My Fellow Christians, What Do We Do When Your Religious Beliefs Violate My Religious Beliefs?

[rug]

Posted: 01/13/2015 9:15 pm EST
Lorie Burch

Marriage equality is gaining momentum. Equal-rights ordinances seeking to protect the LGBT community from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations are on the rise. Public opinion is shifting in regard to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals. But with advancement of rights comes backlash.

Presently my hometown of Plano, Texas, is in the middle of a battle over an equal-rights ordinance recently passed to include sexual orientation and gender identity in the city's nondiscrimination policy. And while the version passed has numerous exemptions (too many for now), there is still mounting support for overturning it. I struggle with comprehending the various objections to this particular civil-rights movement, but I am most affronted by the so-called argument that providing protection from discrimination for the LGBT community somehow violates religious liberty. It's argued as a battle cry based on some common understanding that being religious and being gay are mutually exclusive. But it's illogical and disingenuous to assume that everyone has the same understanding of religious doctrine and beliefs. Why do you believe that your religious beliefs are some kind of universal standard of all religious beliefs and morality? You throw around "religious liberty" as if all Christians agree on these topics, and as if our biblical interpretation and understanding hasn't been evolving for centuries.

And while, regardless of my faith, I do not believe that religious discussions should shape public policy and our laws, to ignore this religious-liberty argument is, to me, to concede that they are right that being gay and being beloved in the eyes of God are incompatible. So, addressing this singular argument only, I am compelled to ask my fellow Christians: What do we do when your religious beliefs violate my religious beliefs?

What if my religious beliefs tell me that all of us are created equal and our one true purpose is to love and help each other?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lorie-burch/my-fellow-christians-what_b_6443768.html

[Dont call me Shirley]

1. What do we do when fundamentalists' religious beliefs violate our constitutional and human rights?

That is the question.

The fundamentalists must concede. Their "beliefs" are religious in nature and have no right entering our public sphere as we constitutionally have separation of church and state.

Religious freedom means the freedom to practice your own religion. What it does not mean is that one religion gets to take public precedent over another. Again the fundies are warping out of context the meaning of religious freedom.

The fundies must concede, but as they live their lives in the sin of conceit, concede they will not.

[cleanhippie]

3. You mean like doing anything and everything to take away womens healthcare choices?

Newsflash: It ain't just "fundamentalists" religious beliefs. Surely you knew that.

[Dont call me Shirley]

9. NeoCons/Cons/Fundies all peas in the same pod

[cleanhippie]

13. Is that the same pod as the Catholic Church?

[Dont call me Shirley]

15. The neocon wing or liberal wing of the Catholic Church?

[cleanhippie]

16. The one the Pope is in charge of.

There is only one, ya know.

[Dont call me Shirley]

17. The Catholic Church participates in politics, globally. They have been a part of the march on church

encroachment into our secular government since the beginning of our democracy.

[cleanhippie]

18. So it's the same pod then?

[Dont call me Shirley]

19. Didn't my answer just answer that?

[braddy]

27. The Catholics (almost) always vote against the republicans, in almost all presidential elections.

[Brettongarcia]

36. 54%?

[braddy]

40. Yes, 54% is an example, Clinton would not have won without Catholics in 1996 Catholics have

always been a vote for progressive politics, unions, FDR, Obama.

[LiberalAndProud]

41. Of course, I think that's a good thing for US Catholics to do.

Although, with 1.2 billion Catholics in our world, I tend to think the Pope influences world affairs in rather a different direction.

I've been paying especial attention to Nigeria lately, as it is my view that Nigeria is the world's canary in the coal mine with respect to overpopulation and climate change. With that in mind, I found this article both informative and somewhat alarming.

[braddy]

42. Their influence in America and Latin America, sure is more significant than in Nigeria.

[LiberalAndProud]

43. Their -- meaning the Catholic church?

Didn't click, did you?

[braddy]

44. Yes I did click. The Catholic vote in America is far more important than whatever is happening in

Nigeria.

[LiberalAndProud]

45. sometimes there is no response except

mmm.

[braddy]

46. Without you saying anything, I have no idea what your cryptic posts are supposed to mean

why don't you make a little effort, and say something?

[LiberalAndProud]

47. Fair enough.

Let me begin with recent events in Nigeria.

Amnesty said the attack on Baga and Doron Baga, neighbouring towns in the far north-east of Nigeria, was the largest and deadliest Boko Haram assault that it had analysed. It said about 620 structures had been destroyed in Baga, and more than 3,100 in Doron Baga.

A businessman from Baga told the BBC how he fled from the town along with some 5,000 others.

He said people were being killed like animals.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30826582

Bad things are happening there, would you agree?


Given these horrific events, we should maybe seek to understand conditions that might have some causal relationship.

- According to the UN Nigeria is losing 1,355 square miles of cropland and rangeland due to desertification each year. This problem affects each of the 11 states of northern Nigeria. Nigeria loses approximately 320,000-350,000 hectares of land per year, which causes mass displacement of local communities in the North. At least 35 million people are facing threats of hunger and economic problems due to present scale of desertification.

http://www.thenigerianvoice.com/nvnews/89273/1/current-dynamics-of-desertification-in-africa-fact.html

I really encourage you to read the entire linked article here. The outlook is grim.


There seems to be some disagreement as to whether Nigeria suffers from overpopulation, but I found this analysis to be convincing.

Our country is not only over-populated, it is hyper-populated. How else can a country of over 170 million people living within considerably less than one million square kilometers of land— 923,768 sq km to be exact —be explained?

https://straighttalknigeria.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/nigeria-yes-we-are-overpopulated/

And then there is this from the New York Times.

LAGOS, Nigeria — In a quarter-century, at the rate Nigeria is growing, 300 million people — a population about as big as that of the present-day United States — will live in a country roughly the size of Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada. In this commercial hub, where the area’s population has by some estimates nearly doubled over 15 years to 21 million, living standards for many are falling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/world/africa/in-nigeria-a-preview-of-an-overcrowded-planet.html?pagewanted=all

The article I referenced in the post that started this exchange (in case you didn't read after you clicked) is about the growth of the Catholic population in Nigeria, and church leaders there imploring the Vatican to not back down on views about contraceptive practices, among other things. If that isn't alarming, then it's not alarming.

So to me, saying that a Catholic's vote here means more than what the Catholics are doing in Nigeria is US-centric and neither informed or enlightened.

[braddy]

48. So you want to make this thread about Nigeria? Good luck.

[LiberalAndProud]

49. No. I want to make this thread about climate change.

^sarcasm

Actually, in the beginning I was pointing out that the general trend of the Catholic church's policies worldwide aren't compatible with many of the things I value as a US Democrat.

I didn't intend to go into lengthy detail, but you asked me to stop being cryptic so I obliged. I hope over time it provides some food for thought.

[braddy]

50. I hope you come to realize the importance of the Catholic vote in America.

[LiberalAndProud]

51. That's sort of a non-sequiter, but ... I realize the importance of the Catholic vote in America.

http://www.catholicvote.org/about/

Enjoy.

[braddy]

52. Weird, you think that prevented them from electing Clinton, or voting for Obama both

times, or voting for Al Gore?

[LiberalAndProud]

53. In fairness, braddy,

did Catholics vote for Clinton or Obama because of church teachings or in spite of them? In what direction did the church influence the Catholic vote, do you think?

[braddy]

54. My posts are entirely on the Catholic vote, but judging by the difference between the Protestant

and the Catholic vote, teachings must have something to do with it. The democratic party never wins the vote of the majority of Protestants.

[LiberalAndProud]

55. Maybe it has more to do with the fact that there are more women then men in the US Catholic church.

Remember that correlation is not the same as causality.

[cbayer]

6. I agree. If the battle is between those two things,

constitutional and human rights win.

This is a very dangerous trend and I hope to see it stopped cold and the federal statute overturned.

They will not concede willingly, but the courts must force them to concede.

[Dont call me Shirley]

10. This RW SC will continue to muddy the waters between separation of church and state as they have

before. At the same time they are muddying the waters between church and corporation, state and corporation.

Yes, cbayer, this is such a dangerous trend. I hope to see it stopped as well.

[cbayer]

11. Time is running out for Obama to get a chance to nominate a justice (or two).

I would hate to see what happens if the Repubs get the WH.

The pendulum has swung too far, but, if one wants to see a cup half full instead of empty, that means that it should swing back any time now.

We can only hope, and GOTV.

[Dont call me Shirley]

12. It would be best if his nominee would replace one of the fallacious five.

[cbayer]

14. It's the only chance we have to take this back.

I just don't see any of them suddenly seeing the light.

[bvf]

2. Answer to:

Last edited Wed Jan 14, 2015, 10:49 AM - Edit history (1)

"My Fellow Christians, What Do We Do When Your Religious Beliefs Violate My Religious Beliefs?"

No doubt it will be a better world the day this question has lost its meaning.

For the nonce, I would suggest the obvious:

Think.

On edit:

Insofar as your religious beliefs inform your approach to your fellow human being, I would only ask why anyone would need the crutch of religion to realize that a fellow human is your equal.

Think.

[rug]

7. Nobody because it's not a crutch.

Or are you simply saying anyone with a religious belief is lame?

[bvf]

21. What's truly lame is to suggest that

anyone would need to believe in an imaginary being in order to know the difference between right and wrong.

That's way ironic, given the multitude of bad ideas that stem from such belief to begin with. To wit: misogyny, homophobia, martyrdom, "promise" of an afterlife, zombies, cannibalism, funny hats, etc., etc.

[rug]

22. Tell me, are you oriented to your surroundings?

Is anyone here telling you that or are you just here to vent?

Venting is not discussion and after a while it's like listening to an ancient relative complaining about the state of his bowels.

[bvf]

24. Sensing some misplaced outrage on your part.

That is, if your ad hominem attack is any indication.

Please try to address the point.

[rug]

26. Check yourself. You just recited a litany of horror you must oppose. Are you outraged?

[bvf]

30. If you're stuck for an answer

just say so. Nobody will think the less of you for it, I'm sure.

[rug]

31. The question is to you.

[bvf]

33. Hmm.

Misogyny? Check.

Homophobia? Check.

Martyrdom? Check.

"Promise" of an afterlife? Check.

Zombies? Check.

Cannibalism? Check.

Funny hats? Check, with the proviso that they purport to confer some twisted image of moral authority (see above).

Yeah, those are all pretty bad.

[safeinOhio]

4. Can we discriminate

and not serve, etc. Baptist because they have the highest divorce rates in the U.S.? You know protect the sanctity of marriage.

[cbayer]

8. I think there are going to be some serious unintended consequences here.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Fuck that religion.

It doesn't MATTER what any 'religious beliefs' say. The constitution over-rides.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Anyone's religious feels are uninteresting to this issue. The law of the land says you can't discriminate. Period.

When one denies same-sex couples the right to marry, you are denying them Due Process. (Married couples are, in the eyes of the law, one entity, and cannot be forced to testify against each other, per the 5th Amendment. Deny them marriage, and you deny them due process.)

[NYC_SKP]

20. Most whom I know behave with dignity and respect. Other folks have hissy fits.

Big Fat Hissy Fits!

Can I say that here?

My serious and considered answer is that we dialogue with others and, hopefully, agree to disagree on some points and move on to celebrate those things we share in common.

[Heddi]

23. I anxiously await Rug and Okasha's admonition of your purposeful use of a bigoted slur

Since just a few days ago, "hissy" was quite offensive to every single one of their sensibilities

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218177153#post90
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218177153#post102

Somehow I have the most sneaking suspicion their outrage will somehow not be directed at your use of it, though. Now why could that be..???

[NYC_SKP]

25. Did I say the "h" word? Oh My! I meant to say "pissy fit".

As in, a lot of people have pissy fits.

Like in pissed off or feeling pissy.

[rug]

28. Do you find the term misogynist, Heddi?

I anxiously await your answer.

[Goblinmonger]

38. So why did you jump on Warren but not Skippy?

I anxiously await your answer.

[rug]

60. Are you Heddi's mouthpiece.

Now that's two unNswered questiond. Give me s headsup if you send in another sub,

BTW, do YOU find the phrase misogynist?

[longship]

29. What the hell kind of response is this?

Oh dear.

These personal attacks have to stop here. Argue the point, not the person.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. I eagerly await you admonishing Rug and Okasha to 'argue the point, not the person' in those

other two posts then.


I'll just wait, right over here. Any minute now, I'm sure.

[longship]

34. Etymology of "hissy" is a personal attack? nt

[AtheistCrusader]

35. LOL

[cleanhippie]

37. It's like they're not even trying pretend anymore.

[Goblinmonger]

39. I'm going to assume you really don't get it

and that this isn't purposeful obtuseness.

Here's the deal. Warren used the term "hissy fit." rug and okasha jumped on him for being sexist. Skippy used the same phrase. rug and okasha are nowhere to be found. Do you see the problem or do you need more explanation.

If you have a problem with people pointing out the use of "hissy fit" then I suggest you start with those that made that point of discussion.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

56. You'd have a lot more credibility

if you admonished DU believers for the same things you admonish unbelievers. Your fair and balanced act got old a long time ago.

[longship]

57. I don't give a fuck what people believe or not believe.

I post here because I am interested in religion as a human trait, although recently I am reticent to contribute because of many people's behaviors here, which I find utterly disgusting. As a lifelong atheist, I find it most reprehensible that many non-believers seem to be part of what makes the DU Religion Group suck. Personal attacks are inexcusable. I admonish other unbelievers, not for their lack of belief, which I share, but for some of their frankly childish behavior here.

Let's talk religion using intelligence. It is a very interesting subject, a cultural and possibly evolutionary adaptation. (By all means, let's get into evolutionary psychology, IMHO a dangerous, but interesting zone.) However, the extent that we cannot set aside the schoolyard personal snipes, is the extent that this group will go nowhere. And there is far, far too much of that here, and far, far we could go if we just adopted a modicum of mutual respect. Let us start there.

Rant off.

[Goblinmonger]

58. "However, the extent that we cannot set aside the schoolyard personal snipes,"

Can you tell me why it seems that you never chime in to say the same thing to the believers in this forum. Serious question. I get it. things could and should be better here. Absolutely. But it is glaringly obvious that you have no desire to--for some unknown reason--admonish those that are believers. This particular example is a glaringly obvious example. This has been pointed out to you and others several times and a usual response is that things were different and you can't compare. This is the SAME FUCKING THING. Warren uses "hissy fit" and rug and okasha jump on him. Skip uses "hissy fit" and nothing. And when that is pointed out, you come in talking about bad it is to make a big deal about using the tern and the issues should be discussed. But not to rug or okasha. Nope. Why would you do that?

So can you actually address that for a second here in the middle of telling people how to act? Is it possible that you can take a look at yourself for a couple seconds and explain why you--and several others--NEVER address those that are believers or side withe believers for what they do but only the atheists. Because I'd really fucking like to know that from one of you at this point. Am I an asshole sometimes. Yup. I'll own that. Am I or other atheists uniquely what makes this forum suck. Not by god damned long shot. Neither is warren. or hippie. or any of the others that you and others rather consistently point fingers at.

So why just us? Why, even in this very specific exactly same instance, have you not for one second taken the opportunity to say that when rug and okasha did something that you called out as being ridiculous was also ridiculous?

rant off

[longship]

59. It is not a yin-yang thing, Goblinmonger.

I take no sides on religion, other than my own lifelong atheism. I really do not care what other people believe, or not believe. I side with nobody, and I side with everybody.

I think your behavior here is mostly just fine. I enjoy many of your posts, as well as all the others. And yes, we can all be assholes sometimes. We also should forgive such lapses. My plea is for the group to settle down and have reasonable discussions.

And no, I will not be baited into making personal attacks against other contributors. Rug and okasha can speak for themselves, and also be held accountable. I certainly would not presume that anybody here is accountable to me. I just would implore contributors here to tone things down a bit and have lively discussions without the personal attacks. The idea is to argue the position, not the person. And note that it is not my intention to call out any individual or any faction here. Therein lies the problem.

Let's bury the hatchets. All of us.

I appreciate your response.