even remotely going to parallel the stress of the situation you are faced with, but I feel somewhat similar anxiety when it comes to dealing with my boss. I have a great fear that if he ever found out that I didn't subscribe to the beliefs of the church that I would probably be fired. He is, as are the other members of the group, very kind people, but it is generally accepted that the entire group is composed of god-fearing, church-going people. One person is quite openly not one of these, as he is Indian and has annouced his Hindu beliefs, and this poor guy gets no work, no praise, and was recently pushed off into the corner of the building where no one has to deal with him. I think during the next round of cuts he'll be the next to go.

Without saying anything, I think everyone has made the assumption that I go to church and think along the same lines they do. I'd prefer it stay that way.

Quote:

Draft of a Constitutional Amendment to Defend Biblical Marriage: * Marriage in the United States of America shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)

Say what?!?! :confused:

Quote:

* Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

Sorry God...I'm selfish and I don't like sharing with others!

Quote:

* A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

Looks like there's gonna be a lot of women dying out...

Quote:

* Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30, 2Cor 6:14)

:rolleyes: Whatever.

Quote:

* Since marriage is for life, neither the US Constitution nor any state law shall permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9-12)

Dang. *watches fidelity fly right out the window*

Quote:

* If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow, or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

Baahahah! One shoe, eh? That's funny.

Quote:

* In lieu of marriage (if there are no acceptable men to be found), a woman shall get her father drunk and have sex with him. (Gen 19:31-36)

The hell?!?!?!? Holy shit!!
:eek: :confused: