Gay persecution vs. "Anti-religion bigotry" thread

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Corsi and Peter hashing it out.

This is what dreams are made of.

You should hash it out more. I would enjoy reading what you think.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by jammies

Some people, though, are raised within a religion and reject it. I can respect that far more than someone who continues to believe but has no real idea what "believing" actually entails, like many of my relatives and friends who are call themselves staunch Catholics but are fuzzy on the actual details of what Catholicism is, what the Bible really says, and even what the sacraments are, and other basics that should have been beaten into their skulls by nuns.

I also respect people that believe and actually know what their beliefs mean, where they were derived from, and how they compare to other religions. The idea that your religion can be supposedly central to your life, and yet you don't understand it, is baffling to me - it is intellectual laziness of an unacceptable order. I don't see any issue with judging someone who is an uncritical and simple believer, any more than it's wrong to judge someone who is a liar, or greedy, or cruel. Sloth is, after all, one of the seven deadly sins.

I think it's a lot easier for those of us in the West to turn away from our family or community's religion. We live in a secular and liberal society. Far harder for a kid growing up in Egypt or Pakistan. For them, to reject religion is to be outcast utterly from your family and peers. Being an independent and critical thinker is valued highly in our society, but in many parts of the world it is not.

[AltaGuy]

His supporters are more or less atheists. They don't go to church, and they don't read the Bible, but kind of espouse belief in a christian god without following the Christian God's guidance for a virtuous Christian life.

Oh, I think they'd be awfully mad at you for saying they aren't Christians. Especially all those former Cruz-ites who are now Drumpfs.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I think it's a lot easier for those of us in the West to turn away from our family or community's religion. We live in a secular and liberal society. Far harder for a kid growing up in Egypt or Pakistan. For them, to reject religion is to be outcast utterly from your family and peers. Being an independent and critical thinker is valued highly in our society, but in many parts of the world it is not.

Yes, but religion is the reason for that outcasting, and for the guilt that they'd feel. It's such a wierd paradox, as everyone seems to say their religion is about love and community, yet they all seem to preach exclusion of outsiders in one way or another.

And its the rejection of traditional religion that has allowed us in the "West" to live in that liberal society.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yes, but religion is the reason for that outcasting, and for the guilt that they'd feel. It's such a wierd paradox, as everyone seems to say their religion is about love and community, yet they all seem to preach exclusion of outsiders in one way or another.

And its the rejection of traditional religion that has allowed us in the "West" to live in that liberal society.

At what point was there a "rejection" of traditional religion in the West.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by peter12

at what point was there a "rejection" of traditional religion in the west.

July the 4th 1776

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is a fairly simplistic way of seeing the difference. This is literally true, but often—perhaps even usually—not practically plausible. A person's religion is most commonly determined by culture and upbringing, and NOT by conscious choice. Huge numbers of people are simply never presented with options in the same way that we make other choices.

I absolutely agree that there is a difference between making judgments based on race, gender, sexual orientation et al. and making them based on religion. But, prejudice of every stripe is still ugly and wrong, and people should never be so quick to judge based on religion.

Naturally. One of the the most powerful tools religious leaders have at their disposal is ignorance. And that is a tool they have applied liberally to control the herd. I can certainly understand and accept that a person's environment may not allow for free or informed choice on the matter.

But that is a far different situation than that of a pseudo-intellectual with full availability of knowledge and opportunity still choosing to hold onto their fantasy.

Even then, if you choose such a path, that's fine. On the individual or group level, I don't go out of my way to tell people that I believe religion is dumb so long as they don't go out of their way to push their religion onto me. So the choice there is one of behaviour and how they (and I) interact with others.

But in the context of what spawned this thread, it is rather likely that religious bias was a not-insignificant factor in the Orlando massacre. Discussing the negative influence of religion was just as much fair game as discussing the negative influence of America's gun culture was.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by peter12

At what point was there a "rejection" of traditional religion in the West.

I'd say the separation of church and state was a good start. Seems to me much of "traditional religion" was political in nature.

Gonna go pay my tithe now.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by peter12

At what point was there a "rejection" of traditional religion in the West.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

July the 4th 1776

Could go farther back to the Protestant Reformation and Renaissance, and at the same time the invention of the printing press. The beginnings of serious revolt against the Catholic Church coupled with the dramatically easier ability to both spread ideas and educate the public played major roles in western society moving toward a secular nature.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Could go farther back to the Protestant Reformation and Renaissance, and at the same time the invention of the printing press. The beginnings of serious revolt against the Catholic Church coupled with the dramatically easier ability to both spread ideas and educate the public played major roles in western society moving toward a secular nature.

The U.S. being the first country to specifically reject any establishment of a state religion and its massive cultural influence from the 19 century onwards it seemed an apprapo date.

[Resolute 14]

Yeah, that was probably the culmination of a movement that had been gathering steam for centuries.

Also, to play spelling nazi, I think you meant "apropos".

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yeah, that was probably the culmination of a movement that had been gathering steam for centuries.

Also, to play spelling nazi, I think you meant "apropos".

Bitch at Apple I don't spell stih anymore

[Mr.Coffee]

Actually if you study American history there was a large religious revival after the countries inception. But anyway carry on.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

At what point was there a "rejection" of traditional religion in the West.

Are you serious? It's been systematic. Separation of church and state, revolutions overthrowing royal families (ie reps of God on earth), rise of anti-theologian science, etc..

Aren't you normally arguing that this rejection (of Christianity specifically) is a reason for a degradation of society?