"Ground Zero mosque leader says gay people were abused as children"
-
You can not slag off muslims and expect your religion to be exempt from the same scrutiny, otherwise you are being hypocritical.
You have blinders on that will not let you see that christianity isn't all flowers and puppies. That is why no one can talk to you about topics like this.
-
I think anyone reading this with a neutral eye can see that I have not exempted Christianity from scrutiny. I've invited you to compare very specific situations with pointed questions and you've ignored most of them. I'm well aware that Christianity isn't just flowers and puppies.
I've specifically said lay the blame where it should be. I acknowledged the US had their own terrorists before you mentioned it. I know capitalism has some terrible excesses, I cited the books I"ve read thinking that would be enough, but apparently not. So here's an example: I know that the USA meddles in the affairs of other countries and our corporations do some terrible things like sell poor countries seeds that don't reproduce so they have to buy again from these corporations. But none of that is religiously motivated, it is just plain human greed. I've even agreed with you about the diminishing role of religion and I get accused of anger where there is none.
It is clear that in Christian societies people have much more freedom, especially women. This alone cannot be highlighted enough. The governments do not act on behalf of a Church or specifically for religious leaders. That is probably why the founders of the USA tried to separate Church & state. Most people would prefer to live in a western style democracy. You asked me to say which is better for Gays, Christianity or Islam? Well, if I remember correctly, a Muslim theocracy executed two young men by hanging last year for homosexual relations. Name a primarily Christian country where the government did the same.
I doubt if we'll discuss anything in the future so I could be nasty here or pious and wish you peace and I can't really do either one. It is just kind of sad and unfortunate that I've typed so much for you to ignore or twist and then try to lay all the blame at my feet.
-
I think anyone reading this with a neutral eye can see that I have not exempted Christianity from scrutiny. I've invited you to compare very specific situations with pointed questions and you've ignored most of them. I'm well aware that Christianity isn't just flowers and puppies.
YES, you have exempted christianity from scrutiny. You say that all/vast majority of muslims do evil things only because of their religion, then say that christians do evil things even though they happen to be christians.
You want to control the discusion so it suits your wants/needs. That's why you got upset because I refused to maintain your dictated topics.
I've specifically said lay the blame where it should be. I acknowledged the US had their own terrorists before you mentioned it. I know capitalism has some terrible excesses, I cited the books I"ve read thinking that would be enough, but apparently not. So here's an example: I know that the USA meddles in the affairs of other countries and our corporations do some terrible things like sell poor countries seeds that don't reproduce so they have to buy again from these corporations. But none of that is religiously motivated, it is just plain human greed. I've even agreed with you about the diminishing role of religion and I get accused of anger where there is none.
YES, you refuse to admit that GWB, Gods Army, Christian Identity and countless others have done evil things because of their religion. How about the IRA in the UK?! I wouldn't doubt if there are still white preachers still teaching that the mark of cain is talking about black people.
Capitalism can't use religion, however the people that are part of the capitalist system can and do use religion to justify their actions.
Christians, including the mormons, are funding hate against people they don't like, especially gays.
It is clear that in Christian societies people have much more freedom, especially women. This alone cannot be highlighted enough. The governments do not act on behalf of a Church or specifically for religious leaders. That is probably why the founders of the USA tried to separate Church & state. Most people would prefer to live in a western style democracy. You asked me to say which is better for Gays, Christianity or Islam? Well, if I remember correctly, a Muslim theocracy executed two young men by hanging last year for homosexual relations. Name a primarily Christian country where the government did the same.
Ever hear of the Southern Baptists?! They believe women should be bare foot, pregnant and in the kitchen, while being totally subservient to the men in her family. Sound a lot like the muslims you are complaining about.
Let's talk about gays. People, not just gays, are still being murdered simply because some asshole thinks they might be gay. Then when they go to trial, they get to use the "gay panic" defense {aka "Guardsman" or "Portsmouth" defence in the UK} and the jury either totally lets them off, despite there being no evidence to justify the "gay panic" defense or they get a light slap on the wrist. About 4 years ago, there was a case in Michigan where a guy murdered a gay man and used the "gay panic" defense. After the trial, and double jeopardy was applied, a couple of the jurors came forward and admitted that they let the guy off even though they didn't believe him, simply because the victim was gay. They both said because of their christian beliefs, they could never convict a person that killed a homosexual because they were doing what god wanted.
