What do you think were the causes for Hitler to start killing homosexuals? The same causes found by the government of Uganda perhaps?
he was a hypocrite. He had pedophiles and homosexuals working directly under him....nope, I suspect he heavily targeted the Jews and used that as one of the mantras to justify killing everyone who stood against him. Much like what the Libs are trying to do, destroy anything and anyone who stand against them. Do I want to murder gays? what an absurd question. They've already been judged and there is no judgment that I can give that will even come close to the punishment God has in store. and I don't mind saying that, not one damned bit.
There's a direct connection between Christianity and the policies of the West in the past that were oppressive toward gays. Britain, like most Western nations, has laws that are somewhat influenced by Christianity. That influence is considerably weaker now, but back when colonization was occurring, the influence was much stronger and manifested in laws against homosexuality. For example, Alan Turing faced persecution for being gay as late as the 1950s, and he lived in Britain itself. It's a relatively recent development that the West has become more secular in its legal system, and thus, freer in social policy. America had plenty of moral busybodying in social policy due to Christianity as well, especially when you look at "blue laws" across the South regarding alcohol sales and prohibitions against sodomy.
Well, if you're asking that question, then I don't know what else to say. It should be fairly obvious that maximizing freedom is the most important pursuit for any societal evolution. While this is generally a more Western pursuit than a non-Western one, it is the most logical and practical one as well. The more invasive a state is, the less productive society usually is as well. There are always reasonable limits to freedom, but where exactly the optimal amount of freedom resides is a matter of debate. It seems pretty clear, however, that choosing to execute someone over a personal lifestyle choice is very far from the optimal level of freedom.
I merely want to see where you're coming from. You see it as 'invasive.' Others however view it as the upholding of morals and ethics in a society. Indeed. You mean specific lifestyle choices.
Hey goomba.....you Italian?? I'm AKA Vinnie Big Dog Iannucci....Lets not give the us grape smashers a bad name. capire?
Sure, but it's an erroneous assumption by them when measuring actual results. More often than not, state prohibitions on behavior are relatively unsuccessful at accomplishing their goals. Private actions (like peer pressure) generally have more success at changing cultural norms. Where I'm coming from is that, historically, there is a large body of evidence that shows that, regardless of the society, government is usually an ineffective tool at controlling private behaviors of citizens. Short of having a police state, people are generally going to do what they culturally feel they should be doing or desire to do. I'm not saying this means we should reject law enforcement altogether, but logically, you can only really depend on government to protect people from each other, not from themselves. Similarly, it is rather unrealistic to try and keep people from having consensual sex. If two gay people are in love or in lust, they are going to find a way around the system to sate their desires. To have the government attempt to interfere is not only oppressive but futile -- at least when it comes to consistently enforcing such laws. The more specific, the harder it is to stop.
you are talking to a person that doesn't believe in limits and also doesn't believe in God...You're wasting your time
I asked you to post it because I'd never heard of that part of the bible and, still haven't. In the context of the bible, "curse" means, to wish ill fortune or evil befall the target, not shout naughty words at them. I'm sorry your education was crap.
I think this is because government (specifically in the West) has been relegated to the position of a mere traffic controller. That and the fact that society (again particularly in the West) bases its mode of conduct on some sort of individual preference. To get good results, it should primarily be job of government to instil whatever set of ethics into the population. Of course simple telling individuals that X is bad won't do. A good example is how alcohol was incrementally made immoral - and thus unlawful- in Islam. What it all really boils down to is the proper role of government in society.
Sure, and that role is subjective. Although, you'll notice that part of what allowed the West to become dominant culturally is this emphasis on individual preference. As people rise in standard of living and in education level, they generally tend to demand more freedoms and trust government less. This is true regardless of whether the society is Western or not. As a result, more culturally and economically advanced societies generally limit government to this "traffic controller" role. The more statist a government becomes, the more it tends to stifle economic growth and cultural advancement. Islamic societies may prefer more of a connection between religion and government, but the most economically advanced and educated ones tend to move away from that. For example, compare Turkey with Pakistan. Turkey may currently have shifted slightly more Islamist than in previous years, but compared to Pakistan, they are still much more secular in governance. Not surprisingly, they also have a higher standard of living and are more educated. As Pakistan improves in standard of living and education, people will demand more freedoms and less government intrusion. Even though the Arab Spring has largely been an Islamist uprising, part of what sparked that was a desire by the people for more political freedoms. As these people eventually improve in education, they will start to demand more personal freedoms as well. Even Saudi Arabia isn't immune to this effect, which is why they've been seeing more women protest the societal restrictions on them. It wouldn't surprise me if we eventually see a day when people can drink openly in most of the Middle East.
