Do they really want (or care) religions to have religoius leaders that are actively engaged in a willful sinning lifestyle (whether it be adultry, child molestation, polygamy, homosexuality, etc) in opposition to aht the religous texts teaches?
If that situation occurs, are people saying that there won’t be ridicule towards religion?
Looking at that, someone will say “some pastors committ adultry” so why aren’t gays allowed to be priests/pastors? … as if the solution that that situations is to remove the law/rule instead of removing the offending pastors. Bad thing A is not “okay” just because someone in a similar position does “bad thing B”.
It’s amazing how pre-occupies non-religoius pepole seem to be with religion. Oh yeah, I forgot … it’s because religoius folks are always trying to ush their religous views on everyone (by gasp voicing an opinion).
Well, being that the catholic church considers being gay a sin, it only makes logical sense. Your statement reads like: The KKK has banned black people from becoming grand wizards!
Next time please come up with something more controversial and not so easily shut down.
It seems, that now, and throughout history … people get very upset with religious people/groups that are firm in their beliefs and live their lives according to their beliefs. Yet, most, if not all, have very little problems with “religious” people that have beliefs, yet live their lives just like everyone else.
What do non-religous people expect from religious people? To live as though they don’t have firm beliefs? To adopt the non-religous viewpoint as the religoius viewpoint?
Non-religious folks complain when religious people live by their guidelines … AND when they don’t. I don’t get it. Why do they care so much?
Everyone seems so much more concerned with how everyone else is living their lives than how they ar eliving their own. What gives?
Well, people like mop and a few others start out with an unproven assumption to make the point of their arguments, generally. In this case, it’s that the church is automatically to be considered bigoted because it disapproves of homosexuality and also prohibits homosexuals from becoming priests. I fail to see how a determination of bigotry (at least, in the way in which most reasonable people think of classical bigotry) can apply to disapproval of a voluntary lifestyle choice which not only most religions formally disapprove of but which the majority of society at least frowns upon, all things being equal.
RE: So, what is it that non-religious people want?
Please enlighten me, how do you define a religious person? Is it a person that believes and practices everything their ministers/preists/rabbis tell them too or do they get to pick and choose what to believe? If you say you are a catholic does that make you religious as opposed to the person that believes in a higher power but not organized religion? Or does simply believing in a higher power make you religious according to your views? Where do you draw the line?
I think being religious is just that…being religious. However, if you choose to freely associate yourself with a specific church or religion, I think it’d be incumbent upon you to at least acknowledge that you’d want to try to adhere to its tenets or dogma or whatever you’d like to call its rules of order.
The church also discriminates in its leaders by (likely) not hiring those with self-confessed willful adulturous lifestyles, those with multiple spouses, those with drug and gambling habits, those that molest children, etc.
The church discriminates against those “potential leaders” that do not practice and embody what the church teaches. Gasp
The problem is that homosexuals want to be both practicing homosexual, and a church leader. The situation is no different than the church discriminating against a potential leader that wanted to lead a willingly sinful life (I’m sure we can come up with many examples), and be a church leader … simultaneously.
I don’t see the big deal here.
I find it interesting that so many use the far extreme religious example to generalize about all religious people and, furthermore, start countless threads bashing those groups. Yet, they don’t seem to do the same with other races, genders, lifestyle groups. Why is that? why is it seemingly okay to do it in one instance, but not others?
In terms of judging whether someone is “going to heaven or hell” … I don’t. Not my job.
Please enlighten me
That’s not my goal, but I will share my opinion.
To give my definition of religious … “One who believes in a specific higher power, and lives according to the will of that higher power”, as oppossed to say “The Church of Baseball” or “The Religion of Football”.
I don’t know that believing in a “higher power” makes one religous, but maybe more like a “spiritual” person. Being a “religious” person, to me, entails participation in the traditions, beliefs, lifestyle, etc of the religion you follow.
IMO, it is not what a person believes or claims that makes them a religious person", but what a person DOES that sets them apart.
It almost seems to me that “religion” is “putting belief into practice”. That’s how I view it.
I find it interesting that so many use the far extreme religious example to generalize about all religious people and, furthermore, start countless threads bashing those groups. Yet, they don’t seem to do the same with other races, genders, lifestyle groups. Why is that? why is it seemingly okay to do it in one instance, but not others?
I think it is because the extreme religious groups, as they feel it is their duty, condemn the lifestyles, beliefs and practices of so many others. This invites criticism (or retaliation, as some may see it) where other groups (races, genders) mostly only ask for equal treatment. The generalization may be unfair - likening all religious minded people to idealogues like Pat Robertson and Bob Jones - but it happens on all sides, where the most extreme viewpoint is attributed to the majority. Democrats = Ted Kennedy, Republicans = Trent Lott, Liberal STers = mopdahl, Conservative STers = record10carbon.
They also ban Buddhists, Hindus, Shinto, Atheists, Pagans, and Witches/Wicca from becoming priests. It seems to me that they should get to set their own requirements WRT who they allow to lead their flock.
I personally don’t have a dog in this fight, and the requirements for becoming a priest in the RCC are completely outside the realm in which I live. It doesn’t effect my life in any way whatsoever. I really don’t care who the RCC lets be a priest. Why do you?
I think it is because the extreme religious groups, as they feel it is their duty, condemn the lifestyles, beliefs and practices of so many others.
And non-believers don’t do that?
The problem isn’t that religious groups feel it is their duty to condemn the lifestyles, beliefs, and practices of others. The problem is that you disagree with most religious groups about which lifestyles, beliefs, and practices should be condemned.
Some do, but not as consistantly and effectively as the radical religious right. Non believers don’t gather every sunday and reaffirm our commitment to erradicate christianity, as many of the above mentioned do to erradicate secularism.
Some do, but not as consistantly and effectively as the radical religious right.
Fair enough. But, really, are there any ST members here that would fit into the “radical religious right” so that we have to hear the same accusations about religion all the time?
Does anyone think it’s fair to lecture a black guy about how bad he is b/c is also black? Do I really want to hear about how bad white people are b/c John Wayne Gasey was white?
There are bad and/or misguided folks in every group … to varying degrees. At some point, the extreme has to stop being the figurehead for the entire group.
The problem isn’t that religious groups feel it is their duty to condemn the lifestyles, beliefs, and practices of others. The problem is that you disagree with most religious groups about which lifestyles, beliefs, and practices should be condemned.
The former would be an attack on other who do not adhere to their world view, while the latter is a passive viewpoint. How is that the problem?
Non believers don’t gather every sunday and reaffirm our commitment to erradicate christianity
lol! No, not on Sundays, I guess.
But that wasn’t my point, that it’s a war between Christians and non-Christians, each side engaging in mutual condemnations.
My point is that non-believers condemn plenty of lifestyles and beliefs. You condemn racism, don’t you? You condemn incest, don’t you? Etc and so on. It’s not the fact that religious groups condemn certain beliefs and behaviors, it’s that they condemn certain beliefs that you don’t think should be condemned.
One of the differences between the two groups is that people who don’t believe in something may only have the lack of a belief in something as their only common entity. They may completely disagree on everything else. I don’t think that you can use the lack of a belief in something to effectively organize people.
If I may have a little poetic license, I suspect that you and Michael Moore would disagree on nearly everything (at least enough to make that true under the poetic licence that I’m exercising). But I suspect that you share a lack of belief in carnivorous dust bunnies that live under your bed.
To then extrapolate that to say that non-believers (in carnivorous under-bed dwelling dust bunnys) think that President Bush is evil lumps you into a place that you may not belong.
You’re absolutely right. The people that constantly berate the other side for intolerance stray into that category themselves. I tolerate left wing nuts about as well as right wing nuts, which is to say, not well at all. People that “know” there is no god deserve the same creedence as those who “know” that there is one.
You make a good point, however it’s the specific groups that are being condemned that people take issue with (obviously). Why doesn’t the church condemn divorcees with the same veracity that it (some) condemns homosexuality? Why does it not condemn those who eat unclean flesh or wear certain fibers of clothing, as it says in Leviticus? It’s a matter of prejudice, not adherence to biblical instruction. It is the prejudice that people take issue with. Prejudice disguised as righteousness.
If you know your scripture the bible talks about homosexuality very little (less than 5 times, I believe), and it talks of helping the poor more times than you can count. Is there the fervency to erradicate poverty on the far right that there is in saving the world from homosexual influence? Again, prejudice disguised as righteousness.