FriarTed, thanks. Being foreign, I had never heard of the People for the American Way. Here’s the Wiki-link, for the interested.
One of the last books my fav author, Stephen Jay Gould, wrote was an attempt to separate morals/ethics/beliefs on one side, and science on the other. He reclaimed science from religion, like the OP wants to reclaim morality from religion. Quite rightfully so; the claim to morality by these people has always annoyed me tremendously.
The movement to stop the religious right is going very, very quietly about their business. Because it is currently political suicide to imply that religion is immoral.
Just like it would be political suicide to say that the Bible and the Koran are outdated books filled with falsehoods and hate speech and explicit instructions to kill non-believers and perpetrate other acts of violence. Even though it’s the absolute truth.
Unfortunately, the majority of people in the US would rather hear lies than hear the truth.
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
That’s not the end of the story though. There is also the “God hates you and you’re going to hell” bit too.
Nonsense. The cause of the problem is not the inability to be married, but the social stigma that is correlated with the inability. (Thanks for the excellent post mojave66. As an example, I’d expect the social pressure on a biracial couple, even dating, is much less because of the social acceptance of biracial marriage. Which is not due to the legality of marriage, but to the social attitudes linked to the legalization of biracial marriage.
I live in the Bay Area, where there is much less stigma, and my daughter had several friends who were openly gay in school. The school’s strong message that this was okay I’m sure helped their mental health quite a bit.
But there is no social stigma at all unless one broadcasts they are gay. Recreational drug use is also stigmatized. Yet I don’t read much about adolescent pot smokers who keep quiet about it having 15 times the suicide rate of teens that use no drugs.
From where I stand it seems the US is run by the religious right. And Australia is tagging dutifully behind.
Christian values from the bible:
Worship only God
Respect all people
Be humble
Be honest
Live a moral life
Be generous with time and money
Practice what you preach; don’t be a hypocrite
Don’t be self-righteous
Don’t hold a grudge
Forgive others
Apprarently the Koran says much the same thing. BinLadenCo and Bushco have a lot in common.
For me, opposition to the religious right is part of the fight against ignorance. Ignorance and poor education is fertile ground for the RR. The RR intends to keep it this way - from Ronald Reagan “Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?” to the advocates of ‘Intelligent Design’.
Logically weak deductive reasoning, but sound inductive reasoning.
There is a Christian group that is making it’s voice heard and opposes the RR.
Sojourners
I think the OP makes a valid point. In reading “The End of Faith” I began to think that it’s time to stop the polite tolerance of outrageous religious beliefs. I have no problem with people believeing whatever they want up to the point where there religious beliefs cross into my life and the lives of those around me. Then they must be ready to defend and justify those beliefs and the actions they take because of them. A self righteous “we serve God” isn’t nearly good enough.
“Who says you do?” I ask. Not me, and not these other believers over here. Pointing to a line you pull out of a 2000 year old book to justify your fear and bigotry isn’t going to cut it.
It’s kind of like the rules of GD. You must attack the arguement and not the individual. Calling them ignorant bigotted zealots is not the way to succeed. Persitantly and consistantly attack the arguements. Gay marriage is bad for America? In what way? Show us any evidence to support that claim. Show any valid reason why this group of people should not be given equal rights.
Which is why I’d like to see some really good peer reviewed science on the issue. In particular, both sides seem to like to play fast and loose with statistics. This is paticularly relevant as this is more a public perception and political issue. Politically about the most that can be done is enforcing laws against violent gay bashings and such. While gay bashers can be vigorously prosecuted, you can’t stop the general public from stigmatizing gays as “sick and depraved.” In the US many states recently passed referenda by large margins to prevent politicians and the courts from even trying to legalize gay marriage.
What I was doing was trying to bring some solid information into the mix here. Sorry the stats look all kinds of dubious to you. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and the American Journal of Public Health don’t seem to think so, and they are highly respected peer-reviewed medical journals. If you want to read more, go here:
You’ll have LOTS of papers to go read through. In general, adolescent suicide is studied much more frequently than adult suicide, since that age group has a higher rate of suicide than other age groups (the elderly come in second).
Also, another reason I chose to write about adolescence is that there is a clear correlation between poor self-esteem and the demonization of homosexual relationships, and that tends to affect those who have to deal with that demonization along with having to handle the usual adolescent life issues.
I can’t even begin to address this. I just keep wanting to ram my fist through the computer screen. May God see fit to not return you as a homosexual in your next life. You plain wouldn’t be able to handle it.
To answer the OP’s question, and believe me, this is just a bunch of speculation on my part, I think the problem is that it is far easier to organize people who think so homogeneously that questioning their own beliefs and assumptions is a completely foreign idea. I also think that George Lakoff gets it completely right when he talks about the right-wing setting the definitions we end up using even if we don’t agree with the meanings. Finally, it seems that right-wing pundits have staked quite a bit on politics-as-sports-- we win, you lose, you losers. There doesn’t seem to any room for compromise or even honest debate anymore. And oh yeah, money. Televangelist money. Televangelist Liberian diamond mine money.
