New Aestheism movements

[Thorne]

We know how to treat religious fundamentalists ... send them to America!

Bloody bastards! I'd suggest you send them to Australia instead, but THEY keep sending them here, too!

[thir]

Get over it and get on with life: it's the only one you have.

I do not understand this position - we can accept/ignore other people's religion or lack thereof only as long as their opinions do not impose on our own freedom.

To me that is what this is about: freedom!

And you cannot ignore all that is happening in the name of religion, all the initatives to impose religion on other people in general, the schools, the hospitals, the hate mongers..

Where does someone's religious/idealist freedom stop? I'd say where it starts to impose on someone else's freedom. Where it takes choices away - choices which are important. Or where it starts to kill.

Recently, in Denmark, a priest refused to bury a gay person. This caused a tremendous response from the public, most of which on the line of what on earth do you think you are doing, refusing to bury someone? A few Christians (we do not have so many, all in all, in spite of Christianity being a state religion) asked where 'love your neighbour as yourself' went - the cornerstone of most Danish Christianity.

But a few asked where was the priest's freedom of choice? That question was answered by the bishop, who said your duty is to bury whoever needs burying, period, it is in your job description. State religion - the bishop is the boss.

But there the freedom of the priest would mean no freedom for a Christian gay person to get buried in their own home area.

Am I off topic here? I am not sure I completely understood the OP.

[Thorne]

Am I off topic here? I am not sure I completely understood the OP.

No, I don't think you are off topic, but I'm not sure what you mean by "refuse to bury". Do you mean that the priest refused to perform the Christian burial rites? Did he refuse to allow the person to be buried in 'consecrated' ground? Or is it that burials can ONLY be performed through the State sponsored church? I think either of the first two instances can be viewed as valid, within his religious belief system. He should be allowed the freedom to refuse. UNTIL his superiors reverse him, which in effect says that the religion accepts gays as having the same rights as heterosexuals. Because of the priests vows to the church, his personal freedoms are somewhat narrowed. Of course, he is still free to remove himself from the church and cling to his personal beliefs, but as a representative of the church he is bound by the rules and requirements of his office. The third issue is more terrifying.

There is an equally terrifying parallel here in the US, in regard to this whole equality of marriage business. A state legislator apparently proposed (sorry, can't find a link now) that all marriages within that state MUST be performed by clergy to be valid! This would remove marriage from the purview of the state and make it completely religious, which would mean problems for any non-religious persons, and especially for gays. And what happens when, for example, they decide that it can only be CHRISTIAN churches? No more Jewish or Muslim weddings. No Hindu weddings. Fortunately, I think the proposal was soundly defeated. But based on past performance we can be sure that he, or they, will try again.

[thir]

No, I don't think you are off topic, but I'm not sure what you mean by "refuse to bury". Do you mean that the priest refused to perform the Christian burial rites? Did he refuse to allow the person to be buried in 'consecrated' ground? Or is it that burials can ONLY be performed through the State sponsored church?

He refused to perform the rites. As for the second, I don't know if our church yards are consecrated ground, but you cannot refuse anyone a place there, as Christianity is a state religion and also the person was a Christian and wanted a Christian burial. As for the last, I am not sure that there are any any other burial places pt in DK at this time - maybe a few.

The latest discussions meant that gays could marry in church but the priest could refuse. Maybe fair enough, I do not know, but you can get married at the town council office - gays too - so you are not stuck. Burial is worse, Althugh you can get in the ground and people can organise their own rites or lack thereof if they want, which a fair number do. Here in UK you can organise pagan funerals with pagan rites if you wish.

Anyway it is a remarkedly hostile idea of that priest, but it has happened once before, many years ago, apparently.

I think either of the first two instances can be viewed as valid, within his religious belief system.

Well, His belief system, maybe. The cornerstone of the Danish Christianity (such as it is) is love thy neighbour. Such an intolerant person - I hate people like that, why can't he be tolerant like me? ;-))

He should be allowed the freedom to refuse.

You know - I am not sure. Not within the state church, anyway. It is not a hate church.
The thought of new churches with hate messages in DK or really really scary!

UNTIL his superiors reverse him, which in effect says that the religion accepts gays as having the same rights as heterosexuals. Because of the priests vows to the church, his personal freedoms are somewhat narrowed. Of course, he is still free to remove himself from the church and cling to his personal beliefs, but as a representative of the church he is bound by the rules and requirements of his office. The third issue is more terrifying.

