Or you just making some broad assumptions about this person's religious beliefs?

(AP) Episcopalians approved a churchwide ceremony Tuesday to bless same-sex couples, the latest decisive step toward accepting homosexuality by a denomination that nine years ago elected the first openly gay bishop.


At the Episcopal General Convention, which is divided into two voting bodies, about 80 percent of the House of Deputies voted to authorize a provisional rite for same-sex unions for the next three years. A day earlier, the House of Bishops approved the rites 111-41 with three abstentions during the church meeting in Indianapolis.


Supporters of the same-sex blessings insisted it was not a marriage ceremony despite any similarities. Called "The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant," the ceremony includes prayers and an exchange of vows and rings. Same-sex couples must complete counseling before having their unions or civil marriages blessed by the church.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57469931/episcopal-church-now-largest-with-gay-blessing/

I see sunshine, but it's still pretty overcast.

but the struggle continues. the moral arc of the universe is long, but bends toward justice.

Did it loose GLBT members or did other members leave because of a more inclusive approach to GLBT members?

we haven't had any same sex unions blessed in our parish and I don't even know of any openly gay parishioners. but just the idea that it could happen freaked some people out. they joined the Roman Catholic Church from what I have heard (same sacraments, apostolic succession, etc but without the tolerance.)

and reinforced.

Interestingly, surveys show that most catholics support GLBT civil liberties, so they might not be happy there for long either.

It's failed everyone else after all.

You can present arguments it's made some people feel better, but it's done so by deluding them. Fail. You can make arguments it's made some people behave better, but it's done so by deceiving or manipulating them instead of providing them with a properly reasoned justification for a moral philosophy. Fail.

Etc...

You are aware that churches and other religious institutions played a critical role in the movement, right? And they have an opportunity to play a role in this civil rights movement and some, but not enough, are doing so.

Because it failed you, does not mean it has failed everyone.

You have such a big chip on your shoulder about religion and such a dogmatic approach that it is hard to really take you seriously.

Religious organizations being involved doesn't make religion responsible for civil rights. In case you missed it the arguments *against* civil rights tended to be coming out of churches too.

And that hasn't changed either.

You are not everyone and many have benefited.

The fact that some religious organizations also have, and continue to be, the source of discrimination is not the issue.

The issue is that you only see the black, when there is lots of black, white and grey.

Before you even posted your last "example" I posted this:

"You can make arguments it's made some people behave better, but it's done so by deceiving or manipulating them instead of providing them with a properly reasoned justification for a moral philosophy. Fail. "

I answered your post before you even made it, something you appear not to have noticed.

I am not at all surprised that your statement remains unchanged, but I sure wish you could step back just a bit from your dogma and see that such sweeping statements are without merit and weaken your overall position.

What I am pointing out is that the content of your post displayed no particular awareness of the content of mine.

to what I was saying and not at all an argument I would make.

I pointed out that you could credit religion with making some people behave in ways you wanted (Like, oh, for example, getting some of them to *engage in the civil rights movement*) but that the manner in which it did so was ultimately detrimental.

It provided no rational basis for a lasting moral philosophy to underlay and sustain that movement, it was just people saying "because God wants it that's why". Just like the people on the other side of the issue were saying "because God doesn't want it, that's why". Just like it does on every issue throughout all of history.

So I repeat: FAIL.

making people behave in any way in particular.

My argument was that religious institutions have sometimes been positive forces and have been critical in some social justice and civil rights causes. The article addresses the institutions, so I was focusing on that.

I think Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King and Bishop Eugene Robinson would strongly disagree with you here. I think they, and many others, were/are truly inspired and driven by their religious beliefs and faith.

Not sure what to make of your repeating: FAIL. Because you see things differently from me does not mean that I fail. It just means that we have different experiences and world views.

"My argument was that religious institutions have sometimes been positive forces"

When you make absolute statements and use phrases like "every case", "no rational justifications", "unfounded beliefs" and "baseless rationalizations", you really lose your argument.

