Jesus' Example Of Lobbying Against Gays

[Guest]

Hello, Rick,

The definition of "religion" from the Latin is: "to bind togther, to bind fast, to place an obligation on" (the modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is late: from 1535).

I will point out that the primary body of American legal tradition has accumulated after 1535.

The APA (American Psychological Association) made a "binding obligation" that homosexuality was no longer a sin. Was it in the 1970's or 60's? I've forgotten.

I'm not an expert in this department, but I wasn't aware the APA was in the business of identifying sins.

At any rate, the religion of Secular Humanism accepts the APA as: "an authoritative source for matters pertaining to belief and practise"....

But only when speaking ex cathedra.


So, how would you distinguish between a philosophy and a religion?


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[_Perry]

Hiya Emmet,

(Don't know why I didn't notice you were signing your name as Emmet before.)

Could I trouble you to clarify?

I think our governmental systems are developing a double standard that's prejudiced against religion (I hope you understand I'm not using Rick's finer, and perhaps more accurate definition of the term) in general and Christianity in particular. I think the article linked by TK is an example of that. If that's not clear yet, then I'm afraid that greater clarity is quite beyond my ability to communicate.

Religious people may oppose or support such an approach, and irreligious people may support or oppose it, as the case may be.

And the religious people get expelled.

The article TK referenced did not give a detailed account of the background that led up to the suspensions.

It said:

more than 100 suspensions were issued to students wearing T-shirts with biblical quotations against sodomy and homosexuality.
...
One shirt that caused an uproar was emblazoned with, "Don't touch God's rainbow."

If you're suggesting that's equitable, then I'm afraid we're too far apart in our basic assumptions to communicate about this effectivly.

I'll call you "feisty," after your last post .

I'm too old to be feisty, and too young to be a curmudgeon.

My favored regime would also strictly enforce Sabbath observance with capital punishment. I may quite reasonably imagine that you would not be receptive to such parameters,

Being dead would crimp my life-style... I'll give you that. I've never died for religious convictions, mine or anyone elses.

I think it's fairly reasonable for me to assume that neither have you.

But I'm not so shallow as to not get what you were driving at... that I value my lifestyle more than religious convictions... even the convictions referred to are yours.

I've never died for keeping the sabbath, but I've turned down quite lucrative job opportunities for just that reason. I was fired from my first job (a job I desperately needed) for observing the Feast of Tabernacles. I've suffered a certain degree of mild persecution for keeping the Days of Unleavened Bread... from people I love.

I had it easy compared to my wife.

So when you say

But I suspect you might prefer the vacuum of the American tradition over my particular religionomy, as it would most likely put a major crimp in your day-to-day life.

it's difficult not to take it personal. First you suggest that I've sold out to a vacuos American tradition, and then follow that up by assuming that I hold your particular degree of "religionomy" in low regard, because it would "put a crimp in your day-to-day life."

I have to say Emmet, it sounds pretty "holier than thou" to me.

I expect that Sean Hannity would respond differently than Al Franken, and I suppose that coverage and response might vary depending on the relative viciousness of the offenders' conduct. Do you disagree?

I think you're being overly charitable in your assumptions about the media, and it kind of rings hollow so soon after your pessimistic assumptions about me.

Perry

[Guest]

Hello Emmet,

"I owe you" on another thread...hope to get to it this weekend.

Quote:
The definition of "religion" from the Latin is: "to bind together, to bind fast, to place an obligation on" (the modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is late: from 1535).

I will point out that the primary body of American legal tradition has accumulated after 1535.

I got into finding out what "religion" really meant from when I went to AA...(I used to go to it a lot). They use the word as most people in the USA do (with this later definition): "the organized worship of a god with a belief in a particular set of doctrines about the said god" and so on. "Religion" can also mean "that which one is most devoted to" (and if I'm not mistaken, this is the NT use of it). My point was that "religion" can be secular.

Quote:
The APA (American Psychological Association) made a "binding obligation" that homosexuality was no longer a sin. Was it in the 1970's or 60's? I've forgotten.

I'm not an expert in this department, but I wasn't aware the APA was in the business of identifying sins.

"Sin" is another word that has evolved and has popular meanings. In the Greek NT it has several meanings for words translated as "sin": "to make a mistake, to err or be in error, to fall short of a desired goal, to miss the target or mark (hit the bull's eye, a term from archery), to trespass (cross a forbidden boundary), to rebel (open, blatant rebellion)."

The APA identifies what they believe to be mistaken, erroneous, "out of bounds", off-target, etc. -- according to APA doctrine it is a "sin" to believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

Quote:
At any rate, the religion of Secular Humanism accepts the APA as: "an authoritative source for matters pertaining to belief and practise"....

But only when speaking ex cathedra.

Yes, as with the secular humanist "Christian" John Shelby Spong! He, and others, within the liberal branch of Christianity "speak from the throne" of what "science" sez....

So, how would you distinguish between a philosophy and a religion?

I'm not sure how this pertains, Emmet, but philosophy is literally "the love of wisdom" as you surely know. "A religion" to me encompasses whatever beliefs one has (or a group has), that which one is most devoted to, and that which binds together (an individual or group). Didn't I hear something in the news that one of the Federal Courts identified "Secular Humanism" as a religion? (as in a group that believes certain doctrines or precepts)...I've forgotten!

[Guest]

Hello, Perry,

Thank you for your response.

kaufmannphillips: American legal tradition hedges against government sponsorship of religious agendas, whether Christian, Jewish, or otherwise.

Perry: No it doesn't. It just claims to. That's my gripe.

kaufmannphillips: Could I trouble you to clarify?

Perry: I think our governmental systems are developing a double standard that's prejudiced against religion (I hope you understand I'm not using Rick's finer, and perhaps more accurate definition of the term) in general and Christianity in particular. I think the article linked by TK is an example of that. If that's not clear yet, then I'm afraid that greater clarity is quite beyond my ability to communicate.

Perhaps you might expand on how your comment "our governmental systems are developing a double standard that's prejudiced against religion" differs from my comment "American legal tradition hedges against government sponsorship of religious agendas."

kaufmannphillips: Religious people may oppose or support such an approach, and irreligious people may support or oppose it, as the case may be.

Perry: And the religious people get expelled.

As, I expect, irreligious people who wore shirts stating "homosexuality is a mental illness" would be expelled.

kaufmannphillips: The article TK referenced did not give a detailed account of the background that led up to the suspensions.

Perry: It said: more than 100 suspensions were issued to students wearing T-shirts with biblical quotations against sodomy and homosexuality. ... One shirt that caused an uproar was emblazoned with, "Don't touch God's rainbow."

If you're suggesting that's equitable, then I'm afraid we're too far apart in our basic assumptions to communicate about this effectivly.

(aleph) Suspensions are often not the first tier of disciplinary procedure. It would be interesting to know what had transpired prior to this step on the part of the school administration.

(beth) "Equitable" does not refer to equitable treatment between homosexual orientation and religious expression; that is apples and oranges. It refers to equitable treatment of homosexual and heterosexual orientation (apples and apples), in line with the perspective of the medical establishment.

If someone were to wear a shirt that said "hetero sex is domestic violence" (per some extreme feminist perspectives), that would capture the dynamic of the issue - except that few heterosexual students would feel threatened by such a statement, because hegemony can afford bemusement. And if a student were suspended for defiantly refusing to doff a shirt that said "Marriage enshrines original sin," I doubt so many people would be up in arms to defend his religious expression in the public school.

Perry: Being dead would crimp my life-style... I'll give you that. I've never died for religious convictions, mine or anyone elses.

I think it's fairly reasonable for me to assume that neither have you.

But I'm not so shallow as to not get what you were driving at... that I value my lifestyle more than religious convictions... even the convictions referred to are yours.

I've never died for keeping the sabbath, but I've turned down quite lucrative job opportunities for just that reason. I was fired from my first job (a job I desperately needed) for observing the Feast of Tabernacles. I've suffered a certain degree of mild persecution for keeping the Days of Unleavened Bread... from people I love.

I had it easy compared to my wife.

So when you say: But I suspect you might prefer the vacuum of the American tradition over my particular religionomy, as it would most likely put a major crimp in your day-to-day life. it's difficult not to take it personal. First you suggest that I've sold out to a vacuos American tradition, and then follow that up by assuming that I hold your particular degree of "religionomy" in low regard, because it would "put a crimp in your day-to-day life."

I have to say Emmet, it sounds pretty "holier than thou" to me.

Would you imagine it statistically unjustifiable to "suspect" that an unfamiliar correspondent might fit my statement?

As for your clarification of detail, I'd be more impressed if you didn't treat a mere man as if he were deity, and if you refrained from posting on the shabbath.

And if that sounds "holier than thou"... hey, at least I didn't put it on a T-shirt and wear it to work with you.

kaufmannphillips: I expect that Sean Hannity would respond differently than Al Franken, and I suppose that coverage and response might vary depending on the relative viciousness of the offenders' conduct. Do you disagree?

Perry: I think you're being overly charitable in your assumptions about the media, and it kind of rings hollow so soon after your pessimistic assumptions about me.

It is not charity to acknowledge that the media is not monolithic. And for the record: I articulated suspicion; you have expressed assumption.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[_Perry]

Perhaps you might expand on how your comment…

I might. But at this point I feel we’re talking too far past each other to make further discussion very fruitful. On this matter, I’m content to surrender the last word.

Would you imagine it statistically unjustifiable to "suspect" that an unfamiliar correspondent might fit my statement?

Are you saying your oblique ad-hominin(sp?) would have been more justified had I turned out to be Roman Catholic?

As for your clarification of detail, I'd be more impressed if…

There’s no point in my religious life, past or present, that you would find impressive. I have no illusions on that score.

[Guest]

Hello, Rick,

Thank you for your reply.

