Our own taliban

[rahmota]

This is an American situation I think. And I want it clear that I am not raggin on all "christians" or religious people. Also when I say you I am not referring to any one person in particular but the general universal you. I am an aethiest and particularly don't care what religion or other -ism a person believes as long as it involves consenting adults who want to believe that way and are happy doing so among themselves. As long as they DO NOT try and push, force or otherwise coerce me or others to believe the same way against our will.

And that brings me to our own little version of the Taliban here in America. A Christian Taliban. Those fundamentalists who are so uptight and self rightuous about their faith and beliefs that they feel that it is right and their duty from god to impose their moral codes upon others. Such as the anti-homosexual marrige amendments that where forced upon people by scare tactics and the worst kind of rumor mongering muck racking possible. And not only anti-homosexual but removing the whole concept of common law marriage from people. And yet some of the biggest sex scandels have involved religious leaders. The hypocrisy of these people knows no bounds.

Then there is the nudity and language and sex issues as brought about after the Janet Jackson incident. First off she had a pasty so you didnt see what you thought you saw . And second off its a boob. If you are so immature that you cant look at a boob without loosing your self control then maybe you shouldnt be allowed out by yourself in the first place. I mean I have satellite and I cannot stand to watch a movie because of all the bad overdubbing and choppy editing to remove the "bad" words and "Sexual situations" from these movies. And this is stuff that is on at 1 in the morning! All the little kiddies are supposed to be in bed by then and if they arn't then hey maybe the parents are aware the movie has language and allow the kids to watch the movie with it in it. Explaining that these words are not used in everyday conversation but for special occasions.

I mean I just read in the news recently about several episcopal churches seceding from the main church over a homosexual man being ordained and installed as a bishop. What does it matter who a consenting adult sleeps with as long as it is another consenting adult?

And then there is the whole attack on anything that even remotely seems to promote an alternative lifestyle than the one the fundies believe to be the only right one. Tv commercials, shows, songs all of it under attack by these people for perceived insults against religion and christ himself. I am quite sure that if christ was feeling insulted he would take action and deal with it himself. Thank the CT though they know and understand what christ and the christian god wants better than anyone else so they can take the proper actions against the infidels and heathens. Including as I have been told by a member of a nondenominational church that I got into a discussion with that the first amendment should be removed as the lack of religion in our government is want has ruined this country.

Hello McFly look at Afganistan and other theocracies in this world and see how wonderful paradises these places are and have been. (/sarcasm) I may not like the way thigns are but I definately do not agree that what we need is more religion. How about more understanding, tolerance or cooperation between people? You know that might not be a bad place to start. You have your life I have mine and as long as I'm not hurting you and youre not hurting me then thigns are all good. I count among my friends several religions. ONe friend is a homosexual wiccan priest. One is a friend (quaker) and the rest I guess you could say are borderline aethiest to lapsed christian. I used to be best friends with one guy but he got saved and sicne I wouldnt bend over and be forced to admit he was right about everything to do with religion or morals we had to part company.

I am sorry but it doesnt matter which -ism you follow. A fanatical zealot is still a fanatical zealot no matter the symbol they follow.

Thank you for listening.

[Rapscallion]

How common are the fanatical zealots in western society?

The media is there to gain and retain readers. They will and do concentrate on the prurient and interesting - things that will attempt to shock a jaded public. A leader of a small congregation says that the death of American soldiers in the Middle East is the result of allowing and accepting homosexuality? Fred Phelps is headline news, but his congregation is a couple of hundred (I think) in a national population of three hundred million or so.

The gay pride rallies? Look at the coverage - it's not people dressed in everyday clothes simply holding hands that end up on the photos, but the blokes in tiaras doing their best to try and shock 'normals'.

What I'm saying is that the 'threat' is probably overly emphasised by the media. People on the fundamentalist side are also doing their best to overstate the 'threat to the family' from things they don't particularly appreciate.