Nothing is that absolute. Neither the fundamentalists nor you have the answer and both make sweeping statements indicating that their position is the only valid one.

That, imo, is the fail. You seem like an intelligent and thoughtful person, but your personal opinions, and I would guess experiences, have led you to a position of absolutism when it comes to religion, imho.

I don't expect to change that at all, but I will challenge it.

FWIW, I disagree with your statement on how liberal/progressive religious institutions legitimize hateful bigoted one. I think they have the greatest potential for diminishing the voice of the "jackasses" you speak of. It was MLK that most effectively stood up to the Klan.

"When you make absolute statements and use phrases like "every case", "no rational justifications", "unfounded beliefs" and "baseless rationalizations", you really lose your argument. "

I have no interest in either proving nor disproving the existence of god, or the basis for belief or non-belief.

It's a losing argument on both sides, because no one has the answer. Extremists arguments from either end are always fruitless.

See you around the campfire.

If liberal/progressive religious institutions send the message that it's perfectly valid to base one's political opinions on one's faith then yes, they legitimize the bigoted, fundie ones because they base their political opinions on their faith too.

It's the same thing, and no matter how much you try to silence others by accusing them of being dogmatic or absolutists. you still haven't been able to formulate a coherent argument otherwise.

You are aware that churches and other religious institutions played a critical role in that too, right?

Talk about chips on one's shoulder...

nt

I am not perfect and do not always live up to this but I say this prayer every morning and trying to meditate on the words throughout the day. In other word I try to live them:

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury,pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.


O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen

in order to help the poor, the lonely, the abused, the addicted. have you ever come together with Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Wiccans or people of any faith to try to help those who are afflicted by such problems? if not I hope you do. you will find it very rewarding and nobody will challenge your belief system they will just thank you for helping lift up your fellow men and women who are down on their luck.

...will tell you anything you want it to tell you. That's kind of the point you're missing here.

have you never worked with people of faith on social justice issues?

Not sure what you get from the answer, but there you go.

To be clear, their "faith" didn't cause them to do what they did whatever credit they felt compelled to assign to it. THEY caused them to do what they did.

thank you for answering. I hope you continue to do so.

so no major suprise there. Read your Koran, Bible, or Torah to get some full throated endorsment of bigotry and cruelty that even Republicans have to try and tone down from time to time.

Doesn't help that many "believers" in these same texts engage in massive intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance, claiming to be for GLBT rights while simultaneously claiming to be followers of writings that call GLBT "abominations".

It'd be like a civil rights advocate also being a member of the KKK, or a Col. Sanders being a PETA member. I don't know how people live with that sort of mind boggling cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty, but I'm guessing "indoctrination", "tradition", and "societal conditioning" have a lot to do with it.

Kinda how indoctrinating your child in anything other than religion is considered at least distateful, but indoctrinating them in religion is no biggie.

People get whatever messages they want from the books. Some get bigotry and hate. Others get tolerance and love.

My preference is to challenge the first group and support/endorse the second.

I was raised in the church by a minister. I was taught to question myself, ask hard questions of others and be as intellectually honest as I could. I was also taught that the bible is not literal and has to be recognized for the faulty document it is. I see lots of messages that teach tolerance and love. The ones that teach bigotry and hate, I reject.

There are as many flavors of believers as there are believers. To put them all in the same box makes no sense and comes across as very dogmatic.

Why not let your words stand on your own? Why do you choose to bully and belittle in your attempts to control others and shut down points of view?

Hundreds of millions of Christians vehemently disagree with your assertion that the Christian bible is a "faulty document." And when they read it literally, would you not agree that's where they are able to support their bigotry and hatred? Isn't that why you declare the book a "faulty document" in the first place?

