|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Radical Clerics, Christian Morals, and Homosexuality | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
arachnophilia writes: i watched some documentary on fundamentalist islam -- including violent extremists. i promptly thanked god for our fundamentalists. at least they're not hurting too many people. I agree with brennakimi's post above. I suspect that you don't see so many documentaries on fundamentalist christians, but perhaps that tells us more about people who make documentaries than about the existence of fundamentalist christianity. We all too often think about fundamentalist christians "killing people for their beliefs" as something that ended in the middle ages. But it has persisted in contemporary times. For example if you read up on the various dictatorships in central and south america in the late twentieth century you find not only "religious fundamentalists" who were working honourably for peace and justice (see for example this article on Jesuits in El Salvador) but also "religious fundamentalists" who were working for torturers and assassins (see this article on the Catholics in Argentina). When did you last see a documentary on the role of the Catholic Church in Argentina's dirty war in the 1980s? Not as often as you will see manic Islamists on TV, no doubt. (For that matter, the Christians who are in favour of democracy and social welfare don't get much airtime either). Mick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
rahvin writes: All violent clerics are radical, but not all radical clerics are violent. Dobson, so far, is amongst the latter. Hi rahvin, I would also like to briefly add that radicalism isn't always a bad thing. For example I would consider these guys to be radical but not particularly evil. I suppose what people abhor is the imposition of one's beliefs on non-believers (whether those beliefs are religious or not); the politics of power clearly overrides religion in that sense. A question for Americans - are "conservative christian radicals" more violent than "liberal christian radicals"? If so, then violence is not to do with either radicalism/extremism nor with religion, but simply to do with politics. Mick edited by mick to give a more radical non-evil religious organization from the 1970s This message has been edited by mick, 08-18-2005 03:45 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 508 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
arach writes:
Dude, you just called Tal evil. It's like saying, "she's even uglier than Mary..."
hat's sort of what i'm getting at. a lesser of two evils. i'd rather have no evils, personally. but our evils don't seem to be quite as bad as theirs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
I would also like to briefly add that radicalism isn't always a bad thing. I wholeheartedly agree. The Founding Fathers of America were radicals. Jesus was a radical. History is filled with radicals who advanced society. The flip-side consists of radicals like muslim terrorists and various religion-based hate groups like the followers of Phelps and Dobson. Radicalism is simply extremism. Dobson certainly qualifies - but he's entitled to his views and opinions, even if they are bigotted and wrong, no matter how radical. If he and people like him felt the same way, the world would be a better place.
I suppose what people abhor is the imposition of one's beliefs on non-believers (whether those beliefs are religious or not); the politics of power clearly overrides religion in that sense. That's exactly what I fear. Theocracy. How you, I, Tal, Dobson, or anyone else feel about homosexuality, abortion, or other social issues is irrelevant. None of us have the right to force those views on people who don't share them. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
GAW-Snow writes: Dude, you just called Tal evil. It's like saying, "she's even uglier than Mary..." LOL. Fortunately atheists don't have to believe in evil. Tal is probably just a repressed homosexual or something
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
What is a radical muslim cleric? That is simple. It is one who preaches violence against non-believers. That is what makes it hate speach. This is sort of just definitional choices. Thus you are not objectively wrong, though I might suggest an improved (more accurate) definition. Perhaps adding violent or militant to that label, would allow us to separate those that are for changing society, even by strong measures, from those willing to include violent force.
What do christains do about homosexuality? We do the same thing with homosexuals that we do with everyone else. But this is not true at all, at least not the "radical" Xians. If a shellfish store operator or a fortune teller come to Xians for business licenses or marriage licenses, indeed even people of nonXian faith coming to get marriage licenses, get them. Xians fight tooth and nail to not allow gays to get the ability to have that license, as they once fought interracial couples from getting them. They also kill gays, and nonwhite races, and bomb or otherwise kill people at abortion clinics. The largest terror attack (deathwise) until 9/11 was at the hands of a Xian terrorist, who targeted the US govt. Militant Xian terrorist militias killed 100s to thousands of muslims (Palestinians and Bosnians). And certainly the IRA are Xian terrorists who have killed people. The ones that are most nonviolent call for the govt to crack down on people they don't like (esp. gays), which is merely shifting the hand of violence to that of the state, because they have the power to do so. I do agree that militant islamic fundamentalism is a serious problem, and a bigger threat (right now) than Xian militant fundamentalism to national security. That does not however mean there is NO threat from Xian militants, nor attempts to change our govt to a repressive religious institution ala the Taliban, but from a Xian perspective. We should not be taking our eye off the ball of protecting freedom and democracy from all enemies, foreign and domestic. There are Xians and Jews in there as well as muslims. Dobson has a right to preach what he does, but he is intolerant and attempting to change the nation away from freedom and democracy. He is to my mind an enemy, and a radical. He certainly has followers who might take things farther. And who knows, after the islamic militant thing gets worked out, perhaps Xian militancy will be our next biggest threat. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What is a radical muslim cleric? That is simple. It is one who preaches violence against non-believers. But that's not what "radical" means.
quote: "Radical" means someone who advocates extreme change, not violence. It's not Dobson's views on homosexuality that make him a radical; it's the fact that he advocates extreme change to America's political structure and traditions. Radical is an accurate descriptor for the man, as is "cleric". It has nothing at all to do with homosexuality but with his advocacy of extreme change to our society.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
But the point is, regardless, whether or not they are a sin, it is between the individual and GOD. If you believe it a sin, then don't do it. If you believe that wearing WoolRich clothes or eating shrimp are a sin, then don't do it. But denying someone the rights and responsibilities afforded others IS contrary to Love thy neighbor as you love yourself. This is indeed the point. It is the best way for Christians to view homosexuality. While reading through this thread I remembered an interesting study done by Gallup that showed a trend of religious prejudice. It included homosexuality so I don’t think it’s too far off topic:
Gallup Organization polls (1937 to 1999) on religious prejudice: Polls by the Gallup Organization are of particular value because they have asked essentially the same question of American adults for over four decades. One series of questions is typically worded: "If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be a 'X' would you vote for that person?" "X" is Atheist, Baptist, Black, Catholic, Homosexual, Jewish, Mormon, and Woman. Percentage of unprejudiced adults (those answering "yes") at approximately 20 year intervals have been:
In 1978, the most discriminated-against characteristic was homosexuality; only about one in four Americans would vote for a well-qualified homosexual. Gays and lesbians have made impressive gains in acceptance. Now, about three in five Americans would consider voting for one. In 1978, the second most-discriminated against group were Atheists. Only four Americans in ten would vote for a well-qualified Atheist. In 1999, Atheists had made a slight gain; five in ten would vote for one. Source Hmmm....Mormons scored the highest, very strange. It also looks like we won’t be electing a gay atheist anytime soon. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reduce graphic size a little.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Dude, you just called Tal evil. It's like saying, "she's even uglier than Mary..." it's called a "left-handed compliment." i wasn't specifically calling tal evil. but some fundamentalists do some pretty evil things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I suspect that you don't see so many documentaries on fundamentalist christians, but perhaps that tells us more about people who make documentaries than about the existence of fundamentalist christianity. We all too often think about fundamentalist christians "killing people for their beliefs" as something that ended in the middle ages. But it has persisted in contemporary times. it has, and i'm by no means arguing that. just that our fundamentalists seem to be, on average, safer than islamic fundamentalists. there still are people who do some really evil stuff in the name of god -- such as killing people over belief systems. look at the violence in ireland between two different sects of christianity. but mostly, our american crazy fundies drink stricnine and dance with snakes. they're not beating themselves over the heads with swords. and they're generally not calling for violence in the same quantity that islamic fundamentalist leaders do. but it's not to say that such things don't happen in american fundamentalism -- see the related thread for details. i'm just saying that the degree and frequency is not as bad. they appear to something of an aberation here -- but not so much in the middle east. we don't get abortion clinic bombings a lot, but israel gets a few bus bombings a week.
When did you last see a documentary on the role of the Catholic Church in Argentina's dirty war in the 1980s? Not as often as you will see manic Islamists on TV, no doubt. no, and that's a very good point. i just don't think that american fundamentalism comes close to equaling islam fundamentalism in the arab world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
but mostly, our american crazy fundies drink stricnine and dance with snakes. they're not beating themselves over the heads with swords. and they're generally not calling for violence in the same quantity that islamic fundamentalist leaders do. That's pretty much a recent phenomenon. Our Christian culture (actually I should include the European Christian culture) from around the 1400's right through to the 20th. Century was far more violent than any Islamic culture no matter how fanatical. We committed horrendous and horrid acts that exceed anything even imagined in the most fundamental misinterpretation of the Koranic war verses. We are perhaps 50 years, actually less, from a time when Christian violence was common and very much like what we see in the Islamic world today. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Our Christian culture (actually I should include the European Christian culture) from around the 1400's right through to the 20th. Century was far more violent than any Islamic culture no matter how fanatical. and if we include the crusades, that's definitally true. i'm really just speaking of the recent of phenomina, and really just the us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 913 Joined:
|
arachnophilia writes: and if we include the crusades, that's definitally true. i'm really just speaking of the recent of phenomina, and really just the us.
Contemporary American christian fundamentalists generally carry out their violence overseas rather than in the US itself. Here's an example of how modern Christian fundamentalists condone and support violence overseas:
quote: So you see how Christian fundamentalists "reassure" their young kids who are "recent converts" that carrying out an illegal war of occupation that has killed tens of thousands of civilians overseas is actually okay. When a young soldier says "We may be launching things at these people, and we want to talk to you about that." the Church says "Jesus didn’t tell the Centurion to stop being a Centurion". In other words they provide an ideological justification for a war of aggression, which I don't imagine was something very close to Jesus' heart... After all, Jesus was executed for threatening an imperial system, whereas these military chaplaincies are urging their members to kill others in support of an imperial system. Shocking hypocricy, in my opinion. And it's hypocricy that has a price in the lives of innocent Afghan and Iraqi civilians. Mickadded in edit: I suppose I am trying to see that I can't see a moral distinction between fundamentalist christian and muslim clerics. On the one hand you have fundamentalist islamic clerics who bless suicide bombers prior to or after their missions against both civilians and military targets, and who reassure the families of suicide bombers that their loved ones died in a just cause. On the other hand you have fundamentalist christian clerics, who sign up to a military chaplaincy, bless soldiers before they launch attacks against both civilians and military targets, and who reassure the families of dead soldiers that their loved ones died in a just cause. This message has been edited by mick, 08-20-2005 05:27 PM This message has been edited by mick, 08-20-2005 05:36 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18353 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: I agree. I just read a great article that explains the Christian position and that i see as logical and reasonable.
...regardless of whether or not homosexuality is considered a sin or not, the current social contract needs to be changed. If homosexuality is a sin, then it is between the individual and God. Proscribing the social contract relating to homosexuality should not be based on whether or not it is a sin, but on our duty to Love our Neighbor as Ourselves. As Christians we should be working to remove those portions of the social contract that adversely affect homosexuals. We should be opposing the Defense in Marriage Act, limitations on access to health care, inheritance rules, rights of adoption, safety and protection, and seeing that homosexual couples receive all the societal benefits and responsibilities of heterosexual couples. Macklemore-Same-Sex-Marriage-and-Human-Equality quote: Anyone who reads the whole article will at least understand that the Christian(or this particular club Christian) is not simply bigoted, but has a ideological reason for their stance. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Phat writes:
Every bigot has an ideological reason for their bigotry. Anyone who reads the whole article will at least understand that the Christian(or this particular club Christian) is not simply bigoted, but has a ideological reason for their stance."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024