| AspiringPhilosophe 11.08.2007 11:53 |
link Discuss. |
| wstüssyb 11.08.2007 12:02 |
Church and religion. The most fucked up aspect of Humankind. |
| its_a_hard_life 26994 11.08.2007 12:04 |
These things make me MAD. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 11.08.2007 12:58 |
First of all, if a gay member of my family passed on, the last thing I'd do is look to the church - whatever denomination it might be - to bring me closure. Gay = sin. It's nothing new. Why would the family think this man's life or soul would be respected by those people? Beyond that, I have to say I laughed at this comment - “Even though we could not condone that lifestyle, we went above and beyond for the family through many acts of love and kindness,” Above and beyond? Through many acts of love and kindness? Isn't that what the church is for? Isn't that what they're supposed to do? Offer love and kindness in times of need? Or is it that they went above and beyond in THIS case - this case of a dead GAY guy? Pathetic. And of course, it makes sense, doesn't it, that they'd block the guy's access to heaven through their blessed doors because of photos of him with men “engaging in clear affection, kissing and embracing.” I mean, really. What was this family thinking?! They should have instead supplied photos of the deceased in full military uniform - guns and grenades included. Now THAT would have gained him access. But affection? Pfffffft. I wish the family hadn't approached things this way. It just gave the church another outlet for its arrogance. To make the holier-than-thou folk think they matter at all is a mistake. Sadly, enough people have yet to realize what a manipulative joke the whole idea of a holy sendoff is. Separately, I think the circumstances under which this man died are so very sad. He underwent surgery to prepare him for a heart transplant and died of an infection from that surgery. Things like that shouldn't happen in today's world. Sadly, it happens more often than we know. R.I.P. Mr. Sinclair. Say hi to Freddie for us, will ya? ;-) |
| Janet 11.08.2007 13:12 |
Absolutely terrible. I wonder if the service would have taken place if for instance the "sin" would have been illegal drug overdose? Killed while driving drunk? Or being shot while committing a robbery? That poor family. edit* "Its not that we didn't love the family"???? Get real. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 11.08.2007 13:24 |
As usual, Janet and Magical...you take the words right out of my mouth. I liked that line as well. Yes, we did what we could out of kindness and love of humanity, but giving the guy a proper funeral is not an option because of something he had no control over? Pfft. I still see Catholics get funerals that commit suicide...supposedly one of the worst sins you can commit. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 11.08.2007 13:26 |
this is why i want to be carried by 6 buxom wrench's to the end of the pier and dumped over the side and fed to the mackeral or the basking shark cleverly disguised as a great white.if a priest gets anywhere near me when im dead im gonna come back and haunt however lets it happen. ive said it before and i'll say it again. "theres no place for religion in modern society" |
| -fatty- 2850 12.08.2007 05:24 |
My dad died recently and my older brother who organised the funeral said that in accordance with my dad's wishes it was to be a humorous service. I thought that was an excellent idea as my dad enjoyed a good laugh. After the funeral (which didn't contain one single joke) I went up to my brother and told him that although it was a lovely service, I wasn't exactly doubled up with laughter. He looked at me as though I was off my nut and said that funerals weren't supposed to be funny. "I thought you said it was going to be a humorous service" I said, to which he replied "I said it was going to be a humanist service you cloth eared twat." fatty. |
| Dan C. 12.08.2007 13:17 |
... |
| Ha-nah! 12.08.2007 15:25 |
hmmm concervative assholes. I hate it when people use "The God Band Aid" to jusify their prejudice. I also hate it when people come up with bullshit excuses instead of just accepting and loving people for who they are...and being gay isnt a lifestyle its a orientation...or so dr.phil says.=P |
| StormtrooperInStilettos 13.08.2007 21:06 |
And that is why I don't go to church! |
| deleted user 13.08.2007 21:16 |
Firstly, what's a nondenominational megachurch? Secondly, it's just another sad example of the believers being out of touch with their own beliefs...I don't think Jesus ever said "Love your neighbor as you love yourself...oops, you're gay! Nevermind." (I'm just saying. Don't get mad at me. :/ I'm the laziest Catholic ever.) "I like your Christ, but not your Christians." |
| Micrówave 14.08.2007 13:19 |
Okay, you all are attacking "The Church" and "religion". At least some of you read the words: "at the nondenominational High Point Church " So what religion or church are you attacking? Idiots have started their own churches for years and years now. Being in Texas, we've got some real doozies right here. You all remember Waco. Another story a few years ago... They were shutting down the adult bookstores and adult businesses in a certain section of Dallas. To avoid being closed up, one owner applied and received exemption from the State because he simply changed the definition of his business and called it a private church. If anything, we should be putting a stop to non-denominational churces and then tax the whole lot!!! Maybe if the gay Navy officer had joined a real church, he would've have gotten a proper burial. I'm not even in the Navy, but I'd take the burial at sea anyday. No mess to clean and everybody gets a nice cruise. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 14.08.2007 13:41 |
Micrówave wrote: So what religion or church are you attacking?Every single one - no exceptions. |
| Maz 14.08.2007 13:49 |
A nondenominational church simply means it has no direct ties to a larger organization. For a megachurch, that means that whatever funds and ministries the have, they control without others infringing upon them. For members, that means they join a church without any of the baggage of being labeled "Baptist" or "Presbyterian." The idea that a nondenominational church is non-Christian is misleading - most are as Christian as any other church; otherwise we would list them as "cults." |
| Micrówave 14.08.2007 13:55 |
Maz wrote: A nondenominational church simply means it has no direct ties to a larger organization. For a megachurch, that means that whatever funds and ministries the have, they control without others infringing upon them. For members, that means they join a church without any of the baggage of being labeled "Baptist" or "Presbyterian." The idea that a nondenominational church is non-Christian is misleading - most are as Christian as any other church; otherwise we would list them as "cults."Incorrect, sir. The Branch Davidians were christians, but we labled them a "cult" and then burned 'em out. magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Yep. Tax 'em. Hit 'em where it hurts.Micrówave wrote: So what religion or church are you attacking?Every single one - no exceptions. |
| Maz 14.08.2007 14:28 |
Misleading, ma'am. David Koresh broke away from mainstream Christian values, including the use of polygamy and sexual abuse, thus the label of "cult." To label Branch Davidians as the same as mainstream Christians is simply incorrect. The term "nondenominational megachurches" refers more to Ted Haggard or Joel Osteen churches - massive churches whose values reflect mainstream denominations yet who also adhere to no organizational or episcopal oversight like your local First Baptist Church of *insert town name here*. |
| PieterMC 14.08.2007 14:41 |
Maz wrote: Misleading, ma'am.:-D |
| AspiringPhilosophe 14.08.2007 15:15 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Micrówave wrote: So what religion or church are you attacking? Every single one - no exceptions. Yep. Tax 'em. Hit 'em where it hurts. Believe me, there are some churches that I definitely want to loose their tax exempt status, as they have forayed too far into the world of politics. However, taxing them means government recognition of churches. While this in and of itself is not a problem, there are various issues that would come up: 1) How do you define a church? 2) Would they be taxed based on a flat rate or number of members? 3) Would only "churches" be taxed? What about temples, synagogs, mosques and other forms of "Holy Ground"? 4) Could the government guarantee that it would tax all religious institutions fairly and not give preference to other ones? I don't know about you, but I don't trust the government as far as I can throw them, especially with something like the handling of money and fairness and equality....they've consistently proven themselves inept at the best, dismal at the worst. Not to mention the old issue of the "Separation of Church and State"...and before people crawl all over me, yes I KNOW it's not in the Constitution, and actually is an implied creation of a personal letter of Thomas Jefferson...no where is it guaranteed. But as many of you know, there are many laws that we have because they are "implied" in basis, as opposed to actually stated. This could safely be included in that number as Jefferson did say he thought it was a good idea and it is a written law that there should be freedom of religion; it doesn't take a great leap of logic to see that the Founding Fathers would have agreed that an incorporation of Church and State would lead to preferential treatment...and thereby violate the "Freedom of Religion" idea they saw as important enough to write down. But the issue here was the fact that this church used Christian values (they described themselves as Christians, so that's their judgment, not mine) to deny this man a memorial service because some ancient piece of literature said that he was evil for something that he couldn't control. Whether or not he was a member of this church is a moot point...remember that he's dead. Memorial services are for the FAMILY and FRIENDS, not for the dead person...they don't care. His family wanted a service to honor his memory, and they were turned down because of who he was....a negative value judgment if ever I saw one. I could get into the hypocrisies with that viewpoint, but I'm pretty sure it's been expressed before. |
| Micrówave 14.08.2007 15:21 |
Wow. Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. I simply meant tax any incoming funds. Doesn't matter how many people belong, it's the money channelling that is the problem. Make them accountable for every penny brought in and every donation paid out. And yes, Maz, that was funny. But more seriously to your point. The Catholic church just paid out a settlement for acts that were similar to your examples. Does that put them in the same boat as koresh now? Isn't a "Unity" church non-denominational? I went to one once were the "preacher" was also a prophet and had visions of the future. Felt like a cult to me. The only thing missing were funny robes for all to wear. Point is, I think it's unfair to attack religion and churches because of something that one "supposed" church did. I simply do not recognize it as such. I also think this is just another case where a certain interest group (you know who!) finds a platform against tyranny (religion & The Church), where it is really not that big of a deal. There's just as much blame to pass around here, the church, the mom, the sailor, etc. If you're an elementary school teacher and you just decide to come out, don't you think there's gonna be a little backlash? Or should Mom be allowed to display Junior's first orgy on his My-Life-In-Pictures memories? |
| AspiringPhilosophe 14.08.2007 15:29 |
Taxing still requires recognition...you can't tax something you don't recognize. Therein lies the problem. Though I know what you mean...I would LOVE to know where those donations disappear to, and what (if any) good they are doing. |
| Micrówave 14.08.2007 15:37 |
I have to pay taxes on every penny I earn. Not just my day job, but any contract work as well. There must be a way to make Brother Bob do the same thing. I've even done a few gigs that were for some kind of "benefit". When they paid us, that was a write-off. A pre-tax donation. While that may sound insensitive, everyone should have to play the game. Nice topic, by the way. A bit boring here lately. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 14.08.2007 15:49 |
Thanks...I thought the same thing about things here lately :-) The problem with tax laws is that the way they are set up, if you don't pay taxes, the government has to pretend you don't exist. This goes for all tax exempt organizations (churches, museums, libraries, archives, etc.) The reason they are tax exempt to begin with is that it was recognized that having a monetary tie to the government opened the way for more ties to be made, and if the government was supposed to be completely "hands off" these organizations they couldn't very well expect to take money from them...the money itself is a tie. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is. It's being overly cautious so that there can be NO accusations later of favoritism or anything like that. Of course this is a little out of my area when it comes to churches. I am far more familiar with museums, which are subject to the same kinds of laws in this matter, since I study them and am about to do a year in depth PolySci course in Public Administration. |
| Miss Multiples aka colfarrell1 14.08.2007 17:11 |
It makes me think about the Matthew Shepard case |
| Micrówave 14.08.2007 17:39 |
**screeching tires** WHAT???? |
| Miss Multiples aka colfarrell1 14.08.2007 18:38 |
here's the sad story of Matthew Shepard link |
| Maz 14.08.2007 18:55 |
Micrówave wrote: The Catholic church just paid out a settlement for acts that were similar to your examples. Does that put them in the same boat as koresh now?The difference is that the Catholic Church does not advocate that as a part of their doctrine, unlike Koresh and his multiple wives. Thus, the difference. Micrówave wrote: Isn't a "Unity" church non-denominational? I went to one once were the "preacher" was also a prophet and had visions of the future. Felt like a cult to me. The only thing missing were funny robes for all to wear.Not familiar with a "Unity" church as any sort of organized movement. I assumed that many were interdependent of one another and their name was a reflection of individual congregations and common bonds shared by them. All I can say to that example is that Christianity is often full of "charismatic" preachers who claim a higher connection to God than normal people. Where we draw the line between preacher and Jim Jones often depends on perspective. Micrówave wrote: Point is, I think it's unfair to attack religion and churches because of something that one "supposed" church did.I agree. Too easy to paint a broad picture based on one example. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 14.08.2007 19:10 |
Maz wrote:There are many examples of things churches - "supposed" or otherwise - have done that make them worthy of (verbal) attack. Add one more example to the mix, and critizing churches and religion in general isn't so hard to do nor difficult to support.Micrówave wrote: Point is, I think it's unfair to attack religion and churches because of something that one "supposed" church did.I agree. Too easy to paint a broad picture based on one example. |
| user name 14.08.2007 21:05 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Not to criticize your point, but just to give a different perspective:Maz wrote:There are many examples of things churches - "supposed" or otherwise - have done that make them worthy of (verbal) attack. Add one more example to the mix, and critizing churches and religion in general isn't so hard to do nor difficult to support.Micrówave wrote: Point is, I think it's unfair to attack religion and churches because of something that one "supposed" church did.I agree. Too easy to paint a broad picture based on one example. Reclusive people are the most likely to commit serial murders and shootings. African Americans are statistically known to be more prone to committing violent crimes. In the past, postal workers in the United States have been known to be the most prone to workplace rage. Should we also stereotype and criticize individuals in these groups, or even the groups as a whole, for their generalized actions? |
| AspiringPhilosophe 14.08.2007 21:47 |
Micrówave wrote: **screeching tires** WHAT????I was wondering that myself, Microwave. I believe we are all familiar with the Matthew Shephard case...but I don't see the relevance to what we were discussing. Kind of came out of no where, didn't it? |
| Maz 14.08.2007 23:22 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:And there are also plenty of examples of churches supporting both gays and gay rights, but it's easier to focus on the negative than the positive.magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Not to criticize your point, but just to give a different perspective: Reclusive people are the most likely to commit serial murders and shootings. African Americans are statistically known to be more prone to committing violent crimes. In the past, postal workers in the United States have been known to be the most prone to workplace rage. Should we also stereotype and criticize individuals in these groups, or even the groups as a whole, for their generalized actions?Maz wrote:There are many examples of things churches - "supposed" or otherwise - have done that make them worthy of (verbal) attack. Add one more example to the mix, and critizing churches and religion in general isn't so hard to do nor difficult to support.Micrówave wrote: Point is, I think it's unfair to attack religion and churches because of something that one "supposed" church did.I agree. Too easy to paint a broad picture based on one example. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 14.08.2007 23:36 |
Maz wrote: And there are also plenty of examples of churches supporting both gays and gay rights, but it's easier to focus on the negative than the positive.It's not that it's easier to focus on the negative rather than the positive. It's that for many - myself obviously included - there's so much more negative than positive to focus on. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 14.08.2007 23:38 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Not to criticize your point, but just to give a different perspective: Reclusive people are the most likely to commit serial murders and shootings. African Americans are statistically known to be more prone to committing violent crimes. In the past, postal workers in the United States have been known to be the most prone to workplace rage. Should we also stereotype and criticize individuals in these groups, or even the groups as a whole, for their generalized actions?Actually... Would it be so bad if we did? Each group you mention fits a certain profile, and each should be looked at individually for cause. What are the links in each chain that create these situations and how can they be broken? Why should so many people suffer for so long before something is done to solve/resolve the issues? Why not ‘stereotype’ or categorize them to learn what it is that feeds them rather than talk about them when they make the news then forget about them when the next big story comes along? As to religion – a big story that’s been around for a very long time – I'm sorry to say that despite the number of faithful worldwide, it is, IMO - more than anything - the root of all evil. Religion gives people 'the right' to do certain things because those things are done either in the name of god or under the protection of the church - and by 'church', I don't mean only the christian church. I mean all organized religious institutions. So to answer your question - "Should we also stereotype and criticize individuals in these groups, or even the groups as a whole, for their generalized actions?" Perhaps we shouldn't stereotype and criticize as much as take an honest and politically INcorrect look at them so that solutions might be found. Instead, we just shake our heads and turn to the next piece of news, thereby accepting the status quo. You tell me - which is worse? |
| user name 15.08.2007 00:23 |
Good point. The political correctness of the media, society, and public opinion has been seriously detrimental to progress and rational, objective thought. On the other hand, is it fair? All stereotypes are derived from some truth, regardless of proximity. However, as individuals, people never match all (if any) of their stereotypes. Perhaps, in an objective manner, stereotyping and trends should be analyzed. However, the public must realize this and must recognize objectivism from hate. It's unfortunate that the public is so pathetically stupid... Remember the Harvard President who was chastised for suggesting inherent differences in the mental workings of men and women? Oy vey. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 15.08.2007 07:46 |
I have to say Magical and MusicMan's opinions on political correctness is something that I agree with. Society in general has become FAR too over-reactive and spazztic about things. That fear of not offending anyone leads to political correctness. Well, guess what? There will NEVER be a way that you will offend no one...someone is bound to get offended by anything, and tip toeing around to try and avoid that could only lead to harm. I'm not saying you have to be an a**hole to everyone you meet, but sometimes honesty is the best policy. Some truths are also unpleasant to deal with, but they are still truths. The truth is that African Americans are statistically more likely to commit crimes. That's not pretty, politically correct and yes I admit it's ugly...but it's also the truth. Rather than trying to pretend it's not, the problem could be fixed by admitting the truth of the previous statement and finding out, like Magical said, what causes it and how it can be fixed. It's also true that the more devote the person to a form of religion, the more exclusive they become. I don't think people are naturally exclusive creatures...after all humans for millenia have be programed to stick together to survive. So the best way to be able to mentally adjust to excluding people is to place them in an inferior position to you...something religion does awfully well. "This person is inferior because they do not worship the same way you do. This person is inferior because they are gay. This person is inferior because they do not wear a head scarf." It's not a far step from that to "This person is inferior because they don't have blue eyes and blond hair..." and we all remember where that led. We are all individuals, that much is true. And it should be kept in mind that individuals can be different from the majority, and this is often the case. But the majority is called the majority for a reason, and the easiest way to solve any problem or injustice is to address the cause on a macro scale, before moving to the individual cases. Because organized religion is defined by exclusivity, that needs to be addressed as the problem. And people who are members of an organized religion and manage to remain inclusive need to understand that the issue is not with them and NOT get so worked up about it. Change is never easy in a society, in fact quite often it is painful. But the events which have caused the greatest pain are often the catalyst for the greatest good. |
| Nathan 15.08.2007 08:15 |
And the point of this thread is...? I find it highly amusing that whenever something controversial about the church pops up, you are buzzing all over it like angry hornets, when stories like these link link receive little to no attention from you at all. I believe we should be up in arms about shocking, diabolical crimes such as these than whenever the church gets into a flap about homosexuality. Oh, and wstussy, I somehow think that these, especially the first, are slightly more "fucked up" as you put it than the church. Humankind is far worse than you imagine it to be. About the second link in particular, society is rapidly crumbling all around us with thugs and yob gangs roaming free all over the place and good, honest citizens are becoming more and more powerless to intervene. If you see a group of teenagers drawing graffiti on some landmark, you daren't say anything in case they are carrying weapons. Don't you think we should be more concerned about topics like this, rather than the fight between the church and homosexuality? |
| AspiringPhilosophe 15.08.2007 10:25 |
^^ I was aware of both of these stories, thank you very much, and would like to respond to the implied accusations you are making with your response. None of us here have ever said that Humankind is great...most of us here are smart enough to know that is not the case. There will ALWAYS be bad people...people who stab babies in apartments, people who kill people who are trying to stop you from vandalizing their property. These are manifestations of major societal shifts, and not only have they always been present, they will always be present. Remember what I said before about change? The difference here is that, while it is deplorable what happened in these cases, these were random acts of violence that could not have been predicted or prevented. Random acts of violence will always occur as long as humans exist, and other than limiting the damage to the extent you can, you will never solve the problem. The point of the thread is of a completely different type. Random acts of violence are random...I'm sure the teens in the vandalism case didn't wake up and think "I'm going to vandalize a car today and when someone tries to stop me I'm going to kill them!" Even if they planned on vandalizing the car, they probably didn't plan on getting caught doing it or killing the person that caught them...one can never plan for all possible events. The point of this thread is to demonstrate how an extremely powerful and influential force in human society is making it acceptable to its members to hold a view point that makes it acceptable for them to be discriminatory and potentially violent against fellow humans. White supremecists burning black churches isn't random...it's planned. A group of people beating a gay person to death isn't random...it's planned. People don't plan to do things like that unless someone is telling them it's O.K.; unless someone tells them that their action is justified in some way. That is the point of this thread. A very influential aspect of society is telling people it is O.K. to hate others. Rather than try to stop random acts of violence that can't be stopped or prevented in all cases, it makes more sense to me to try and change, and have an effect on, aspects of society where you CAN have an impact. |
| user name 15.08.2007 16:08 |
Another random point: Something that is frequently ignored is that the situation for homosexuals is constantly improving - both within and without organized religions. The situation still needs to change, but it is effectively changing. It's certainly not getting worse, so the outlook is entirely positive. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 15.08.2007 16:36 |
^^ I agree, MusicMan. The situation is much better than it was even ten years ago. But it does have a long way to go, as evidenced by this group. |