Well, he was told in no uncertain terms what his duties were, but even before that had apologised profusedly. But it took a bit for the chock to settle, before other Christians could start to forgive, which they admitted they had to, that is another cornerstone :-)

There is an equally terrifying parallel here in the US, in regard to this whole equality of marriage business. A state legislator apparently proposed (sorry, can't find a link now) that all marriages within that state MUST be performed by clergy to be valid!

And when I think that marriage is actually a new idea, historically speaking..and even then priests had nothing to do with it.

This would remove marriage from the purview of the state and make it completely religious, which would mean problems for any non-religious persons, and especially for gays. And what happens when, for example, they decide that it can only be CHRISTIAN churches? No more Jewish or Muslim weddings. No Hindu weddings. Fortunately, I think the proposal was soundly defeated. But based on past performance we can be sure that he, or they, will try again.

The idea is - so weird I cannot understand it!! Why can't he just marry those who wants to, and let the rest do as they desire?? I think people like that just want to make waves - it is so obviously illogical.

[Thorne]

Well, His belief system, maybe. The cornerstone of the Danish Christianity (such as it is) is love thy neighbour.

That is the cornerstone of ALL Christianity, supposedly. Here in the US, far too many churches have forgotten the teachings of Jesus, as written in their Bibles, in favor of hatred towards those who are different (see especially the Westboro Baptists). One more reason to fight them whenever possible.

And when I think that marriage is actually a new idea, historically speaking..and even then priests had nothing to do with it.

LOL! Don't try putting THAT one over on the theists here! To them, marriage was created by GOD, for one man and one woman. It says so in their BIBLE! (Don't read that part about Solomon having 700 wives and 300 concubines. "Ignore that man behind the curtain!)

The idea is - so weird I cannot understand it!! Why can't he just marry those who wants to, and let the rest do as they desire?? I think people like that just want to make waves - it is so obviously illogical.

Part of the problem of religious thought is that it defies logic. Or twists it into unimaginable shapes to try to justify the beliefs. When questioned about God's command to Joshua to kill all of the Canaanites, men women and children, William Lane Craig, a Christian apologist, makes this horrific comment:
"Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."
IMO, anyone who can so easily twist their minds to accept such a statement as "logical" is seriously demented. Using this logic I can say that:
If you believe, as Craig does, that "those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy", then you should stop seeing doctors and taking medications, and allow yourself to die quickly, so you can get to heaven faster. Don't bother looking before crossing the streets. Trust that God will protect you, or call you home. Amen.

Sounds logical to me!

[denuseri]

I do not understand this position - we can accept/ignore other people's religion or lack thereof only as long as their opinions do not impose on our own freedom.

To me that is what this is about: freedom!

And you cannot ignore all that is happening in the name of religion, all the initatives to impose religion on other people in general, the schools, the hospitals, the hate mongers..

The topic this time though is about the ironic zealotry of the atheists is I understood the op correctly isnt it?

Where does someone's religious/idealist freedom stop? I'd say where it starts to impose on someone else's freedom. Where it takes choices away - choices which are important. Or where it starts to kill.

I think all people of any faith (even if that faith is only one in science or in nothing at all) would do far better if they stopped trying to convert followers and simpley co-existed in mutual respect of each others ways. Tend their own garden as it were to steal a phrase from Voltaire.

Recently, in Denmark, a priest refused to bury a gay person. This caused a tremendous response from the public, most of which on the line of what on earth do you think you are doing, refusing to bury someone? A few Christians (we do not have so many, all in all, in spite of Christianity being a state religion) asked where 'love your neighbour as yourself' went - the cornerstone of most Danish Christianity.

Yes, sounds like this individuals bigotry to homosexuality has cuased him to "sin" and go against the core tenants of his faith, not a very priestly thing to do.

But a few asked where was the priest's freedom of choice? That question was answered by the bishop, who said your duty is to bury whoever needs burying, period, it is in your job description. State religion - the bishop is the boss.

But there the freedom of the priest would mean no freedom for a Christian gay person to get buried in their own home area.

Am I off topic here? I am not sure I completely understood the OP.

The priest was clearly in the wrong in that he was refusing to bury the man...however he would be in the right perhaps depending upon his sects rules to have withheld the sacrements etc during said ceromony perhaps idk.

[thir]

D:
The topic this time though is about the ironic zealotry of the atheists is I understood the op correctly isnt it?

t:
Allegedly. I am not sure I agree in that view.

D:
I think all people of any faith (even if that faith is only one in science or in nothing at all) would do far better if they stopped trying to convert followers and simpley co-existed in mutual respect of each others ways. Tend their own garden as it were to steal a phrase from Voltaire.

t:
Indeed.

However, you can go the other way too: In UK they have these interfaith attempts here and there, seems to be going well, people of various faiths getting to know each other. But they do not want pagans - we do not have a holy book ;-)))

t:
Recently, in Denmark, a priest refused to bury a gay person. This caused a tremendous response from the public, most of which on the line of what on earth do you think you are doing, refusing to bury someone? A few Christians (we do not have so many, all in all, in spite of Christianity being a state religion) asked where 'love your neighbour as yourself' went - the cornerstone of most Danish Christianity.

D:
Yes, sounds like this individuals bigotry to homosexuality has cuased him to "sin" and go against the core tenants of his faith, not a very priestly thing to do.

t: No, it wasn't, it was kind of - different though, to hear all the non-chuch goers ask him where his love for his neighbour was.

t:
But a few asked where was the priest's freedom of choice? That question was answered by the bishop, who said your duty is to bury whoever needs burying, period, it is in your job description. State religion - the bishop is the boss.

D:
The priest was clearly in the wrong in that he was refusing to bury the man...however he would be in the right perhaps depending upon his sects rules to have withheld the sacrements etc during said ceromony perhaps idk.

t:
No, because it was not a sect, but a main religion with fairly clear ideas. Accepting a job in it, he also accepts the main ideas. If he felt strongly about it, he should make his own church. Which I hope - and pray! - that noone does, not this hate church.

[denuseri]

Where can we send all the atheist fundamentalists?

[MMI]

You know, Thorne, that's not a half bad idea. If we'd sent them all to Oz in the first place, perhaps the Australian cricket and rugby teams would suck like the USA's do.

[Thorne]

You know, Thorne, that's not a half bad idea. If we'd sent them all to Oz in the first place, perhaps the Australian cricket and rugby teams would suck like the USA's do.

Nah, pretty unlikely. They're too busy being bigots to get involved with sports, especially sports like rugby where men actually TOUCH one another!

Besides, Americans suck at cricket and rugby because we have our OWN sports, like baseball and football. REAL football, where you throw and catch the ball with your hands! Not that silly thing YOU call football, where you use your feet!

[tedteague]

I'm going to offer a new perspective here on this whole "church and state" that seems to be popping up.
America has a democracy (for the sake of staying on topic, let's just suppose this is true) or a democratic republic, but the point is the same
A democracy is defined as citizens determining the public policy of their own nation: a majority will win
If the majority happens to be religious, then why is it not within the limits of the US Constitution to impliment religious social policy? That's the democratic thing to do.
For example, I'm sure Thorne here would be all about pro-choice, and would say that a minority of right-wing religious fundamentalists are out to restrict the proceedure, but if we go by a recent poll, where 59% of americans identify as pro-life, then they should get to determine the public policy that says "no abortions"

[Thorne]

I'm going to offer a new perspective here on this whole "church and state" that seems to be popping up.
America has a democracy (for the sake of staying on topic, let's just suppose this is true) or a democratic republic, but the point is the same

No, the situation is NOT the same. The US is NOT a Democracy, but a Democratic Republic, by design.

A democracy is defined as citizens determining the public policy of their own nation: a majority will win
If the majority happens to be religious, then why is it not within the limits of the US Constitution to impliment religious social policy? That's the democratic thing to do.

Which is why we are a Democratic Republic. We elect leaders who are expected to make sure the country does the RIGHT thing, despite what the majority might think. And by the right thing, we mean constitutionally right. Let's face it, if we had to abide strictly by the majority then blacks would still be forbidden to vote or intermarry, women would not be permitted to vote, non-Christians would not be allowed to hold office, etc. It's because in the past our leaders had the strength of character to do what was RIGHT instead of what the majority wanted that America has a fair measure of equality today.

For example, I'm sure Thorne here would be all about pro-choice, and would say that a minority of right-wing religious fundamentalists are out to restrict the proceedure, but if we go by a recent poll, where 59% of americans identify as pro-life, then they should get to determine the public policy that says "no abortions"

Yes, I am pro-choice. And despite what they claim, the anti-abortion groups are not pro-life, but pro-forced-birth. Many of them would ban abortions under any circumstances, even when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. And another example of where the majority can be wrong, taking away the rights of women to control their bodies for the sake of POTENTIAL humans.