I'm clearly stating that some believers are intellectually honest and try to be consistent. These types are very scary, they are the fundamentalists. They're a significant minority anymore in the US, and a significant majority in places like Afghanistan. Of course, it's impossible to have a consistent belief system based off of such contradictory books, but they try. They don't ignore the uncomfortable parts in other words.

The position that the Bible is a faulty document, but also the basis for a belief in a wonderful supernatural being, requires some level of intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance, for example. Sure, I like believers that engage in this a lot more in the sense they are far more sensible and practical, but they still aren't all that honest. The excuses for the actions of God in the Old Testament are hard to bear. How the "all-loving" god wipes out community after community, how he kills everyone in the world at one point, how he promotes slavery and misogyny, etc. etc. It's easy to see that the Bible does indeed endorse bigoted and hateful views.

Basically, your position on god is no more credible than the hateful bigot's position on god. And that's the crux of the matter, and why faith based belief is so harmful. Neither position is credible at all, but if you are a believer, you have to concede that other believer's own positions are just as likely as your own, if you're being totally honest.

if one's beliefs include that the books are the absolute word of god. If you recognize that they were written by humans in different times and cultures, it makes perfect sense that they are faulty. I fail to see how this can be a dishonest position. The recognition that humans are faulty and inconsistent reinforces religious beliefs. Even the most fundamental literal can't/don't follow it all.

See letter to Dr. Laura:

http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html

What do you imagine my position on god to be? I'll help you out here - I don't have one. I am a religionist only in the way a man can be a feminist. I do concede that the positions of believers of all stripes and non-believers are just as likely to be accurate, but have no reason to believe that any of them hold the answer. I will, however, defend their right to express and hold those beliefs/lack of beliefs as long as they don't use them to impinge on the rights or harm others.

So, if you would, reread what I have said in that context instead of the context in which you had pigeonholed me.

since you haven't explained your beliefs to me. I have no idea what your position is, and don't care either, since it hasn't been relevant to the discussion. I'm talking about religion and believers in general, not you. You seem to be assuming and taking offense to a lot of things while utterly ignoring the topic. But back to the topic...

Many Christians (as you point out) do subscribe to the idea that the Bible is indeed faulty (which many would say contradicts with Christianity), but they still base their belief on a supernatural being off of it, and the way they decide which parts are faulty and which aren't (basically claiming that some parts are indeed true) is where the intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance come in.

The fact that humans are faulty and inconsistent does nothing to reinforce religious beliefs. It's a good excuse for those who want to engage in lots of intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance by picking and choosing from texts like the Bible to believe what they want, but it's terrible logic and reasoning and is easily exposed when you divine how they decide what God's word "really" is.

describe it, you had made some assumptions. (There is a bit of sarcasm here).

I'm not taking offense to anything and not ignoring the topic. I reject and challenge extreme positions about religion, like ascribing certain characteristics to all religion and believers in general, such as you have done.

I have no trouble with what you say in your second paragraph other than your conclusion that the different ways people experience their beliefs represents dishonesty and cognitive dissonance. You use these words very frequently, but I have seen nothing to substantiate that that is the case. Everyone has a certain degree of intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance.. It's human nature. So what?

If it is your goal to eliminate it, I would suggest that the only person you have the right to address about it is yourself or possibly other individuals in your world who impinge on your personal rights or the rights of others. But even then, I would argue that you aren't in a position to diagnose them.

Unless you have a mission that supersedes that and you feel compelled to offer the truth.

and here's the quote:

Basically, your position on god is no more credible than the hateful bigot's position on god.

Sorry for the confusion, it was just pointing out that one theist's position on god is no more credible than another's. Which is why the details of the position were left out. They're irrelevant to the point.

Yes, intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance are human nature, but they are generally symptoms of something not good when people resort to them, IMHO. The fact that it's so rampant on the topic of religion in the developed world, whereas with any other topic people would easily point it out, makes it all the more potentially harmful since religion is given a pass by many when it comes to logic and reasoning. Intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance are the primary defenses of people and society to the many failings of religion, if they have decided to keep religion around (of course, the main defense would be just dropping it altogether).

If I tell you I subscribe to a belief system that has a heirarchy that decides these beliefs and very clearly laid out beliefs, and then I tell you that I don't believe some of those clearly laid out beliefs, that's cognitive dissonance right there. What do you think makes it not? How is it not intellectually dishonest? Especially all the poor reasoning used to try to explain away the contradictions in one's own thought process. They go hand in hand with each other.

My goal is to advocate for a healthy way of thinking and against a harmful one. No more, no less.

It is the absolute position that something is true or untrue without any evidence either way that is the problem, imo. While I understand some atheist's positions that the lack of evidence is what they base their position on, and that somehow holds more weight, I would say that they are no more credible than the "one wayers".

Intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance can also lead to change. I can't tell you the number of times i have had to step back on DU because I saw myself making an argument to support a position that, on further reflection, I didn't really hold. These two things can be powerful defense mechanisms, but they can also lead to hard questions and difficult answers, if one is able to recognize them.

Religion gets a pass in some ways - I agree. Perhaps that is because no one holds the truth and the majority of people on the planet embrace it in one form or another. The question of why is an interesting one, but I certainly wouldn't just dismiss it as some kind of communal disease nor do I think it's elimination would improve the world. Quite the opposite, I think it's eliminations would lead to harm for the most vulnerable and marginalized people on this earth.

At any rate, it's not going anywhere.

Are there no groups that you belong to that have hierarchies that set the rules? Do you sometimes disagree with those rules? Do you sometimes simply ignore them? Do you ever try to change them from within? I can think of half a dozen for me right off the bat. Professional organizations, democrats, and even DU. Does that mean that I am intellectually dishonest or suffering from cognitive dissonance? I don't think so. We just have more in common than we have differences and if I see the potential to change from within, then I am likely to try.

I would suggest that it is not up to you to decide what is a healthy way of thinking and what is not for other individuals. Only for yourself. If you have found the place vis a vis religion that makes sense to you and you think it is healthy, congratulations. If others have, congratulations to them as well. But I think it's very personal and I don't think much of attempts to convert.

In case we stop this discussion at some point, I just want to say that it's been a pleasure having this discussion with you. Thank you for being thoughtful and civil and for articulately presenting your POV without any personal attack. We may never agree, but maybe we can set a tone.

I prefer beliefs based on at least some good evidence over beliefs based on no evidence. I can predict things and make predictions off of evidence that will allow me to make better decisions to fulfill my preferences. I can't do the same with religion. That is why I believe that the position of a "lack of belief" is more valid than believing in "god". Also, depending on the god being described (like Zeus), I believe that there is evidence against them. If religion says a god throws lightning from the sky, then science shows that lightning is caused by a giant static buildup in clouds, that's evidence against a very specific god.

I don't doubt that intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance are far preferable than consistent belief in many religious doctrines, but that shows the problem of the religion. The "change" is really just a belief system adapting to survive. As I said before, the Mormon church's position on polygamy and black people are good modern examples of just that. But it's also an indication that the whole belief system is logically bankrupt.

I don't belong to any belief system with a heirarchy, or any belief system at all. I subscribe to various tenets of various ideologies, some more than others. DU is not a belief system. Neither are Democrats, nor professional organizations. DU is a discussion forum. Democrats are a political party. Neither require that you subscribe to their opinions or ideology wholesale to be a part of them. But then again, they aren't belief systems advocating supposedly objective morals, so that makes sense (the Republican Party, on the other hand, sometimes seems like a religion anymore, with how much they appeal to it, and also shows the failures of religion even more clearly).

I never said it's up for me to decide what is best for others, but I'm certainly motivated to try and convince others of what is right according to my preferences. I feel an obligation and duty to do so according to my ideology. I don't view it as "conversion" in religion, which at least in the religious context will always involve unsubstantiated claims.

and emotions in general.

For example, when having an argument with somehow close to me, I can generally see all kinds of evidence that I am right and they are wrong. This is particularly true when I am trying to "make decisions to fulfill my preferences", as you describe. My confirmation bias tends to be particularly strong in those circumstances, lol.

You don't believe that there are any gods. No problem. I suspect you are a good, ethical, kind person. However, I do think you have some pretty big blind spots when it comes to those that do believe. That is most likely a result of your personal experiences and ways of assessing the world.

What I object to is the need for anyone to impose their view on others or insist that they've got it, and others are just somehow impaired. "If only every else could reach my level of enlightenment, everything would be better." To that I unequivocally say "nonsense".

You are still making the "wholesale" or whole cake argument. We clearly have a fundamental disagreement about this, so it doesn't seem of much use to continue that.

What is "right about your preferences" is not necessarily right outside of your personal sphere. While presenting your position and advocating for it is certainly understandable, telling others that they are intellectually dishonest and suffering from cognitive dissonance if they don't agree with you is quite likely to be a conversation stopper.

is foolproof or that it cannot be questioned by logic or reason or evidence. That's what most religion does, in fact, do though.

I have an open mind. I can be convinced otherwise if people present good arguments. I admit that I could be wrong, and I don't doubt that my mind will change on various things again and again as I get older and learn new things. My worldview has changed before, and I am comfortable with the possibility of being wrong.

You say you think I have blind spots when it comes to those who believe, but I don't think you've presented any good arguments, or no argument at all on some points, pointing out what they are and why I'm wrong. Most of your comments haven't even been on my criticisms of religion, but have rather been criticisms of my percieved tone, or of the words I use. A lot of it has been strawmen, such as this current post implying I have a "my way or the highway" attitude, that I'm not different from evangelicals (in other posts) in my absolute conviction of being right, etc. etc. Or that I claim all religious people are deluded. Or that I claim all religious people are the same.

The only sort of relevant points you've made on topic seem to be in trying to redefine words like "cognitive dissonance", "intellectual dishonesty", or even things like claiming to be Catholic, Mormon, etc. This is more an exercise in semantics though, and when I've pointed out that you still haven't shown how believers don't fit those definitions, you have provided no responses.

I understand that many people don't like to hear that they are being intellectually dishonest and engaging in cognitive dissonance, but that is not an argument. If someone is being intellectually dishonest and engaging in cognitive dissonance, it's OK to say so on a discussion forum, and if they can't do anything more than stammer that they don't like it, but can't deny the truth of it, then hopefully coming to the realization they are doing so will allow them to be comfortable with the possiblity of being wrong, even on the subject of religion, and truly examine their beliefs. Few people do that ever in their lives.

I don't have a lot of "proof" of that, but surmise it from your general demeanor. Your initial statements in this thread were pretty harsh and I challenged them. I am sorry if I made it personal, but, like you, I wish for people to see things my way, lol.

I'm not here to defend specific religious beliefs and have no interest at all in doing so. I am just saying that I respect people's beliefs as much as I respect your lack of them, as long as no one tries to impose it on others or harm others with them.

Sorry if you found my points of discussion lacking, irrelevant, mere stammering and not answering you. I'm doing the best I can and trying to be honest with you. it won't be the first or last time I have fallen short in that area. I do much better when I have the use of vocal inflection and body language, I think.

No one wants to hear that their POV is due to some personal weakness or failing, unless they are speaking with a therapist, imo. To approach people with that particular attitude can be, as I said, a show stopper. And you have pointed out that some of the things I have said about you can do the same thing.

We, including you, need to be comfortable with the possibility that we are wrong. Otherwise, we never learn anything.

I will let you have the last word.

See you around the campfire.

I read this as encouraging religious institutions to become more pro-active and affirming and for those who have been marginalized to support groups that are doing so.

the most obvious post of the year. Religion is the CAUSE of problems those in the LGBT suffer.