Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to I wonder if this has occurred to these bloggers?
I agree that it is pointless
but have to say that I did not drift into "common vernacular" of mistaking prejudice for discrimination. I am very much aware of the difference and was not discussing (I didn't see it as an argument) discrimination at all.
posted by
Azur
on June 24, 2006 at 3:34 PM
| link to this | reply
Azur - the argument is now becoming pointless
You are speaking of mature adults, my statement was without qualification other than to suggest in varying degrees. Neither of these points can be ignored, "varying degrees" is the obvious qualifier and one that makes my statement impossible to refute. You should look up the word "prejudice" in the dictionary, it seems in your comment that you are drifting into the common vernacular of using it to describe discrimination.
posted by
gomedome
on June 23, 2006 at 7:10 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome, that's like saying that
if someone is not Greek they must be prejudiced against Greeks. Just because they don't become Greek doesn't mean they are prejudiced (although they
may be). They are just who they are. The heterosexual or homosexual is just as likely to know who
they are. Technically you could construct an argument that it is prejudice that stops one from switching to the other but that is to suggest that in some underlying sense everyone thinks negatively against what they are not. I think that plenty of people in this world can just
be and allow
different people to just be. It is simply not possible to become everything else and it doesn't necessarily follow that we are prejudiced against everything we are not or that we are not prepared to become.
posted by
Azur
on June 23, 2006 at 3:16 PM
| link to this | reply
i think what we are trying to do is arrive at Truth, pkcricket
my take on this is that if something is false then it has to be shown to be such. to continue to embrace what is false and invalid is to be wrapped in a belief that has gaping holes in it. when all the evidence says that you are wrong then you should stop -- think -- not contiue in erroneous ways.
i hate being this way -- but i for one can see that homoszexuality is as natureal as heterosexuality and that many studies support this -- and by that we should review scriptures again -- we should see that what the writers are talking about are acitvities that they havce seen -- activities mucxh different than what we see today.
it is those specific abusive activities that are being addressed, not a loving homosexual relationship that is as natural as a loving heterosexual.
if Christians can fnally come around to understanding that, then we all will come closer to the Kingdom of Heaven.
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 23, 2006 at 7:15 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome...yup, right again....FYI there is a post by Cantey titled
what is your "dumbass" IQ? You may enjoy it. It proves that there is a least one intelligent and wise christian among us!
posted by
RckyMtnActivist
on June 23, 2006 at 6:32 AM
| link to this | reply
RckyMtnActivist - what I find even more remarkable
is that so many people use the bible itself as their sole source of proof that the it is the word of God. The most annnoying part of these people is that they not only replace much of their thinking with what is written in it, they have no trouble at all expecting everyone else to live by it as well.
posted by
gomedome
on June 23, 2006 at 6:28 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome.....
So well said. It makes me nuts that these christians put so much faith in a book that has been written and re-written so many times and has been used as a way of control and manipulation! You know maybe you should do a post on "Channeling." The christians condemn anyone who "channels" (like in Ramtha, Spirit Guides, etc.) yet how was the bible written? How did all these messengers get their info from God? Same way right... by channeling. Just another one of their contradictory beliefs. I cannot believe that intelligent people believe the bible is the actual "Word of God." How dumb is that?
posted by
RckyMtnActivist
on June 23, 2006 at 6:21 AM
| link to this | reply
Azur - I feel much the same way but I did not start out in life this way
I had to overcome my inherent prejudices. Again we get into the definition of prejudice. I am speaking in absolute terms with degree ranging from minor reservations to proactive discrimination. I can agree that there are many people that do not harbor any resentment against the gay community but if any of us heterosexuals where completely devoid of prejudice towards gays . . we'd be gay ourselves.
posted by
gomedome
on June 23, 2006 at 6:04 AM
| link to this | reply
pkcricket - there is an issue greater than what each individual may believe
That is to what extent an individual can attempt to influence others by their beliefs. In the case of adherents to the Christian religions, they insist that homosexuality is a sin which immediately carries with it a negative connotation. From this comes a negative depiction that these same people attempt to use to influence the lives of those they feel are sinners with this influence taking many shapes and forms. From the proliferation of negative stereotypes, to the spreading of misinformation, to outright discrimination. Many of these actions are subtle in nature but all serve to make life more difficult for the gay community and when one considers that another individual's legal sexual behaviour is nobody's business but their own just what is this effort in aid of? It is just another method of imposing religious beliefs on others.