If we talk about black centric nations that wear their religion on their sleeves, it's much, much worse for gays. You seriously need to investigate christian black centric countries to truly understand how bad they are for gays. They use the bible to justify their evil treatment of gays. Jamaica is well known as being the world's most homphobic nation. Last year, a man paid some thugs to beat his ASSUMED gay son to death while he went to the local church and prayed the god wouldn't hate him for producing a gay son. The police did nothing about the murder, in fact, they condoned what the father did.
As I previously said, both the bible and the koran demand that gays be executed. Oddly, most scholars {believers and non believers} say the current bible is full of mistranslation, the vast majority of christians refuse to accept this and demand that everyone still hate gays.
No matter where you live, you can not turn on a TV without hearing several preachers spewing hate against gays, telling everyone how god hates us and that we must be destroyed. According to your own church doctrine, you are going to burn in hell for eternity.
I doubt if we'll discuss anything in the future so I could be nasty here or pious and wish you peace and I can't really do either one. It is just kind of sad and unfortunate that I've typed so much for you to ignore or twist and then try to lay all the blame at my feet.
If I "ignored" something, it was because you wouldn't properly respond to what I said, so I was trying to keep you on track.
-
Let's not forget that it was the christians that committed genocide against the muslims in Bosnia.
-
one alleged this link (which said it was Pew research) was bogus -so I went to to the actual Pew website…...
Pew is actually a great think-tank, they do a lot of fascinating stuff there.
Fancydude you say that youre not biased towards Christianity and I believe that you believe that to be true. And while its pretty well known that people don't always 'speak their minds', it is suspected that people don't always 'know their minds'. Finding out about those possible divisions can be kinda fun and completely fascinating…. so I was wondering if you might be interested in taking this test, its called an implicit association test, from Project Implicit which is out at Harvard (so you can be sure it's not some silly online test).
hxxps://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
if your interested in seeing how it works, and taking the test online, go to that website and click on "demonstration." It will then present a long list, go ahead and choose the one marked "Religion IAT". It asks some questions to get a baseline and then consists of reacting to words that appear on the screen. Theres actually a lot of IATs that help to reveal biases in people, it can be pretty interesting, and understanding those divergences between what we think we know and what we really know is what these researchers out at Harvard are trying to do. The demonstration tests are just that- demonstrations, with no data collected, except for the "featured" tests, which change weekly I believe.
-
hXXp://minnesotaindependent.com/58393/gop-linked-punk-rock-ministry-says-executing-gays-is-moral
Here's a US christian ministry that says executing gays is moral. Of course they are just saying what the bible {as currently written} says.
-
Spin - I don't think I ever said I was unbiased towards Christianity - being raised that way, and more or less still practicing (as in the love your neighbor stuff ; not the: I've committed mortal sin if I miss Mass here and there - or Gay sex!) - I don't know if that is even possible. I try to be objective about other religions. I've already said and demonstrated in the previous exchanges that Christianity isn't without its flaws. If I argued that as a practical matter, it is more forgiving and more compatible with democracy than often unyielding theocracies - for that I will not apologize. Where would you like to live- the USA (or most of Europe?) or Iraq? Esp. as a Gay male?
I did try to take the test and it got stuck and wouldn't move when I was identifying the "good" and "bad" words. Obviously I didn't get to the "interpretation" part since I didn't complete the modules, but I would have had a lot more faith in it if had asked my age & religion, location etc. AFTER it interpreted the raw test data! I may try it again after rebooting my computer. I would like to know, if there is a general way to answer this without prejudicing my taking the test: What does it prove to ask if I'm warm or cold about a specific religion? I know very little of actual practice of Buddhism nor do I know any Buddhists personally. I think this would be true in reverse for many of them. I live in a primarily Christian area of the USA although we are getting more Muslims all the time, though the language and cultural barriers prevent much interaction. I have tried to interact: I have offered all my Muslim neighbors home canned fruits and things, speak to their children, give them books (which they politely accept and say thankyou, + return the washed jars) but I have received nothing in return. Nor do the adults who can speak english initiate any conversations. However, I only just thought of this now, so as to the test itself I was trying to answer how I felt about the religion in general, not about specific individuals. My French teacher in high school mentioned that people in other countries think the streets are paved with gold in America, refugees romanticize about their country of origin since it was often a forceable relocation; "forgetting about the horrors" of what they left behind….I take all this into consideration when thinking about specific people. Also my Muslim neighbors are from Bangladesh and Pakistan as were the students in my ESL classes at the library. I found them extremely eager to learn and courteous. They would stand up everytime the teacher (me) entered the room! Thanks for the interesting information.