How do you define 'culturally dominant.' Why do you assume it was due to individual preference and not technological and military superiority? Well it all depends on the content of education. Of course if people are taught in a liberal arts university, they are going to have a Western outlook of things. As to standard of living, I doubt it. I don't see the why someone would start demanding more freedom and fear government just because the person now has access to hot water. I think it may be the reverse. Since people have more time on their hands due to their comfortable lifestyle, they will engage in politics in the hope that their policies will be considered or implemented. Well a lot of history shows that his does not have to be case, and I'm not necessarily talking about economics. What is the difference between a society wanting rules to be based on a set of ethics and moral codes found in their religion, and another society wanting rules to be based on a set of ethics and moral codes derived from individual reasoning? But Turkey was made to think Western, and that's what Ataturk intended. Pakistan has far worse problems that not having a more secular government (e.g. corruption). And why is having a more secular government a good thing anyway? Again, that would depend on the education. If people are taught from a young age that more government means more intrusion, and that having such is bad and backward, then of course you are going to have people demanding frivolous things. Yes, and it's good that their demands are worthy.
In the beginning, it surely was those two things. A lot of our dominance today has more to do with media, however. Our entertainment is far more pervasive than that of other nations, for example. The concept of being mostly free to live as you please has a lot of appeal, which is part of why people move to the West. Admittedly, a lot of it has to do with economic opportunity, but when immigrants come to America, for example, they typically enjoy the greater amount of freedoms they have here as opposed to their home country. Their children often enjoy these things even more. By dominant, I mean being able to get people to convert to your perspective. Most of the non-West is becoming more Westernized via economics and media influence. Look at China. The urban population has started to push back against their government more in exchange for more freedoms. This especially becomes evident as the general population sees how free the people of Hong Kong are allowed to be in comparison to them. Even though Hong Kong is part of China, the government allows them more freedoms, and this isn't just by coincidence that they have a higher standard of living and higher education. As the world gets smaller due to the internet, people in less free societies begin to envy the freedoms they see in other countries. They push for the same freedoms for themselves. In a similar manner, the same is often true when viewing education level and religion. The more educated a person gets, the less religious they tend to be. Dogmas begin to be replaced by the flexibility of critical thinking. Superstitions are replaced by careful analysis and rational skepticism. Liberal arts surely encourage a Western viewpoint, but even science can encourage it. Rational thinking generally leads to tolerance of more personal freedoms. Universality. If your ethics are religion-based, they have little to no relevance to a non-believer. Reason-based ethics can be applied to anyone willing to think them through. If you posit a religion-based code of ethics through the state, that disenfranchises those of differing religions (or of no religion). Simple. Show me a religious government that isn't oppressive. Secular governments are more likely to allow more personal freedoms. The most religious governments are often far more oppressive than their secular counterparts. Compare Saudi Arabia and Iran with Turkey. Which of the 3 countries would you prefer to live in? People often cite Communist governments as oppressive and secular, but technically, those societies worshipped the state. This may not involve a deity, but it is essentially a religion. Define frivolous and worthy. Both are subjective, but I'm curious as to what freedoms you would classify as each.
Well yes, their children do indeed enjoy it, and isn't really surprising that they do. But other than indulging in materialism and meaningless activities, what's so great about this freedom? Have you not noticed the state America is currently in? Ok, fine. But that doesn't mean what the West is transmitting to the East is necessarily good. Fine. Yes, everyone should ( and ought to be ) involved in politics. You can have that and a government that is concerned with social ethics, don't you agree? Again, it depends on the education. Why do you think the Enlightenment was called what it is? If you are going to be told your whole life that religion is backward and individual reason is superior and advanced, themmyou will perceive religion in that light. Don't get me wrong, dogmas are bad and critical thinking is good, but simply dismissing religion as pointless nonsense isn't what I consider to be critical thinking. Who gets to decide what's rational and what's not? What if someone, through his critical thinking skills and rational thinking, concluded that incest or sex with children was alright? Science certainly can encourage it if people are taught to solely utilise their brains rather than their hearts. I think it should be a combination of both. And what happens when two societies for instance use their reason and reach differing conclusions on a certain topic? War will ensue. A good example is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. They both think the land belongs to them! Sure, and if you posit a reason-based code of ethics through the state, that disenfranchises those who reason differently. Finally, why do you assume reason does not play a role in the adoption of a certain religion? What do you mean by 'oppressive?' Well the only country that I've lived in from that list is the KSA, and it wasn't so bad. Given that I'm the type who would start the day by going to work and end it by coming back to my family, I don't think I'd mind living in all three. If however I wanted to party the whole time and what not, I'd obviously pick Turkey. But I'm positive that the millions of citizens living in Iran and the KSA aren't constantly feeling 'oppressed.' Come on, Serfin. Religion is much, much more than the worshipping of a deity. But what about those countries that worship reason? Is that religion too? It's not about freedom, but rather what I find appropriate. It's frivolous to be so concerned with homosexual marriage when there are numerous grave problems that America is currently witnessing. It is a worthy cause for women to demand a role in politics.
Australia and Canada are pretty materialistic in their own rights, and they're both in considerably better condition. It's not materialism or freedom that are harming America. It's things like the surveillance state and the recklessness of our financial sector. No argument here, although I view it as better than the East overall. The flaws of Western culture are outweighed by the advantages. Much of the non-West is stuck in antiquated traditionalism. Sure, but the only real concerns in that realm should be things like civil rights. Beyond that, it's a matter of freedom of choice. Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. Religion is arbitrary. Reason is not. Then, the majority would reject that notion. Ultimately, the majority is often what decides what social mores are acceptable. Also, most societies define consent as only possible from adults, not minors. As far as incest between adults is concerned, that's ultimately a matter of personal choice (although not a choice I would recommend). Most people use a combination already. Using your brain more, however, requires a combination of education and mental focus. It's natural to put your emotions first, but it is a lesser way of behaving. Our intellect is what separates us from all other animals. Emotions are common even among lower animals. That can certainly be the case, but that's what the process of diplomacy is for. War should be a last resort because it is usually counterproductive. The heart of the matter (if you'll pardon my pun) is that both sides have ethnic or religious claims to the land. Without such a focus on this sort of thing, cooler heads would prevail. In all honesty, if all of the Palestinians or all of the Israelis agreed to do it, I wouldn't mind seeing either group start up a community in a place like Wyoming. We've got plenty of better land here than that little scrap of desert everyone apparently wants. No, it really doesn't. Restricting the behavior of others to appease your own preferences is what much of religious legislation involves. If you want to restrict your own behavior, then that's fine, but any rational society must reject theocratic tendencies in law in order to preserve civil liberties. Because it lacks evidence. Faith is a process devoid of evidence and wholly dependent on wild assumptions. Occam's Razor should prevail. Restricting the behavior of another person simply because said behavior displeases your culture or religion. The only restrictions on behavior that make sense rationally involve prohibition of physical harm to others or harassment. If you don't like to drink, that doesn't give you the right to ban everyone from drinking, for example. True, the reactions of the public are largely determined by what they've been raised with. However, some people begin to reject the status quo when they grow tired of the state inflicting its will upon them. If rationally analyzing data to reach logical conclusions could be considered a religion, I guess. Although that would seem to be redefining what religion is. The reason I mentioned Communism as a religion is because the faith in government that was required by those systems resembled religion due to the lack of evidence to back up said faith. To have faith in a Communist state, you would have to overlook the vast inefficiencies and cronyism shown by these states. In North Korea, it literally is a religion in the form of Juche. Why not fight for both? As a civil libertarian, I fight authority whenever it infringes upon personal decisions. The fact that women's rights affect a larger segment of the population doesn't keep me from being able to support issues that affect smaller segments. Why should it for you? Muslims make up a smaller segment of the population here than gay people, but that doesn't keep me from supporting their freedom of religion or freedom from discrimination.
Excuse me for butting in here but this thread is not on Gay Marriage. It is on making it illegal for people to be honest about their sexuality in Uganda and how this state of affairs has been brought into being by Neo Con's and the US Christian Right not least to destroy social witness and social justice programs of Western Liberal Churches. That is important. Gay weddings are only important as far as gay's want them. They apparently do. Much as serfin' says it is important to protect everyone's rights. Equal rights means equal rights of all. Not equal rights because it is what is important to you. Once you flinch on that, you leave the room open for all rights to be taken away. It is not frivolous to Gays who want to be married. If they wish a religious ceremony, the Iman, Priest, Minister or whatever does have the ability to opt out if they do not have the goodwill to do this. Alongside this, those against Gay Marriage are the very same people on the whole who are against gay's full stop and are intent on making sure that becomes part of Christianity - in other words another way to stop liberal Christianity. The Church of England was against Gay Marriage but is questioning whether it made the right decision. If it changes it's mind, then we may expect the Anglican Church in Britain to take a more progressive route and also by that to effect other churches. It is already noting it has been suffering from homophobia which it wants to change. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=C...firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=ElbQUpzVI4ix0AWPrIGoDQ
Well harm can take many forms. True. I'll tackle this below. Elaborate. What if the majority doesn't reject them? And how is this any different than the majority accepting the ethical standards entrenched in their religion? You mean consent when it comes to sex. Well the West likes to pride itself as a beacon of reason. Anything not reason-based seems to be shunned as regressive, as opposed to 'progressive.' This includes both philosophy (somewhat) and religion. I don't think you can have an ethical society based solely on reason. In this case, diplomacy has been failing for 60 years. They focus on such things because through their reasoning, they came to believe that they are in the right. That goes for those who support either side. Well to them it's more than a scrap of desert. Likewise, the art on the walls of the Vatican isn't just art. Let's go back to the issue of sex with minors. The majority of a society- through their reasoning- concluded that sex should be based on consent. Does this not restrict the behaviours of some individuals? Another example is homosexual marriage. The majority, through their reasoning, concludes that it is harmful to society. Never-mind how they reached that conclusion. Does this not restrict the behaviours of some individuals? Examples abound. It doesn't need evidence. Do you believe that a person's ethics are based on evidence? Like I argued above, what if this restriction of behaviour is based on your reasoning? Yes, and this 'will' can take many forms. For example, the state inflicting the will of those who accept homosexual marriage on the rest of society. I mean the devising of ethics, morals, etc. in order for one to lead one's life. Just like philosophy. Do you base your ideas on what is right or wrong by analysing data? Perhaps a better term is political religion. Like I said, it's matter of appropriateness (and what is right). Would you not defuse the bomb first, and then satisfy your hunger? This principle isn't enough, otherwise you wouldn't have to draw your limits. You seemed to be more concerned with freedom than what is good for a society. It's not about supporting issues, but rather why these issues should deserve my acknowledgment in the first place.
I have been away on vacation (working on church and mission matters 24/7 really) and did not see if anyone (Christian bashers and Christians alike) answered my reply to the Gay issue? Basically it was that Jesus never condemned homosexually in his ministry. It seems to me that if it was a deadly sin he would have loudly condemned or made an issue of it in his sermons which included most sins listed in the commandants. I have a personal opinion as well as an religious opinion, however I wish Jesus had specifically commented. reva
Christ did not come to condemn anyone. He came to help man fulfill his true nature, and free himself from the lower carnal existence of this world into the attainment of a higher more spiritual existence. Something which is a perquisite for unity with the Divine in His Kingdom. Homosexuality by its very nature then, would be the antithesis of Christianity. For it to exist, shows how far our society has fallen and how much it has distanced itself from God. Homosexuals are the products of our sins, and cannot be condemned without condemning all of us for the society we have created. To make this deviancy an acceptable factor, rather than a pitiable condition, will only worsen the situation. Anyway this is how I feel.
