Where is the outrage from religious moderates?

[Winstonm]

I think there is little doubt that the main force of the rampant homophobia in the U.S. comes from the religious right. If that is agreed, why do religious moderates sit quietly while 33 states embrace homophobic marriage laws? One small example is Idaho.

 

An Idaho veterans cemetery is refusing to bury the ashes of a lesbian couple together because the state does not recognize same-sex marriages, KBOI reported on Wednesday

 

The way it looks to me, if religious moderates do not strongly speak out against religious-based discrimination they appear to condone it. If they condone it, how can they think themselves moderate?

[Trinidad]

The way it looks to me, if religious moderates do not strongly speak out against religious-based discrimination they appear to condone it. If they condone it, how can they think themselves moderate?

You are looking wrong. It is nobody's responsibility to speak out against anything. People have other things to do than speaking out.

 

Did you strongly speak out against the abduction of the girls in Nigeria? If not, do you condone it? (I didn't speak out against it. I was busy shopping for new garden furniture. Even if my excuse for not speaking out is feeble, the fact that I didn't speak out doesn't mean that I condone the abduction of these girls.)

 

• Did you speak out against the way foreign workers are treated in the United Arab Emirates?
  
• Whale hunting by the Japanese?
  
• Off shore drilling in the Arctic by the Russians?
  
• Killings in South Sudan?
  
• Female circumscission?
  
• Male circumscission?
  
• Shooting of a 93 year old woman by police in Texas?
  
• Racist statements by a certain NBA owner?
  

Do you condone all the things on this list that you didn't speak out against?

 

In short: If people do not speak out against something that certainly doesn't mean they condone it. It means... pretty much nothing.

 

If it helps you, I do hereby strongly speak out against all the things that I am against ("I find all of them repulsive") so that it will be 100% clear that I don't condone the things that I am against.

 

Rik

[y66]

Well, there is such a thing as rhetoric as in "one resists or one collaborates" which, I believe, is something Camus once said. I don't think he meant to preclude other activities like swimming in the sea with a friend or shopping for garden furniture.

[billw55]

Well, there is such a thing as rhetoric as in "one resists or one collaborates" which, I believe, is something Camus once said.

Not sure about Camus, but personally I call it false dichotomy. Agree with Rik.

 

Also, plenty of religious moderates are "speaking out" in a sense, by their actions, including accepting gays in their congregations without malice, officiating their marriage ceremonies, etc. A few churches are also vocal about it. For example, one has filed suit in North Carolina, in favor of marriage equality.

[Winstonm]

You are looking wrong. It is nobody's responsibility to speak out against anything. People have other things to do than speaking out.

 

Did you strongly speak out against the abduction of the girls in Nigeria? If not, do you condone it? (I didn't speak out against it. I was busy shopping for new garden furniture. Even if my excuse for not speaking out is feeble, the fact that I didn't speak out doesn't mean that I condone the abduction of these girls.)

 

• Did you speak out against the way foreign workers are treated in the United Arab Emirates?
  
• Whale hunting by the Japanese?
  
• Off shore drilling in the Arctic by the Russians?
  
• Killings in South Sudan?
  
• Female circumscission?
  
• Male circumscission?
  
• Shooting of a 93 year old woman by police in Texas?
  
• Racist statements by a certain NBA owner?
  

Do you condone all the things on this list that you didn't speak out against?

 

In short: If people do not speak out against something that certainly doesn't mean they condone it. It means... pretty much nothing.

 

If it helps you, I do hereby strongly speak out against all the things that I am against ("I find all of them repulsive") so that it will be 100% clear that I don't condone the things that I am against.

 

Rik

 

Rik,

 

In a larger sense you are no doubt correct, but these instances are not of that kind, IMO. These attacks are a form of tribalism, and whether anyone likes it or not, xtians are part of the xtian tribe. Claiming a moderate stance within this tribe is no different than the separate beliefs within Islam or with the Jewish religion.

 

As non-xtian, I can point to the silliness of allowing superstition to trump reason - the xtian tribal member - whether moderate or not - cannot do so. All the xtian can do is claim an incorrect interpretation - somewhat of a "no true Scotsman" claim.

 

I am in no sense saying that all religious tibalism produces bad people. But faith does not move mountains; Catepillar and dynamite do. Life is not a book to enjoy or a movie to much popcorn through while watching - so why do we so willingly "suspend disbelief" in order to have faith in a supernatural answer to complex questions?

 

As far as your list goes, I can tell you I don't have enough information to make a determination about each point. Perhaps saving whales is in our best interest; perhaps it is not. I do not have enough information other than emotion to make a decision and emotion is non-trustworthy.

