<p>:p 
:p</p>
<p>As I said, mockery is the most powerful force. :p: :p: :p:
Personally, I think it diminishes the people who use it, but that’s jmho.
Keep on truckin’ AM.</p>
<p>“if anyone here has EVER attacked your right to your own beliefs…”</p>
<p>Actually, YOU did. You called me a bigot. I find that very offensive.</p>
<p>“Absolutely no one has, and yet you feel entitled to attack the “concepts” of religion”</p>
<p>What’s wrong with DISCUSSING concepts?</p>
<p>“I bet you don’t have as much of a problem with these same “concepts” when they are a part of liberal Christian churches, ones which have approved ordination of women, abortion rights, gay clergy and gay marriage, for instance…”</p>
<p>Too bad we didn’t shake on your bet. Actually, if you’d read my other posts, you would know that I am actually PRO-LIFE. (Although I disagree with the approach used by the religious pro-lifers. I am a feminist for life, actually.)</p>
<p>And, if you could EVER comprehend my words, you would know that I don’t like ANY kind of dogma!!! I am a vegetarian, but I don’t like the ‘holier than thou’ game that SOME vegetarians play, when they criticize other vegetarians for not being vegan, for example. This is JUST AN EXAMPLE of how even a very ‘liberal’ dogma can STILL be a dogma!</p>
<p>And, I personally am not even sure what I think about gay marriage. I acknowledged that it’s a grey issue, for a variety of reasons. I mainly am against gays being singled out and ostracized and judged.</p>
<p>Here is an idea that could offer a possible solution to the gay marriage issue: that financial arrangements could be separate from religious arrangements. If someone wants to make his/her gay partner, or sister, or best friend the financial beneficiary of some insurance, or have the right to make decisions about taking someone off life support, he/she should be able to do that.</p>
<p>This is a major component of the gay issue - right now if a gay person is on life support, his/her gay partner of 20 years does not get any recognition as being the next of kin.</p>
<p>If financial and family arrangements could be separated from the spiritual contract of marriage, then people could set up their financial arrangements any way they wish, but have their commitment to each other be part of their spiritual life. </p>
<p>We all know of cases of married people who are not faithful. Then there are cases of people who are not married who ARE faithful. If their commitment was personal, and they had the option of getting it recognized by the church of their choice (if desired) then it would remove the entire issue.</p>
<p>I don’t know if it would work in practice or not, but it’s just a idea.</p>
<p>“If marriage is “a holy and special privelage (sic) for people who want to start a family, because thats what marriage is really about. Its not about financial benefits”, then perhaps we should advocate eliminating any type of benefit that is strictly for married couples, financial or otherwise.”</p>
<p>Oh, that’s great! And, while we’re at it, make it illegal for people to stay married if they don’t have children.</p>
<hr>
<p>See how the religious view of marriage is interwoven with the legal view? If they were separated, then people would be free to have whatever type of relationship they want, within their own belief system.</p>
<p>“I mainly am against gays being singled out and ostracized and judged.”</p>
<p>Me too. I am also against marriages that are not man and women, but if a homosexual wants to marry I am not one to stop him. I am however against marriage between a man and a man.</p>
<p>And I agree with you that people should be able to enter into contracts that deal with their OWN money that they made regardless of who they perfer to have sex with.</p>
<p>My dear, I called you a bigot AFTER you insulted my religion (in the ways I delineated above). </p>
<p>Please quote to me anything I have every said attacking yours or cgm’s beliefs. (You won’t find anything.)</p>
<p>That’s okay, I forgive you for your bigoted comments.</p>
<p>One other thing I love here is how the tolerant liberal thinkers NEVER apologize for offending others, but are so quick to take offense at IMAGINARY offenses.</p>
<p>P.S. Maybe now you can switch to discussing the “concepts” of Judaism or Islam. Thanks.</p>
<p>Hereshoping, I was already attacked by CGM when I offered perspectives on how to study the old testament and what it means for a Jew to adapt another religion’s practices. Apparantely, according to CGM, “golani’s method” is not valid and they are just my opinions. Unfortunately for her, they are not my opinions. They are the teachings of people who lived thousands and hundreds of years ago, who wree confronted with the same issues we are comfronted with now. The only concepts that people will never attack are Islamic ones like the parts in the Koran which say it is necessary to kill Jews and Christians and other infidels. Nor will they ever attack Islam’s horrible track record on homosexuals, who often interestingly enough escape from Palestinian Arab controlled areas into the Jewish Israel for fear of their lives.</p>
<p>“I called you a bigot AFTER you insulted my religion…”</p>
<p>Why do you consider discussing a difference of opinion to be an insult? Is your faith so fragile that you cannot handle any questioning of it at all?</p>
<hr>
<p>”Please quote to me anything I have every said attacking yours or cgm’s beliefs. (You won’t find anything.)”</p>
<p>That’s because I have not shared with you any of my beliefs! You know very little about what I believe. The reason is simple: I’ve experienced being called ‘satanic’ TOO MANY TIMES for my beliefs to knowingly engage in such discussion. It would serve no purpose at all. I’m just not in the mood to put myself on the chopping block. I already ended up there anyway, just for voicing some opinions and sharing some of my experiences.</p>
<hr>
<p>”That’s okay, I forgive you for your bigoted comments.”</p>
<p>OK, there it is right there. You said you didn’t attack me for my beliefs, but you DID attack me (quite venomously, as I can think of few words more insulting than ‘bigot’) for expressing my views about what I consider to be hypocrisy in organized religion.</p>
<hr>
<p>“One other thing I love here is how the tolerant liberal thinkers NEVER apologize for offending others, but are so quick to take offense at IMAGINARY offenses.”</p>
<p>Ahem, maybe you didn’t read post #201? Here it is again, for your convenience:</p>
<p>“…I just realized that I used your quote about the ‘lapsed Catholics’ question, but I was actually answering Allmusic’s post #169. Yes, you did make your point clear. I was just expressing my own opinion since I am in the category of someone who was once Catholic. Sorry. No offense intended!..You are right. I concede. I interpreted sjmom’s statement as suggesting that maybe cgm might not have left the church if she’d had the proper understanding. Maybe that’s a bit of defensiveness on my part. I was trying to show that even with complete understanding, some people might have reasons to leave the church. But, again, you are right – I read more into that than was there. Again, sorry.”</p>
<p>I said I was sorry twice, I said I concede, I admitted to being defensive, I said that no offense was intended, I said the other person was right twice…does this not count as an APOLOGY? There are many others posts in which I have apologized for not conveying my thoughts clearly, or for inadvertently offending someone. It appears that YOU are the one who is making blanket statements about an entire group of people: “…tolerant liberal thinkers NEVER apologize…”</p>
<p>That is FAR worse than anything I have said…I NEVER said that Christians “NEVER” do this or that – in fact I repeatedly used words like ‘this is my experience’ and ‘SOME Christian’ etc. </p>
<p>Yet here you are saying a certain group of people NEVER apologizes… I think there is a word for that, and it starts with a ‘B.’</p>
<hr>
<p>“…The only concepts that people will never attack are Islamic ones like the parts in the Koran which say it is necessary to kill Jews and Christians and other infidels…”</p>
<p>Whoa, this is going WAY too far! You’re kidding, right??? </p>
<p>Again, that word ‘never.’ Again, a blanket prejudice. Again, a major misinterpretation.</p>
<p>Are you seriously saying that you think those of us who criticize the fanaticism found in Christianity would think that the FAR MORE EXTREME fanaticism that is OBVIOUSLY in Islam is somehow ok???</p>
<p>golani, are you only capable of thinking in terms of black and white? Do you think that every person who disagrees with some aspects of Christianity must be a fanatical Muslim???</p>
<p>Whoa, no wonder this world is so messed up.</p>
<p>Ain’t it the truth, Lealdragon?</p>
<p>lealdragon, I admire your efforts in this discussion. Bravo to you. 
I was reading one of my favorite authors earlier today, Anna Quindlen. The particular essay was written at the turn of the millenium and entitled Now It’s Time for Generation Next. Much of what she talked about reminded me of many of the discussions here at CC, in one way or another. After reading through this thread, this passage in the essay did indeed hit home. Thought I’d share it with you, in the context of the current discussion and the issue of questioning beliefs and discussing different views.</p>
<p>"I memorized the Baltimore Catechism; to this day I can tell you that God made me to know him, to love him, and to serve him in this world, and to be happy with him forever in the next. By contrast our kids and their classmates have had endless discussions about whether God exists, whether God has gender, whether a more merciful God would countenance AIDS or airplane crashes. </p>
<p>This core generational belief, that there is usually more than one answer to any question, is threatening for their elders, raised on “because I said so”. So is the fact that they are not all of a piece. The dutiful son has a pierced tongue. The student government president dresses like Morticia Addams. Where once we could identify who was who by the college, the color, the crew neck sweater, now the lines of identity are constantly blurred, in our perceptions and in the stages of their lives. </p>
<p>This is disconcerting, difficult, and wonderful. Socratic is better than rote. Discussion teaches more than dictums. And paths set in stone are, we’ve discovered, often rocky as we move along them. These are the children of peace, prosperity, and pluralism, and they have done us proud."</p>
<p>Enjoy.</p>
<p>That’s wonderful, alwaysamom! Thanks! And thanks for your comments.</p>
<p>“they are not my opinions. They are the teachings of people who lived thousands and hundreds of years ago”</p>
<p>Ok, so they’re the opinions of people who lived many years ago. They’re still opinions. Everything all of us has said has been opinion. That’s been my whole point all along! That all of our beliefs, our customs, our religions, are all based on the OPINIONS of HUMANS. Some of those opinions are that certain books are from God. But that belief itself is still based on opinion. My whole point to all this has NOT been to offend anyone, but to just express my OWN opinion, that people should not assume that others share the same foundation of beliefs. To say that someone is wrong about something because a book YOU believe in says so, has no merit if the person you are talking to does not share your belief in the authority of that book. Because, they may have a different opinion about that book, or they may believe in some other book, or none at all. All I am in favor of is acknowledging that everyone has the right to whatever opinion they want to have, and not impose it on others. All of the examples I gave were just intended to provide backup for my case. You know, like a good paper establishes a thesis then backs it up with key points? Well, my examples of damages caused by rigid religious dogma were just intended to back up my case that dogma hurts people. They were not intended to ‘attack’ any religion or person but to invite intellectual discussion about some aspects that are less than ideal.</p>
<p>The fact that other religions, namely Islam, have even more fanatical dogma is so obvious that even bringing that up is laughable. My motivation is to invite people to look at what’s happening in our OWN country so that we don’t end up like them!</p>
<p>I never said his congragation hated gays…wow the extrapolation of issues from one to another skippping all the steps between is golani’s specialty</p>
<p>well, with that, wow, I surrender…</p>
<p>here’s how I look at it…if you need to “fix” someone, and your teaching is tht they are going to hell, i consider that hate…sorry, sending someone to hell is pretty hateful, IMO…</p>
<p>NO ONE on this earth has the right, nor the knowledge, no matter what they have been taught by their religion to assume anyone else is going to heaven or to hell, because to assume that means you know better than God…</p>
<p>What they have been taught is an INTERPRETATION of faith that is so varied, so wide, so open to conjecture, to think you know better is farsical</p>
<p>I ask questions, which is my right and is important to me</p>
<p>golani, please take a course in logic, a plus b does not always mean g</p>
<p>cgm: AMEN!!!</p>
<p>^^^Ok, so they’re the opinions of people who lived many years ago. They’re still opinions.^^^</p>
<p>With respect, may I suggest that this is perhaps opinion–from a certain point of view–but it is an opinion reaffirmed by millions of people forming their own opinions over hundreds and hundreds of years, in some cases thousands. It carries transcendent weight, so to speak, and it is therefore not only the thought of a different time or person but of a very different order of opinion or thought: it bears the judgment of history. </p>
<p>Even if I find the novel thought I had the other day to be one of my better ideas it is in an entirely different class of opinion or thought, unless hundreds of years from now millions of others come to share it with me. That would be nice but I am not so proud of myself to believe it is likely. </p>
<p>I hope that this is as clear to everyone here as it is to me. The moment begs humility.</p>
<p>It seems, on the face of it, obvious. On this can we all agree?</p>
<p>
How utterly condescending! It is bigoted to imply that because of your generational demographic you are necessarily wise or dull, inquisitive or indifferent, a maverick thinker or a dutiful follower. </p>
<p>
Actually, they have the right to assume anything they want. It is acting on assumptions that causes problems. I guess I don’t give a hoot if some evangelical Christian thinks I’m toast. I just ignore them & I think you’d be much happier if you did the same.</p>
<p>I’d agree, fresin. Time-honored traditions, strongly held beliefs that have been studied, analyzed, & debated throughout history (and spread by non-violent means) sure carry more weight with me than the latest fad or flavor-of-the-month.</p>
<p>“It is bigoted to imply that because of your generational demographic you are necessarily wise or dull, inquisitive or indifferent, a maverick thinker or a dutiful follower.”</p>
<p>I interpreted that totally differently. I was raised on “I told you so” and “Because I said so” but I rebelled against it. I very vividly remember vowing to myself, when I was about 10 years old, that I would NEVER say “Because I said so” to my kids.</p>
<p>The way one is raised does not necessarily reflect upon the person. I was raised in a very tyrannical household, where questioning authority was severely punished, yet I ended up with completely different views despite, or perhaps because of, the way I was raised.</p>
<p>I did not take that quote to mean that people could be categorized according to how they were raised. I think it has more to do with how one RESPONDS to how one is raised.</p>
<p>We have a man in charge of our enviromental policies whose says, no worries, God is still up there, so to paraphrase “what ever happens its okay cause we got God”</p>
<p>and this person is setting policy about our resources, our water, our land…so I shouldn’t worry about anything, cause God is up there, whereever “up there” is</p>
<p>that is why you can’t ignore when religion gets intertwined with public policy…</p>