Aside from all the stuff you say in the Apostles or Nicene Creeds, it seems to me that a central doctrine of Christianity is that Jesus Christ "came to earth to teach about love and fellowship. He represents the person that all Christians must strive to be."
That's simple enough, and as long as out leave out the Son of God stuff, and don't pick too much at some of the things the Bible says he did and said, I think a lot of people can get behind the ideas of love and fellowship and striving to be a better person.
I understand the concept that religious charities can choose who they want to fund or help based on their beliefs; it's their money. I just don't think that excluding certain groups or people who need help, based soley on their beliefs or lack thereof, is very nice. Nor do I think it's charitable, altruistic, unselfish, or any kind of social justice. I also don't think that people who are seeking aid should be witnessed to. It's just not very helpful.
I think that trying to help without expectation of saving souls or gaining new followers or indoctrinating in any manner is probably a better way to go about it. I don't think that any charity is really selfless; we all get something out of helping others, whether it's just that warm feeling of self-satisfaction. It just seems to me that certain groups are putting their beliefs above their stated ideals, and it's unfortunate, especially when there are so many more people who need help. It's like charity blackmail: "We'll withhold your funding if you do/support/believe X."
This is what is happening in Washington, D.C., where the Catholic Archdiocese says that they will be "unable to continue service programs" if the District adopts a same-sex marriage law. This is what is happening with the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, which is only in favor of their version of which poor people are deserving. This is what is happing with the American Legion in Bloomington, Minnesota, which was asked not to include a prayer in their Veteran's Day program in the public schools. They said that if they can't do the prayer, they will hold back their 25-30 thousand dollars worth of scholarships.
Using your religious beliefs to justify holding disenfranchised people hostage is disgusting behavior.
Heck, it's even bad PR.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Friday, November 20, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Reprehensible, Religious, Repugnant
The Question of the Day for our public radio station was "What should the US do to promote religious tolerance at home." This is of course in response to the recent, apparently religiously motivated, shooting at Fort Hood. I thought that the question quite missed the point, but I was pleasantly surprised to note that most of the answers did not.
I wrote that religion enjoys an abundance of tolerance in the United States of America, to the point where it has become exempt from critical discussion and responsibility. Furthermore, tolerance between religions is fundamentally impossible as long as each declares itself to be the one true faith. And, if religious individuals want to make arguments based on faith, those arguments need to be subject to the same critical thinking and scrutiny as all arguments.
(I would add that this is especially true when those religious people are using religious arguments to influence public policy.)
Then today, on another blog, I read an exchange by two believers regarding lying: whether it was ever, ever OK to lie. The example used by the questioner was Nazi soldiers knocking on your door, looking for Jewish citizens, and you know where they are. The questioner thought this was clearly a time when you could, and probably should, lie.
Oh no no no no no.
Lying is 100% wrong, all the time, no matter the circumstances, according to the answer. He uses scripture to prove this, citing, among other things that the devil is the father of all lies. Lying to protect the lives of those Jewish people in hiding would be wrong wrong wrong because we are all sinners and are going to die sometime, anyway; how could we know what would really happen if we lied?; and... well, I'll let him sum up:
"Consider this carefully. In the situation of a Nazi beating on the door, we have assumed a lie would save a life, but really we don’t know. So, one would be opting to lie and disobey God without the certainty of saving a life—keeping in mind that all are ultimately condemned to die physically. Besides, whether one lied or not may not have stopped the Nazi solders from searching the house anyway."
Am I really supposed to tolerate this sort of reasoning?
Really?
I wrote that religion enjoys an abundance of tolerance in the United States of America, to the point where it has become exempt from critical discussion and responsibility. Furthermore, tolerance between religions is fundamentally impossible as long as each declares itself to be the one true faith. And, if religious individuals want to make arguments based on faith, those arguments need to be subject to the same critical thinking and scrutiny as all arguments.
(I would add that this is especially true when those religious people are using religious arguments to influence public policy.)
Then today, on another blog, I read an exchange by two believers regarding lying: whether it was ever, ever OK to lie. The example used by the questioner was Nazi soldiers knocking on your door, looking for Jewish citizens, and you know where they are. The questioner thought this was clearly a time when you could, and probably should, lie.
Oh no no no no no.
Lying is 100% wrong, all the time, no matter the circumstances, according to the answer. He uses scripture to prove this, citing, among other things that the devil is the father of all lies. Lying to protect the lives of those Jewish people in hiding would be wrong wrong wrong because we are all sinners and are going to die sometime, anyway; how could we know what would really happen if we lied?; and... well, I'll let him sum up:
"Consider this carefully. In the situation of a Nazi beating on the door, we have assumed a lie would save a life, but really we don’t know. So, one would be opting to lie and disobey God without the certainty of saving a life—keeping in mind that all are ultimately condemned to die physically. Besides, whether one lied or not may not have stopped the Nazi solders from searching the house anyway."
Am I really supposed to tolerate this sort of reasoning?
Really?
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Go Forth, and Be Gay
I am helping out with our professional blog at the office now that I am back at work, so I have set up a few Google news searches that are emailed to me on a daily basis. Little did I know that I would be overwhelmed with material for my own ranting and raving. One of my terms is "advocacy," and one of my news headlines was this:
"Parents urged to pull children from school on homosexual-advocacy day"
First I made a little face, then I looked at the location, and I thought "I sincerely doubt that Phoenix, or anyone, for that matter, is having a 'homosexual advocacy day.'" What does the even mean? Is the advocacy itself homosexual? If so, are we supposed to drag out our gay behavioral stereotypes and advocate for something while wearing a feather boa and lisping? Or while being erudite in a coffee shop?
But of course not.
"Homosexual Advocacy Day" is actually a "Day of Silence," (April 17th), a national event sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. It aims to "bring attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying, and harassment in schools." Furthermore, the mission of the GLSEN is "to assure that each member of every school community is valued and respected regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression."
Assholes.
Basically, Christian parents are being urged to keep their kids home from school on this day. Their reasoning is pretty simple: "According to the national coalition challenging the protest, the implicit purpose of Day of Silence is to undermine the belief that homosexuality is immoral."
OH NO!!
They believe that events such as the "Day of Silence" are public schools actually promoting homosexuality and teaching kids to be gay, rather than creating a welcoming environment for all kids. And you can't argue with them because they are beginning with a false premise: that you can teach or un-teach homosexuality.
Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute is quoted as saying, “While it is appropriate to teach students that tolerance requires that society should treat all with civility, it is not appropriate to teach that tolerance requires students to accept the view that homosexual conduct is moral.”
She should get out her dictionary.
I am not really a fan of the word "tolerance," anyway. Her use of the word "civility" is encouraging, though she kind of destroys it with the second part of her sentence.
It's like saying, "You look nice today. You are going to burn in hell."
Again, it's all part of the delusional "War on Christianity" in which many people feel they are God's Soldiers. Having a day when people are encouraged not to bully and name call is actually censoring Christian students. They don't seem to understand that a "Day if Silence" is not going to turn their straight child gay (sing with me now "Don't it turn my straight child, don't it turn my straight child, don't it turn my straight child gaaaaaaay!" Man. I am old.), but it may help them to understand their peers who are in the GLBT community and get them out of their sheltered bubble.
But that's probably the real problem here.
And you know what? There are private schools for that.
"Parents urged to pull children from school on homosexual-advocacy day"
First I made a little face, then I looked at the location, and I thought "I sincerely doubt that Phoenix, or anyone, for that matter, is having a 'homosexual advocacy day.'" What does the even mean? Is the advocacy itself homosexual? If so, are we supposed to drag out our gay behavioral stereotypes and advocate for something while wearing a feather boa and lisping? Or while being erudite in a coffee shop?
But of course not.
"Homosexual Advocacy Day" is actually a "Day of Silence," (April 17th), a national event sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. It aims to "bring attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying, and harassment in schools." Furthermore, the mission of the GLSEN is "to assure that each member of every school community is valued and respected regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression."
Assholes.
Basically, Christian parents are being urged to keep their kids home from school on this day. Their reasoning is pretty simple: "According to the national coalition challenging the protest, the implicit purpose of Day of Silence is to undermine the belief that homosexuality is immoral."
OH NO!!
They believe that events such as the "Day of Silence" are public schools actually promoting homosexuality and teaching kids to be gay, rather than creating a welcoming environment for all kids. And you can't argue with them because they are beginning with a false premise: that you can teach or un-teach homosexuality.
Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute is quoted as saying, “While it is appropriate to teach students that tolerance requires that society should treat all with civility, it is not appropriate to teach that tolerance requires students to accept the view that homosexual conduct is moral.”
She should get out her dictionary.
I am not really a fan of the word "tolerance," anyway. Her use of the word "civility" is encouraging, though she kind of destroys it with the second part of her sentence.
It's like saying, "You look nice today. You are going to burn in hell."