 

I do have enough information (to convince me) that the magical thinking of religion is a net harm to humanity and no longer needed. And I do speak out against that.

[Winstonm]

Not sure about Camus, but personally I call it false dichotomy. Agree with Rik.

 

Also, plenty of religious moderates are "speaking out" in a sense, by their actions, including accepting gays in their congregations without malice, officiating their marriage ceremonies, etc. A few churches are also vocal about it. For example, one has filed suit in North Carolina, in favor of marriage equality.

 

I don't see this as the same thing as speaking against. It is an argument that one group's idea of the will of a supernatural being can in some way be more in concert with that unknowable information than another group who claims the opposite. The common denominator is the supernatural being which one group can use as a cover for their own biases. Remove the supernatural being from the mix and a person or group must take accountability for his or their own biases.

 

"He made me do it" is the rationale of a child. "God says" is the adult version of the same excuse.

[Trinidad]

As far as your list goes, I can tell you I don't have enough information to make a determination about each point.

Fair enough, but you must have enough information to make a determination about some of the points. I suppose you don't need much information to be against the killings in South Sudan or the abduction of Nigerian girls. Did you speak out against them? Or to make it easier: Other than this particular issue and the harm caused by religion, what have you been strongly speaking out against this week?

 

Did you speak out against these shameless environmental activists hindering these poor Japanese whalers from doing their job?

Russian interference in Ukrain?

European interference in Ukrain?

Killing in Syria?

Difficulties in removing chemical weapons from Syria?

The fact that doctors treat a woman's disease the same way as a man's disease, which among many others leads to overdosage of medication and higher rates of side effects in women?

Anything at all...?

 

Truth is, we do not speak out about everything that we have an opinion about. Wise people pick their battles carefully. (I don't know where this places me.) I can very well imagine that the question where ashes are barried is not the highest on the battle priority list of a religious moderate.

 

Did you notice that I didn't even go through the trouble to specifically speak out on this issue? Speaking out against people with the false notion of "you either speak out against, or you condone" is simply higher on my list of battles to pick.

 

Rik

[barmar]

Isn't the general problem that "moderates" don't tend to form organized groups to speak on their behalf? The inclination to congregate and organize tends to come mostly to people with extreme viewpoints. if you're a moderate, you're not going to join a picket line to shout about your beliefs.

[P_Marlowe]

Als sie die ersten Kommunisten holten, habe ich geschwiegen; denn ich war kein Kommunist.

Als sie die ersten Juden holten, habe ich geschwiegen; denn ich war kein Jude.

Als sie die ersten Katholiken holten, habe ich geschwiegen; denn ich war kein Katholik.

Als sie mich holten, war niemand mehr da, der seine Stimme hätte erheben können.

 

As they imprisoned the first Communists, I remained silent, I was no Communist.

As they imprisoned the first Jews, I remained silent, I was no Jew.

As they imprisoned the first Catholics, I remained silent, I was no Catholic.

As they imprisoned my, there was only silence, there was nobody, who could raise his voice.

(my translation)

 

Martin Niemoeller

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...#The_text

 

To be fair: Everyone has to decide for himself, when he wants to raise his voice, and if

certain things are those things, one is prepared to fight for.

Condeming things, that occurr far away is quite often cheap, and useless, ... I remain lots

of times silent.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[nige1]

marriage (n) The formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife

If you prefer legal-union with a person of the same sex -- or a pig -- or an aspidistra -- or a bee-hive -- or a stove, we should defend your right to choose. Arguably, calling such a relationship "marriage" makes English less precise but that happens all the time and is no big deal. There are far more important issues to get het up about: e.g. Our governments' repeated attempts to stir up trouble, all over the world, at enormous human cost, just to suck up to arms-manufacturers.

[Bbradley62]

Isn't the general problem that "moderates" don't tend to form organized groups to speak on their behalf? The inclination to congregate and organize tends to come mostly to people with extreme viewpoints. if you're a moderate, you're not going to join a picket line to shout about your beliefs.

True, but you can also express your disapproval by discontinuing membership in the offending organization, as many of my friends have done with the Catholic Church (for a variety of reasons).

[Trinidad]

OED said:

The formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife

Nigel, please stop misusing dictionaries.

 

Dictionaries are meant for people who don't have any idea (or have forgotten) what a word means. They can look it up and they will know.

 

Dictionaries are not meant to provide accurate definitions of terms for people who work in the field that the term relates to. (Do not look up "convolution" in the dictionary if you are a mathematician, or "Keynesian" if you are an economist. The dictionary definitions won't help you because they are simplified.)

 

And a dictionary is absolutely not meant to define our values or morality. Concluding that a marriage must be between a man and a woman because the OED says so, is even sillier than saying that a marriage must be between a man and a woman because God says so or because a pattern on your toast this morning told you.

 

Rik

[gwnn]

Found this nice website today:

 

http://notalllikethat.org/

[Vampyr]

Isn't the general problem that "moderates" don't tend to form organized groups to speak on their behalf? The inclination to congregate and organize tends to come mostly to people with extreme viewpoints. if you're a moderate, you're not going to join a picket line to shout about your beliefs.

 

Maybe this is a start.

 

EDIT: LOL crossed previous post. So at least two groups are getting it together, even if only online.

[barmar]

The other reason why there isn't much of an outcry from moderates is that it isn't needed. The trend in LGBT equality is clear -- we just had another state, in the heart of redneck territory, declare that same-sex marriage is legal a few days ago. The religious right makes lots of noise because they're trying to reverse the natural course of things.

 

So while we can't be too complacent, we don't need to go on the offensive, either. The majority is on our side.

[kenberg]

I guess if I were to look at this it would go something like this: If the two women wish to have their ashes buried together, they can do that.. Not at this particular cemetery but they can do it. So we are not speaking of Ms. Taylor not being able to get her ashes and he spouses ashes buried together. if that were what was important to her, she could accomplish it.

 

We are speaking of Ms. Taylor wishing to have their ashes buried together as spouses in a state that does not recognize them as spouses. it is hardly surprising that she is having difficulty with this plan.

 

We see, from the article:

 

"We have to follow the law," said Tamara Mackenthun, deputy administrator at the Idaho Division of Veterans Services, to KTVB-TV. "We have to follow the Idaho definition of spouse."

 

Taylor disagrees with that logic.

 

"I don't see where the ashes of a couple old lesbians is going to hurt anyone," she told KBOI.

 

 

She may disagree with the logic, but what she says is not responsive to the logic. Ms. Mackenthun did not assert that it would hurt anyone, she said that "We have to follow the law". I don't know any of the principals and I don't know the law, but I gather Ms. Mackenthun did not seek out this controversy. She, or her office, or someone, was asked whether, according to the law as it currently stands, the ashes coould be buried in a common plot and the legal decision was, according to current Idaho law, the answer is no.

 

Just who am I suppose to direct my outrage at? I voted in favor of same sex marriage on the Maryland ballot, but there was a reason it was on the ballot. It is not the law of the land throughput the U.S. "We have to follow the law" seems to me to be a correct statement.

[mycroft]

So, my church started marrying same-sex couples over 15 years ago. A few years after that, they were allowed to do the paperwork so that in the eyes of Revenue Canada, the marriage existed (not only in the eyes of G-d). Last I checked, we were Christian. You want my reaction? There it is.

 

Where's my reaction? Lots of places, including here. Do I have to do it every time one of 50 groups of reactionary homophobes who also claim to be Christian do something to protect their earthly power? If so, do I have to do it every time one of thousands of people and organizations decide that Matthew 6 starts at "Our Father"? Or every time "Jesus hates..." shows up?

 

<sarcasm>Of course Christianity is tribal; just like the American tribe. s/xtian/merkin/g in that paragraph, and it's just as valid. Maybe, just maybe, someone might have an issue with that.</sarcasm> If they do, assume my reaction is the same without the substitution.

[blackshoe]

I wonder - if these two had just specified "we want our ashes interred together" without mentioning the word "spouse" or "marriage", would there be all this brouhaha? If the answer is no, then the brouhaha is a waste of time and energy, at the very least.

[nige1]

Nigel, please stop misusing dictionaries. Dictionaries are meant for people who don't have any idea (or have forgotten) what a word means.

An apt description of many of us who post here.

They can look it up and they will know.

That's how I use 'em.

Dictionaries are not meant to provide accurate definitions of terms for people who work in the field that the term relates to. (Do not look up "convolution" in the dictionary if you are a mathematician, or "Keynesian" if you are an economist. The dictionary definitions won't help you because they are simplified.)

If you try to argue without a basic vocabulary in common then you tend to argue at cross-purposes, you are liable to imagine insults that weren't intended, and you risk wasting time constructing and demolishing straw-men, for example:

And a dictionary is absolutely not meant to define our values or morality. Concluding that a marriage must be between a man and a woman because the OED says so, is even sillier than saying that a marriage must be between a man and a woman because God says so or because a pattern on your toast this morning told you.

[blackshoe]

Etymology is a fascinating subject. It can give us a view into the evolution of societies as well as words. "Marriage" derives ultimately from Latin "maritus", one of the meanings of which is "husband" (i.e., male spouse). It's only in the last hundred years or so that women began to be treated as people in their own right*, and the equals, legally and morally, of men in all things. This objection to "same-sex marriage" is a holdover from the old days, and it's time to get rid of it.

 

The Christian religious seem to think the word "matrimony" (a synonym for marriage) cannot be separated from the phrase "the sacrament of holy matrimony", which by church doctrine is a union between a man and a woman. For purposes of religion, they're right - it is after all up to any religious group to define its beliefs. For general societal purposes, in a secular society, by which I mean one not under control of any religion, they're wrong. There is no reason the word "marriage" cannot be applied to a union between persons of the same sex, or multiple persons of either or both sexes. In fact, at least in my opinion, any contractual union between adults is their business alone, and neither the Church nor the State should have any say in it.

 

And that's all I'm going to say on the subject.

 

*Cecilia Payne, I learned from "Cosmos" the other day, wrote one of the seminal texts (actually her doctoral thesis) in astrophysics (Stellar Atmospheres), but while she completed studies at Cambridge, she was not awarded a degree - Cambridge did not award degrees to women until 1948!

[billw55]

There is no reason the word "marriage" cannot be applied to a union between persons of the same sex, or multiple persons of either or both sexes. In fact, at least in my opinion, any contractual union between adults is their business alone, and neither the Church nor the State should have any say in it.

Agree. However, the standard contract implied by civil marriage largely assigns a certain set of rights to a single individual. Such a contract among multiple individuals would by necessity be substantially different.

[Vampyr]

Agree. However, the standard contract implied by civil marriage largely assigns a certain set of rights to a single individual. Such a contract among multiple individuals would by necessity be substantially different.

 

Yes, but I think that working out such a contract would be a good thing. Many polygamous families are taking advantage of the taxpayer -- the wives who are not legally married claim to be single mothers and collect welfare.

[mycroft]

The Christian religious seem to think the word "matrimony" (a synonym for marriage) cannot be separated from the phrase "the sacrament of holy matrimony", which by church doctrine is a union between a man and a woman.

I'm going to disagree with you publicly, only because Winston says if I don't then I agree with you. The spirit of your words is absolutely correct - more so, they are saying that the word must mean in government what it means to their particular sect of Christianity, because it's the same word (which is also their "concern" about the change - if the government says marriage is <this>, and government thinks the same way they do (which is that what's right for the things they control is right for everyone else as well), then they'll be "forced to marry <any of this>". To which I will point to the Catholics or the Jews or the LDS and inter-faith marriages, or to the Catholics at least and marriage to a divorce(e), and say "srsly? why would this be any different?") but the words are incorrect.

 

To disprove, I present my previous comment above. For at least the second-largest Christian denomination in the second-largest country in the world, both the separation exists (in fact, in Alberta, at least, the separation is by law - there are two procedures in any church wedding; and there's a bit in the middle of the ceremony where the leader puts on her government official hat for 5 minutes or so, and does the other procedure), and there is no more difference between "traditional" marriage and same-sex unions (and interracial unions, for that matter). We are not the only ones.

 

The fundamentalist Protestant Christian right has occupied the megaphone for a while, at least in the US. They don't speak for all Christians. That fact, if you are either part of that section of Christianity or outside it completely, can be difficult to notice.

[barmar]

In fact, at least in my opinion, any contractual union between adults is their business alone, and neither the Church nor the State should have any say in it.

 

Except that it's not just an issue between the couple, it has tendrils into many areas of society. Married people can file joint taxes, they have inheritance rights, they have access to each other's financial and medical records, they can be included in family insurance plans, they can't be compelled to testify against each other in court, they can get a Green Card if their spouse is a citizen, to name just a few.

 

So unless you want to get rid of all the legal benefits awarded to married couples, the law needs a concrete definition of marriage.

 

And it's the Church's business if they consider marriage to be a holy sacrament, and their religion addresses this. If they preach that homosexuality is a violation of the principles of their religion, it would be the height of hypocracy for them to condone it by marrying them. Of course, it's not like religions have never been known to be hypocritical.

[blackshoe]

I do want to "get rid of all the legal benefits awarded to married couples" — and any legal detriments, too. Level the playing field. Joint taxes? No, the tax laws — if we're going to have taxes, which I would argue we should not — should not treat a "married couple", whatever that means, any different from two single people living together. Inheritance is a matter for the individual leaving whatever he is leaving to whoever he wants to leave it, not a matter into which the government should insert itself. Ditto the other things you mention, and probably all the things you didn't mention.

 

Marriage, in my view, should be as far as the society at large is concerned a civil contract between two or more people. The exact form of that contract is their business, not any religion's. If a member of a particular religion wants to make a contract that complies with his or her religion's tenets regarding marriage, more power to him (or her), but again that is the decision of the contractees involved. The religion (or the State) has no business trying to compel anyone to adhere to those tenets.