MellowDem
MellowDem's JournalNothing to cheer about...
All he said is that the Church should stop focusing on things that make them unpopular. Whoop dee doo. Why is anyone excited? I guess some people are so invested in their idea of what the church is supposed to be that they'll grab onto anything to pretend it's changing.
That's one interpretation...
But it's easy to see from reading the Koran that the other interpretation is just as relevant. The Koran advocates horrible things. The practical minded ignore those parts in order to survive in the real world. In other words, intellectual dishonesty is a must in order for followers of a book like the Koran to not do all sorts of horrible things.
I find faith morally repugnant....
If someone believes in equality just because a book says that equality is good, then that is not a critical way of thinking and is open to a lot of abuse.
Basically, the reason NALTs are usually quiet and whisper their support of gay marriage etc. is because they're bumping up against cognitive dissonance and know their position is not strong. They know the Bible says a lot of backward things. They know they pick and choose what they like form the Bible, which is not consistent or intellectually honest, and yet they still claim the title of Christian.
They want all the perceived benefits of Christianity, the community, family tradition, the massive societal privilege, etc. without having to actually own up to what Christianity is defined by, it's belief system based on the Bible. They don't want to be accountable, and really, what liberal person would want to have to defend the Bible as part of their ideological framework? It would take some seriously poor apologetics and terrible logic, so I don't blame them for wanting to be discreet, I just wish they would get the outrage to be honest with the,selves and drop the title of a belief system they do t believe in.
I don't really care about coddling privilege and comfort for people who are intellectually dishonest. The name of the campaign is unfortunate, as it seems more like a whine (don't associate me with those conservative Christians!) addressing the shame of liberal Christians rather than an allied organization of the LGBT community.
Avoids the real conundrum for liberal Christians...
that is, how their personal beliefs contradict with their religion. The Bible is a terribly regressive tome. Having liberal Christians tell conservative Christians that they're wrong on gay marriage leads to a theological argument based on that very conservative tome, and those arguments are useless, given they are based on irrational thinking to begin with.
It is the type of thinking promoted by most all religions everywhere (faith) that is the source of such people as Pat Robertson and ignorance, hatred and fear of groups of people like homosexuals. The only difference is in how seriously people take the claims they assert. That is, how honest they are with themselves. Most aren't too honest.
Personally, I'm tired of tip toeing around people's intellectual dishonesty on this topic and ignoring the crux of the problem as a result.
I've seen the theological arguments of liberal Christians using the Bible to back their positions on homosexuality, and they're just as illogical and irrelevant. Sure, I'm glad they're on our side, but it's based on bad reasoning that is really no different than their conservative counterparts. I suppose we should take any help we can get etc. etc., but the crux of the problem is not being addressed.
I find taking a position based on "faith" to be morally repugnant, because taking positions without reasoning or logic can lead to many bad things, even if the position happens to be one you agree with for different (or any) reason.
The real problem is that anyone is taking a book as the word of god in the first place. While I could try to finger through the Bible, as contradictory and nonsensical as it is, to come up with some Biblically based reason to support my position in responding to those that use it against my position, doing so surrenders logic or reasoning in any following discussion and supports that morally repugnant way of thinking.
DU recs posts that praise the Pope when he farts...
Apparently, praising a homophobic bigot that leads an institution that continues to do great harm to the LGBT community is no big deal, so I doubt Putin is.
It's just DUers with lots of privilege being insensitive, not exactly anything new. Putin or the Pope or etc. makes some points that they agree with and feel strongly about, and they don't care so much about the gay hating thing in comparison. Usually isn't malicious, just oblivious and naive.
The Pope is a homophobic misogynist bigot....
and the head of an institution that ignores child rape and spreads ignorance and misery to millions, and treats women as second class citizens, and is actively involved in taking away women's and homosexual's rights, and pushes a despicable and harmful method of thought, where one should follow a vengeful, hateful, tyrannical God based on no evidence.
And you're impressed the guy drives a used fucking car? Or is wiling to merely discuss a sexually oppressive practice that any numb nut knows is terrible for any human to impose on themselves? Seriously!!!???
Religious privilege is great stuff. It's why you don't see DUers slobbering all over a local KKK leader because he recycles. Or get very excited about how the new white supremacist in town says he thinks other races are not below his, just different, and should be separate. I mean, this is exciting news guys! I'm really liking this new KKK leader!
I don't get excited when a bigoted organization that is dying, and needs your money and support, learns how to do PR and changes their message accordingly. All you have to do is look at the core beliefs of this institution.
And it's pretty fucking disgusting when an ignorant bigot that leads such a terrible institution and believes the bigotry himself and helps actively harm loved ones I know is praised on DU for meaningless shit. It's privilege at its best.
What blogs, podcasts, etc. do you visit?
if you don't mind me asking, always looking for more 
Good
The federal government is trying to continue giving unfair advantages to religion, and are having to twist themselves in logical pretzels to do so. Atheism isn't a religion. Housing allowances that are tax-free should be unconstitutional when given only to religions.
From every definition I've seen of ideology...
It's a comprehensive set of ideas. Atheism can make up a part of one's ideology, but a lack of belief in gods is not a belief system, like most religions are. Most religions are a comprehensive, if somewhat contradictory, set of ideas. Likewise, theism, in the most basic sense, is not an ideology either.
It's pretty arbitrary which issues are "off limits"...
These issues, generally still divide the left since they aren't fully agreed upon in the US left (unlike in other countries, where the left is much more secular, sides with Palestine, and is for gun control, and it's not even an issue). All it really does is sweep that division under the carpet. However, there are other similar topics which are allowed in GD and are up for repeat day in and day out, so again, a bit arbitrary.
I gotta say that Skinner's wording is a bit insensitive, if not intellectually dishonest. I think it can be said quite easily that all three of those topics have news about them every day, with religion being the easiest case to make.
The fact that they must be kept in separate forums is a symptom of the failure of the forum and those who run it, not of people who want to discuss it. Instead of blaming others, Skinner should just say that he doesn't care enough to deal with those issues in an open and honest way, because it might involve more thought. There are many who would like to discuss and learn about all three issues on GD, and griefers or repeat posters shouldn't stand in their way. But easier to ignore these huge issues I guess. Kinda reminds me of when, during the Democratic Convention, there was a proposal to remove references to a diety from the platform, and it got shot down just because, even though it had support. Sweep the controversies under the rug for the sake of a somewhat more unified ideological front, I guess?
Profile Information
Member since: Thu Jul 24, 2008, 05:59 PMNumber of posts: 5,018
