Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: SypheDMar on March 03, 2011, 02:20:29 am
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110302/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_funeral_protests
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a grieving father's pain over mocking protests at his Marine son's funeral must yield to First Amendment protections for free speech. All but one justice sided with a fundamentalist church that has stirred outrage with raucous demonstrations contending God is punishing the military for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.
The 8-1 decision in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., was the latest in a line of court rulings that, as Chief Justice John Roberts said in his opinion for the court, protects "even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."
The decision ended a lawsuit by Albert Snyder, who sued church members for the emotional pain they caused by showing up at his son Matthew's funeral. As they have at hundreds of other funerals, the Westboro members held signs with provocative messages, including "Thank God for dead soldiers," `'You're Going to Hell," `'God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," and one that combined the U.S. Marine Corps motto, Semper Fi, with a slur against gay men.
-
so in other words freedom of speech overrides a persons right to grieve for a lost loved one
-
Is there a freedom of molotov cocktailing? :<
-
Hearing this ruling really bummed me out. I mean, I know from a constitutional standpoint that the Supreme Court was correct, and that the First Amendment has to take precedence in cases like this one if it's to have any meaning at all...but goddamn, those assholes. At the very least, the Court also stated that measures prohibiting protests within a certain radius of a funeral site are permissible.
-
Thinking about it, from the slogans and placards quoted, could there be an argument for incitement to violence?
-
As much as I hate these guys, this ruling is a good yardstick for our First Amendment freedoms--if the Court will protect assholes like these, the worst of the worst, then it'll protect us.
And if the military families can take anything from the WBC, it's that the First Amendment they were told their child died for overseas is still alive and well, and the WBC is living proof of it.
-
It's times like this I hate irony
-
Maybe we should stop thinking of this ruling in terms of what it allows the Westbro Baptists to do and instead start thinking of what it entitles us to do to them. :D
-
Kevin Smith was having some fun with them at Sundance the other week - http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2011/01/sundance-2011-red-state-sparks-protests-and-media-frenzy.html
The article neglects to mention ne of his mates walking around with a "Dick Tastes Yummy" sign. :D
-
The law was correctly applied, the flaw here is that law is thought to make an effect on sane people... which those protesters are clearly not.
-
Can't we classify them as a cult and disband them already.
-
It'd make a nice dry run for the other churches too.
-
Hearing this ruling really bummed me out. I mean, I know from a constitutional standpoint that the Supreme Court was correct, and that the First Amendment has to take precedence in cases like this one if it's to have any meaning at all...but goddamn, those assholes. At the very least, the Court also stated that measures prohibiting protests within a certain radius of a funeral site are permissible.
This might make you feel better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Guard_Riders
WBC may represent some of the worst of America, but these guys represent some of the best.
-
Na, leave them as they are.
They will eventually disband themeselves out of boredom or get destroyed in a mortal clash with another group equally disturbed people.
-
This is a victory for free speech, nothing more, nothing less.
-
Maybe we should stop thinking of this ruling in terms of what it allows the Westbro Baptists to do and instead start thinking of what it entitles us to do to them. :D
If i was in america you could count me in on the counter protest on the other side of the cemetery
-
See, the thing is, normal, healthy, people don't look up the dates and locations for service member's funerals, so the counter protests are usually pretty small.
EDIT:
I'm speaking of private funerals of course.
-
Would the same ruling have been delivered had they been atheists?
-
The way they ruled probably has to do with the fact that the First Amendment needs to be preserved, not anything to do with religious favoritism. The WBP brand of zealotry runs counter to mainstream US Christianity which is tends more towards God & Country. Not to mention if you've ever seen interviews with the chief justices, it becomes pretty clear they are very very competent and take their stuff extremely seriously.
-
Would the same ruling have been delivered had they been atheists?
Absolutely.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#Laws_limiting_funeral_protests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#Laws_limiting_funeral_protests) makes me feel better. :)
-
If i was in america you could count me in on the counter protest on the other side of the cemetery
I wasn't on about that. I was on about the fact that the ruling means you can probably get away with 24/7 demonstrations outside their church holding placards saying "Suck my dick Fred Phelps', you know you really want to" :p
You can probably make them pretty loud during the daytime too.
-
Is there a freedom of molotov cocktailing? :<
Apprently, Art falls under freedom of speech. So if you could set someone on fire in an artistic manner...
-
You'll note that the Snyder lawsuit was actually not triggered by the protests, but by the posting of a poem directly about the Snyder family on Westboro's website. That never was and should not be protected by freedom of speech - an individual's right to protection and privacy was previously paramount. The USSC has just removed that protection, whether they want to admit it or not (and one justice's written decision addresses that very point - not the dissenting judge, notably).
This is the problem with narrow legal interpretation surrounding wording of amendments - unforseen (or in this case, forseen but unacknowledged) consequences.
-
So wait, if you're american, you can now say what the hell you like about who the hell you like and there's nothing they can do about it?
.....................What changed from normal then?
-
Nothing. Some just suspected that things might change in light of Westboro's dickery.
-
This is the problem with narrow legal interpretation surrounding wording of amendments - unforseen (or in this case, forseen but unacknowledged) consequences.
So you're saying we should prepare for unforeseen consequences?
-
Needs moar s's in conssssequencesssssss.
-
You'll note that the Snyder lawsuit was actually not triggered by the protests, but by the posting of a poem directly about the Snyder family on Westboro's website.
Actually the lawsuit came from the signs at the protest. Not once in the entire SCOTUS ruling was the website mentioned.
And yeah, I read Justice Breyer's concurring statement (which I assume you were referring to), but he himself concluded that the right to protection from IIED needs to be balanced against the right to speak on public issues. Unfortunately, WBC's right to speak on public issues outweighed Snyder's protection from IIED. They didn't interfere with the funeral, and Snyder didn't even know what was written on the signs until after the ceremony when he saw it on the news.
-
Actually the lawsuit came from the signs at the protest. Not once in the entire SCOTUS ruling was the website mentioned.
And yeah, I read Justice Breyer's concurring statement (which I assume you were referring to), but he himself concluded that the right to protection from IIED needs to be balanced against the right to speak on public issues. Unfortunately, WBC's right to speak on public issues outweighed Snyder's protection from IIED. They didn't interfere with the funeral, and Snyder didn't even know what was written on the signs until after the ceremony when he saw it on the news.
IIED: Intentional Inflictment of Emotional Distress. I google so you don't have to. ;)
-
Actually the lawsuit came from the signs at the protest. Not once in the entire SCOTUS ruling was the website mentioned.
And yeah, I read Justice Breyer's concurring statement (which I assume you were referring to), but he himself concluded that the right to protection from IIED needs to be balanced against the right to speak on public issues. Unfortunately, WBC's right to speak on public issues outweighed Snyder's protection from IIED. They didn't interfere with the funeral, and Snyder didn't even know what was written on the signs until after the ceremony when he saw it on the news.
IIED: Intentional Inflictment of Emotional Distress. I google so you don't have to. ;)
I love my acronyms ;)
-
Improvised Improvised Explosive Device
-
****ers like these make the sound-minded Christians (yes, sound-minded ones exist--I'm one of them--also, inb4 "all religious people are fail because I said so/they reject reality/they persecute everybody") want to cry.
-
Personally, they make me want to kick them in the babymakers. :p
-
****ers like these make the sound-minded Christians (yes, sound-minded ones exist--I'm one of them--also, inb4 "all religious people are fail because I said so/they reject reality/they persecute everybody") want to cry.
I'm curious - What exactly makes other Christians "sound-minded" as opposed to the WBC? Both the wrong and the sound-minded ones are Christians, so they're both delusional, only one group takes their delusion more seriously, and focuses much more on staging protests in order to share their views, or otherwise fulfill their duties to God as they perceive him. Where is the line? It seems like whenever people talk about how the WBC are wrong or otherwise not in the right, it all boils down to "I don't like what they say". Some people do some minimal bible-searching and pull out stuff like John 3:16 to say how God doesn't hate the world, and the WBC will come right back at them by telling them to read John 3:18.
As a sound-minded Christian, do you stay away from things like eating shell-fish(abomination, the same word the bible uses about homosexuality), or wearing clothes of mixed fabrics? If you don't, how can you claim to be sound-minded, or a "real" Christian in light of John 2:4?
-
The matter of religion is a subjective one, and to use a term such as 'delusional' would be to have opinion, yet you state it as if it were fact. Westboro Baptist Church is simply an attention whore, with the label "Christian" slapped on.
As for the other prods at my 'heresy' towards my own faith, I always thought that God has a plan for me, so whatever that may be, I'll try and seek it out. Until I figure out what it is, though, I'm doing whatever the hell I think it may be. And if by eating shellfish, wearing mixed fabric clothes, and so forth you say I am not sound minded, then you are sadly mistaken.
By sound minded, I meant that I'm not one of those to reject morality and reason. Feel free to bombard me with "science is reason, why are you religious" now, because I see it coming. When I said 'sound-minded', I was not referring to my faith. At all. I was referencing the fact that I'm moderate, and that I don't force my beliefs on people like Westboro does. And if in doing so, it makes me a heretic, oh ****, I don't give a damn, I'm entitled to believe what I want. You can tell me I'm going to hell because I don't conform, but no one here knows my personal (perhaps even non-Biblical) beliefs better than myself--it's in my head and no one else's.
Please don't try and pinpoint me as a target. I'm just trying to voice a simple opinion (and in saying this, I'm not trying to look like a victim--it just seems to me that you're putting words into my mouth).
-
I kinda get what you mean. I know a average going Christian that's an asshole, which has more to do with his own personality than religion.
-
****ers like these make the sound-minded Christians (yes, sound-minded ones exist--I'm one of them--also, inb4 "all religious people are fail because I said so/they reject reality/they persecute everybody") want to cry.
I'm curious - What exactly makes other Christians "sound-minded" as opposed to the WBC? Both the wrong and the sound-minded ones are Christians, so they're both delusional, only one group takes their delusion more seriously, and focuses much more on staging protests in order to share their views, or otherwise fulfill their duties to God as they perceive him. Where is the line? It seems like whenever people talk about how the WBC are wrong or otherwise not in the right, it all boils down to "I don't like what they say". Some people do some minimal bible-searching and pull out stuff like John 3:16 to say how God doesn't hate the world, and the WBC will come right back at them by telling them to read John 3:18.
As a sound-minded Christian, do you stay away from things like eating shell-fish(abomination, the same word the bible uses about homosexuality), or wearing clothes of mixed fabrics? If you don't, how can you claim to be sound-minded, or a "real" Christian in light of John 2:4?
Maybe sound-minded Christians aren't retarded fundamentalists who believe the Bible is literal truth that should be taken as an itemized guide to day-to-day existence?
I think the difference between a sound-minded Christian and the WBC is pretty ****ing clear, the sound-minded Christian interprets their faith in a way that does not force itself on others or create imperatives to inflict harm and distress. If you don't believe faith is open to interpretation then you don't understand it; you actually take it as revealed truth from God rather than a human construct and therefore execute your own argument on the spot.
It's not like any of us atheists are any different. The fact that you haven't killed yourself indicates that you subscribe to a belief system every bit as delusional and baseless as Christianity - you believe that your existence in the world has some sort of value or meaning that will last beyond the extinction of your tiny organic consciousness. There is no point whatsoever in accumulating memories, having pleasant experiences or attempting to help others, because any possible meaning that can be derived from these behaviors will die with you. A rational actor, recognizing this, would either reduce its predictive threshold (if it maintained a fundamental, baseless belief that existence was preferable to nonexistence) or kill itself. We do the former; we live from day to day, seeking positive experiences, because we are unable to acknowledge the paralyzing truth of our own eventual annihilation. Ultimately we all need to fixate on something irrational to survive, even if it's something as basic as 'survival is good'.
You're also reading the Bible directly, taking its wording at face value, rather than recognizing that this is an ancient document which has been translated numerous times. That's the behavior of a true believer, not a critical thinker; picking out inconsistencies in a work that is obviously rife with them is easy, but it doesn't speak to the actual flaws of Christianity, which have far more to do with the behavior of its leaders and followers than with tenets of the religion itself. I suspect you are a deeply religious man, without any of the cognitive values of a secular humanist; you define your faith as a negative, and lash out at those who don't share it, but you fundamentally think the same way they do. Like the Westboro Church, you try to force your values on others rather than recognizing that they're just a way to guide your own behavior. You proselytize and attack.
Try atheism. It's a much more refreshing, positive worldview. And an atheist's analysis of religion is simple: it should be based on outcomes. If a person's faith produces constructive, prosocial behavior in that person, it is acceptable. If it produces antisocial, negative behavior, including the infliction of distress upon others or the restriction of their rights, as in the WBC, it is deleterious. The actual content of the faith is irrelevant. People can believe whatever they please so long as it leads to positive results that acknowledge the freedom of others to believe and act as they choose (if, in turn, their actions do not infringe that right).
-
Good post, would read again.
-
dammit battuta even my most poignant response would now be redundant, you cheater
-
Well, the entire point of me trying to stay moderate throughout was to not force beliefs down people's throats, and since the only debate tactic I would have left right about now would be to do just that, I'll end my side of the debate (or whatever it may have been) here.
Good post, though, structured argument throughout.
Religion is subjective, flawed, and in many cases, corrupt. I won't deny that. My apologies for opening up about it.
(P.S. I'm normally afraid to talk about these sort of things, especially on here, since the general consensus among Hard-Light members is to persecute Christians--assholes or not--about as bad as the WBC Christians would do so to nonbelievers. At least, it seems to me that we're generally all hated because we're apparently all full of **** and we all want to convert the world.
I know that wasn't your argument. I just want to avert that entirely.)
-
The best way to become a 'good atheist' with a commitment to improving rational thought, rather than an atheist defined by what is essentially a religion of antireligion, is to start recognizing and isolating the cognitive systems that produce belief. They are fundamental to the brain and shared across personality types, and they can't really be turned off, but they will help you understand why humans are basically giant self-confirmation engines.
I suggest R. Scott Bakker (http://rsbakker.wordpress.com/) and Overcoming Bias (http://www.overcomingbias.com/) as populist sources, but honestly immersion in psychology literature is the best way and I wouldn't completely trust either of those not to have their own angle. (Neither would they, I hope.)
The big takeaway is that nobody is immune. Everyone shares a set of blind spots and tendencies with very real consequences. For instance, as soon as you publicly endorse a belief, it becomes very hard for you to shake it - it's essentially now a tenet of your own idiosyncratic minireligion. The more opposition you hit (and the more it strikes at you directly rather than the belief), the more hardened your defense will be. You'll also seek out confirming evidence and agreeable sorts of people over the opposites, pushing yourself deeper into the hole. In this way the most ardently nondevout sorts still manage to treat various topics with the same behaviors we see in the religious. It even works on your perception of your own attractiveness, popularity, driving skill, so on.
The only way out of this kind of affective spiral is to constantly question your assertions and beliefs. You'll fail at it, but it's worth a try. The only things ultimately worth a damn in terms of thought are solid statistics and experimental data.
On that note this post may well be bull****.
-
(P.S. I'm normally afraid to talk about these sort of things, especially on here, since the general consensus among Hard-Light members is to persecute Christians--assholes or not--about as bad as the WBC Christians would do so to nonbelievers. At least, it seems to me that we're generally all hated because we're apparently all full of **** and we all want to convert the world.
I WILL ban anyone I see doing that sort of ****.
You might have noticed that no one else has jumped on the bandwagon and pretty much all the atheists who have posted have pretty much come out in your defence.
As a sound-minded Christian, do you stay away from things like eating shell-fish(abomination, the same word the bible uses about homosexuality), or wearing clothes of mixed fabrics? If you don't, how can you claim to be sound-minded, or a "real" Christian in light of John 2:4?
2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
:confused:
-
Ezekiel 25:17
-
****ers like these make the sound-minded Christians (yes, sound-minded ones exist--I'm one of them--also, inb4 "all religious people are fail because I said so/they reject reality/they persecute everybody") want to cry.
I'm curious - What exactly makes other Christians "sound-minded" as opposed to the WBC? Both the wrong and the sound-minded ones are Christians, so they're both delusional, only one group takes their delusion more seriously, and focuses much more on staging protests in order to share their views, or otherwise fulfill their duties to God as they perceive him. Where is the line? It seems like whenever people talk about how the WBC are wrong or otherwise not in the right, it all boils down to "I don't like what they say". Some people do some minimal bible-searching and pull out stuff like John 3:16 to say how God doesn't hate the world, and the WBC will come right back at them by telling them to read John 3:18.
As a sound-minded Christian, do you stay away from things like eating shell-fish(abomination, the same word the bible uses about homosexuality), or wearing clothes of mixed fabrics? If you don't, how can you claim to be sound-minded, or a "real" Christian in light of John 2:4?
Oh look. A delusional not-sound-minded atheist. As for Westboro, I pretty much is as disgusted with them as those that think Muslim Americans aren't Americans.
-
uhhh that was rather harsh. the religion might be flawed yes but so are many things belief or non belief. i consider myself agnostic but i go to a catholic highschool and most of my friends are all catholic. yet they are all pretty good people. not very big on the insane or delusional bit. i dont believe but im willing to stand up for those that do. i would more than like to, just cant. I think the religious views are more a reflection of the individual rather than the belief system itself. as for fundamentalist? nobody in my grade takes the bible as the literal truth. nor do they act on every passage in it,centuriyet they are still good christains, and dare i say it, still good people. we are taught that the bible has been mistranslated and out of context and time. that its stories that in essence are true but in literal word are not.
btw proud to be a member of indiana who bans funeral protesters.
while i think the SC was right to uphold the first amendment, i dont approve of westborrow. honestly their actions are disgusting and appaling
-
Religion bugs me on principle because I think that it's usually brought about by a willingness to not think about what one believes. . . that said I do not think that all religion is the same.
The Westboro crew is a rare breed.
-
Religion bugs me on principle because I think that it's usually brought about by a willingness to not think about what one believes. . .
I feel the same way about political organizations.
-
Religion bugs me on principle because I think that it's usually brought about by a willingness to not think about what one believes. . .
I feel the same way about political organizations.
I feel the same way about sweeping generalizations.
-
I feel the same way about quote chains. :p
-
You can't really define religion because it is open for interpretation. I consider myself Christian but I doubt many of my peers would consider me a Christian if I explained my beliefs to them.
Personally, I consider religion to be a method of comprehension; a way to rationalize the unknown and to better view oneself. The former is why I feel religion has to change as technology moves forward and culture shifts. Of course, few view religion even partially as I do, which saddens me.
Most of the time, it's just abused as a locus of intolerance. I wonder how the authors of the Holy Bible would feel if they saw what was going on today...
-
they would feel shocked and terrified to see people tapping on a tablet in front of a bizarre living tapestry of fire, riding around in great beasts of metal, and talking to people in little boxes that they hold up to their head.
-
Maybe sound-minded Christians aren't retarded fundamentalists who believe the Bible is literal truth that should be taken as an itemized guide to day-to-day existence?
I think the difference between a sound-minded Christian and the WBC is pretty ****ing clear, the sound-minded Christian interprets their faith in a way that does not force itself on others or create imperatives to inflict harm and distress. If you don't believe faith is open to interpretation then you don't understand it; you actually take it as revealed truth from God rather than a human construct and therefore execute your own argument on the spot.
You know, the WBC don't see it as inflicting harm and distress, they see it as spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ, as the bible tells them to.
It's not like any of us atheists are any different. The fact that you haven't killed yourself indicates that you subscribe to a belief system every bit as delusional and baseless as Christianity - you believe that your existence in the world has some sort of value or meaning that will last beyond the extinction of your tiny organic consciousness. There is no point whatsoever in accumulating memories, having pleasant experiences or attempting to help others, because any possible meaning that can be derived from these behaviors will die with you. A rational actor, recognizing this, would either reduce its predictive threshold (if it maintained a fundamental, baseless belief that existence was preferable to nonexistence) or kill itself. We do the former; we live from day to day, seeking positive experiences, because we are unable to acknowledge the paralyzing truth of our own eventual annihilation. Ultimately we all need to fixate on something irrational to survive, even if it's something as basic as 'survival is good'.
No problem with any of this.
You're also reading the Bible directly, taking its wording at face value, rather than recognizing that this is an ancient document which has been translated numerous times. That's the behavior of a true believer, not a critical thinker; picking out inconsistencies in a work that is obviously rife with them is easy, but it doesn't speak to the actual flaws of Christianity, which have far more to do with the behavior of its leaders and followers than with tenets of the religion itself. I suspect you are a deeply religious man, without any of the cognitive values of a secular humanist; you define your faith as a negative, and lash out at those who don't share it, but you fundamentally think the same way they do. Like the Westboro Church, you try to force your values on others rather than recognizing that they're just a way to guide your own behavior. You proselytize and attack.
Well, I am, and I'm not. I realize that there are people who do and don't, but I see the ones who practice it as it's written to be more "real" than the ones who don't, because liberal interpretation of the bible usually ends up in nonsense: Like people saying that God doesn't hate anyone. I have seen more consistent doctrine from the literalists than from the Sunday Christians, so to speak. Also, what right do you have to dismiss literalism? Maybe that's the way God intended the bible to be read? We cannot possibly know. Now, if we ignore the obvious facts like the bible being more a collection of books by different authors, and follow the message and the general idea of the bible, the literalist position makes more sense given the contents. For example, these people really believed that sprinkling a doves blood on lepers would cure them, and yet we can skip around that and say well that this obviously has no greater meaning... but the word of God is supposed to be perfect, so this must have some meaning. Either it works, or it's an analogy, parable, or metaphore or whatever. Maybe they were just making stuff up to fill pages? In any case, we've skipped past something we don't like. If, say, a Muslim does this, the Qur'an says that they will burn in the lowest depths of hell. Is that a metaphore, too? Picking and choosing will make them feel bad inside? The waters of religion are so incredibly murky as far as actual message go, sure, but you make it seem like it's all a big nebulous cloud that can mean whatever. Now, don't try to align me with the WBC - I'm not by any stretch trying to proselytize. Playing devil's advocate more like. The reason I ask questions about Sigtau's behavior is because I wanted to see what his position would be in the face of a direct biblical condemnation of his own behavior. I am supposed to be the delusional one, calling out blatant hypocrisy? You can dismiss my arguments because you dismiss literalism, but I don't see how you can dismiss clear statements like the ones I brought to the table. That's why I chose those two references -- I can't see how people can weasel around them.
So yeah, they're obnoxious, evil, and cruel, but they're no less Christian than the other Christians. There's room for liberal interpretation, but in a lot of places, the bible is very clear on what it demands from its followers.
@Kara -- Sorry, that was supposed to have been 1 John 2:4 -- "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."
-
Your entire argument is built on a fundamentalist position, that there is some worth to the literal truth of scripture. But the vast majority of the religious see their faith as a form of guidance to produce good, moral behavior. They trust in the benevolence and compassion of God - this is a fundamental of both Christianity and Islam. To act compassionately is a higher imperative than to obey some archaic scriptural dictum.
Religion isn't treated as a set of rules like a board game manual which need to be adhered to in order to play correctly; it's a behavioral philosophy that must be made compatible with everyday life. If you're honestly an atheist, then what matters to you is the outcomes produced by religion, and you need to judge the religious based on those outcomes. If, on the other hand, you're a member of another religion, you can pick at apparent contradictions or obsolete dicta for as long as you like, but you won't be making any actual headway in attacking the religion because those dicta are not part of the faith most believers hold.
So
I am supposed to be the delusional one, calling out blatant hypocrisy? You can dismiss my arguments because you dismiss literalism, but I don't see how you can dismiss clear statements like the ones I brought to the table. That's why I chose those two references -- I can't see how people can weasel around them.
I don't see any weaseling or hypocrisy necessary to disregard statements like these. People believe in a God of these religions who is compassionate and merciful, who rewards faith and good conduct. Many of them experience a personal relationship with God, one of trust and understanding. They do not believe in a lawyer God who demands strict adherence to every tenet of an ancient document. Faith is by its very nature about belief, setting aside the rational.
In the case of Christians, for example, all things are forgiven in Jesus. He represents, essentially, a patch on the Old Testament, offering salvation through a very simple path that bypasses the need for a complex behavioral code in favor of a few basic rituals and a number of admonishments to be a good Communist.
In the hierarchy of religious belief, a relationship with a compassionate, understanding God comes before a line-item knowledge of scripture for most believers. There is no way to go past that without introducing your own belief, which you've done: you value literalist religion higher because you see it as more consistent and you claim that I go against God's will by interpreting it differently.
Then you go on to say 'we cannot possibly know.'
If you don't see a contradiction there you're not looking. In the meantime, believers believe they can know, because in many cases they relate directly to God rather than through a scriptural intermediary.
You know, the WBC don't see it as inflicting harm and distress, they see it as spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ, as the bible tells them to.
This is irrelevant. We determine their moral station; they do not. It's tyranny of the majority.
So yeah, they're obnoxious, evil, and cruel, but they're no less Christian than the other Christians.
Christianity calls on its followers to be compassionate, to turn the other cheek in case of slight, and to refrain from casting stones until they are themselves without sin. I think any given Christian has plenty of reason to reject the WBC. To say otherwise is to either to demonstrate ignorance of the tenets of the religion or to embrace a fundamentalist view that most Christians do not share.
You persist in introducing illusionary objective standards to measure membership in a system defined by belief. You're not even attacking the right problem - if evangelical ultraconservative religion is your problem, you should be worrying about charismatic preachers, who rely on rhetorical appeal and selective quotation rather than any kind of comprehensive knowledge of scripture.
Religion is obviously rife with contradictions, because it is a mythology constructed by humans over many years. But for believers, who see their system as revealed truth from God, the clear imperative is to understand God's will as it applies to their lives - which, most of them believe, does not include slavish devotion to archaic tenets of scripture.
-
@Kara -- Sorry, that was supposed to have been 1 John 2:4 -- "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."
None of the stuff you mentioned is actually a commandment though.
-
@Battuda - I guess you're right that I argue from the fundamentalist position. Religion, though, I feel has been dragged to the point it's at now, kicking and screaming all the way. In a sense, we've redefined it not by changing it, which we have done, too, though, but by changing the emphasis. Protestants for example focus on God as a guidance, and all the love stuff, whereas you'll see certain Catholics like Mother Theresa admitting that suffering gets you closer to Jesus, and encouraging it. We can pick out anything we want from it, and that's fine if you really want to believe in some God; better than actually reading what it says. I would argue that the evil in the Old and the New Testament -- far outweigh the positive, and I am very glad that people have decided to put a human face on religion, or at least try to synchronize them by focusing on the good parts as I mentioned.
But I understand that "Christianity" in its current form, is more positive than it was back then, but I see that as an achievement of humanity.
-
I don't necessarily disagree with you. And my personal thanks, this has been a more rewarding and level-headed discussion than I'd expected.
Mother Theresa was kind of a dick sometimes.