Again, it's all part of the delusional "War on Christianity" in which many people feel they are God's Soldiers. Having a day when people are encouraged not to bully and name call is actually censoring Christian students. They don't seem to understand that a "Day if Silence" is not going to turn their straight child gay (sing with me now "Don't it turn my straight child, don't it turn my straight child, don't it turn my straight child gaaaaaaay!" Man. I am old.), but it may help them to understand their peers who are in the GLBT community and get them out of their sheltered bubble.
But that's probably the real problem here.
And you know what? There are private schools for that.
"To Buy is to Give"
Lose weight while sitting on your ass on the couch!
Make money while sitting on your ass on the couch!
Look younger by wearing this creme while sitting on your ass on the couch!
And now, help the less fortunate by...
SHOPPING!
Yes, the answer to September 11 was: Shop! The answer to the economic crisis is: Shop! And now, we can fight terrorism, recession, AND poverty by: SHOPPING!
Governor Mike Huckabee and The Christian Baldwin are spreading the good news about the Christian Values Network. You sign up, shop through their website, use their credit card, and route money to the cause of your choice. Or, rather, the Christian Cause of Your Choice. A percentage of every Christian Purchase goes to CVN, and CVN gives 50% of that revenue to your designated organization, which must be a registered nonprofit Christian ministry, church or charity.
A quick scan of the website does not tell me what the Christian Values are, which I think would be helpful.
To be fair, which I know is not popular, this is not the only site of its kind. Other groups are raising money in this way, and it's all of the "do nothing and do something" kind of mentality, and I suppose that in some way, it does make sense. You are already going to shop, so why not give something while you do it? After all, I have a cell phone company that gives to progressive causes.
I guess it's the whole mentality that gets to me a little bit. If they really want to help, then any designated nonprofit should be eligible. Otherwise, it's really about expanding the flock, isn't it?
Make money while sitting on your ass on the couch!
Look younger by wearing this creme while sitting on your ass on the couch!
And now, help the less fortunate by...
SHOPPING!
Yes, the answer to September 11 was: Shop! The answer to the economic crisis is: Shop! And now, we can fight terrorism, recession, AND poverty by: SHOPPING!
Governor Mike Huckabee and The Christian Baldwin are spreading the good news about the Christian Values Network. You sign up, shop through their website, use their credit card, and route money to the cause of your choice. Or, rather, the Christian Cause of Your Choice. A percentage of every Christian Purchase goes to CVN, and CVN gives 50% of that revenue to your designated organization, which must be a registered nonprofit Christian ministry, church or charity.
A quick scan of the website does not tell me what the Christian Values are, which I think would be helpful.
To be fair, which I know is not popular, this is not the only site of its kind. Other groups are raising money in this way, and it's all of the "do nothing and do something" kind of mentality, and I suppose that in some way, it does make sense. You are already going to shop, so why not give something while you do it? After all, I have a cell phone company that gives to progressive causes.
I guess it's the whole mentality that gets to me a little bit. If they really want to help, then any designated nonprofit should be eligible. Otherwise, it's really about expanding the flock, isn't it?
Monday, March 9, 2009
No blasphemy for me, thanks. I had sacrilege for lunch.
The United Nations wants to make its anti-blasphemy resolution binding on member countries.
That's right! No more free speech, brought to you by an organization acting outside its charter and 57 Muslim countries worried about their god's popularity rating at the international prom.
Can't god just go on hotornot.com like other insecure individuals looking for approval?
Am I alone in finding the concept of blasphemy to be amusing? What kind of all-powerful god cannot stand up to a little healthy criticism? What kind of god needs to go running to daddy when some kid drawing doodles in Scandinavia calls him fat?
Seriously. I don't think Zeus asked to have any laws passed to keep people from talking about how he was a slut behind his back: it's lightning bolt in yer butt, and you are a smoking stain on the road. Thor running to parliament? Nope. Forehead, meet mighty hammer.
Is Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah really so impotent that he can't take care of his own business?
No god of mine would be calling up its legislator if someone called its mother a hamster. There would be divine retribution of a spectacularly interesting kind. Yeah, the kind of retribution where god laughs off the words of puny mortals because, hey, I'm god.
I kid, but it's serious business. Not blasphemy, unless you are on the wrong side of one of these no-blasphemy laws and are killed by your own government for calling Allah a ninny, but this anti-blasphemy resolution. Serious business. I find it the height of irony that the very countries asking for protection for their religion are the countries that deal with blasphemers in the most medieval of ways. This is also the religion whose followers are the first to leap to violence whenever an off color cartoon is printed, as Mr. Hitchens recently pointed out on CNN.