I got into finding out what "religion" really meant from when I went to AA...(I used to go to it a lot). They use the word as most people in the USA do (with this later definition): "the organized worship of a god with a belief in a particular set of doctrines about the said god" and so on. "Religion" can also mean "that which one is most devoted to" (and if I'm not mistaken, this is the NT use of it). My point was that "religion" can be secular.

Is it your opinion, then, that the framers of the Bill of Rights had a secular form of religion in mind when they articulated the First Amendment?

"Sin" is another word that has evolved and has popular meanings. In the Greek NT it has several meanings for words translated as "sin": "to make a mistake, to err or be in error, to fall short of a desired goal, to miss the target or mark (hit the bull's eye, a term from archery), to trespass (cross a forbidden boundary), to rebel (open, blatant rebellion)."

The APA identifies what they believe to be mistaken, erroneous, "out of bounds", off-target, etc. -- according to APA doctrine it is a "sin" to believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

I expect that the APA has little concern for either the diction of the Greek NT or for sin in its popular semantic domain, except insofar as the concepts of either affect a patient's mental health.

And the practical traction of lexical archaeology is limited at best, here. Should we attempt to hinge arguments on the seventeenth-century definition of "gay"? Rather, "gay," "religion," and "sin" all have operable semantic domains in the present, which are more relevant to contemporary discourse.

The APA is not a religious entity any more than the FDA is, and its professional standards do not constitute an identification of sin any more than those of the state bar do. By such argumentation, the government itself could make no laws without violating the First Amendment, since it would be making a binding (= "religious") claim on the obedience (= "devotion" = "religion") of citizens, establishing a standard for conduct (= "doctrine" = demarcation of proscribed conduct = declaration of "sin").

kaufmannphillips: So, how would you distinguish between a philosophy and a religion?

Rick_C: I'm not sure how this pertains, Emmet, but philosophy is literally "the love of wisdom" as you surely know. "A religion" to me encompasses whatever beliefs one has (or a group has), that which one is most devoted to, and that which binds together (an individual or group).

Not "philosophy," but "a philosophy," please.

Didn't I hear something in the news that one of the Federal Courts identified "Secular Humanism" as a religion? (as in a group that believes certain doctrines or precepts)...I've forgotten!

It would be interesting to read the legal opinion involved. Of course, such a finding would afford secular humanism civil rights and legal privileges (such as those extended to churches and to the clergy).


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Emmet,

I can't remember if it was a State or Federal court that ruled: "Secular Humanism is religion".

When I worked in Psychiatry for 7 years I was not permitted to speak about what is now called "sexual orientation" (formerly known as "sexual preference") from a Christian-religious viewpoint. This would have gotten me fired. I was once verbally warned for calling it "sexual preference" (in a staff meeting, not around any of the patients). I was made aware that I would be writen up if I said this again, though I personally believe it to be a choice (preference), based on my views from the Bible.

Other than this: Right now I'm not really up for debating "the culture war"....busy, job-hunting, etc.

[Guest]

Emmet, did you or anyone else listen to the "Cross and the Sword" series that was linked to earlier in this thread? If you're strapped for time, perhaps the first lecture would suffice. It's short too. The URL is:

http://www.whchurch.org/content/page_726.htm

Greg Boyd, in my opinion, offers the most consistent Jesus-like reponse to this issue of state and religion. He also approaches the idea of national idolatry with more humor than one would expect, given that it's such a controvercial topic. He no doubt lost some of his congregation after delivering this message, but I applaud him.

[Guest]

Hello, Perry,

Thank you for your reply.

Are you saying your oblique ad-hominin(sp?) would have been more justified had I turned out to be Roman Catholic?

RC, Mormon, Methodist, Calvary Chapel, Sikh, whatever - so long as one might prefer the liberty afforded by the American laissez-faire tradition over a hostile and restrictive religiocracy.


You may complain about ad hominem, which is a logical fallacy, but logic is only a beginning to understanding, and not an end. In terms of sheer logic, an individual's personal preference for the pragmatic benefits of one policy does not compromise their argumentation for a contrary policy; inconsistency in action does not vitiate logical integrity. But such inconsistency does challenge the integrity of one's argument in other ways.


Then again, if your complaint is not methodological, but rather that such a tactic is not "nice" - you may be right. Your messiah was not always nice, either.

Come to think of it, mightn't he have employed a bit of ad hominem himself?


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[_Perry]

Emmet, did you or anyone else listen to the "Cross and the Sword" series that was linked to earlier in this thread?

JC,

I just listented to the first of these messages. As he himself admits in that talk, it raises more questions than it answers. I intend to listen to the rest of the series.

One of the questions I have is how to properly balance our alegience to God's kingdom with our hatred of injustice.

He no doubt lost some of his congregation after delivering this message, but I applaud him.

Think so? That would be unfortunate. Any time I get that uncomforatble feeling that someone is about to challenge long-held assumptions (as I got on listening to that first message), it interests me all the more.

Thanks for the link,
Perry