I think I speak for the silent majority who regard antics on both sides with indifference, though I would have to talk to everyone to be certain of this

The whole concept of religion is that it's trying to tell people how they should live their lives - don't eat certain foods, perform certain rituals, don't give in to this desire, do this instead of that etc. I don't have a problem with a relgious organisation stating what they think should be done, since that is their role in a society that holds free speech dear. I do object to some of the things they want, and I do object to some of the reasons why they want this, but it's their right to say it. It's also the duty of free-thinkng individuals to speak their minds if they think those speaking from religious platforms are wrong.

Some of the things you state - such as certain programs should be removed - I would agree with, despite being an atheist. I object on different grounds - 'gangsta' rap music is one I would happily see discarded to the oubliette of history, since I consider it to be a destructive force in society. However, banning it would just increase its attraction to the younger element of society. That's a side issue.

Sure, they can and should put forward their views, but by the same token so should everyone who disagrees with them - that's democracy. You want the cable companies to be able to put more explicit movies on the screens? Lobby your politicians. Get a pressure group together called "More Smut" or something. If the politicians don't hear your voice, they won't be able to listen. If other people don't hear your views, they won't be able to think about your points. If you don't speak up, democracy is dead.

I think the situation is more prevalent in the US, but we have our share of loonies over here as well.

What I'd like to see are the moderates speaking up and being heard. Religious zealots will get heard when they say something ridiculous, but moderates are rarely seen. I'm not certain of the reasons - maybe moderates think that by speaking up, they're no longer moderates, or maybe they're not seen as interesting by the media, or whatever, but I'd like to see some of the more middle-of-the-road religious views put forward.

As to the theocracies in the Middle East, interestingly enough they have a tradition of dealing with offenders against the law in harsh way. Their crime rates are very low. There are benefits.

Rapscallion

[Giggle Goose]

I think it's just a matter of people's OPINIONS being written into the law. Personally, I'm against abortion, but I can't stop anyone from getting one! And I want to come to that decision because it's one made by me, myself, and I. That's the problem with all these marriage amendments and such. The beliefs of a select few politicians are supposed to be the LAW for everyone to follow? Talk about "pushing your beliefs onto others." Pfft.

[rahmota]

OK I'll agree that there are many things in society I don't like and shows that I don't see having a socially redeeming value but I just don't watch them or allow my children towatch them. I am responsible for my own actions. Many of the christian taliban or the hardcore fundies are however the type who would say I don't like this and it offends me so you shouldntbe allowed to watch it even if it doesnt offend you. Thats what I'm on about.

As for the fundies there are the big mouthpieces like Phelps and Connors and all who the media latches on as they make good soundbites. But there are quite a few other groups and persons at the grassroots level who are the quiet type who do not attract the attention of the media. I know because I've been fighting them for the past 6 years. I'll start with the homosexual marriage issue that was so divisive and close to violent here in Ohio as I have direct exposure to that.

I am not a homosexual but I don't care what gender two or more CONSENTING ADULTS are who want to be together in a relationship. Its not bothering or hurting me so no big deal. But to some of these zealots any action is acceptable if taken in the name of the lord to try and stop and prevent homosexuals from being given the same rights and benefits as anyone else.

As I was campaigning against the homosexual marriage ban amendment (which also banned any other recognition of anything except 1 man 1 woman with a marriage liscence) I had some of these religious people spit on me, egg my car, threaten me with violence among the usual statements they'll pray for me and I'm goign to hell. That sort of stuff I am used to ever since I walked away from the church. I was told by my own sister in law that homosexual behavior itself should be illegal. I should point out that they are members of the CT as my BIL is a preacher at a nondenominational church. they have called children services on people (including my wife and I) just for them being aethiest or not "christian enough" (their words) or supporting some pogrom of theirs against civil rights and freedoms. Also they had a major deal last year when the Concealed Carry Laws came about where they got everyone in the church to get a concealed carry. That sounds more like a cult than a real church.

I am basically saying that a good christian understand that others may not share their views and beliefs but still ives their life as an example in the hopes that others may join them because they want to not because they are forced into it out of fear and threats of reprisals.

As for rap music its music. Yes the lyrics are vulger and bad but people have also said that about hard rock, country music etc... Its not the thoughts but the actions taken that destroy or elevate a society.

[Rapscallion]

OK I'll agree that there are many things in society I don't like and shows that I don't see having a socially redeeming value but I just don't watch them or allow my children towatch them. I am responsible for my own actions. Many of the christian taliban or the hardcore fundies are however the type who would say I don't like this and it offends me so you shouldntbe allowed to watch it even if it doesnt offend you. Thats what I'm on about.

I can see your point.

TV executive A wants to screen pay-per-view executions from Afghanistan or from some other harsh regime in the Middle East. Should he be allowed to cash in on a sick market? Should that be allowed? After all, nobody's forcing anyone to view it.

I would imagine that your answer would be 'no', but that's a line drawn in the sand at a different place. The people you describe are trying to draw the line at a more restrictive extent. The thought that there would be a (limited, I hope) market for this is disturbing, but where do you draw the line?

If someone tries to get something banned because it's bad for society, then that's up to them to persuade the governing bodies (through the politicians) to do so. If enough speak in favour of a certain limit, that limit will eventually come to pass. Religion is about setting limits, and therefore the religious organisations have as much right as anyone else to their say.

When it comes to oppressing other people's beliefs, it becomes much trickier. There have been reports on CS about how some work-based religious groups have forced anything but religious music off their work radios. For me, freedom of religion contains freedom from religion, and therefore I wouldn't stand for such as that.

When it comes to intimidation, it depends on the circumstances. The stuff about when you were told they would pray for you - if that was when you were arguing with them in their church (I'm guessing here) then it was rather to be expected that they would pounce on you with their superstitions, but if it was in your home then it is harassment, plain and simple. The egging of your car is vandalism, and they should face the consequences of that action. The calling of child services with false reports should also result in legal action where it can be proven it was for the purposes of harassment.

As always, proving such is going to be a bugger.

Are they actually right in their beliefs? All done and said, I don't care for the biases of the writer of a bronze age pamphlet, nor do I care for the rabble-rousing interpretations of people bending it to their own ends and focussing on a very few matters instead of the whole. I have a number of colleagues who are homosexual, and I'd rather stand with them than the harmful and intolerant idiots that society always seems to breed. I don't think that homosexuality is a choice, and nor do I think it is evil - it just is. I rather think that the intolerant seek a convenient minority to attack, since a smaller percentage is a better target than a larger one, rather like the scape goats of old.

More than anything, I believe that allowing the intolerant a voice is vital, as this will show them to everyone to be the scum that they are.

Rapscallion

[rahmota]

raps: I'll agree that line in the sand is a very tricky one. It would be in a different place for each person.

Your example of afghan executions for example. I personally would not watch it but I am sure like you said there are those who would. Where I draw the line is anythign that does not involve CONSENTING ADULTS. (Sorry for emphasizing that but thoe two words are beyond important in any discussion of things like this) If you are a consenting adult then supposedly you are responsible and aware of the consequences of your actions and willing to accept them.

The way many of the fundies act they do not believe that a person is an adult and needs to be treated like a child having their minds made up for them.

I'll agree that in a democracy everyone should have their say. But there must come a point where society goes hey you're an adult. i dont need to hold your hand while you go about your business take responsibility for your own butt. Unfortuantely too many people are either unwilling or unable to take responsibility for their own actions and lives. As for allowing the intolerant their own voice. Thats fine and dandy its just when that voice manages to outweigh the voice of reason and sanity that things get scary.

Actually most of the we'll pray for you and other commetns like that have come from encounters in public where I have been maybe not accosted but at least approached in a hostile manner about one thing or another that these people find offensive. Especially when i used to own my eagle talon that I had riced out with the words Devil Boy across the top of the windshield. That for some reason would set one of these people off if I encountered them. Although when my exbestfriend got saved and I refused to bow down to him I got the we'll pray for you from them.

But generally I agree I go into your church I expect to hear your faith and if I am in your church then that is because I want to be there. If I am in public then it is a tricky thorn but I still should have personal space that should be respected. In my own home then my beliefs rule. It all goes back to that personal responsibility thing. I dont go and pee in your pool you dont come and do so in mine.

Yes it is rather difficult to proove it was harrasment especially with Children's services. As they take a guilty until innocent approach to their job. And as for the vandalism on the car the ones who did it where never caught. Yippiee.

[Rapscallion]

Good point on the consent issue. There are people who get off on being tortured, and those who get off on torturing. They're consenting.

Would you allow that to be on pay-per-view?

Thinking about it, though, one of the very essences of the issue of sin is that we have a choice - we can chose to offend against the rules of a church or do as they bid us. If they manage to enshrine their beliefs into law - or vandalise someone's car, or otherwise blackmail them into acting in a way other than they would normally - aren't they effectively removing the element of choice and thus invalidating the strength of someone else's faith? You could try that one on anyone harassing you.

Rapscallion

[ditchdj]

That's exactly why I cant figure out why we're at odds with Iran. They run the EXACT same kind of government that a lot of right wing wackos in office want here. The only difference is that they do it all in the name of Allah, not Jesus. Oh yeah that's right: they're not "doing it right", so Iran's gotta go. Bye Bye.........

[AFPheonix]

I laughed when I heard that Aminidejad's party totally tanked on local elections.

He and Bush are WAAAAY more alike than they'd like to admit.

[rahmota]

Raps: I would probably allow that on Pay per view. Given that PPV is suposed to be done by people with credit cards (I dont use PPV so I am not at all certain on how it works) who are supposedly adults and able to decide for themselves about to watch it or not. and yes while it may be that kids will go behind their parents back with the PPV setups thats where the parental supervision/responsibility thing comes into play.

I tried the issue of free will vs predestination with some people. Some of them said that free will was an illusion and we are all predestined to do what we do. It turned into a very circular discussion very quickly when it was pointed out if we are predestined to be what we are then I was made by god to be an aethiest. Think your average SC logic only ramped up a notch or two for their response to that. Those that seemed to agree with free will said that they were using their free will to do gods will which is the ultimate good so all "reasonable" people should think that way and willingly go that way already and any actions they take in the pursuit of god's will are good and will be rewarded. Fortunately I've only run across a couple of people that deep. Those are the people who scare me the most though because as it was stated in Serenity they are "believers" and believers can do anything.

I'll agree though about the freedom to choose. From what I understand of true christian doctrine god does not want to force you to obey him (at least in the new testament, old testament is a lot more into the force issue fire and brimstone smitings and all that). That you should choose to do his works and reject evil because that shows you are a higher person and willingly accepting him. Not just taking the path of least resistence and being assimilated to avoid the pain and punishment in this world.

I think the biggest problm some of these people have with believing in free will is that it means some people will willingly choose to turn away from them and their church and religion and they cannot accept that.

[Rapscallion]

Heh - http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2006/1...s_you_g_1.html shows that fundamentalists have good comedy value.

As for what you would allow and what happens, again that's down to what society as a whole wants. Is there anything you wouldn't allow that does involve consenting adults?

True christian doctrine? Heh - define true in this case. The christian faith has had many splits based on different interpretations of the messages in the bible. Different orders of monks have based their ways of life on different aspects, and larger schisms (protestantism, methodism etc) have all based their faith on different things. It's a bit hard to say what a true christian doctrine is when there are so many variations. Islam has sunni and shi'ite options to add more confusion to the mix, so it's not just one religion that does this. I know of at least one variation of buddhism (jain), so there are probably more.

All done and said, I would hate to tell someone they are not behaving as their faith says they should - and I've seen people told that - because I could never be sure about what a christian believes.

Rapscallion

[rahmota]

Yeah I saw that Soy makes you gay BS. Speaking as a farmer who raises soybeans and is a major proponent for their use as a plastics and biodiesel and all sorts of things that was just so ludacris that I laughed and cried at the same time. It really does make me wonder what these people are smoking when they come up with stuff like this and if they seriously realize how messed up it sounds. Whats scary is that you know these people or at least some of them really believe this crud.

As for what I wouldn't allow that involes consenting adults. Well I'm pretty open. As long as they are harming themselves and not someone else , children are not harmed directly or indirectly and people who do not want to be involved are not forced into becoming involved then pretty much anything goes. Basically it all comes back to my statement on pesonal responsibility. As long as they are discrete, polite and responsible about things be happy.

True Christian Doctrine. Yeah true, with all the various branches and stuff maybe doctrine was the wrong word. Core values? Core beliefs that all good christians are supposed to hold to might be better choices. Such as do unto others and treat each as a brother and all that sort of thing. But yeah I don't like saying a person isnt acting all *-ism enough as I am an outsider and dont really care as well as if they're happy and all then more for them. All I ask is I am happy with my choice so leave me to it unless I open myself to you and ask for your input.

[rahmota]

OK since for some reason I can't get this this to edit my previous post I wanted to clarify what I would and wouldn't allow.

Basically I would like to see people take the time to stop and think and filter their actions through a few questions:
1: What will be the immediate results of this?
2: Will I be harming someone else?
3:Will I be benefiting from this action or benefiting someone else?
4: Will the benefits outweigh the harm done to myself or another.

So basically the biggest test would be the degree of harm vs help the actions are doing. A person who is responsible would attempt to minimize the harm they do to others while maximizing the benefit to themselves and others.

Because I see harm and benefit as more useful terms than good and evil. Good and evil are very relative and fluid terms that many differnt groups can disagree on and contradict each other on. One groups good is another's evil. But harm harm can be something that is measured and definitive. I take your money I am harming you. I injure you that is harming you. I fly a plane into your building that is harming you. I prevent you from living your life in your manner and intefere in your enjoyment of life liberty and the pursuit of happipness that is harming you.

I stop you from burning a dog that is harming you but benefiting the dog and society in general. I stop you from driving drunk this is harming you but benefiting society greater by keeping you from harming another. You drinking in your house to the point where you fall down your own stairs is you harming yourself so does not require my or societies interference. I stop you from raping a person by killing you. This is harming you by stopping you from harming another, ever. Permitting you to ride your motorcycle helmetless is potentially harming yourself and your loved ones but if it is your choice it is more harmful to force you to wear a helmet. Like I said a responsible adult should make choices and be aware and accepting of the consequences. Now these differnt examples of harm may not all be equal as harm comes in degrees but that is a relative example of what I am trying to say.

Part of my problem with religion is that too many people use religion to absolve themselves of responsibility for their actions. "Oh god willing" or "Its God's will" Or somethign along those lines when shite happens or they goof up is just making poor excuses. IMO.

[Ree]

The fact is, this country was founded by Christian people, or else 'God' would not have made its way into all the government and legislation, and any other areas from where non-believers now feel it now needs to be removed.
I don't think it was out of some evil plan to indoctrinate the whole world into Christianity, no matter what others may believe.

I was taught that God does have a plan for each of us, but we are born with free will, and, ultimately, man does create his own destiny.

I think a large part of what is percieved as these Christians forcing their views on others is a part of the Christian doctrine.

I know I was raised with a belief that if we see someone who is in danger of eternal damnation, we have a duty to guide them back to God, or risk the same fate by allowing the sin to continue.

That may seem ridiculous to others, and they may feel that what happens to them in the afterlife is their business, but to a Christian raised with those beliefs, it makes sense.

I was also told, however, that the best way to do that was to provide an example for others to follow.
It's not enough to just spout empty words. You have to back it up with your own actions.

I do not force my Christian views on people. I hope I live a life that illustrates my views. If I see someone that I feel is headed down a wrong path, I find it a lot easier to just offer a silent prayer for them without them knowing. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't.

Someone once wrote in my LJ, "...you are the one person out of everyone I've met that I could never, ever, EVER, argue abortion or birth control or religion with. Because you are walking the walk and you are part of the solution."
That was quite a compliment, and it blew me away to see it on the page.

I posted elsewhere on this site about a double standard that now exists, in my opinion.

I have a nephew whom I love dearly. He is at the age where he is discovering his own identity. I suspect that includes the fact that he is gay or at the very least, bisexual.
Even though I was raised with the belief that homosexuality is a sin, I have known this little boy from birth, and I know that he is not choosing to be this way. I have had to rethink my whole belief system in that regard.

I accept him as he is.

I spent a whole day with him a couple of weeks ago, just him and I. We had a long talk. He is a beautiful person with a wonderful social conscience. He is a model of Christianity, except for one thing. He has rejected Chritianity. In fact, he was so adamant in his condemnation of the Roman Catholic religion, that it was the only black cloud on an almost perfect day.

He spoke of my religion with such venom and almost hatred. I sat there and listened to him speak of so many things that he believes, and I accepted them without argument or condmenation, because if I had spoken up and called him on his beliefs, I would have been putting him down. I would have been guilty of hypocrisy because I was supposedly a Christian, but I wasn't acting like it because I was forcing my views on him, yet he was allowed to do the same to me unchecked.

Perhaps I have missed the point of this whole thread, and I am still arguing the point of my other thread, but it seems to me that, now it is trendy to not be affiliated in anyway with organized religion, especially Christianity, and in fact, the more one can suppress and malign any Christian views in any way, the better it seems to be.

[rahmota]

Ree, I am sorry if it seems like I am maligning all religion. I thought I had made it clear that I personally do not care what a person believes as long as they do not try to forc it upon another against their will.

You are not a person I would consider a christian taliban or fundie by your statements. In many ways I would consider you a good person overall which is more important than being a good whatever *ism you claim membership in. By living your life quietly and as a testament to your values then you are doing more to promote and encourage others to join with you than by forcing them to do so. You can get a person to kneel at the point of a sword but you cannot make them give you their heart.

I do have to disgree with you in that the founding fathers where not "Christians" as definde by the modern world. They where Deists. A subtle difference in that the personal relationship between a person and their god as more importnat than the church. One of the reasons the founding fathers where rebels and refugees from europe where the church was more important than the person. having been a history major I've looked into all of this and the relations the founding fathers had with the church and religion. It is the conclusion of myself and many other historians and legal scholors that the founding fathers would e very ashamed and upset with how much religion there is in the government. Adams, Jefferson and Madison all understood the danger of having too much religious control over the government as they where escaping and protesting the conventional european model of government. The God of the founding fathers is not the same god as the modern christians and most especially not the god of the religious right and fundies.

I dont really think its just "trendy" to hate the church or be upset at it. it seems like a backlash against the strangling oppression that many on the right are pushing. Much of it is the result of those on the far right being such irritants and dweebs by attacking anything that does not meet their approval of what it means to be "christian". I'll agree that there are times when the defense against the religious right gets a bit overzealous on its own but that is one of the danger of war.

i can understand your nephews attitude though. To many in the church being a homosexual is a step below being a cockroach. That it is erfectly alright to hate, discriminate, objectify, and persecute homosexuals just for being a person who has a different hormonal drive than a heterosexual. I am glad to see that you are intelligent and reasonable enough to accept and realize that he is not choosing to be a homosexual he simply is one.

And as for the christian doctrine of salvation where you should not stand by and let another burn. I agree that if a person is in danger of harming themselves then you are well within your bounds to say "hey you know you might hurt yourslf" but that is different then what the religious right do by saying I do not agree with that and do not believe that is right by my religion so I will stop you by any means necessary and use force against you. That is flowing into the realm of harm which equals evil. Again a responsible person accepts the consequences of their actions.