The "Combating Defamation of Religions" resolution is supposedly meant to prevent violence against the religious, no matter what religion, but it seems more like an attempt to extend the Shariah internationally, and let me simply say "Thanks, but no thanks," just like Sarah Palin. Except, I mean it.
Let's think about this for a minute.
Blasphemy: 13th century (that sounds about right)1 a: the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God b: the act of claiming the attributes of deity 2: irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable.
That there definition casts a pretty wide net. How do you decide who to stone? Can you arrest a celebrity judge on a reality contest show if she says someone has nicer hair than Jesus? Can you tar and feather a professional basketball player who speaks about himself in third person and calls himself god? If you just don't seem enthusiastic enough about the sermon, is that blasphemy? Who gets to decide?
The statement reads in part “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.” *ahem* OK. Frequently. And wrongly. Yeah. In fact, no religion gets to say that it is wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism. Even Scientology has its moments, Xenu knows.
How can you defame religion, anyway? I was not aware that religion had a squeaky clean reputation that could be harmed by libel or slander. And isn't religion an institution? I don't remember the lab experiment that made religion sentient.
Our friendly neighbors to the north had some choice words about this resolution:
“Canada rejects the basic premise that religions have rights; human rights belong to human beings.”-Catherine Loubier, spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon.
Go Canada!
She goes on:
“The focus (here) should not be on protecting religions, but rather on protecting the rights of the adherents of religions, including of people belonging to religious minorities, or people who may choose to change their religion, or not to practice religion at all.” (emphasis mine)
Thank you.
I feel like a rousing chorus of "Oh Canada" right about now.
That's right! No more free speech, brought to you by an organization acting outside its charter and 57 Muslim countries worried about their god's popularity rating at the international prom.
Can't god just go on hotornot.com like other insecure individuals looking for approval?
Am I alone in finding the concept of blasphemy to be amusing? What kind of all-powerful god cannot stand up to a little healthy criticism? What kind of god needs to go running to daddy when some kid drawing doodles in Scandinavia calls him fat?
Seriously. I don't think Zeus asked to have any laws passed to keep people from talking about how he was a slut behind his back: it's lightning bolt in yer butt, and you are a smoking stain on the road. Thor running to parliament? Nope. Forehead, meet mighty hammer.
Is Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah really so impotent that he can't take care of his own business?
No god of mine would be calling up its legislator if someone called its mother a hamster. There would be divine retribution of a spectacularly interesting kind. Yeah, the kind of retribution where god laughs off the words of puny mortals because, hey, I'm god.
I kid, but it's serious business. Not blasphemy, unless you are on the wrong side of one of these no-blasphemy laws and are killed by your own government for calling Allah a ninny, but this anti-blasphemy resolution. Serious business. I find it the height of irony that the very countries asking for protection for their religion are the countries that deal with blasphemers in the most medieval of ways. This is also the religion whose followers are the first to leap to violence whenever an off color cartoon is printed, as Mr. Hitchens recently pointed out on CNN.
The "Combating Defamation of Religions" resolution is supposedly meant to prevent violence against the religious, no matter what religion, but it seems more like an attempt to extend the Shariah internationally, and let me simply say "Thanks, but no thanks," just like Sarah Palin. Except, I mean it.
Let's think about this for a minute.
Blasphemy: 13th century (that sounds about right)1 a: the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God b: the act of claiming the attributes of deity 2: irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable.
That there definition casts a pretty wide net. How do you decide who to stone? Can you arrest a celebrity judge on a reality contest show if she says someone has nicer hair than Jesus? Can you tar and feather a professional basketball player who speaks about himself in third person and calls himself god? If you just don't seem enthusiastic enough about the sermon, is that blasphemy? Who gets to decide?
The statement reads in part “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.” *ahem* OK. Frequently. And wrongly. Yeah. In fact, no religion gets to say that it is wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism. Even Scientology has its moments, Xenu knows.
How can you defame religion, anyway? I was not aware that religion had a squeaky clean reputation that could be harmed by libel or slander. And isn't religion an institution? I don't remember the lab experiment that made religion sentient.
Our friendly neighbors to the north had some choice words about this resolution:
“Canada rejects the basic premise that religions have rights; human rights belong to human beings.”-Catherine Loubier, spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon.
Go Canada!
She goes on:
“The focus (here) should not be on protecting religions, but rather on protecting the rights of the adherents of religions, including of people belonging to religious minorities, or people who may choose to change their religion, or not to practice religion at all.” (emphasis mine)
Thank you.
I feel like a rousing chorus of "Oh Canada" right about now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)