I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that. I’d believe that they outstrip, say, Adventists or Baptists, and I could even accept that they would outstrip Methodists, but I’d be shocked if they had a higher ratio than, say, Episcopaleans (and those numbers seem a bit off to me – I’d believe that they might be better inclined to it than the general population, but not quite so much). And I refuse to believe that they’d outstrip, say, Quakers or that Church of Christ group that I can’t remember, let alone Reform Jews, Atheists, or Unitarians. May I have a cite?
You’ve got the best I’ve got. It was several weeks ago and the PD only carries a publicly available archive for fourteen days.
I am perfectly willing to believe that I misremembered a statement that Catholics were more supportive than the general public rather than being more supportive than specific groups that are traditionally more liberal. It was not a breakdown of support or opposition by religious groups but a comment on Catholics, noting the (apparently surprising to the author) support for SSM by Catholics because it exceeded 50%.
I think it would be best if it were a stand alone site. Then you could use a catchy URL that is just offensive enough to be remembered. It wouldn’t even have to be obvious that it was pro-homosexual site and as such you might get protestant fundies to link to you and drive up your visibility to search engines. It wouldn’t take more than $150 to put the site up on godaddy.com for the year or something like that. One could hypothetically email members in the gay community and let them know your plans and elicit names and photos. As long as the emails were to and from the website, and the website was set up anonymously, nobody would ever know where it came from. Just like savetoby.com.
I have no idea where the PD author got his or her figures. I did find the following results on a Zogby poll from a couple of years ago, but the numbers do not match the PD figures.
Le Moyne publication of 2004 Zogby poll
So 58% of American Catholics want to use a constitutional amendment to make sure another class of Americans cannot get access to certain rights? I hope they are proud of themselves! I had no idea rthe Constitution was designed to put down uppity minorities.
So much for the nice, loving, liberal Catholics myth!
Every religion does this. Some of them have rules that you like better. Some don’t. But even the Unitarian Church has indoctrinated my children in Unitarian values regarding sex. They happen to conform to mine, so I’m OK with it.
Non-Catholic here, but you’ve pretty much said what I think.
Well, Catholics AFAIK believe that in matters not explicitly covered in the Bible, the Church is at liberty to make its mind up based on long and prayerful study by the wisest minds available. (Someone else could probably say this much better than I do.) But I’ll note for future reference that you believe a Christian should go with what the Bible says, and nothing else, and should you happen to diss fundamentalists for this at some time in the future, I may wish to remind you. 
Well, since I believe all of it to be a bunch of hooey, it doesn’t make a lick of difference to me. I’ve always thought there was something disingenuous about believers who twist the bible around to suit their purposes rather than just living by it as the scary novel it actually is. I don’t like fundies, but there’s a certain honesty there.
The catholic (or any) church doesn’t know what god’s intentions are any more than the fundies do. If everyone is allowed to pick a handful of guys to do the interpreting, the text, in essence, becomes rather meaningless.
So in summary you reserve your right to rag on fundies for doing what the Bible says (since it’s just a scary novel), and also to rag on Catholics for doing what the Bible doesn’t say.
::marks card::
Check.
To me, the issue here is, you can find contradictions and bizarre congruences galore. (Did you realize that there’s an advantage for males, if they want to have casual heterosex, of doing it within earshot of a town?) Trying to do an honest job of living by Biblical commandments is next door to impossible, unless you lay atop them a template of your own preconceptions. (Like, for example, the “proof” that the only relationship God counts as marriage is heterosexual monogamy, one man and one woman, by quoting Matthew 19:4-6 out of context. (“It’s talking about divorce, not gay marriages, ya blitherin…”)
For example, marrying your brother’s widow is either forbidden, mandatory, or both. (So don’t get caught in the “both” situation – God doesn’t like Catch-22’s any more than you do. In fact, His punishment for people who “disprove” Him with semantic/logic-based paradoxes is to crush them beneath a rock so heavy that He can’t lift it. ;))
But in this whole mess, is there one element that elucidates and clarifies the morass of commandment and counter-commandment, teaching and paradoxical contradictory teaching? Well, first, separate out God from man in its creation. The problem here is that some fundamentalists believe that He is responsible for the whole thing, right down to the verses that Paul said are not from Him. But if you peel off “allegedly said by God” from “allegedly said by human” and narrative, you reduce the contradiction by some, but unfortunately in the direction of greater arbitrariness.
But suppose we look at Jesus? After all, He’s supposed to be God in the flesh, His speech the words of God not filtered through Moses, Jeremiah, Haggai, Paul or whoever. Did He say anything that might help?