Religion is almost wholly dependent on the culture you're raised in. There are some who convert to other religions or reject religion altogether, but in general, people tend to stick with the religion of their parents. I was different from most by choosing to reject religion despite my Christian upbringing. But again, for most people, religion is a conditioned response, with emotional connections to a specific set of values driving what they feel is true. Reason is quite different. It requires a person to be cautiously skeptical of things without proof. The more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence is required for belief. In effect, reason (and science) are methodical and logical. Religion requires faith without evidence, and the choice of which faith to believe is mostly just a product of environment rather than a calculated response. Some morals are more universal than others. Religious or not, almost all societies believe that minors should be protected from sexual contact by adults. You don't need a religion to understand the problems with such behavior. It is true that law cannot be left up purely to majority impulses, however. The basis of American ethics is the Constitution. While some of the Founding Fathers were religious, the doctrine overall does not require a religion to understand or follow. Plenty of other secular governments have similar doctrines based around the concept of natural rights and what we usually refer to as civil liberties. The key is getting the majority to respect the rights of minorities. This is something all societies often struggle with, Western or otherwise. However, you'll notice that the treatment of minorities tends to be better in countries without religious governments. Much of the Islamic World thoroughly abuses minorities, and so does much of the developing world that isn't Islamic as well. I don't know of any society based solely on reason, but there are plenty that are close to that. Sweden and the Czech Republic are among the least religious countries on the planet, and they seem to be doing alright. I think it's a combination of religious extremism and hatred. Each side has its own cultural reasons for wanting the land, but they also have reached a point where the enmity they have for each other prevents reason from prevailing. There was a brief moment when Rabin looked like he and Arafat could come up with something, but we know what happened afterwards. Ultimately, the Israel-Palestine situation is the result of emotions getting the better of logic. The art at the Vatican is surely nice, but it's not worth dying over. Of course. Freedom has rational limits. Where those limits lie, however, can be purely determined through reason. Clearly, it's not reason-based, however. Why would it matter if someone else got married to someone of the same sex? His/her marriage has no bearing on my own or on anyone outside of the marriage itself. The vast majority of the motivation behind prohibiting gay marriage is directly tied to religion -- which is anything but reason-based. On an individual basis, many people probably wouldn't base it on that, but there is quite a bit of evidence that morals and religion itself were created as a result of people trying to figure out ways to coexist. The more universal morals of religion like prohibitions on killing and stealing were likely devised by observing (or anticipating) what would happen without said prohibitions. In that respect, you could say that religion often has an undercurrent of reason in some of its morals, but the immediate impetus is usually deity or afterlife based. It's easy to determine which morals are reasonable and which aren't by logically breaking down if an action truly affects someone other than the person making the action. Killing someone clearly violates the victim's rights. Marrying someone of the same sex has no bearing on anyone outside of the marriage itself. The rest of religion can be logically analyzed like this to figure out what can be codified in law, and what would oppressive if codified. It would need to be debated to determine the validity of the logic. While some of this process is subjective, there are somewhat universal criteria for some of this. Logic can still be flawed, if the person taking a position is working with bad data or has compromised their logic with faulty assumptions. In that particular case, it's a matter of interpreting constitutional law. Again, there are subjective elements to this, but there are also objective ones. Court rulings here aren't made on personal whims. Striking down a law as unconstitutional requires thorough analysis. It's why we have an appeals system. Yes, actually. For example, my willingness to try a mind altering substance would be based on what the possible repercussions would be and what the experience is most likely going to be like. My actions toward other people are a careful weighing of what the possible consequences of each action might be. I determine likelihoods of consequences through life experiences. There are parts of this that everyone does, but we don't often think about it in analytical terms. Oftentimes, we also compromise our perception of these likelihoods by what we would prefer to do or would prefer to happen. Probably the best example of this is how some people deal with relationships. People will often stick with an abusive lover because of the dependency they develop, even if leaving makes more sense in the long run. So, ultimately, yes, you can somewhat determine your ethics through reason, although most people don't consistently follow reason and logic in their actions. Emotions can get in the way of that. Granted, I'm not saying we should all be emotionless robots. We just need to keep our priorities in order for the sake of obtaining optimal results. Hypothetically, yes. However, social issues rarely operate in this manner. Limits are primarily derived by whether or not a decision affects someone else. For example, drinking isn't banned here when you're 21 or older, because the act itself isn't harmful to others. We do ban drinking and driving, because it is harmful to others. This principle is both simple and practical for determining when the government should step in and when it shouldn't. "Deserve" is subjective. You could say neither of the issues I mentioned deserve your notice. If you're straight and male, why should gay rights and women's rights matter to you? That would be an example of the counterargument to my position. The reason I care about both despite being both straight and male is because allowing the government to oppress either of these groups could eventually allow it to oppress other groups. I'm already a minority when it comes to religion. I'm an atheist, so if I live in a society that oppresses gay people or women due to religion, it's not hard to see how that oppression could extend to atheists for the same reason. So, overall, minority issues matter to me because nearly all of us could be considered a minority in one way or another. Now, obviously, some forms of being a minority are more vulnerable than others.
Yet another totally ignorant post. Blame Western Colonisation and Christians for whatever ails you, but give a pass to Islam. Just more political correct jibberish. BTW, homosexuality is a crime in Islam punishable by death, its clear in both the Quran and Hadith.
I have. Have you? Violent crime rates are at all time lows. Murder rates are at all time lows. Teenage pregnancy rates are at all time lows. High School dropout rates are at all time lows. Divorce rates are falling. Every available societal metric tells us that THIS is the "good old days". So tell us again why we should let your stupid religion make stupid rules?
