Black people are not the enemy. Sprituality is not the enemy. SOCIAL CONSERVATISM is the enemy.

[renie408]

Socially liberal black people voted against Prop 8. Socially liberal religious people voted against Prop 8. The root of this evil is conservatism. 'Black' has nothing to do with it. People don't hold opinions about homosexuality based on their skin color. They hold opinions on homosexuality based on their religious beliefs. Religious teaching is usually anchored in tradition and tends to be conservative. It doesn't matter that Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexuality. It matters that people are raised in their Baptist/Catholic/Mormon churches to believe that homosexuality is a chosen perversion. Religion is not spirituality. Belief in god or a higher power isn't the problem. The problem is the large institutional religious organizations.

Institutional religion is the problem. Big religion tends to be socially conservative. We need to change the teachings of big religion.

Good luck with that.

I am an atheist. I went to church when I was a kid, but haven't been to church since I was about 15 and decided that it wasn't really working for me. So, I really have no idea how to go about changing the church to be a more accepting, less judgmental institution. But that's where we are at with a great many of the social problems we see in this country. Until people can no longer hide behind the church to cover up their bigotry, bigotry is going to be a huge problem in this country. I don't think just saying, "Religion is bullshit and we should get religion out of everything." is going to work. It is easy to make a list of the atrocities that can be attributed to religion. It is harder to remember that all over the world right now, there are people who are risking their lives to do a lot more to help people than argue on an internet message board and they do it because of their spiritual beliefs. Mother Teresa went to Calcutta because she was 'called' there by god. Spirituality is a huge force for good and guides and informs the lives of many good people. Barack Obama happens to be one of them. So, attacking spiritual belief isn't the answer.

I think people need to start recognizing the difference between religion and spirituality. They are so intertwined that when spiritual people see 'religion' being blamed for things like Prop 8, they react negatively. Nobody is attacking a belief in god or any higher power. They are attacking the huge religious machine which has taught people from the time they are little children to believe that someone's choice of life partner could be wrong.

The Bible says that all sins are equal in the eyes of the lord. The Bible says judge not, lest ye be judged. The Bible says to love thy neighbor. Even where the Bible implies that homosexuality is wrong, it doesn't say, "So you guys go out and make sure that homosexual people have a really hard time." The Bible says to let your life be your witness and to look after yourself and leave everybody else to god. So, religion is the problem, but spirituality is the answer. Somehow, we need to get TRUE spiritual belief back into religious teachings.

Again, good luck with that.

[Greyhound]

1. I understand you point and agree. Spirituality is internal and nobody's business

but yours.

Religion is the root cause of so many of the world's problems but how do you control/contain the religious?

[renie408]

2. Fight fire with fire. The Bible contains all the arguments FOR tolerance that anybody

could ever want. The problem with the Bible is that it is like the buffet at Golden Corral...something for everybody.

[Greyhound]

8. That comes back to your OP. Spirituality and religion may be compatible, but not necessarily so.

A spiritual person may look at the Bible, for instance, and see that there is a core message that says something along the lines of "love and be good to each other" and there are a lot of fables and anecdotes that serve as examples of how to live one's life within the parameters of that central message.

A religious person looks at the Bible and views it as a literal rulebook that must be followed including the parts that tell them to hate/kill/torture/shun/pity/revile other people that don't believe or see it in the same way. This faction also includes, from my POV, the people that pick and choose the parts they want to believe in and disregard the rest (i.e. God hates gays, mine is the only true religion, etc.).
:kick:

[renie408]

9. Thanks, that is a good insight. n/t

[spoony]

3. Sorry, but that's just semantics that allow people to slam religion

and say they aren't really. It's simply untrue that people aren't attacking beliefs and are just going after the social conservatism:

"until we turn all of our churches into the museums they need to be, so we can look back and laugh at our stupidity"

"when's the last time an Atheist flew a plane into a building?"

"But there are the delusions of:

The Virgin Birth
The Resurrection
The Transubstantiation at Communion
Glossolalia
Mohammad riding to Heaven on a Winged Horse
God parting the Red Sea
Jesus 'in one's heart'
A personal relationship with Jesus
The Holy Ghost"

"Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky"

That's just one thread, and just what I grabbed in a couple seconds. Want more?

[renie408]

4. Apparently I failed to convey my thoughts clearly.

I agree with you...mostly. The people vilifying 'religion' are lumping spirituality in there, too. Make no mistake, RELIGION is the problem. BUT the solution isn't trying to get rid of religion. The solution is to CHANGE religion.

[UnrepentantUnitarian]

5. Thank you for this!

It's a point I was trying to make here yesterday. A person's religious convictions should be personal (and I would add individual). I personally advocate an ethics-based rather than dogma-driven approach to religion. I believe in free-agency (...a very old radical-Protestant premise.) We are responsible to others only for the kind of social actions that result from those convictions. Those actions are fair-game, of course.

[glowing]

6. Actually, its really wealthy, powerful people who try and meddle in

every aspect of normal life to stir up divisions and hate and fear.. Its the only way they stay in power. So, they corrupt religion, local regional issues, judicial branches... everything... One of the most powerful way they can corrupt is to use religion... When someone declares a statement from God, many are afraid of "pissing off" their God... so, they go along with it. AND if they are from a small town, a poor town, a town that doesn't have the best educational team... then you get boogymen and someone to hate and someone to fear.

[fasttense]

7. I agree with you for the most part but...

I do Not see SOCIAL CONSERVATISM as the enemy.

I see SOCIAL INJUSTICE as the enemy.

Why should only heterosexuals have a particular right? Are we more law abiding? Are we smarter? Are we somehow better or more important?

If you reserve one right for one group of people and deny the same right to another group of people, where do you stop in limiting other's rights? Should we deny blue eyed people the right to marry other blue eyed people? How about people who prefer oral sex? Should their rights be limited too? Does that sound like equality to you?

It sure sounds like injustice to me. If I let them deny my Gay and Lesbians brothers and sisters rights I come by freely, eventually there will be no one left to stand up for my rights, whatever those rights may be.

Gay and Lesbians marrying "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" as Thomas Jefferson said.

[renie408]

10. Define social conservatism.

Seriously, how do you define social conservatism? Conservatism on its face is a resistance to change. A desire to stick to the old and traditional ways of doing things. How can we stick to the old and move forward at the same time? Social conservatism IS socially unjust by its very nature.

I want to be careful not to confuse economic conservatism with social conservatism. Jefferson sounds to me like he is saying that as long as something does not negatively effect his purse or cause him physical harm, he doesn't give two shits about it. That sounds like social liberalism, but would allow for economic conservatism.

[fasttense]

11. Good points

I have learned from life that every thing and every one changes. Just the passage of time causes change. If we all bowed down to social conservatism we would all remain in a cave huddled around a fire. So yes social conservatism does lead to social injustice but it also leads to stagnation and fear of science.

I think economic conservatism is more about Not wasting what we have. In that respect, the bush was No economic conservative. The money and wealth of our nation that he wasted on his war in Iraq alone makes me sick. Yet who would argue against the debt our nation went into to fight off the Republicon Great Depression. At that time, it was necessary to throw out a balance budget and help the starving masses. The republicons failed in economic conservatism and yet still pretend their party understands the word.

[Jawja]

12. How about

social injustice supported by laws that are based on the religious beliefs of the majority? I believe that sums up the struggle of Gays and Lesbians in regard to equal rights. The quest for a "more perfect union" in this case means a society where the rights of a minority cannot be suppressed by the ignorance of the "religious" majority.

"All Men are Created Equal" and "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" as bedrock principles of the Constitution are being overturned at the ballot box by people who don't accept their true meaning in a secular society. And it is particular disheartening when minorities who have fought their own battles with majorities who did not accept those principals to the fullest extent are using the ballot box in the same way to limit their meaning for others.

[DailyGrind51]

13. Jesus demonstrated tolerance by conversing with and accepting water from

the Samaritan woman, which was the equivalent of an Israeli man engaging in casual conversation with a Palestinian Arab woman. The message is that issues of race or gender is unimportant, it's who we are as people that matters.

[Kazak]

14. Regressiveism.

I've begun calling it what it is.

[Le Taz Hot]

15. When did anyone on this board suggest either?

:shrug:

[renie408]

16. Huh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4399114&mesg_id=4399114

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4408262&mesg_id=4408262

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4410545

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4413322

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4402366&mesg_id=4402366

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4405273&mesg_id=4405273

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4401391&mesg_id=4401391

That's just through page two.

Not sure where YOU have been??

:shrug:

[Le Taz Hot]

17. No one called anyone the enemy

(Ok, with the exception of the churches). Wanting to discuss the role minorities played in the passage of Prop. 8, AS ONE OF MANY ELEMENTS, isn't naming anyone the enemy. It's analysis to ensure we do a better job next time.

[renie408]

18. There were definitely posts accusing African Americans of throwing gays under the bus.

They may not have specifically used the word 'enemy', but the question 'What do AA's have against gays?' has been asked repeatedly. The word 'enemy' may not have been specifically used, but that was definitely the tone of a lot of the threads and posts I have read.

[Le Taz Hot]

19. Wording is very important here

and accusing someone of using the word "enemy" is a serious charge.

Secondly, the GBLT community and supporters are understandably shaken right now. The wounds are still open and oozing. People are just trying to get a handle on how this could have happened -- in California of all places. OK, so in the heat of anger, maybe people aren't on their best PC behavior. We need to have a little understanding and patience right now.

[Locrian]

20. authoritarian...

Its how people *come* to religion. If they come at it as "authoritarian" vs "nurturing".

Authoritarian is the "rule book" mentality. Black and white. Good evil. Force, war, hate, fear. It is the uncreative mind - that cannot deal with the unknown.
Nurturing is the "myth and metaphor", caring, loving, compassion, humbleness. The creative mind, the *real* spiritual "questing" mind.


Now there are a LOT of religions that use the authoritarian model, because it by definition puts them (the leaders) in CONTROL. Much harder to do it the other way. - you know like "Jesus", or the gnostic stuff.


Big difference. Huge.

[LWolf]

21. FYI: "spirituality" and "religious" are not synonymous.

Spirituality is not to blame. There is no judgment in spirituality.

There is narrow, prejudicial judgment embedded in the dogma of the major organized religions, at least in this nation.