Well, yeah. Three times He identified a twofold principle as key to the Scriptures (though not science and health ;)): love of God and of one’s fellow man. Once He explicitly says that that summarizes the entire Law and Prophets. (The fact He borrowed this from Hillel does not matter; He taught it with authority, as a commandment form God.) In one other place He names something else as co-equal in authority: the Golden Rule – which is of course in essence the Second Great Commandment stated in more pragmatic form.
Equipped with these, one can then find a guiding principle running through His teachings: one of holding oneself to high moral standards, but refusing to sit in judgment over others, of returning good for evil, of providing practical aid and compassion wherever it is needed. And He’s pretty explicit on how the whole thing holds together, too: if you judge others, you will be judged with the same measure – and context suggests strongly He’s talking about God’s judgment, not just karmic revenge. Whatever you do or do not do for another, He will hold it as done or not done for Him. God loves everyone, and forgives readily – but He despises hypocrisy, and in particular holding others to rules for which you’ve found your own self loopholes.
Oh, and one added benefit on a very practical mundane basis: this completely divorces you from all the arguments about purpose and function of the Bible, whether it’s a rulebook or not, propriety of imposing its rules on other citizens, and the whole shebang. You have your marching orders, straight from your Lord and Savior, and they have no loopholes or wiggle room.
My viewpoint here is, of course, seen by conservative Christians who look to the thing as a lawbook, as being unprincipled, a refusal to identify and decry sin and instead a willingness to condone it. I know I’ve experienced that more than a few times in arguing the point, even from atheists who see accepting God but not the fundy theses about the Bible as somehow inconsistent.
I see it more as something like Constitutional Law. You have a bookshelf full of statutes, and multiple rooms of case law. But here, confined in a few pages, are the principles that shape and underlie the rest of the library. The archaic statute may still be on the books, but if it violates the basic principles of human freedoms and limited government power enshrined in the Constitution, it’s without power to affect you and me.
Jesus is my Savior and Lord. He said what’s the most important things to do. He left no room for exceptions or compromise. He detailed how He expects it implemented, in broad terms. And provided us with a Comforter and Advocate, to consult in times of confusion.
To me, it seems like everyone picks and chooses from Scripture. The evangelist who comes from a dinner of scallops in his wool/linen suit to denounce homosexuality probably has no clue how ironic his accusation that we liberals are cherry picking Scripture really is. But in my case, my sole choice was to elect to follow Jesus. He did the cherry picking for me, and I find His selections to be the right way to live.
But love translates into action and moral behavior. Pledging love to God and your neighbor means that you want for the world and your neighbor what God wants. And again, that will manifest itself in actions, the choice of which then is a moral detrmination.
I mean, plenty of parents say they hit their children because they love them and want them to learn some sort of lesson. I would consider that kind of behavior immoral but they could say it sprang out of love.
Here’s the problem, though. There’s a huge difference between promiscuity and monogamy. Back when I was a prude who didn’t approve of sex outside of marriage, if I thought about gay marriage, it seemed to me that, if I said gay people weren’t allowed to have sex outside of marriage and weren’t allowed to marry, I was, in effect, gay people were never allowed to have sex, and requiring someone to live a life of celibacy, instead of giving them the option of choosing it seemed wrong. My views of the proper time to have sex have changed, in part due to a failed engagement to a Catholic. An old friend of mine is one of the finest, most moral, decent people I know. He and his partner have been together for well over a decade, yet his marriage will not be acknowledged by the Catholic church in my life time. An ex-boss of mine is not so moral or decent, in addition to being the worst boss I ever had. Solely because his fiance wanted a Catholic wedding, he had his first marriage annulled. His marriage is acknowledged by the Catholic church. This isn’t meant as a knock on Catholics or Catholicism; just as an explanation of why I feel the way I do about gay marriage. As I told that fiance years ago, I’m a reasonable Episcopalian, but I’d be a lousy Catholic! 
First, thank you for laying out your opinion in *atheist-speak * for me (as per usual). Scripture quotes and the like are difficult to follow along for those of us who aren’t students of the bible (all I ever see are the contradictions…laid out in a language I don’t understand). I appreciate it.
Secondly, I agree that everyone who claims christianity does, in fact, cherry-pick, though most will deny it. This is extremely frustrating to those of us who really want to understand how people can align with a religion. By breaking it down to the basics you’ve chosen, you effectively eliminate any need for the bible (I’m actually rather amazed you continue to study it in depth…must be curiosity, huh?). I think it humanizes the whole kit-and-kaboodle and puts the believers and non-believers alike on even ground. I strive for the same things you do. The only difference I see (provided people do push aside the contradictory, judgemental filler and live by the basics) is that to me, it doesn’t matter who thought it was a good idea to treat people with civility. I do it because it just feels right. It is it’s own reward.
But…(and this is a big, gigantic, jiggly “but”)…when you say:
…you are saying, in essence, god has no opinion one way or another on two of the hot-button topics in religion today: abortion/reproductive rights and homosexuality. I know of few denominations who feel that homosexuality is in keeping with god’s plan. And I know of NO christians who would think that abortion is OK and certainly no catholics who would consider IVF to be “loving one’s fellow man.” I mean, it makes perfect sense to me, but I just don’t see how you can simplify the message to the degree you do. You have to decide for yourself if god includes embryos in the “fellow man” category. You have to decide for yourself if using discarded embryos for scientific research/remedy would be god’s way of loving your fellow man. Some things don’t break down as simply as you’ve stated. If you’re not given clear guidance, how can you make the correct decision? If you make the wrong one, how can god hold it against you? And if he doesn’t hold it against you, what difference does it make? The oversimplification makes it extremely difficult for a believer to fall into line with The Plan. It’s rather like being handed a free vacation but without any transportation or map. It really doesn’t do you much good.
(I realize I’ve interwoven two threads here by bringing in the reproductive rights issue, but I think it applies to the discussion at hand.)
But what if a straight person never finds someone to marry; they are required to remain celibate, no choice.
Every straight person can find someone to marry. There is someone…somewhere who will want you. The gay population doesn’t have the option under any circumstances.
I think there’s a distinct difference between someone who is unable to make themselves desirable enough to meet someone, and someone who is categorically forbidden from acting on their emotional needs.
Precisely. As a straight person, I have the option of marrying someone with whom I share mutual love and attraction and having that marriage be sanctioned by not only the Episcopal Church, but the Catholic Church if that person happens to be Catholic. Even he has already been married, he has the option of getting an annullment and having our marriage recognized by the church. My gay friend, while he could, presumably, enter into a marriage with a woman whom he did not love does not have the same option I have in the same form. A sham marriage such as his marrying a woman would be given more recognition by the Catholic Church and society as a whole than the true marriage of minds and spirits he and his partner currently enjoy. To say he has the option of marrying a woman is like telling me I have the option of marrying a man who’s a wife-beater, a rapist, or divorced several times. While that option may be legally available to me, I can’t think of any circumstances under which I’d avail myself of it.
I guess I don’t mean what could someone pull over on the Catholic Church (which might assume that people are being honest) but in the event that someone truly doesn’t find someone they could honestly undertake a sacrament with.
So many contradictions, in fact, that it appears that there isn’t even the slightest inkling of divine inspiration whatsoever in the bible. Inferior in countless ways be books written by mere humans, who claim no direction from any gods. Compare Jesus to Bertrand Russell and Jesus ends up looking like a boob.
Not really.
This is again your rationalization. You’re deciding which words “not filtered” from Jesus you are deciding to follow. Never mind that these “not filtered” words were not written by Jesus, nor written until decades after Jesus’ death, nor even thought to be written by people who personally met Jesus. Also lets keep in mind that a lot of Jesus’ teachings you don’t follow, you don’t try to follow, and you don’t even think people should follow. I think I made this quite clear to you years ago and I seem to recall you finally admitting as much. I will be more than happy to bring up specific examples again, if you want. Just say when. It’s worth noting that out of all the verse in the bible, and all the rules you are supposed to follow, you bring it down to two very easy rules that don’t require you to do anything but love some imaginary being and be fairly kind to others. Anything that requires any form of genuine sacrifice, like ignoring your selfish desires, you conveniently ignore.
Don’t forget to hate your family. Jesus did not come to spread peace but a sword. Jesus wants you to sell your belongings and give it to the poor. Jesus did not soften any sexual prohibitions but said marrying a divorced woman is adultery and said imagined lust was adultery too. Jesus says not to save for the future. Jesus says he will cast you and most of humanity into hell for eternity if you don’t love him, etc. In short Jesus was an irresponsible class A creep.
Which is made clear as mud with his command to:
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” John 7:24
“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” John 3:18
“Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.” Matthew 18:8, 9
“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Matthew 10:28
“But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which AFTER he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.” Luke 12:5
“Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 22:13
“The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 13:41-42
But Jesus is a hypocrite himself, calling people fools, but saying others who do so are in danger of hellfire.
Yeah, only if you read the select verses Polycarp cherry picks.
And he told you what to do in specific terms but you ignore it. Not only do you ignore it but you teach others it’s ok to do so, which as he put it should make you least in heaven, or perhaps it will put you in hell.
That is surely true, but you liberal Christians choose to pick and choose to follow a lot less of the teachings of the bible and of Jesus than the fundamentalists do, preferring to follow a morality that is quite (how should I put this) of this world.
You cherry pick Jesus’ cherry pickings and you are dishonest to say otherwise.