Breaking: Gay Bishop to pray at inauguration-week kickoff

Source: politico

BREAKING: The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, who became the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop in 2003 and last year entered into a civil union with his gay partner, will deliver the invocation for Sunday’s kickoff inaugural event on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, with President-elect Obama in attendance. The event is free and open to the public. An Obama source: “Robinson was in the plans before the complaints about Rick Warren. Many skeptics will read this as a direct reaction to the Warren criticism – but it’s just not so.” Robinson has been referred to as “the most controversial Christian in the world.” A Sewanee graduate!



Read more: http://www.politico.com/playbook/

about heteros.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

who somehow has become forced into the center of a ruckus by hateful people who share Warren's agenda...

It's just an interesting combination.

talking to an invisible sky-man?

and someone who is an Epicopal Bishop does too. Wow. Why aren't people embarassed by attacking people who have different beliefs than they do- particularly people who profess to be liberals?

seems just as absurd to those you are chastising.

:shrug:

to worship a one-male sky god who hates women, gays, Jews,

native Americans and teaches violence thru his Bibical writings ...????

Or, are there other "purposes" completely unattached to organized

patriarchal religion which might be considered?

Perhaps it you look at its history, it is the one-male sky god who has

brought violence and "chaos"....?

We are all united in spirit and by nature --

It is organized patriarchal religion which has deemed some humans

"inferior" and given license to exploit nature -- i.e., "Manifest

Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature."

NT!

I have come to view those who can't sense a Higher Power, one I choose to call God or Goddess, in the same way I view those who can't see pink. I never hear those who know they are color blind as insisting there IS NO pink, but those who can't sense God seem to believe their 'sense' is entirely correct, that there is no God.

And based on a fallacy. The fallacy is that atheists don't have numinous experiences (go look it up, I'll give you a moment). It has been well documented that they do, they just do not ascribe them to an intelligence which is looking out for our well being and should be prayed to. Going back to your ridiculous comparison: People who are color blind have evidence that there is a spectrum of light that they don't see--in fact, we can study animals and know that some see spectrums that *we* don't see. We have evidence of this that can be measured. When you have evidence, that can be measured, of a higher power and it's connection to numinous experiences, then those of us who say that numinous experiences are not necessarily evidence of any sort of cosmic intelligence will happily agree with your perspective. Till then, your perspective is simply narcissistic and not much else.

Quote from Teller, of Penn and...

Nails the whole thing perfectly for me. I've lived in Egypt for 3 years and am constantly being dumbstruck by...stuff: a gorgeous blood-red sun sinking into the Mediterranean as I reach Alexandria at dusk. The Greek tombs a short walk from my apartment, which have survived since the Fourth Century BCE. (Not to mention those impressive structures down in Cairo.)

Once, some visiting American co-workers, I'm sure, thought I had gone bonkers. We were walking around downtown Alexandria in late afternoon, and I suddenly stopped and said: "Look! The whole street is GOLD!" Nothing but lots of dust hanging in the air, but the angle of the sunlight really did make it look like the street was just suffused in golden light.

The difference, being an atheist, is that I don't attribute any of this stuff to Ra, Horus, Isis, Ba'al, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Jesus or some goofy free-floating "spiritual" phenomenon. I only see the workings of Nature and those of good old human beings (with no help from those modern quasi-deities, space aliens).

And dammit, that's magical enough for me.

Is it satisfactory "purpose" .....

to worship a one-male sky god who hates women, gays, Jews,

native Americans and teaches violence thru his Bibical writings ...????

Or, are there other "purposes" completely unattached to organized

patriarchal religion which might be considered?

Perhaps it you look at its history, it is the one-male sky god who has

brought violence and "chaos"....?

We are all united in spirit and by nature --

It is organized patriarchal religion which has deemed some humans

"inferior" and given license to exploit nature -- i.e., "Manifest

Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature."

NT!

I'm a Christian and I don't hold anybody's religious or non-religious spiritual views against them. I know what I believe, but I don't care if somebody is an agnostic, atheist, Muslim, Christian etc etc. As long as they are good people that's fine with me.

:)

How would they possibly know about it my Mighty Man-President of Eternal Power? It's a secret.

Tell me, is being on my knees every weekend close enough to being considered religious?

into my closet to pray in private rather than making a public scene like the Pharisees.

Just like you kept your own views about Christians out of the public right here or in your regular life I'm sure.

I'd go high-jack a thread about a gay bishop being part of the inauguration ceremony and repeat my personal belief over and over as acerbically as possible.

that reminded me of the worst aspects of liberals.

and insulting simply because someone holds different views than you do? Do you find that so threatening?

It comes from the beliefs being ludicrous.

Jesus loves you more than you will know...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE1dz6_u2JI

When will he pick a middle aged ex-Lutheran woman who wants her Constitution back, to address this nation. I feel ignored and hurt out here! Could we please stop!!!!! Why does every frigging religious who-ha have to be gay or straight? So many of us out here have no voice at all!!!! I think it is pretty clear that Obama got the memo!

:fistbump: :applause: :headbang: :yourock: :headbang: :applause: :fistbump:

So sayth President Bartlett.

I think that saying it's a lack of bias might imply to some that Obama's unopinionated on the subject, which is obviously not true if you read the platform. But it does show that unlike the Bush years, nobody's going to be excluded because of their opinions, even if they don't mesh with those of the President.

I know people that still have precivil right views of blacks. That's their personal bias. Which I happen to feel they are entitled to no matter how much I disagree with it. Then they go to work on Monday and hire a dozen of them. So there is no professional bias. Obama might have a personal bias. But he not allowing it to become a profressional bias. Because after all he does have to be everyones President. I greatly admire his courage in trying to do this.

I personally oppose the Klan and I'm sure Obama does as well... but he's such an open-minded balanced fellow... :eyes:

(The very logic is disgusting.)

Or just the white mans racism? That the next historic election. The NAACP electing a white President. Uh huh. Now what that being said about nails being hit on the head?

Your pathetic attempt to portray the NAACP as racist is textbook Klan rhetoric!

Gotcha ya piece of shit!

I've done more in my long life to defeat the Klan that has bastardized my religion then you ever will. If you think the NAACP or black people are somehow exempt from racism. You have bigger problems than not understanding the mechanics of racism. Your listening to the Druj (lying demons.) They are leading you into the very thing you claim to fighting against. Racism. I make no differentiations on it. Racism is racism. regardless of it's a white man discriminating against a black man or a black man discriminating against a white man. Worst of all a white man and black man coming together to discriminate against a truthful man.

now for all the fucking hypocritical APOLOGISTS to show up to attempt to unsuccessfully try to deflect this truism...

Let's not speak out AGAINST THOSE OPPRESSIONS . . . !!!

They tend to call this reverse discrimination. But discrimination is ugly regardless of the direction it's traveling.

The right-wing fanatics call it "reverse discrimination" ---

It's what you'd hear if you were a Rush Limbaugh listener and believer ---

And what's really "ugly" is posts like yours ---

The NAACP is eventually going to have to drop the self segregation and become a full fledged civil rights group for all people or become obsolete. Frankly if they represent all people. They could even go International. Possibly even under a UN banner. Their experience in ending discrimination and segregation would be invaluable in peacefully ending the rampant Xenophobia in the Middle East. That is the root of many of their problems and conflicts. Just like it used to be here. People are people the world over. The Dream has come true here America. Now they need to dream bigger. They need to take that dream to the world.

In case you haven't noticed it's becoming less and less about color.

!!!

The NAACP is eventually going to have to drop the self segregation and become a full fledged civil rights group for all people or become obsolete. Frankly if they represent all people. They could even go International. Possibly even under a UN banner.

And women's groups are "self-segregating" . . . ?

Homosexual groups are "self-segregating" . . . ?

Jewish groups are "self-segregating" . . . ?

IMO, you're "segegated" yourself into delusional bigotry ---

and you're on ignore.

Now that segregation is no longer the law. Many people chose to self segregate. Many people chose to live and associate with other people they feel the have a common bond with. It could be cultural like with Chinatown or little Italy. It could be religious as with Christian, Jewish, and Muslim communities. It could be economic like upper, middle, and lower classes. Self segregation is more commonly called freedom of association. But for a civil rights group to not provide an equal opportunity for their top offices is hypocritical. If you think that a white man has no business being the President of the NAACP. The only bigot here is YOU! I'm glad to be on your ignore list. You're too shallow and superficial to be reading my posts. They will hurt your tiny lil brain by making you think. Something you're obviously not accustomed to.

One could even say the bigots have been given a place of honor.

Will he be preaching bigotry from the pulpit? I think the biggest problem with religion these days is not realizing that theology (a study of God) is a Science and it's findings must occasionally be reevaluated. Just like any other science. God changes His rites and laws. This is why many religions are no longer required to give burnt offerings. God doesn't change. But His relationship with us and our understanding of Him and His ways does. It's really that simple. I prefer to think that with the world becoming over populated. He has chosen to redirect the love that flows from Him and allow for Homosexuality to reduce the worlds population. I believe in a Wise and Compassionate God. I believe that he would rather redirect His love than allow Ahriman to destroy us with a smiting.

I count you among the hopeless drones who will buzz along convinced that Obama is a flawless savior.

I feel badly for all of you when reality sets in and you realize he is indeed a mortal man capable of fucking up occasionally.

:eyes:

After reading all your responses in this thread you are now going on ignore.

Seek some help.

I love being on ignore lists. It saves arguing with people that can't support their argument. So they turn to PC or an ignore list.

after so many objections and foul cries about republicans being christian fundamentalists. Using the football analogy, republicans suddenly drop baby jesus and now democrats will try to catch it and use it to score a few points.

and Robinson is as liberal as they come. As is the Bishop of the Washington Diocese, John Chane.

Being religious doesn't necessarily indicate anything, politically.

What do we have to do to get there? Why do we have to dissect the degree of liberalness or gay or straightness of any religious 'leader'? Why is there no respect for the Constitution?

And having religious figures speak at government functions is also not a violation of it.

Study up on it a little, please.

From Wiki:

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.

It is derived from the First Amendment, but it is not in the Contitution itself.

to amend means to add to. if you put an addition on your house, would you consider that part of your house?

It is derived from, but not in, the Bill of Rights.

Got it?

liberty university maybe?

I dare you.

You have no idea of what you are talking about.

edit to add that I am so bored by arguing with people who DON'T KNOW

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States



same quote as an upthread post, with different emphasis for the reading impaired.

and show me where it says separation of church and state.

it doesn't have to say it -- it's the intent --

It doesn't say it.

The principle is DERIVED from the Constitution, not IN the Constitution. There is the common misbelief, proven here very well, that it is IN the Constitution.

a state religion AND to allow people to worship OR NOT worship as they see fit.

:banghead:

The BOR is part of the Constitution!

speaking of stupid.

Read the First Amendment and tell me where it says "separation of church and state".

NT!

You should know better.

The real problem only matters to a few. Can we make an appointment to visit our Constitution please?

we woulda heard about it before now.

Maybe during that poop-and-fanblade interaction when Warren was first announced.

That having been said, I think this represents a good decision, at a minimum showing the ability to be responsive. As opposed George's famous quote, "Who cares what you think?"

Can't think of a better person for it, either.

just add a gay clergy and all will be well. Here is and interesting point. When Obama was in Ohio this summer there was a prayer made by a man, his sexual orientation I do not know, but the prayer was inclusive and beautiful. He opened by including all religions and those who do not believe. My mouth dropped when I heard this prayer. If we have to have a prayer why can't it be like that?

People's prayers virtually always confuse me, because they seem like people approaching a being they think is all-knowing, and presuming that he/she/it could use their suggestions. This is particularly confusing in people who also believe that humans suck so bad that we deserve eternal torture for our sins.

I hear your point about the default assumption of religiosity. As a non-believer, it is irritating, and seems to imply that I'm on the outside of my society - even though from my perspective it's completely natural. I can't exactly *choose* to believe, now can I ~ either it sounds plausible or it doesn't. For me, it doesn't, even though it would be convenient.

That same sense has been described to me by more than one gay person, commenting on how most every depiction of people in the broader media constantly presumes straightness. It's getting better, but before Ellen, how many gay people were in tv shows, on billboards, whatever? Heck, we don't even have a word that's specific for same-sex couples (we use 'partner' now, but that's because we didn't have a word).

I can understand how many people were pissed about a dude who says they shouldn't have the same rights as the default-assumption group, because I get pissed when I encounter people who say "it's freedom *of* religion, not freedom *from* religion." Feeling that makes me want to see the dissed group get at least some representation - an affirmation that they're included in society. 'Cause they sure as hell aren't going to get included in the default assumption for a long time.

We probably agree on at least this: atheists will probably be the last group that it's socially acceptable to hate openly. That in itself speaks volumes about the effects of religion.

speaking inclusively and of reality -- inspiring --

The native American say that the only real prayer is for wisdom --

Others say prayer is an attempt to influence the fates --

I like it, but it's disappointing that Obama was taken by surprise by our reaction to Warren.

I agree with some that church and state should be separate, but at least adding Rev. Robinson, it shows everyone this is not business as usual.

It's a VERY small step, but at least it's in the right direction, er, uh, left direction. LOL

"An Obama source: “Robinson was in the plans before the complaints about Rick Warren. Many skeptics will read this as a direct reaction to the Warren criticism – but it’s just not so.”

Good for Obama for adding him, but seriously, does this unnamed "Obama source" really think that the people are so gullible as to believe this?

Believe me, Anglican bigots here and around the world will be enraged by this.

starting with Archbishop Peter Akinola, whom Rick Warren compared to Nelson Mandela.

and Martin Minns, and Robert Duncan, and Jack Iker, and John Schofield, ......

Rick Warren will of course include "pray the gay bishop away" in his "pray our ills away" invocation. Pray the gays and lesbians away. Pray the women's libbers away. Pray the Jews and Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus away. Pray the liberals away. Pray them all away.

"Sweet Jesus, pray them all away so we can become a Christian nation like you intended."

The only minister I would approve of at this point is Obama's minister. You know. Jeremiah Wright. The one who spoke the truth and was shunned by Obama for speaking the truth.

Stay tuned for noise on this one.

subject *us* to three weeks of hell, if it was decided before Warren?

It would have been far simpler and less contentious to announce this at the same time as Warren.

My guess is that our outrage and complaints have worked. Again, I voted with my dollars and told them which organization was getting the donation I might otherwise have given the Inauguration Committee, and why. (Thanks for the many excellent points from other posters on DU).

We *ARE* making differences, keep up the great work.

The DU type Poutrage demonstrated over Warren is an incredibly tiny minority even among Dems.

:crazy:

It was a good decision on his part, one that I respect and admire.

***Robinson, 61, said both Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden will attend the event, and Obama is expected to speak. As for himself, Robinson said he doesn't yet know what he'll say, but he knows he won't use a Bible.

"While that is a holy and sacred text to me, it is not for many Americans," Robinson said. "I will be careful not to be especially Christian in my prayer. This is a prayer for the whole nation."

Robinson said his prayer will be reflective of the times.

"I think these are sober and difficult times that we are facing," he said. "It won't be a happy, clappy prayer."***

Now it seems to me, that he has the right idea. I'd rather not have those of the faith involved in this at all, but if it must be so, Robinson is an excellent choice to balance out the terrible choice of Warren.

That said, while I agree that religion should have nothing at all to do with such events, the mocking of anyone and everyone who has any spiritual views what so ever has really got to stop. It's not only offensive to those of faith, it's deliberately intended to be.

Freedom of religion - the freedom to believe in whatever we damn well please. Everyone is entitled to state their own opinions in regards to religion (or a lack thereof), but it can be done without being deliberately offensive.

I'm an agnostic, but this constant, deliberate antagonizing of anyone of faith really doesn't belong on a progressive forum. It's starting to piss me off.

The one that basically says non-theists are missing something (read: there is something wrong with them)... It's not only offensive to those who have faith in themselves and not a deity, it's deliberately intended to be.

Just like post 48. I'm not going to make excuses for either group. It's bizarre. We here, of all people, should be able to respect each others beliefs. Or at the very least, to debate them without being deliberately offensive.

I guess you could call me a non theist. But I see the color pink just fine.

but neither are a genetic anomoly like color blindness.

Organized patriarchal religion was formed to underpin patriarchy --

to cement patriarchy --

and to exclude women -- especially spiritually --

to control women.

Not to mention, orgained patriarchal religion's other enemies . . .

Jews, homosexuals, native Americans, Africans enslaved here --

and NATURE . . . !!

There is some thought that belief or non belief in deity is genetic. The expression of that belief or non belief is a choice. Religion is chosen. Dogma is chosen.

There is some thought that belief or non belief in deity is genetic.

As I said previously, the OLD RELIGION is based on nature -- not gods.

It was something they could see -- something that openly benefited their lives

and health. There was no "devil" in the old religion -- which is deemed to be

simply a projection of the inner fears/paranoia/ugliness/violence of patriarchy.

Anything that comes after patriarchy/patriarchal religion can only be connected

with their violence, intimidation and brainwashing.

Old Testament was used to cement patriarchy and its violent one-all-male god --

"Introducing the Sword with the Cross."

The end of free will and why our founders Separated Church from State ---

on which OLD religion you're referring to. Those who followed Greek, or Norse mythology, for example, were far more patriarchal than we are today. There are a few religions, that, at heart, are not particularly patriarchal or bigoted. I'd name Wicca and Druidism among them. Of course, individuals belonging to these groups can be just as rotten as the worst of us. Generally speaking though, I feel those two in particular have a great deal more respect for all forms of life - which is as it should be.

Which is not to say that there aren't plenty of very decent Christians. There are, sadly it seems that the public face of Christianity, however, has been dominated by fringe groups of arrogant bigots. I think the time has come (in fact has long since passed) for a liberal revolution within Christianity. I admire those who work towards that goal.

Every religion, club, organization, or group, has it's own issues and it's own evils. That doesn't mean that they are useless or evil altogether.

is pre-organized religion -- pagan

and is based on spiritual connection to nature,

no Creation myths -- nor gods nor goddesses --

Many people don't believe that nature or sex worship, solar worship, or worship of elements or forces of nature are technically religions.

The Christian "revolution" came with Pope John XXIII and Vatican II --

and was overturned by a right-wing coup within the Vatican. At least two Popes

may have been murdered. The threesome of JFK, Pope John XXIII, Khruschev were too

much for the Establishment and they were all three eliminated one way or another.

We cannot look at members of religions, except to encourage them to stand against injustice.

We have to look at the hierarchy, the leadership.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/13/religion.scienceandnature

snip
Richard Dawkins, our best-known Darwinist and a ferocious critic of organised religion, notes that religion seems to be, on the face of it, a cost rather than a benefit: "Religious behaviour in bipedal apes occupies large quantities of time. It devours huge resources. A medieval cathedral consumed hundreds of man-centuries in its building. Sacred music and devotional paintings largely monopolised medieval and Renaissance talent. Thousands, perhaps millions, of people have died, often accepting torture first, for loyalty to one religion against a scarcely distinguishable alternative. Devout people have died for their gods, killed for them, fasted for them, endured whipping, undertaken a lifetime of celibacy, and sworn themselves to asocial silence for the sake of religion."

It seems at first glance as if Dawkins is arguing that religion is an evolutionary disaster area. Religious belief, it seems, would be unlikely, on its own merits, to have slipped through the net of natural selection. But maybe that interpretation of what Dawkins is saying neglects some of the further benefits that religion might well offer in the human quest for survival and security.

In his book Darwin's Cathedral, David Sloan Wilson, professor of biology and anthropology at Binghamton University in New York state, says that religiosity emerged as a "useful" genetic trait because it had the effect of making social groups more unified. The communal nature of religion certainly would have given groups of hunter-gatherers a stronger sense of togetherness. This produced a leaner, meaner survival machine, a group that was more likely to be able to defend a waterhole, or kill more antelope, or capture their opponents' daughters. The better the religion was at producing an organised and disciplined group, the more effective they would have been at staying alive, and hence at passing their genes on to the next generation. This is what we mean by "natural selection": adaptations which help survival and reproduction get passed down through the genes. Taking into account the additional suggestion, from various studies of twins, that we may have an inherited disposition towards religious belief, is there any evidence that the Divine Idea might be carried in our genes?

While nobody has identified any gene for religion, there are certainly some candidate genes that may influence human personality and confer a tendency to religious feelings. Some of the genes likely to be involved are those which control levels of different chemicals called neurotransmitters in the brain. Dopamine is one neurotransmitter which we know plays a powerful role in our feelings of well-being; it may also be involved in the sense of peace that humans feel during some spiritual experiences. One particular gene involved in dopamine action - incidentally, by no means the only one that has been studied in this way - is the dopamine D4 receptor gene (DRD4). In some people, because of slight changes in spelling of the DNA sequences (a so-called polymorphism) making up this gene, the gene may be more biologically active, and this could be partly responsible for a religious bent.

And it is easy to suggest a mechanism by which religious beliefs could help us to pass on our genes. Greater cohesion and stricter moral codes would tend to produce more cooperation, and more cooperation means that hunting and gathering are likely to bring in more food. In turn, full bellies mean greater strength and alertness, greater immunity against infection, and offspring who develop and become independent more swiftly. Members of the group would also be more likely to take care of each other, especially those who are sick or injured. Therefore - in the long run - a shared religion appears to be evolutionarily advantageous, and natural selection might favour those groups with stronger religious beliefs.

But this is not the whole story. Although religion might be useful in developing a solid moral framework - and enforcing it - we can quite easily develop moral intuitions without relying on religion. Psychologist Eliot Turiel observed that even three- and four-year-olds could distinguish between moral rules (for example, not hitting someone) and conventional rules (such as not talking when the teacher is talking). Furthermore, they could understand that a moral breach, such as hitting someone, was wrong whether you had been told not to do it or not, whereas a conventional breach, such as talking in class, was wrong only if it had been expressly forbidden. They were also clearly able to distinguish between prudential rules (such as not leaving your notebook next to the fireplace) and moral rules.

This would suggest that there is a sort of "morality module" in the brain that is activated at an early age. Evidence from neuroscience would back this up, to a degree. In my last book, The Human Mind, I noted that certain brain areas become activated when we engage in cooperation with others, and that these areas are associated with feelings of pleasure and reward. It also seems that certain areas of the brain are brought into action in situations where we feel empathy and forgiveness.

So religion does not seem to be produced by a specific part of our psychological make-up. Is it more likely, then, that religious ideas are something of an accidental by-product created by other parts of our basic blueprint, by processes deep in the unconscious mind that evolved to help us survive?

Shared beliefs

What identical twins teach us about religion

In the United States during the 50s and 60s,it was considered best to separate at birth twins who were to be adopted. This led to a number of these children being brought up by families who did not even know that their adopted baby had a twin; and sadly, the children themselves were brought up intotal ignorance of their "lost" twin.

Identical twins, of course, are formed in the uterus by the embryo splitting; so identical twins have exactly the same DNA.

Non-identical twins -growing from two separate eggs fertilised by different sperm - do not have identical genes, but will just share many general aspects of their genetic inheritance, as do any other brothers or sisters in one family unit.

Thomas Bouchard, professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota, recognized that these twins, if compared with each other as they grew up, would provide an important way of measuring genetic and environmental influences.

His groundbreaking work in the 1980s and 90s gave rise to some extraordinary insights into which aspects of the human condition are more likely to be due to nature, and which to nurture.

In one study, Bouchard concentrated on72 sets of twins who had reached adulthood. He first established which of the twins (35 sets in all) were genuinely identical by genetic testing.

These were then invited to complete personality tests.

Such questionnaires, which are widely used by psychologists, pose questions in the form of statements, to which the respondents have to rate their level of agreement on a scale of one to eight. The following is a small sample of the many statements relating to religion:

· I enjoy reading about my religion.

· My religion is important to me because it answers many questions about the meaning of life.

· It is important to me to spend time in prayer and thought.

· It doesn't matter to me what I believe as long as I am good.

· I pray mainly to gain relief and protection.

· I go to my (church, synagogue, temple) to spend time with my friends.

· Although I am religious, I don't let it affect my daily life.

When Bouchard and his team compared the answers to these and other personality questions, they found strong statistical evidence that identical and non-identical twins tended to answer differently. If one identical twin showed evidence of religious thinking or behaviour, it was much more likely that his or her twin would answer similarly.

Non-identical twins, as might be expected (they are, after all, related), showed some similarities of thinking, but not nearly to the same degree. Crucially, the degree of religiosity was not strongly related to the environment in which the twin was brought up. Even if one identical twin had been brought up in an atheist family and the other in a religious Catholic household, they would still tend to show the same kind of religious feelings, or lack of them.

Work by several other scientists has inclined to confirm Bouchard's findings. One study, conducted by an international team at the Institute of Psychiatry in London under Dr Hans Eysenck, looked at information from twins living in the UK and Australia.

The researchers found that attitudes to Sabbath observance, divine law, church authority and the truth of the Bible showed greater congruity in identical rather than non-identical twins - again supporting the idea of a genetic influence.

Bouchard has consistently found in many of his studies that intrinsic religiosity -which seems to incorporate a notion of spirituality - is much more likely to be inherited. Extrinsic religiosity tends to be a product of a person's environment and direct parental influence. Bouchard also found that tendencies towards fundamentalism were also rather more likely to be inherited.

It is of some interest, too, that, in the populations that Bouchard and his colleagues have studied, women tend to have inherited rather more religious attitudes than men.

· The Story of God by Robert Winston is published by Transworld at £18.99. Winston's new series of the same name will be broadcast on BBC TV, starting in December.
In his book Darwin's Cathedral, David Sloan Wilson, professor of biology and anthropology at Binghamton University in New York state, says that religiosity emerged as a "useful" genetic trait because it had the effect of making social groups more unified. The communal nature of religion certainly would have given groups of hunter-gatherers a stronger sense of togetherness. This produced a leaner, meaner survival machine, a group that was more likely to be able to defend a waterhole, or kill more antelope, or capture their opponents' daughters. The better the religion was at producing an organised and disciplined group, the more effective they would have been at staying alive, and hence at passing their genes on to the next generation. This is what we mean by "natural selection": adaptations which help survival and reproduction get passed down through the genes. Taking into account the additional suggestion, from various studies of twins, that we may have an inherited disposition towards religious belief, is there any evidence that the Divine Idea might be carried in our genes?

While nobody has identified any gene for religion, there are certainly some candidate genes that may influence human personality and confer a tendency to religious feelings. Some of the genes likely to be involved are those which control levels of different chemicals called neurotransmitters in the brain. Dopamine is one neurotransmitter which we know plays a powerful role in our feelings of well-being; it may also be involved in the sense of peace that humans feel during some spiritual experiences. One particular gene involved in dopamine action - incidentally, by no means the only one that has been studied in this way - is the dopamine D4 receptor gene (DRD4). In some people, because of slight changes in spelling of the DNA sequences (a so-called polymorphism) making up this gene, the gene may be more biologically active, and this could be partly responsible for a religious bent.

snip

The study on identical twins adopted by different families
snip
they found strong statistical evidence that identical and non-identical twins tended to answer differently. If one identical twin showed evidence of religious thinking or behaviour, it was much more likely that his or her twin would answer similarly.

Non-identical twins, as might be expected (they are, after all, related), showed some similarities of thinking, but not nearly to the same degree. Crucially, the degree of religiosity was not strongly related to the environment in which the twin was brought up. Even if one identical twin had been brought up in an atheist family and the other in a religious Catholic household, they would still tend to show the same kind of religious feelings, or lack of them.
snip

In another study:
snip
The researchers found that attitudes to Sabbath observance, divine law, church authority and the truth of the Bible showed greater congruity in identical rather than non-identical twins - again supporting the idea of a genetic influence.

Bouchard has consistently found in many of his studies that intrinsic religiosity -which seems to incorporate a notion of spirituality - is much more likely to be inherited. Extrinsic religiosity tends to be a product of a person's environment and direct parental influence. Bouchard also found that tendencies towards fundamentalism were also rather more likely to be inherited.

snip


This piece is more relevant to the Warren discussion not this subthread:
Allport thought that intrinsic religiosity was different. He identified a group of people who were intrinsically religious, seeing their religion as an end in itself. They tended to be more deeply committed; religion became the organising principle of their lives, a central and personal experience. In support of his research, Allport found that prejudice was more common in those individuals who scored highly for extrinsic religion.

this relates to the gay bishop praying at the inauguration: how?

NT!

No, you are not required to. You are not required to respect either the beliefs themselves OR the right to those beliefs. You can view either however you wish.

Where was I wrong?

"
Just like post 48. I'm not going to make excuses for either group. It's bizarre. We here, of all people, should be able to respect each others beliefs. Or at the very least, to debate them without being deliberately offensive."

Should be able to, is not "have to". I was making a suggestion (I.E. at the very least, not to be deliberately offensive) and expressing frustration with the back and forth bashing between theists and non theists.

It's only natural that there will be debates about these issues. That does not mean they can't be debated in a civil manner.

we are always free to question and challenge these personal beliefs!

by Robinson's approach.

in the festivities.

(looking for the hypocrisy smilie)

2nd edit: corrected for spelling.

I'm starting to like you more and more.

Your responses in this thread have been very intelligent and fair-minded.

Curious to see what the reaction will be from the fundies and those Dems that support the choice of Warren.

I suspect some hypocrisy, the level of which is yet to be determined.

Warren? Not so much.

Seriously I would go to that man's church if it was in my town.

I understand why Obama disassociated with him, but I kind of wish he would've stuck with him. He's a great UCC preacher, in my opinion.

As far as preachers go, I think he has a message. I was serious. With all of this praying going on I think it is weird that he is left out.

thing, yelp if a Rick Warren is involved until action is taken.

Congress shall make no laws...not congress shall never have anyone give a prayer...

But an inaugural prayer is in conflict with the principle of church-state separation, even if it is held by the courts not actually to violate the First Amendment.

Sorry if you disagree, but the SCOTUS has held that promoting religion is a violation of the Establishment Clause. There's a little thing informally known as the Lemon test, derived from the court's ruling in Lemon v. Kurtzman, where any governmental practice must:

1. Serve a secular purpose.
2. Have a primary purpose that neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3. Avoid excessive government entanglement with religion.

If the practice fails any of the three points, then it is unconstitutional in that it violates the establishment clause.

In fact, the court has found that clergy invited to give a prayer violates the establishment clause for the above reason.

about "violation of separation of church and state" (whatever that means) or about violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment or about unconstitutionality. And, matters of Constitutional interpretation are not settled until the SCOTUS says so. Not even then, in fact, because the SCOTUS has reversed its own decisions.

If this has been in planning weeks before Warren was announced, then why were they not both announced on the same day, or in relative short order between the two?

Please don't get me wrong on this. I was not happy about Warren, in fact I was livid about it, but I understand why Obama did it, and I got over it. I am energized and ecstatic about the choice of Bishop Robinson to do the invocation on this historic occasion. I had the privilege to see him when he spoke at the Dallas Black Tie dinner this past fall. He is an amazing speaking and an even more amazing person. GREAT JOB OBAMA!!

As I sit in my office, I have a digital picture frame on my desk that is filled with pictures from the night of November 4th. As I sit and watch these images I have to ask myself, why can't we all be that happy over ANY Obama choice. We have just over a week until the chimp in chief is out of office and we have a real President.

That's why they were not announced on the same day.

a Monty Python skit in here somewhere.

:sarcasm:

Take it from a guy who deals with politicians all the time.

Very exciting news!

He'd have saved himself a biblical knowledge of a lot of trouble.

story. Perhaps he was being considered, but if he really was already planned for this it'd be silly to let them (Obama Adm.) get damaged as much as Warren did do if they were inviting Rev Gene ALREADY to do this - still, Rev Gene Robinson doesn't say the hate speech that Warren does and it doesn't DIMINISH WARREN'S NASTY ASSED GAY-HATING PRESENCE! He also is working to destroy all remnants of an OUT Gay community in Africa - the man is a menace.

n/t.

Gay (the bishop) and anti-gay (Rick Warren). That's politics!

involve preachers and Obama. Did anyone notice that folks were killed today? Have you given a thought to our soldiers that are sent to war over and over and over. If you have been living in this country for the last eight years and have not been sent to war I suggest it is time for some soul searching.

One is this one, one is about whether Obama should say "so help me God" at his swearing-in, one is the January 12 stock market watch, one is about Prince Harry getting his stupid on in front of cameras again, one is about Obama's plans for the economy, and one is about that guy arrested with a pile of guns at LAX. There's also two others in the nineties about possible plans by the new administration to start going after members of the current one.

Perhaps the only threads that get 100+ responses that you're looking at involve preachers and Obama?

as long as we are going to have it this is great news. At least PE Obama is being inclusive in his choices. I will take my plate of Crow Ala Range' if you all don't mind.

:puke:

IMHO this makes it worse.

It means he realized what a mistake warren is and instead of having the balls to fix things, he just tried to balance out the fuck up.

As if Equal rights is an algebra equation.

Sorry, NO SALE.

Nice try at SPIN by obama.

Nice try - but FAIL!!!

BIGTIME...

and I don't see that asshole warren "learning" anything.

all of his appearances and he thinks OBAMA is comming around to HIS "thinking"...not the other way round...

this still SUCKS...

This is absolutely perfect and levels the playing field... I still don't approve of including the intolerant Rick Warren, but this is as close as they can get to "fixing" it without throwing him out... :woohoo: