Heads up people - No on Prop 8 people are coming straight into your church to get in your face

[EvaLSeraphim_IHB]

Jesus was incredibly apolitical. His followers urged him at every turn to assert himself politically. His response was unquestionably apathetic.

Not so much, in my opinion. That whole turning over the tables of the money changers in the Temple was most assuredly not the response of an apathetic person.

 

[EvaLSeraphim_IHB]

And slightly off-topic and not directed to you, T!m, there seems to be an argument that we shouldn't legislate morality, or that legislating morality somehow violates the separation of church and state. I agree that legislation requiring all citizens to worship at a Christian church on Sunday would violate the Constitution. However, we legislate morality all the time and rightfully so. Rules against murder, theft, fraud, child abuse and rape are legislative morality. Not very controversial ones, but moral judgments all the same. The death penalty (or the banning thereof) is a moral decision. When we tax cigarettes instead of bread, create age limits for alcohol and ban cocaine use, those are largely moral choices. Social welfare programs come from moral views about distributive justice. One can't simply say that the government needs to avoid moral judgments altogether, in fact, the absence of morality-based laws is itself a moral judgment. And it is perfectly acceptable for our laws to reflect prevailing morality. I don't want to live in a society that enforces the lowest common denominator of "what is moral." If someone wants to change the prevailing morality, they need to convince people that the current moral framework is unjust -- and to our credit, that happens.

That's an objective observation, and just a general comment, not specific to Prop 8 or any particular social issue.

Concur for the most part, but morality and theology are not the same thing. Had the Mormons and Catholics not become so involved in Prop 8, I think more people would have felt the vote to be a matter of morality and not theology, and while there would be backlash, it probably would have been directed differently than it is being directed now. Did the churches have the right to freely express their views, donate to, and encourage their members to donate to causes in favor of Prop 8? As a matter of principle, yes. But as Stephen Covey says, "When you pick up one end of the stick, you pick up the other." So now that Prop 8 has passed, they can accept the "consequences" of having been very vocal about their support of Prop 8. I put "consequences" in quotes because consequences can seem both positive and negative. The churches now have the satisfaction of knowing that gay marriages will not be recognized in California (with the possible exception of those that occurred after the court decision and Nov 4th), as well as recognizing that people are not very happy with them.

For example, I received my annual "please donate" from the Second Harvest Food Bank. Second Harvest is a branch of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, an organization of the Catholic Church. I will not be sending them a donation this year because of their support of Prop 8, but will be sending a donation to the OC Food Bankinstead. Does that mean I hate the Catholics? I don't think so. It simply means that I would rather support an inclusive organization rather than an exclusive one.

 

[EvaLSeraphim_IHB]

I actually think that's where we are. Abortion is legal, with some limited restrictions that vary state by state. Yet, that's the most important issue -- literally a life or death issue -- to many/most religious conservatives.

As is the death penalty. If one were to follow Catholic theology, there would be no abortion, no birth control, and no death penalty. And yet the strict Catholics join in with the conservative Protestants for political purposes. You know what they say about politics and bedfellows.

Not only that, but as a fairly religious society, we've actually permitted the systematic removal of nearly any religious reference or concept from the public sphere -- for example, the generic reference to "God" in the pledge of allegiance. I think we've gone too far in that direction, but reasonable minds can disagree.

Quick history lesson. There was no reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance originally. It was only placed there when the Knights of Columbus lobbied for it in or around 1956. So that was actually a successful affirmative effort to put God into the public sphere.

My favorite recent story is the city in South Carolina that opened up each of its city council meetings with a prayer by a local pastor or citizen, each of whom would apply to give the prayer. Well, a local Wiccan woman applied and (you see this coming, right?) was turned down. Um, yeah, so much for the day to day effectiveness of the anti-establishment clause.

(If my Google-fu is good today, I'll post the link.)

Edit: Ah, my recitation of the facts was off. Here you go (and alink to the oh so liberal 4th Circuit's* opinion finding in favor of the Wiccan):

First, the court found that "Town Council meetings always open with prayer," that the Mayor and all Council Members are Christian, and that Council Member John Broom "often" leads the prayer. The court further found that this prayer "frequently refers to Jesus, Jesus Christ, Christ or Savior in the opening or closing portion" of the prayer.

. . .

During the prayers, the court found that "citizens attending the meetings customarily stand and bow their heads." The record also contains uncontroverted evidence that residents of the Town participated in the prayers by saying "amen" at the end.

Wiccan faith (an earth-based religion reconstructed from ancient Pagan beliefs), has regularly attended Council meetings since 1999. At trial, the Town Council conceded that Wynne "had a legitimate purpose for attending" these meetings "unrelated to her religion."

. . .

Finally, at a Council meeting in late 2000, Wynne objected to the Town Council’s practice of referring to "Jesus," "Christ," or "Jesus Christ" in its prayers. As an alternative, she "proposed that the prayer’s references be limited to ‘God’" or, instead, "that members of different religions be invited to give prayers." The district court found that Mayor Starnes responded at the meeting "to the effect that: ‘This is the way we’ve always done things and we’re not going to change.’"

Prior to the next Council meeting in February 2001, Council Member Barbara Hilton posted a message on the Town’s website addressing Wynne’s "request of alternative prayer," stating that she felt "it was imperative that we act[ ] quickly and decisively to Ms. Wynne’s request" at the next meeting, and urging the Town’s citizens to "call your council members and mayor with your opinions on this." Subsequently, several Christian ministers drafted letter resolutions on behalf of their members expressing support for continuance of a "Christian" prayer at Council meetings and "opposition to allowing an alternative prayer to a professed ‘witch,’" and numerous citizens signed a petition urging the Council to "not stop praying to our God in heaven!" At the February meeting, the church ministers and members presented the letters and petitions to the Town Council. Many church members and ministers attended that meeting — the record indicates that about 100 citizens were in attendance, as opposed to the usual "five or six," — and "hallelujahs," as well as "amens," were heard from the citizens following Broom’s delivery of the Christian prayer. Wynne again asked for an "alternative" nonsectarian prayer, and the Town Council again refused her request, announcing that it would adhere to its customary prayer.

Wynne continued to attend Town Council meetings but, she testified, "it began to get hard." When she refused to stand during the Christian invocation, she heard a voice, which she believed was Councilman Broom’s, state, "Well, I guess some people aren’t going

to participate." Her fellow citizens then told Wynne she "wasn’t wanted," and that she "should leave town"; they accused her of being a "Satanist," and threatened that she "could possibly be burned out." Wynne felt "very, very uncomfortable" and "a little scar[ed]."

Moreover, the district court found that Wynne’s "efforts to participate in Town Council’s meetings as a member of the public [were] adversely affected by her refusal to accept the Christian prayer tradition." At one Council meeting, the Council would not permit Wynne to participate after arriving a few minutes late to avoid the prayer, even though "she had signed up to speak at the meeting, and was listed on the agenda." More generally, Wynne testified that the Council limited her allotted speaking time, "ostracized" her, and "treated [her] differently" than other members of the community. She explained that she did not believe the Mayor took her seriously, and that he attempted to intimidate her.

*For those that don't know, that's a joke. The 4th Circuit is generally considered to be the most conservative/right circuit in the nation.

 

[Trooper_IHB]

The synonyms for “deviant” will hopefully help to illustrate why it is so offensive in this context:

Synonyms for deviant

Noun

1. pervert, deviant, deviate, degenerate, reprobate, miscreant

usage: a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior

Adjective

1. aberrant, deviant, abnormal (vs. normal)

usage: markedly different from an accepted norm; “aberrent behavior”; “deviant ideas” a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior [syn: pervert]

A deviant, me ? No.

A pervert ? Perhapsssss......

 

[EvaLSeraphim_IHB]

Religion and God(s) are two separate things. Religion was created by human beings.

Concur.

Religion is nothing more than a way to control people through use of coecion and fear.

While I think it can be that, I don't think it has to be, and I don't think it always is. Religion can be used to inspire people to be better than they want to be. I don't see how the Shinto/Buddhism mix practiced by the Japanese is used to control people by coercion and fear. I do see how a public sphere sense of shame might, but I don't think the religion itself is controlling. I'm not thoroughly versed on other practices of Buddhism or even Hinduism, but I have not seen how those religions use coercion and fear to control people.

It is no different than any other geopolitical system. Any system that is devised and controlled by man(and women) is prone to mistakes and corruption. Why is it that the most powerful people in the islamic world brainwash innocent youths into killing themselves instead of leading by example? If they really believed this garbage, they would blow themselves up.

Or, you know, why do some conservative religions encourage people to bomb abortions clinics or murder doctors who perform abortions? I think you can find extremists in most (all?) religions who claim that God blesses their acts. Crusades, anyone? The Inquisition?

You can believe in God(s) or any other deity for that matter without religious indoctrination. I strongly believe that if there is a GOD he/she is probably really pissed off at how bad we screwed things up. If there is a God, no one can tell you about him/her; you really just have to believe it yourself. You must do your own soul searching, not because you were told about God/Allah/Vishnu etc since you were born.

Yep. I've got nothing to add to that.

 

[EvaLSeraphim_IHB]

Why is it that we are so quick to point out the bad byproducts of religion and slow to give credit when religion produces progress?

Who is this "we," Kimosabe? When one refers to MLK, it is either as "The Reverend," or sometimes "Doctor King."

I think this is no different than T!m's and Trooper's point (I think it was T!m in this thread that posted the graph), about what the media focuses on. Oh, every now and then you get a story about an Interfaith conference, but those are not ratings drivers as much as (to use the examples above) suicide bombings and abortion clinic bombings. At the same time, if religion is a motivator / justifier of the Patriot Movement, I think that is something people ought to know. I think it is generally accepted that religion does accomplish some good things (e.g., feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, etc.), such that it may not need to be pointed out.

 

[NoWowway_IHB]

Complaint filed against the Mormon Church over its involvement in Proposition 8.

Link

Political expression is fine. But it has to be legal.

 

[WINEX_IHB]

Winex is correct in his use of the word deviant. You guys are attacking the wrong argument. It is the implication that being deviant is wrong that you should be discussing.

Everyone who invests and makes money is deviant. Going with the herd is a path to losses.

Also, the mass acceptance of a certain behavior does not mean it is "right." Slavery was widely accepted for centuries. Did that make it right? The first countries that outlawed slavery were deviant. Did that make them wrong?

Watch it buddy. If you keep using words like that in the proper context, it won't be long before people are trying to get you banned from here too!

 

[WINEX_IHB]

Winex is correct in his use of the word deviant. You guys are attacking the wrong argument. It is the implication that being deviant is wrong that you should be discussing.

Everyone who invests and makes money is deviant. Going with the herd is a path to losses.

Also, the mass acceptance of a certain behavior does not mean it is "right." Slavery was widely accepted for centuries. Did that make it right? The first countries that outlawed slavery were deviant. Did that make them wrong?

There is some nuance to the use of this word. To be deviant is to behave in a way that does not fit a social norm. For example, not paying for something you are "supposed" to pay. If this meaning is extrapolated to sexual identity it assumes at its root that it is a behavior. That is, it is common for a man to chose to be attracted to a woman (and vice versa) because that is the social norm (not because there is a biological reason for this). By calling gay people deviant, he is clearly stating that sexual identity is merely a choice in his eye. In this sense his use of "deviant" is completely incorrect. If the intend was to refer to same sex couples as something that is less common, there are a number of different words that can be used that do not infer behavior.

The synonyms for "deviant" will hopefully help to illustrate why it is so offensive in this context:



Synonyms for deviant

Noun

1. pervert, deviant, deviate, degenerate, reprobate, miscreant

usage: a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior

Adjective

1. aberrant, deviant, abnormal (vs. normal)

usage: markedly different from an accepted norm; "aberrent behavior"; "deviant ideas" a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior [syn: pervert]

Which synonym don't you think applies here? They look right on to me.

 

[graphrix_IHB]

Winex is correct in his use of the word deviant. You guys are attacking the wrong argument. It is the implication that being deviant is wrong that you should be discussing.

Everyone who invests and makes money is deviant. Going with the herd is a path to losses.

Also, the mass acceptance of a certain behavior does not mean it is "right." Slavery was widely accepted for centuries. Did that make it right? The first countries that outlawed slavery were deviant. Did that make them wrong?

Watch it buddy. If you keep using words like that in the proper context, it won't be long before people are trying to get you banned from here too!

Would you stop with your conspiracy theories that people want to get you banned. That is a collaborative decision amongst the moderators. For the record, and as I have repeatedly told you in private as well as public, that idea has never come up. So please stop your whining, no one likes a whiner, and it is getting really, really old. Unfortunately, you don't get banned for whining. So time to put the big boy pants on and start acting like the adult that I know you can be, and stop acting like the victim and whining about it.

 

[WINEX_IHB]

Winex is correct in his use of the word deviant. You guys are attacking the wrong argument. It is the implication that being deviant is wrong that you should be discussing.

Everyone who invests and makes money is deviant. Going with the herd is a path to losses.

Also, the mass acceptance of a certain behavior does not mean it is "right." Slavery was widely accepted for centuries. Did that make it right? The first countries that outlawed slavery were deviant. Did that make them wrong?

Watch it buddy. If you keep using words like that in the proper context, it won't be long before people are trying to get you banned from here too!

Would you stop with your conspiracy theories that people want to get you banned. That is a collaborative decision amongst the moderators. For the record, and as I have repeatedly told you in private as well as public, that idea has never come up. So please stop your whining, no one likes a whiner, and it is getting really, really old. Unfortunately, you don't get banned for whining. So time to put the big boy pants on and start acting like the adult that I know you can be, and stop acting like the victim and whining about it.

You're a little slow. So I'll help you out here. The following quote appeared earlier in this thread:

EvaLSeraphim

Posted: 13 November 2008 08:56 AM [ Thanks! ] [ Report ] [ Ignore ] [ # 3 ]

Custom Estate

Avatar

RankRankRankRankRankRankRank

Total Posts: 2495

Joined 2007-01-10

Winex, I’m not a mod and I can’t ban you, but I would kindly request that you stop using the phrase “deviant lifestyles.” To me, that is nearly as offensive as using the “N word” and is way beyond the rope and tree comment of BLT’s that you are constantly whining about. Knock it off. I think it is possible for you to disagree without being disagreeable, but you’re really testing that theory.

 

[NoWowway_IHB]

IF we are getting a vote on whether to ban or not, I vote yes ;-p

 

[EvaLSeraphim_IHB]

Yup, it was my understanding that engaging in personal attacks would get you banned. Apparently I'm wrong, which will make these forums considerably unpleasant.

 

[NoWowway_IHB]

What IHB does not yet understand- If you leave someone who is repeatedly hostile, nonsensical, aggressive in a personal way.... it will take a toll on the whole community.

It will become "tiresome" for the rest of the posters to have to sift through nonsense and other offensive posting habits.

Posting communities that want to build their numbers will have a remedy for that. Banning just means that you kill off that particular noxious moniker life. The person is welcome to remake a moniker and re register with no comment. If they fall into boorish behavior, then the another ban is instituted. They'll have to make up a new moniker.... If you follow this basic behavior modification technique, you will see that the majority of the effort is now placed on the Obnoxious poster, and not the community or moderators. Someone is either going to get tired of their own consequences or will simply move over to yahoo, the freeper site etc... where it is easier to be a jerk.

When a poster is banned, there is an immediate feeling of relief throughout the community. It's as if the worst neighbor in the world has finally moved to Spain or Mars- far, far away.

Eva is a patient, reasonable poster as she is in person. I share her frustration that someone is crapping all over the carpet and it's being ignored. ~just saying~

 

[WINEX_IHB]

Yup, it was my understanding that engaging in personal attacks would get you banned. Apparently I'm wrong, which will make these forums considerably unpleasant.

Searching on the word "deviant" through the search function here reveals that I have used the word 7 times. (I guess this is number 8) In no case have I called any member of the forum a deviant. You have voiced your wish to have me banned simply based on using the word properly.

I do find it somewhat interesting that you haven't voiced a similar wish towards T!m for use of the same word at least twice, and both times directed to a particular forum member.

An objective observer could only conclude that it is expression of thought that you are opposed to, not personal attacks.

 

[IrvineRenter_IHB]

The problem with banning people with whom you do not agree is that the blog or the forum becomes an echo chamber of people preaching to the choir.

We have a useful function here that works for individuals in the community who do not wish to read the rants of someone with whom they do not agree: the ignore button. Use it.

I will go after people who call names or make negative characterizations designed only to be offensive. Other than that, I have neither the time nor the inclination to censure ideas no matter how obnoxiously those ideas are presented.

 

[SoCal78_IHB]

If you're going to ban Winex for using the word "deviant" then I suppose you'd have to do the same for anyone who's used "wingnut", "bat-shit-crazy Christian", etc. There are any number of things on here that anybody could take offense at. Instead of suggesting bans maybe we could just have compassion for each other and know that these are "hot topics" which elicit strong emotion in people... and we are people, afterall, not robots. Sometimes when people get upset they say things they do not mean (and sometimes they do) but it's not for us to judge the motivation or intent behind someone else's remarks. That goes for both sides.

 

[graphrix_IHB]

Winex is correct in his use of the word deviant. You guys are attacking the wrong argument. It is the implication that being deviant is wrong that you should be discussing.

Everyone who invests and makes money is deviant. Going with the herd is a path to losses.

Also, the mass acceptance of a certain behavior does not mean it is "right." Slavery was widely accepted for centuries. Did that make it right? The first countries that outlawed slavery were deviant. Did that make them wrong?

Watch it buddy. If you keep using words like that in the proper context, it won't be long before people are trying to get you banned from here too!

Would you stop with your conspiracy theories that people want to get you banned. That is a collaborative decision amongst the moderators. For the record, and as I have repeatedly told you in private as well as public, that idea has never come up. So please stop your whining, no one likes a whiner, and it is getting really, really old. Unfortunately, you don't get banned for whining. So time to put the big boy pants on and start acting like the adult that I know you can be, and stop acting like the victim and whining about it.

You're a little slow. So I'll help you out here. The following quote appeared earlier in this thread:

EvaLSeraphim

Posted: 13 November 2008 08:56 AM [ Thanks! ] [ Report ] [ Ignore ] [ # 3 ]

Custom Estate

Avatar

RankRankRankRankRankRankRank

Total Posts: 2495

Joined 2007-01-10

Winex, I’m not a mod and I can’t ban you, but I would kindly request that you stop using the phrase “deviant lifestyles.” To me, that is nearly as offensive as using the “N word” and is way beyond the rope and tree comment of BLT’s that you are constantly whining about. Knock it off. I think it is possible for you to disagree without being disagreeable, but you’re really testing that theory.

It's not me who is slow. Let me repeat myself, even if I have done this before, and you still do not get it, but I will try one more time. It is between myself, and the other moderators who chose who gets banned. Not just a few readers who wish they could ban you. I am tired of your whining about getting banned, whether it is whining about a reader or a your made up idea that I or any of the mods want to ban you. You are behaving like a whiny little child, and it is annoying, and I really hope you could be the bigger person and just knock it off.

For anyone who is offended by you, I hope they use the ignore button, as it works quite well as I have heard from several people who are using it on you. There are too many other great posters to read here that can make valid opposite points without name calling and offensive posts, that would make it a shame that anyone would leave over one person who constantly annoys them when there is a very easy solution to ignore every thing you say.

So stop the whining, otherwise I will create a poll to vote on whether we should add a "H" to your name. Big boy pants, find them, and wear them.

 

[EvaLSeraphim_IHB]

. . . no matter how obnoxiously those ideas are presented.

Actually, IR, that is where you and I differ. Skek and I don't agree on a lot, but we can differ in a way that doesn't involve personal attacks or much more than a simple airing of differences and agreeing to disagree. I guess trying to elevate the level of debate isn't an interest. And as others have noted previously, ignoring someone isn't a particularly effective option when others use the quote function.

Of course, there are multiple remedies to Winex' choice of discussion tactics, including giving as good as you get. Hope you enjoy it.

Nowow - Sadly, this particular discussion isn't new. I have chafed for quite some time now about the lack of an objective comment policy. I don't foresee that changing in the future, so I guess it's embrace it or leave it.

 

[WINEX_IHB]

Winex is correct in his use of the word deviant. You guys are attacking the wrong argument. It is the implication that being deviant is wrong that you should be discussing.

Everyone who invests and makes money is deviant. Going with the herd is a path to losses.

Also, the mass acceptance of a certain behavior does not mean it is "right." Slavery was widely accepted for centuries. Did that make it right? The first countries that outlawed slavery were deviant. Did that make them wrong?

Watch it buddy. If you keep using words like that in the proper context, it won't be long before people are trying to get you banned from here too!

Would you stop with your conspiracy theories that people want to get you banned. That is a collaborative decision amongst the moderators. For the record, and as I have repeatedly told you in private as well as public, that idea has never come up. So please stop your whining, no one likes a whiner, and it is getting really, really old. Unfortunately, you don't get banned for whining. So time to put the big boy pants on and start acting like the adult that I know you can be, and stop acting like the victim and whining about it.

You're a little slow. So I'll help you out here. The following quote appeared earlier in this thread:

EvaLSeraphim

Posted: 13 November 2008 08:56 AM [ Thanks! ] [ Report ] [ Ignore ] [ # 3 ]

Custom Estate

Avatar

RankRankRankRankRankRankRank

Total Posts: 2495

Joined 2007-01-10

Winex, I’m not a mod and I can’t ban you, but I would kindly request that you stop using the phrase “deviant lifestyles.” To me, that is nearly as offensive as using the “N word” and is way beyond the rope and tree comment of BLT’s that you are constantly whining about. Knock it off. I think it is possible for you to disagree without being disagreeable, but you’re really testing that theory.

It's not me who is slow. Let me repeat myself, even if I have done this before, and you still do not get it, but I will try one more time. It is between myself, and the other moderators who chose who gets banned. Not just a few readers who wish they could ban you. I am tired of your whining about getting banned, whether it is whining about a reader or a your made up idea that I or any of the mods want to ban you. You are behaving like a whiny little child, and it is annoying, and I really hope you could be the bigger person and just knock it off.

For anyone who is offended by you, I hope they use the ignore button, as it works quite well as I have heard from several people who are using it on you. There are too many other great posters to read here that can make valid opposite points without name calling and offensive posts, that would make it a shame that anyone would leave over one person who constantly annoys them when there is a very easy solution to ignore every thing you say.

So stop the whining, otherwise I will create a poll to vote on whether we should add a "H" to your name. Big boy pants, find them, and wear them.

It's always difficult dealing with the learning disabled. Let me pull a sentence from your reply to me.



Would you stop with your conspiracy theories that people want to get you banned.

Not only did I point out people in this thread who want to get me banned, but they spoke up and reaffirmed my statements. Whether or not Eva or NoWowWay have the power to ban me or not is irrelevant.

Now, if you feel to demonstrate exactly why I feel you are unfit to be a moderator, feel free to deface my screen name in any way you see fit.