I am happy to play along with your request that we respect each other's beliefs but it is unlikely that you will be able to keep up your end of the bargain. You have a user manual and invisible friends on your side, I only have right and wrong.
posted by
gomedome
on June 23, 2006 at 5:58 AM
| link to this | reply
gome...
My only issue in all this debate right is, not that I won't be able to convince you of the Truth that I believe in. BUT, that you are completely tossing away the belief that I have as being "ludicrous" and "laughable". I don't believe I've come in here and directly accused or dashed your beliefs to the ground, just because I don't believe them or because I find them laughable. I simply ask the same respect back. You will not change my view, and I probably will not change yours, so let's leave it at educational comparisons and study. How bout it, huh? Cricket ><>
posted by
pkcricket
on June 23, 2006 at 4:14 AM
| link to this | reply
Yeah I understood that but I still know there are people
who don't think that there is any difference, least ways not any difference more important than which soap powder people buy or people who are lawyers vs people who are doctors. I can't believe I am alone in the world on this.
I can never understand why anyone even thinks about opposing homosexuals when there are so many genuine issues in the world which deserve instant and concentrated attention.
posted by
Azur
on June 22, 2006 at 11:40 PM
| link to this | reply
Azur - I am not speaking of acting upon an inherent prejudice
I am speaking more of the natural tendency of heterosexuals to view those who have different sexual preferences as not being the same as themselves. I agree that there are many people that do not act upon their inherent prejudices, our society needs more of these people but I cannot agree that no prejudice exists within any people. Keep in mind that I qualified that statement by saying to a degree, I might add; varying in degree with every individual.
posted by
gomedome
on June 22, 2006 at 10:25 PM
| link to this | reply
In a comment just now you said:
"The answer sadly is that all heterosexuals harbor a degree of prejudice towards homosexuals"
I think many people are not prejudiced in the slightest towards homosexuals.
posted by
Azur
on June 22, 2006 at 10:18 PM
| link to this | reply
Talion - that is a good point
The answer sadly is that all heterosexuals harbor a degree of prejudice towards homosexuals, the Christian religions pander to this inherent prejudice. Another thing that becomes painfully clear is the extent that religious folks will go to in this effort. Instead of just conceding that the few passages in the bible that seem to condemn homosexuality are outdated and meaningless in today's society, they have instead constructed an entire facade around gays. The slippery slope arguments, the tendency to include any manner of unrelated reprehensible sexual deviations and the constant clutching at straws to make groundless contentions work when they clearly do not, all seem part of the effort. The current generation could not be more brainwashed.
posted by
gomedome
on June 22, 2006 at 9:56 PM
| link to this | reply
gomedome
Here's a little something to burst your gourd. To that certain brand of Christian (the some disclaimer) homosexuality is a sin, so those who practice it are treated with outright hostility or thinly veiled contempt. They also say there are no varying degrees of sin, i.e. a sin is a sin is a sin. Rape, murder, or calling in sick to hang out at the beach is all the same. Another point they make is everyone sins. Everyone. If this is so, why doesn't this brand of Christian (again, the some disclaimer) treat everyone with the same hostility or thinly veiled contempt they reserve for the gay sinners? Parents, siblings, spouses, best friends, everyone? Something doesn't add up.
posted by
Talion
on June 22, 2006 at 8:42 PM
| link to this | reply
Xeno-x - more and more the distinction is being made between
sexual preference (or orientation if you prefer) and sexual behaviour.
But I do see your point. It amazes me what comes out of the mouths of these bible thumpers around here. I feel sorry for them, they cannot possibly know any gay people and still insist that sexual orientation is a choice made by sinners. What a powerful demonstration of brainwashing by the Christian religions.
posted by
gomedome
on June 22, 2006 at 8:28 PM
| link to this | reply
SEXUAL PREFERENCE IMPLIES
choice
more and more, "sexual orientation" is used.
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 22, 2006 at 4:35 PM
| link to this | reply