As to the Pew research - if you go back to where I first linked, (that Poll that was supposedly legit from Pew research posted at Investor's Business Daily) it seemed to be bogus. I wasn't suggesting for a minute that Pew research as an organization is bogus, just that particular poll. A commenter suggested that it was presented as Pew but actually wasn't. But then when I got into what I presume is actual data of what Muslims think about government, etc. on Pew Globals' site ; gender separation at work etc. I guess it might be legit after all. Am I expressing myself clearly?
-
somehow i think the religious talks get a bit out of hand nowadays.
-
but I would have had a lot more faith in it if had asked my age & religion, location etc. AFTER it interpreted the raw test data!
The reason why it asks you your opinions of different religions at the beginning (the hot & cold feeling questions) is to establish them before the test is taken, since the test itself could influence what opinions are offered (the observer-effect). Then it can compare and contrast the "you" as you see yourself with the "you" who responds to the word associations. ….After the test is finished i think it asks you what your religion is.
-
Spin - I don't think I ever said I was unbiased towards Christianity - being raised that way, and more or less still practicing (as in the love your neighbor stuff ; not the: I've committed mortal sin if I miss Mass here and there - or Gay sex!) - I don't know if that is even possible. I try to be objective about other religions. I've already said and demonstrated in the previous exchanges that Christianity isn't without its flaws. If I argued that as a practical matter, it is more forgiving and more compatible with democracy than often unyielding theocracies - for that I will not apologize.
Your religion is just as unyielding as any other. However, you admit you reject the parts of your religion you don't like, while defending your religion as being more yielding. You made your religion more yielding by the very fact that you cherry picked the bits you like, rather than staying faithful to your faith.
I can prove that any religion is the best on earth, once I reject the bits I don't like.
Face it, your holy text say that you must be executed and your church says you are going to burn in hell for eternity. You have made a mockery of the whole confession thing that as a catholic is part of the core of your religion by not being honest about your sins and still being actively gay.
-
Spin - it asks how you feel about this or that. Then demographics then the words. Which is why I made the comment I did about interpretation first then ask demographic questions!
-
Right on.
So was the score you got surprising? or was it just what you expected…
I took the weight IAT the other day and it told me I was moderately biased against large people....and i thought i had a good tolerance for the weight-challenged... heheh oh well ??? -
Spin - it locked up (is my DSL connection too slow maybe?) In my previous (long) post, I only asked you two questions - which each only require a one word response - any particular reason for no answer?
-
I apologize for overlooking your questions. Allow me to answer each one now:
Spin Where would you like to live- the USA (or most of Europe?) or Iraq? Esp. as a Gay male?
I would like to live in Varennes, a city outside of Paris.
I would like to know, if there is a general way to answer this without prejudicing my taking the test: What does it prove to ask if I'm warm or cold about a specific religion?
First, the difference between two types of attitudes: explicit and implicit.
Explicit attitudes and beliefs are ones that are directly expressed or publicly stated. For example, the question asking for your liking for particular religious groups before you take the IAT is an example of your explicit or consciously accessible attitude. The standard procedure for obtaining such direct expressions is to ask you to report or describe them.
An implicit attitude is not so straightforward. One example is a stereotype, which is a belief that members of a group generally possess some characteristic (for example, the belief that women are typically nurturing). An implicit stereotype is a stereotype that is powerful enough to operate without conscious control.Implicit and Explicit attitudes dont necessarily have to agree, in fact it is more often the case that they dont. There are two reasons why direct (explicit) and indirect (implicit) attitudes may not be the same. The simpler explanation is that a person may be unwilling to accurately report some attitude. For example, if a professor asks a student "Do you like soap operas?" a student who is fully aware of spending two hours each day watching soap operas may nevertheless say "no" because of being embarrassed (unwilling) to reveal this fondness.
The second explanation for explicit-implicit disagreement is that a person may be unable to accurately report an attitude. For example, if asked "Do you like Arabs?" many Americans will respond "yes" because they regard themselves as unprejudiced. However, an IAT may reveal that these same Americans have automatic negative associations toward Arabs. Americans who show such a response are unaware of their implicit negativity and are therefore unable to report it explicitly. The unwilling-unable distinction is like the difference between hiding something from others versus something being hidden from you. In order to see if the two "agree" You must compare the two.
The IAT does this by asking you to pair two concepts (e.g., christian and good, or islam and good). The more closely associated the two concepts are, the easier it is to respond to them as a single unit. So, if christian and good are strongly associated, it should be easier to respond faster when you are asked to give the same response (i.e. the 'E' or 'I' key) to these two. If Islam and good are not so strongly associated, it should be harder to respond fast when they are paired. This gives a measure of how strongly associated the two types of concepts are. The more associated, the more rapidly you should be able to respond.
Am I expressing myself clearly?
Your skills as an interlocutor could use some polishing. It is very possible that you, as I suspect, possess an automatic preference for Christian based mythology as opposed to Islam based mythology. I also suspect that you have absolutely no clue that you have that preference. Everyone has ways of being that are in some way not as "correct or fair" as we would like to think they are.That test is one practical way to remain alert to the existence of that preference, recognizing that it may intrude in conversations here in this forum. Identifying them is the key!! In that way you could decide to embark on consciously planned conversations here in the forums that would compensate for known unconscious preferences and beliefs. This would involve posting in ways that you would not naturally post– for example, pointing out morally repugnant items in the bible and condemning them first, instead of pointing out possible excuses first. Identifying effective mechanisms for managing and changing unwanted automatic preferences is a goal that I believe everyone either has, or should have, shouldn't they? The good news is that automatic preferences, automatic as they are, are also malleable.
:cool2:
-
Where would you like to live- the USA (or most of Europe?) or Iraq? Esp. as a Gay male?
Let's be fair about this and ask the question in a proper way.
As a gay man where would you rather live, Uganda (majority catholic) or Iraq (majority muslim)?
OR
As a gay man where would you rather live, Jamaica (mainly christian) or Turkey (mainly muslim)?
If you look, Turkey is very similar to the US in it's treatment of gays in virtually all aspects of life.
-
took the test, but i'm not quite sure about its accuracy because it becomes kind of a memory game. just my thoughts. no offense intended
-
Spin - I will have to re-read your entire answer- but just for now "am I expressing myself clearly" referred to Pew Research - (whether or not the link on Huffington Post to the Investors Business Daily was legit")since your very first reply was approximately "they are a reputable group and do some fascinating stuff" Email and live conversation for that matter can always be interpreted more than one way, unfortunately.
Modified after this:
I visited France, Italy and Switzerland many years ago and the people of France, the food, culture, history - it was wonderful. I can see why you would want to live there. Many of the people I went with were very obnoxious about making it known they were from the USA and got some probably deserved poor treatment, I was much quieter and most of the natives thought I was from England.
Okay, I pretty much understood implicit vs. explicit although I readily admit that I wouldn't have expressed it nearly as well as you - so I have no problem agreeing with "…skills as interlocutor could use some polishing." I'm kind of amused though when you say "... I suspect you have an automatic preference for Christian based mythology vs. Islam based mythology." First I don't see why it was necessary to add the word "mythology" so tell me why you did? Second I already said very explicitly I think Christianity allows for much greater freedoms for its citizens, generally. And most Christian countries are much more tolerant of non Christian religions than vice versa.
If this is not true, then we have to figure out what the truth is. Do we base that on our own experiences or what we read? Or both? Which sources are valid? Is what I read or experience invalid and what you read and experience valid? Or are research and opinion polls often invalid or don't tell the whole story? There are many complaints against the USA - I don't doubt for a minute that a great many are true. So why are people continuing to flock here instead of leave?
Which brings me to the test - I readily admit I know little of my Muslim neighbors. I know more about my ESL students but not enough to have "hot or cold" feelings about Islam. I do know I have treated both with the utmost respect and have been well liked enough to have been invited to student homes and functions, which no other teacher has been. My personal positions do not interfere with objective decisions. We voted on the call to prayer being broadcast - many people were against it - I voted to allow it. If the Church bells can ring, so can the Mosque broadcast the call to prayer. I will again take the test, but I don't think it is going to give me any major surprises!
-
I think i was relatively blessed to have gone to an international school here in the Philippines, where I encountered people of various religions. I would say that a lot of my classmates (probably due to their attendance to a foreign school) were a bit more open-minded about the whole religion thing. We even got invited to their celebrations
I was also exposed to various religions, and I haven't found any particular objection to worship/prayers, but i DO have objections to harming a fellow person. I don't think this is particularly true of any religion (except Buddhism) so I think I'm a bit more rational about things.
But wait… I've seen evidence of religion interfacing all other activities in Muslim life in the real world. The Muslim jewellers here will NEVER make a crucifix for anyone. Now I doubt we attach too much importance to not making crescent-shaped jewelry.
On the other hand, I've also seen an American get furious at a nepalese classmate because his bag had the reverse-swastika stitched on his bag (which was in no way the red and black one of the Nazi regime) because of what he felt was an affront to him. I told him that in Nepal, the symbol (which is the reverse of the german one) is actually the symbol of their god, or the sun. I'm not sure this is a good example to talk about, though.
-
I already said very explicitly I think Christianity allows for much greater freedoms for its citizens, generally. And most Christian countries are much more tolerant of non Christian religions than vice versa.
Religious moderation springs from the fact that even the least educated person among us simply knows more about certain matters than anyone did two thousand years ago—and much of this knowledge is incompatible with scripture. Having heard something about the medical discoveries of the last hundred years, most of us no longer equate disease with sin or demonic possession… while having learned about the known distances between objects in our universe, most of us find the idea that it was created six thousand years ago impossible to take seriously.
Such concessions to modernity do not suggest for even a moment that faith is compatible with reason, or that our religious institutions are open to new learning: rather, it is that the utility of ignoring (or "reinterpreting") certain articles of faith is now overwhelming. This modern view of Western religion is nothing of the sort.... the Western religions are "modern" through no choice of their own, because they know that anyone who looks up in the sky and sees that humans can fly inside of large metal machines called airplanes will have conceded that we have learned a few things about physics, geography, engineering, and medicine since the time of Moses.
You have to remember that Western religions are more modern and liberal not by choice; The barbaric and blood-soaked period of time when the Catholic Church held real and actual power over much of Europe 500 years ago, has today been sidelined by the neglect of a more well-informed and educated society. If anything it's our institutions of learning that deserve that credit, not the Vatican.
If this is not true, then we have to figure out what the truth is. Do we base that on our own experiences or what we read? Or both? Which sources are valid? Is what I read or experience invalid and what you read and experience valid? Or are research and opinion polls often invalid or don't tell the whole story? There are many complaints against the USA - I don't doubt for a minute that a great many are true. So why are people continuing to flock here instead of leave?
That is an excellent question… We believe most of what we believe about the world because others have told us so. Reliance upon the authority of experts, and upon the testimony of ordinary people, is the stuff of which worldviews are made. In fact, the more educated we become, the more our beliefs come to us at second hand.
How do you know that falling from a great height is hazardous to your health? Unless you have witnessed someone die in this way, you have adopted this belief on the authority of others. This is not a problem. Life is too short, and the world too complex, for any of us to go it alone. We are ever reliant on the intelligence and accuracy, if not he kindness, of strangers.
This does not suggest, however, that all forms of authority are valid; nor does it suggest that even the best authorities will always prove reliable. There are good arguments and bad ones, precise observations and imprecise ones; and each of us has to be the final judge of whether or not it is reasonable to adopt a given belief about the world.
:cool2:
-
Spin - I noticed you again didn't answer a question - you pick up the quote immediately after.
However, my first quote is speaking of now and is contrasting Christianity with other religions, some in particular are seeking to go backwards and not forwards. Speaking in generalities you advance the notion all religions are equally primitive which I say is demonstrably not true. There are of course, exceptions - name anything human besides death and taxes that is true all times and everywhere - that doesn't exist!
Very true disease is not equated with demonic posession and sin so much as previously due to medical science - strangely though western medicine is more and more acknowledging the link between mind and body - prayer and religion aid people in changing their consciousness! Do not think that I am dismissing your point. The Bible itself says nothing of how old the earth is, that is fundamentalists counting back the generations listed in the Bible and extrapolating the age of the earth. The Catholic Church for sure never made such a ridiculous claim. Which while we're at it, you advocate that I must condemn certain aspects of the Bible in order to post here, without offending? I've been respectful; that is all that should be required. Judging by the various posters, and society at large of which the people participating here have shown themselves to be well aware of alternate points of view, I see no reason why it is necessary for me to make both sides of an argument, only to acknowledge what is true and to ask questions. Which I've noticed by the way you ask no questions of me, you only dispense knowledge and most of the time ignore questions I ask you!
I happen to know a nun personally who made an improvement to rocket fuel and she also happens have taught organic chemistry for years so I don't know if I can accept your premise that religious institutions are not open to learning. True enough the movement of western religions toward modernity is not often by choice, but sometimes it is. However, other countries have the same technologies, same access to information. Why are some of their religious leaders pushing to go backwards? Which raises another very legitimate question - why did Democracy come out of a Christian background? Perhaps that compatibility I mentioned was symbiotic? The only other thing I would say is that governments now start the wars instead of the churches and kill millions of people. Is this any better or have we just exchanged one problem for another?