However, there are sparks of resentment at the religious right taking over Christianity for their own agendas. The Congregationalist president declaring the UCC’s support of same-sex marriage is an example. If liberal and moderate Christians are to take back the language of morality, ethics and religion, they’ll need to do dramatic acts much like this in order to publicize their case, and I don’t mean just gay rights. The Catholic and African-American churches could do a lot more speaking up around poverty and class issues, for instance.
Being published is only the first part of peer review. Then others after reading it can commented on the soundness of the paper. Any of these studies have some severe methodological difficulties. The one that immediately comes to mind: determining if the teens who committed suicide were gay? Having had to look at many death certificates and M.E. reports, usually no mention any way is made. One of the things we do agree on is being gay tends to have a major social stigma. Meaning the vast majority of teens who are gay won’t broadcast that fact, as in “Hi, I’m Joe, and I’m a homosexual.” Thus even if friends and family are interviewed, odds are if Joe was gay the wouldn’t have a clue. Thus how can one draw any conclusions from the data when the sexual orientation of the suicide basically is unknown, or gets incorrectly misidentified as straight because the person actively was hiding they were gay?
Hmm…if being gay is a matter of free will, little reason to think I’d choose being gay in a future incarnation. And if being gay is an inherent property of a soul, then as I am heterosexual as they get in this incarnation, I’ll be the same in the next.
Note the plain language text of the Bible tends to depict homosexuality in a rather negative way. I find the notion of gay marriage being acceptable from a Biblical perspective as absurd.
Because we’re used to it.
The Moral Majority fits the psychological imprint, follows the familiar psychological model, of a preacher and his congregation.
In our society, religious worship still follows the form of going to a Church once a week, and listen to a guy “preaching”. Mosques, same thing. I’m not speaking of the good ones, but unfortunately, many “preachers” had, or still have, sermons that consist of:
In short, exactly what the Moral Majority does. Only, they don’t confine themselves to the captive audience in churches; they go on TV, and in politics. But they follow the same pattern, and just like we passively sit out a sermon, like we were taught as kids, we passively sit out their sermons.
Which is weird, when you think about it. Why can’t worship follow the structure of a meeting, or a talk-show? The priest would be a chairperson, leaving most of the talking to members of the congregation.
Or we could have worship as a performance, or a teaching session, of self-study? I know all of these forms are increasingly used as additions to worship in churches, but why not make them the heart of it? Why do we feel we haven’t done worship properly unless we have been talked down to by a guy in a pulprit, or on TV for that matter?
The Catholic church has silented these voices during John Paul II’s pontificate.
Right. And the OP curiously (at least to me) brought up the issue of gay marriage. It ain’t like the RR is in the position on that against having to fight against the mainsteam. The American people, and almost all churches, 200 years ago and 100 years ago thought the very notion of gay marriage was sick and perverted. Today they are just going with the flow of what has been mainstream belief for over 2 centuries.
Note the RR isn’t without notable failures. Abortion is the obvious one. While they may have chiseled around the edges on abortion right (parental notification laws an example), little headway beyond that. And it ain’t the courts. If it came down to referenda, women of all economic classes mostly would oppose making it illegal to get an abortion so long as they paid for it out of their own pocket. Probably the greatest fear anti-abortion legislators have is Roe v. Wade being thrown out by SCOTUS, and having to piss off a lot of voters by actually voting against abortion.
President Carter had this to say in an interview with Ayelish McGarvey for The American Prospect, April 9, 2004:
President Carter has a new book out on this subject.
Does anyone know what position(s) leaders of the Christian Right are taking on the use of torture and on the seeming lack of integrity on the part of the Vice President and some of his staff?
I think Arthur C. Clarke has said it best:
The Republicans got in bed with the religious whackos several decades ago and they have been suffering for it since. And yet they refuse to open their eyes to the problems. You’d think after suffering the public embarrassment of being associated with Pat Robertson and his ilk, they would have learned by now.
I provided the link; you do the reading on methodology. I can tell from this statement that you have absolutely NO idea of how this type of research is done.
Frankly, the condemnation of Liberation Theology was the 2nd worst mistake the catholic hierarchy has done. This decision implicitly told their followers that it was okay with them if they were poor, hungry and hunted down. No wonder the Mormon Church is gaining so many converts in Central and South America. It’s a clear sign of disillusionment.
[quote]
The American people, and almost all churches, 200 years ago and 100 years ago thought the very notion of gay marriage was sick and perverted.
[/quote/]
Do you have any citations for this?
From the religioustolerance.org website on polling trends:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_poll5.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm