Friday, November 07, 2008

Tired of Discrimination Blamed on God



Ignorance and hate does not come from the heart or spirit of God. This is my favourite West Wing moment - it always drives me crazy when holier than thou scripture adherents pick and choose which laws they will follow and which laws they have decided no longer are valid in today's society. Especially since they use this as an excuse to bully, hurt, judge and condemn other people.

18 comments:

Gerry said...

You do need to be clear as to what constitutes "ignorance and hate" particularly since, also as a fan of the show but not of the politics, anyone who did not support, for example, homosexual 'rights' was labeled as ignorant and hateful simply on the basis of their disagreement alone. Not agreeing with you does not make me ignorant or hateful - except if you so define the terms then we have a meaningless, but typical lefty type, definition.

Once we have that distinction nailed down, if your disdain for those who quote scripture as a basis for their disagreement is based on simply the fact that they don't agree with you and are ergo ignorant and hateful. If you give someone quoting a different source - say West Wing - disagreeing with one of your positions the courtesy of discussion rather than labeling then it would seem that you are more focused on the particular source as whether to define someone as ignorant and hateful.

KC said...

Wow there is some convoluted logic from Gerry if I've ever seen it. It isnt simple disagreement. No one accuses anyone of hate for merely opposing ones views on tax policy, foreign policy, or any other matter.

It is because anti-gay activists seek differential treatment of certain individual in society because of irrelevant and illogical factors that they are accused of hate. That is the very definition of hate.

Rejection of those who quote scripture as a basis for policy on the other hand is merely a rejection of illogical and unsubstantiated arguments.

Gerry said...

KC merely proves my point, unintentionally no doubt, but demonstrates precisely my point in the last paragraph. Simply on the basis of using scripture as a source an argument is ruled illogical and unsubstantiated. In that statement lies the prejudgment of the argument which begs the question as to what other sources would be rejected on the same basis.

As for tax policy, did not Biden accuse all those opposed to paying higher taxes as being mean spirited, unpatriotic, etc, etc? And it would appear that what is deemed irrelevant and illogical is determined outside of the argument itself (as in the rejection out of hand based on source) then hate gets defined however one wants as a term to be thrown out as a substitute for substantive discussion. That is not convoluted logic but it is logic.

KC said...

Simply on the basis of using scripture as a source an argument is ruled illogical and unsubstantiated.

Absolutely. We're talking about a millenia old book whose origins are debatable, whose version of history conflicts with modern scientific knowledge, whose authors were human, yet which purports to have useful answers about morality.

If one wants to argue that homosexuality is somehow wrong or immoral they will need to start elsewhere.

As for tax policy, did not Biden accuse all those opposed to paying higher taxes as being mean spirited, unpatriotic, etc, etc?

Possibly... but not of being hateful.

hate gets defined however one wants as a term to be thrown out as a substitute for substantive discussion.

I've been TRYING to have a substantive discussion with an opponent of gay rights for years and have yet to hear anything that approaches a logical argument.

Hate is the inescapable conclusion one must reach when calls for predjudicial treatment of individuals is premised on arguments completely devoid of logic.

Gerry said...

"Hate is the inescapable conclusion one must reach when calls for predjudicial treatment of individuals is premised on arguments completely devoid of logic."

Therefore by your definition you hate anyone who starts from a moral framework based on what you describe as "a millenia old book whose origins are debatable, whose version of history conflicts with modern scientific knowledge, whose authors were human, yet which purports to have useful answers about morality." Your actions are prejudiced since it is based on discounting out of hand any form of morality based on a religious framework. That, by your own definition, is hateful as it is prejudging.

I also find you have a very limited grasp of logic, I can suggest some basic introductory textbooks on the topic which may help.

Also to clear something up, my original comment was not about the notion of gay 'rights' but simply using that as an example where disagreement is conflated with being hateful and it was in the context of the reference to West Wing and the reference to the quote. Seeing that as somehow an attack on the notion of gay 'rights' rather misses the logical argument being presented - ergo my offer to identify some basic reference material - none of it scripturally based so you should not reject it as hateful.

KC said...

Therefore by your definition you hate anyone who starts from a moral framework based on what you describe as...

I am not calling for "predjudicial treatment" of religious individuals, but a rejection of their religiously based arguments--which are by definition unsubstantiated and illogical. Many many religious individuals are capable of logical argument... as long as they stay away from "the bible says so", etc. Illogical arguments should be rejected regardless of the source (atheist, religious, whatever).

Your actions are prejudiced since it is based on discounting out of hand any form of morality based on a religious framework.

Its not rejection "out of hand". Before we can derive any morality from a "religious framework" that framework itself requires some sort of justification based on evidence and logic. That is lacking.

I also find you have a very limited grasp of logic

If you dont see the difference between hate and simple disagreement I would suggest that it is you who has a very limited grasp on logic. Im sure I own several of the texts you would recomment.

DJeffery said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gerry said...

"Its not rejection "out of hand". Before we can derive any morality from a "religious framework" that framework itself requires some sort of justification based on evidence and logic. That is lacking."

It appears you are stuck looking literally at religious frameworks, particularly as they are captured in written texts, rather than understanding them more broadly as being metaphorical truth. Your earlier comments referenced supposed errors and 'illogical' (which quite frankly is not clear to me what you mean as you do not provide an example)which indicates a rather limited view of religious texts. To deny that there is any truth in them is a rather robust claim - which you need to support more than by restating evidence and logic as a magic argument mantra.

Many things are not literally true and yet are true. If you do not reject out of hand that poetry, novels, dramas and the like may contain truths in them you have accepted that something does not have to be literally true to reveal of demonstrate that which is true. Or perhaps you do reject all that which is not literally true. If you do not then your rejection of all religious frameworks on the basis of assertions of lacking logic is selective unless you apply the same criteria to all that is not literally true.

This may be too subtle an argument as it deals with uses of language to communicate and how that is often done metaphorically.

Allie said...

I think that anyone who was motivated to vote or act in favour of eliminating the legal rights of one group of people - rights that they fully intend to continue enjoying themselves - is discrimination and also hateful.

That the basis of reasoning for this comes from religion is disgusting to me. To twist what one consider's god's word to mean one thing only, or to dismiss all other commands/laws as being outdated but to cling to this one is hateful because it is, imho, used to single out one group of people to be bullied by another. It is nothing more then self serving.

This is not an issue that has anything to do with right or left politics, and really it shouldn't have anything to do with religion. That's just the excuse given to hide behind. This type of behaviour is only about discrimination.

I've spent a good number of years studying the historical Jesus and early Christianity and I can say with some certainty that he was a person who tried to do good, help people and teach acceptance of all people. I don't know about your "god" but right now I don't know if I like him too much.

NoMoreMarriage! said...

The next logical step to all of these "nonsense" and expensive legal challenges is to remove marriage as a legal right for everyone. Implement a legal framework for civil unions and dissolutions for EVERYONE and have that be the legal requirement for everyone.

No more marriage licenses, no more feuding over whose rights are more important and it will leave the churches to have their own little quiet ritual ceremonies to celebrate civil unions instead of marriages/weddings.

This is the way of the future.

Andrea said...

The best part of that clip is the crab puff she's holding. She obviously eats shellfish!

Allie said...

Obviously! ;)

Allie said...

Oh I have read that article many times before! Its a good article because it proves my point.

I especially love how it basically says it's ok for Christians to pick and choose which laws are relevant to today's Christianity and how it uses that logic to say that that other laws are still applicable, just because.

Even better is when it decries the actual scriptural laws of the Torah as being made invalid by the arrival of the Christ - the common excuse for not having to follow them - or just as no longer valid (as when eating pork or shellfish was unhealthy the law not to eat pigs or lobsters made sense...).

And I love how it is published by the completely unbiased "Christian Research Institute" and uses no academic research or original texts at all. That's my fav part.

I'd suggest that in a world full of Jews, Christians and other religions of the "Book," that a biblical ban on homosexuality is no longer relevant, valid or makes any sense.

Anonymous said...

Allie you should know that religious fanatics are always right. They will find whatever definition within their own scriptures that suits them to prove they are right and someone else is wrong.

DJeffery said...

I presume from you title you believe in God, and assume you didn't mean to be so flippant in your dismissal of the death of Christ. The Bible predicts the appearance of the Messiah and Christ called Himself that Messiah. This Suffering Servant at great sacrifice and harm to Himself payed a debt we could not pay. Yet He could; to the jot and tittle. Why? How? How can we neglect so great a salvation? Otherwise, you'll be attempting to pay your debt with your own chaff and blood. Are you able? Peter in Acts 11 & 12 and James, et allii in Acts 15 with consent of the early church discounted Gentiles from the whole law. And if the church from it's very foundational charter in Jerusalem was mitigating the whole Law, how can you now 2000 years later condemn it for instituting in the New Covenant something, for which it did the exact opposite in reality. The question you should be asking is why was it now able to reject this law? This diatribe you find so pithy, was answered at the Council of Jerusalem in 50 A.D. approximately.

Anonymous said...

People who hate gay people, or any people for that matter, will likely be surprised when they get to heaven and their God asks them why they spent so much of their precous time hating or working against their brothers and sisters. We are all God's children - and sometimes some people forget that the judging is to be left to God.

Anonymous said...

God has always been a convenient excuse for the hatred people feel justified in inflicting upon others. It really should fall under the "Thou shall not take my name in vain" rule but it's surprising how much an extremist can justify to themselves in the name of religion or god.

These particular arguments will quickly become obsolete, and by these few people clinging to them in god's name, they shall also doom the church and his following to being obsolete as well.

Then it will be time for god to return to punish all the people who have fallen off the path and no longer hear or love his words. You can't love god with so much hate in your heart.

This has happened before and because of foolish men, it will happen again.

Anonymous said...

Ha! I missed this before I made my comment - - "50 A.D. approximately"

If by that you mean hundreds of years then you might be right. I love how the faithful believe that their religion was actually created in the early years after Jesus's death.