How fucking dare this evil institution do such a thing? Obviously this is a trap or something. Whats the "real" reason for this. I'm sure you hateful assholes will have tons of reasons why this isn't real or whatever. Let the bigotry towards religion begin, even though religion has been making tons of progress in gay rights.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Washington National Cathedral, where the nation gathers to mourn tragedies and celebrate new presidents, will soon begin performing same-sex marriages. Cathedral officials tell The Associated Press the church will be among the first Episcopal congregations to implement a new rite of marriage for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender members. The church will announce its new policy Wednesday. As the nation's most prominent church, the decision carries huge symbolism. The 106-year-old cathedral has long been a spiritual center for the nation, hosting presidential inaugural services and funerals for Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford. It draws hundreds of thousands of visitors. In light of the legality of same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia and now Maryland, the Rt. Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, the Episcopal bishop of Washington, decided in December to allow an expansion of the Christian marriage sacrament. The diocese covers the district and four counties in Maryland. The change is allowed under a "local option" granted by the church's General Convention, church leaders said. Each priest in the diocese can then decide whether to perform same-sex unions. The Very Rev. Gary Hall, the cathedral's dean, said performing same-sex marriages is an opportunity to break down barriers and build a more inclusive community "that reflects the diversity of God's world." "I read the Bible as seriously as fundamentalists do," Hall told the AP. "And my reading of the Bible leads me to want to do this because I think it's being faithful to the kind of community that Jesus would have us be." Celebrating same-sex weddings is important beyond the Episcopal Church, Hall said. Church debate is largely settled on the matter, allowing for local decisions, he said. The move is also a chance to influence the nation. "As a kind of tall-steeple, public church in the nation's capital, by saying we're going to bless same-sex marriages, conduct same-sex marriages, we are really trying to take the next step for marriage equality in the nation and in the culture," Hall said. Hall is the 10th dean of the cathedral and has been an ordained minister for more than 35 years. He said he began performing same-sex blessings in 1990 when he served at All Saints Church in Pasadena, Calif. It will likely be six months to a year before the first gay marriages are performed at the cathedral due to its busy schedule and its pre-marital counseling requirement. Generally, only couples affiliated with the cathedral will be eligible. Church leaders had not received any requests for weddings ahead of Wednesday's announcement. While Hall does not expect any objections within the National Cathedral congregation, he said the change may draw criticism from outside. It may be divisive for some, just as it was to preach against segregation or to push for the ordination of women, Hall said. The New York-based Episcopal Church is the U.S. body of the 77 million-member Anglican Communion. The House of Bishops voted last year 111-41 to authorize a provisional rite for same-sex unions. Some congregations have left the church over its inclusion of gays and lesbians over the years. Same-sex marriage is now legal in nine states and the District of Columbia. Legislators in Illinois and Rhode Island are set to take up bills to possibly join them, and the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear cases on gay marriage in March. The first same-sex wedding performed last month at West Point's Cadet Chapel drew some protests from conservatives. The National Cathedral is even more visible. Hall, the cathedral dean, said the church has a long history of taking stands on public issues. But he said he sees marriage as a human issue, not a political issue. "For us to be able to say we embrace same-sex marriage as a tool for faithful people to live their lives as Christian people," he said, "for us to be able to say that at a moment when so many other barriers toward full equality and full inclusion for gay and lesbian people are falling, I think it is an important symbolic moment."
[last edit 1/10/2013 3:15 AM by MonkeyPunchBaby - edited 1 times]
Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby How fucking dare this evil institution do such a thing? Obviously this is a trap or something. Whats the "real" reason for this. I'm sure you hateful assholes will have tons of reasons why this isn't real or whatever. Let the bigotry towards religion begin, even though religion has been making tons of progress in gay rights.
Gay weddings? Damn, guess I need to get divorced now.
“We are not going to have the kind of cooperation we need if everyone insists on their own narrow version of reality. … the great divide in the world today … is between people who have the courage to listen and those who are convinced that they already know it all.”
Posted by Samurai Sincerely, ONE right out of HOW MANY WRONGS?
you must not know much about history if you think "The Church", or religions, are to blame for the woes of the world.
the best modern example we have of atheists seizing power is in the Soviet Union, starting with Stalin (an avowed atheist), the staunchly atheist communist party of the soviet union, and the Great Purge -- where about 1 million people were systematically murdered and millions of others "reeducated" in camps.
another great example happens to be communist China and Mao Zedong -- another avowed atheist, in an atheist regime, who ordered the murder of several millions when he seized power. he also presided over the unnatural deaths (starvation, execution, etc) of some 30-60 million Chinese over the course of his reign.
religion is the enemy of atheist regimes because it threatens their power, and so it remains today in China where the religious are systematically oppressed, imprisoned, and murdered.
you probably cannot list a single example from history, where atheist values were institutionalized at the national level without murder, indoctrination and brutality.
face it kid, your ethos is as bankrupt, absurd and dangerous as anyone else's -- in fact, quite a lot more-so. i am terrified of the idea of atheist ethos taking root in any government. where atheism takes root as social policy, freedom and quality of life collapse.
[EDIT: misspelled communist -- lol]
[last edit 1/12/2013 10:48 PM by Aleksandar - edited 1 times] Freedom breeds war; and Peace, slavery. So it shall be forevermore: Men who love freedom buy it with their lives, and lovers of peace with their freedom.
Shhh, we don't need your facts in here. We have our beliefs that we will stick to no matter what. Its much easier to stay in this mindset as opposed to thinking critically and possibly seeing things differently. Do you know how hard it is be proven wrong? It also hurts my feelings when I am proved wrong. Quick lets circle the wagons and mention Westboro and the Crusades to defeat this guy!!!
Posted by Samurai um, do you really think i give fuck one what either one of you have to offer on this topic? i don't.
your words say this, but your actions say the opposite.
i think you deeply care, and that's why you come here and argue. if you really don't give a fuck, then leave and never come back.
what your actions say is that you don't like what we have to offer to this topic, that it frustrates you, and that you put up a belligerent front because you can't think of anything to say that refutes the points you disagree with.
your show of defiance may reinforce and sooth your beliefs, because it's the only oppositional gesture you have left in the absence of reasoned argumentation.
it's cool. i know what you *mean*, which is better than knowing what you're *saying*.
Freedom breeds war; and Peace, slavery. So it shall be forevermore: Men who love freedom buy it with their lives, and lovers of peace with their freedom.
you probably cannot list a single example from history, where atheist values were institutionalized at the national level without murder, indoctrination and brutality.
face it kid, your ethos is as bankrupt, absurd and dangerous as anyone else's -- in fact, quite a lot more-so. i am terrified of the idea of atheist ethos taking root in any government. where atheism takes root as social policy, freedom and quality of life collapse.
Stalin trained to be a priest at one point in his life, so "avowed atheist" might be a bit of a stretch. Mao, I' m not sure about. And while it's true that communist countries were/are officially atheist, it's also irrelevant, and a common tactic by religious apologists to attempt to discredit atheists.
In no case did Stalin, Mao or any others commit their crimes in the name of atheism. Stalin was a paranoid megalomaniac. He had people killed who he believed were enemies of the state. I could point out the people who were, and continue to be, killed in the name of religion, or by religiously motivated beliefs, or point out that religious belief among convicted criminals is higher than in the general population, but I won't.
I personally don't want "atheist ethos" taking in root in gov't either. What I prefer, and what we in the US are supposed to have, is a secular gov't that takes no stand on religion whatsoever. If you look at countries like Sweden, Holland and Denmark, they have the smallest number of religious believers, lowest church attendance, etc., yet have a far better quality of life, higher standard of living, longer life expectancy, lower crime rate, fewer abortions, etc. Are the two connected? There is a lot of evidence to suggest they are.
And yes, I would move if I could.
“We are not going to have the kind of cooperation we need if everyone insists on their own narrow version of reality. … the great divide in the world today … is between people who have the courage to listen and those who are convinced that they already know it all.”
Posted by splumer so "avowed atheist" might be a bit of a stretch. Mao, I' m not sure about. And while it's true that communist countries were/are officially atheist, it's also irrelevant, and a common tactic by religious apologists to attempt to discredit atheists.
1. he was an avowed atheist, and if you knew about history and his life you would already know this.
2. it is a common tactic used by religious apologists because it is true. it is the same tactic used when atheists bring up the crusades. you and they are the same, pal.
Posted by splumer In no case did Stalin, Mao or any others commit their crimes in the name of atheism.
Untrue. They generally posited that as there was no entity more powerful than the state, there was no law above the law of the state. The state became the supreme being, and enemies of the state were dealt with as brutally as the religious ever dealt with unbelievers. Your inability to see the similarity between state-sponsored religion and state-sponsored atheism is unfortunate.
Posted by splumer I could point out the people who were, and continue to be, killed in the name of religion, or by religiously motivated beliefs
You just did point it out, and it is important to. Religious-motivated violence is appalling. My argument isn't that religion is not in some cases dangerous. My point is that atheism is its own religion, is in some cases dangerous, and requires as much faith. Tekriter's pithy forum signature analogy about atheism not being a religion is just misdirection, and skirts the fundamental reality that atheism fits an accepted definition of religion, "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".
There are good religious and good atheists who take their beliefs and use them positively. In both atheism and religion, there are bad apples who do awful things. I don't think either of us is saying all atheists are Stalin, or that all religious are Pope Alexander VI.
Posted by splumer or point out that religious belief among convicted criminals is higher than in the general population, but I won't.
Correlation does not imply causation. Religious belief is higher in unjustly imprisoned people than in the general population, too. Religious belief is higher amongst the philanthropic, and amongst those involved in community service. So what's your point again?
Posted by splumer What I prefer, and what we in the US are supposed to have, is a secular gov't that takes no stand on religion whatsoever.
I also desire this.
Posted by splumer If you look at countries like Sweden, Holland and Denmark, they have the smallest number of religious believers, lowest church attendance, etc., yet have a far better quality of life, higher standard of living, longer life expectancy, lower crime rate, fewer abortions, etc. Are the two connected? There is a lot of evidence to suggest they are.
There is almost no evidence to suggest they are connected. Nice try but your bluff collapses when confronted with evidence-based research, just like in the post last week where we talked about reality and the universe. Also -- you're lifting this argument directly from Dawkins' "The God Delusion" I believe, which isn't very sophisticated of you as Dawkins' brand of atheism and lines of argumentation are winced at by credible scientists, sociologists, anthropologists, theologians & clear thinking agnostics everywhere.
Surveys where respondents self-identify as having "no religion" indicate that the bulk are communist and former soviet-bloc countries where atheism is social policy. Certainly Scandinavian countries are on this list as well, but are outnumbered by the warsaw pact nations, vietnam, china, etc. "Holland" isn't a modern country by the way -- it's "Netherlands".
Surveys where respondents indicate religion "isn't a daily priority" returns a more Europe-centric view, but you can't use this to create the correlation/causation you're implying and this is one of the major critiques of Dawkins' line of reasoning in his book. If there was a linkage, then the countries in the first set I referenced would also fit the socio-economic description you provide. In fact, irreligion is on the rise in Europe for a variety of reasons, and the socio-economic prosperity in these countries pre-dates their migration away from religion.
Freedom breeds war; and Peace, slavery. So it shall be forevermore: Men who love freedom buy it with their lives, and lovers of peace with their freedom.
1. he was an avowed atheist, and if you knew about history and his life you would already know this.
Mao or Stalin? Doesn't matter really, because it's irrelevant. I stand by my original position that their atheism was peripheral to their behavior.
2. it is a common tactic used by religious apologists because it is true. it is the same tactic used when atheists bring up the crusades. you and they are the same, pal.
Yes, it is true, but so what? It doesn't prove anything. You could point out all the cases of miltant atheists burning churches, killing believers and prevent believers from holding jobs or positions in organizations, except that such examples don't exist. Atheism was tertiary at best in communist countries. Obedience to the state was most important, and religious belief was an obstacle to that. Actually, "atheism" might not be the best term for it, since atheism implies the belief that gods don't exist, and communist dogma doesn't concern itself with existence. "Anti-religion" might be a better descriptor. But again, irrelevant. ANY belief system taken to an extreme is dangerous, including atheism.
You just did point it out, and it is important to. Religious-motivated violence is appalling. My argument isn't that religion is not in some cases dangerous. My point is that atheism is its own religion, is in some cases dangerous, and requires as much faith. Tekriter's pithy forum signature analogy about atheism not being a religion is just misdirection, and skirts the fundamental reality that atheism fits an accepted definition of religion, "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".
The common definition of religion also involves the belief in god(s). Lots of people are passionate about a particular subject to the point where one might call it their "religion," (like Sam with GM) but atheism isn't a religion. If you think that, you're just plain wrong. Just in case you quibble, this is from dictionary.com:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
Correlation does not imply causation. Religious belief is higher in unjustly imprisoned people than in the general population, too. Religious belief is higher amongst the philanthropic, and amongst those involved in community service. So what's your point again?
Indeed, correlation doesn't imply causation. My point is that belief in god(s) doesn't make you a good person, and belief is not inoculation against doing bad things. Nor is lack of belief, but one would think that if one was a believer in, say, Christianity, that one might not commit crimes. Apparently this is not the case.
Surveys where respondents indicate religion "isn't a daily priority" returns a more Europe-centric view, but you can't use this to create the correlation/causation you're implying and this is one of the major critiques of Dawkins' line of reasoning in his book. If there was a linkage, then the countries in the first set I referenced would also fit the socio-economic description you provide. In fact, irreligion is on the rise in Europe for a variety of reasons, and the socio-economic prosperity in these countries pre-dates their migration away from religion.
Now tell me again how bad the standard of living is in those countries? I never said that lack of religious belief caused these countries to have better numbers, but is there a correlation? A lot of people don't want to say there is for fear of offending believers, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that religious belief holds a country back. Witness the new push in Greece for revival of their blasphemy laws.
“We are not going to have the kind of cooperation we need if everyone insists on their own narrow version of reality. … the great divide in the world today … is between people who have the courage to listen and those who are convinced that they already know it all.”
Now tell me again how bad the standard of living is in those countries? I never said that lack of religious belief caused these countries to have better numbers, but is there a correlation?
Awesome, thank you. You made my point for me. I will list the top 10 religiously unaffiliated countries, from your list, and cross-reference this with poverty stats.
1. China: Most of China (inland) is desperately poor and 71.6% of Chinese live on less than $5 a day. 2. Japan: Wealthy and prosperous. 3. United States: Wealthy and prosperous. 4. Vietnam: Per capita GDP is just $3,400. While on a positive growth trend year over year, Vietnam still has a very low standard of living. 5. Russia: One of the unhealthiest, unhappiest places in the world. 6. South Korea: Wealthy and prosperous. 7. Germany: Wealthy and prosperous. 8. France: Wealthy and prosperous. 9. North Korea: I don't even need to say anything here. 10. Brazil: Like China, it has its garden spots but has an enormous poverty problem in both urban and rural areas. GDP of $11,000 per capita.
Of your list, 5 countries are wealthy and prosperous and 5 are not. You haven't provided any data to suggest a correlation between religious belief and unhappiness / socio-economic woes. In fact, the large majority of the world's unaffiliated population is in China and are unhealthy, unhappy and poor.
One of the flaws of this list is that it does not sort by percentage of population. My earlier references did, and indicated no correlation there either.
Posted by splumer You could point out all the cases of miltant atheists burning churches, killing believers
I can point it out, and I will. Do you know what happened during the cultural revolution in China, or during the great purge in the USSR? Militant atheists burned churches and killed the religious. It also happened in Cambodia, with Pol Pot. You will retort that it wasn't done in the name of atheism. I contend that it was, because the conflict only occurred when the religious denied the tenets of those regimes -- that the state was supreme above all other laws, and that no entity was higher than the state. This attitude about the supremacy of the state and its institutionalized repression of religion cannot be reached unless the government is fundamentally atheist.
Posted by splumer and prevent believers from holding jobs or positions in organizations
Don't kid yourself. Atheist discrimination against the religious is as common as religious discrimination against whomever. Do you think that Richard Dawkins hires Christians to be on his staff? Do you think Bill Maher has any on his? Just as I'm sure churches don't hire atheists to be pastors, fundamentalist atheists make damn sure they don't have christians working for them. This is normal, and I don't have a problem with either group discriminating against the other in hiring practices. They have the right to hire people who believe similarly to themselves if part of their business requires those beliefs.
Posted by splumer Atheism was tertiary at best in communist countries.
Wrong. If it was tertiary, religion wouldn't be aggressively suppressed in those places.
Posted by splumer Actually, "atheism" might not be the best term for it, since atheism implies the belief that gods don't exist, and communist dogma doesn't concern itself with existence.
Also wrong. Where do you get this stuff? Definitely not from history. The communist party of the soviet union waged a long campaign of indoctrination against its own people, to reeducate them to believe that no higher power than the state existed and that no law could be above the law of the state. This required belief in the non-existence of a deity more supreme than the state.
Posted by splumer "Anti-religion" might be a better descriptor.
Is Atheism not anti-religion? Can you prove that, by your actions and the actions of other atheists on this board? You all seem mighty anti-religious to me. I can concede in principle that atheism doesn't require aggressive opposition to religious belief, but you sure couldn't prove that by the way some of you act on this board.
Posted by splumer The common definition of religion also involves the belief in god(s).
Merriam-Webster has four definitions, and this is the fourth: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"
This describes you fairly well, and as I established in the previous thread your belief system requires quite a lot of faith from a scientific evidence-based standpoint. You say 'religion' means belief in supernatural entities, and I contend that your definition is too narrow.
Posted by splumer Indeed, correlation doesn't imply causation. My point is that belief in god(s) doesn't make you a good person, and belief is not inoculation against doing bad things.
I agree completely, and this is one of my major critiques of modern religions.
Freedom breeds war; and Peace, slavery. So it shall be forevermore: Men who love freedom buy it with their lives, and lovers of peace with their freedom.
Militant atheists burned churches and killed the religious.
where was i for this?
as a what seems like a reasonably intelligent person, how can you sit there and defend a fairy tale? I'll tell you this, 98% of the religious assholes I come across are pompous, pious and ignorant, i'd like to soak them and napalm and throw a match. And you never hear about the 2% that just want to be left alone... no, it's always the other 98% that can't keep their jesus or mohammed-flavored cock out of the collective ass of humanity.
religion should be taught in marketing classes as an example of iron-fist p.r. and having a good publicist.
Ethics
