[Polpolion]

In this particular case, "religion" is obviously to be blamed. Religious people will disagree, and we could settle then for a rephrase. Let's adopt the christian talking points, for instance, and declare that what this awkward group has done is a sort of a "pagan" exercise. By declaring it "pagan" we can excuse religion of this ****hole demonstration of ignorance and descrimination, and perhaps unite a whole bigger bunch of reasonable people against this "pagan" sort of thinking.

We could use this "rephrasing" technique to whatever the most civilized bunch of religious people feel where their own religion could be "upgraded", and let the cluster****ing mess that is debating religion to its own messy corner and actually solve a real problem of discrimination and hurt.

read this like six times and it still doesn't make any sense, which is troubling because you seem to be under the impression that it is obvious that "religion" is to blame

[karajorma]

And happy to see that little changes in HLP... with Battuta always playing the comical  "I'm the most atheistic person you'll ever meet BUT I hate when atheists speak" ridiculous card while all the others exchange mortars and missiles of Godwinnian arguments all over the place.

I think you forgot to add that it's never complete until Luis Dias arrives to take a **** all over the thread.

[Mikes]

Oh look another religion thread.

I love the cluster**** that religion threads bring about .

And happy to see that little changes in HLP... with Battuta always playing the comical  "I'm the most atheistic person you'll ever meet BUT I hate when atheists speak" ridiculous card while all the others exchange mortars and missiles of Godwinnian arguments all over the place.

In this particular case, "religion" is obviously to be blamed. Religious people will disagree, and we could settle then for a rephrase. Let's adopt the christian talking points, for instance, and declare that what this awkward group has done is a sort of a "pagan" exercise. By declaring it "pagan" we can excuse religion of this ****hole demonstration of ignorance and descrimination, and perhaps unite a whole bigger bunch of reasonable people against this "pagan" sort of thinking.

We could use this "rephrasing" technique to whatever the most civilized bunch of religious people feel where their own religion could be "upgraded", and let the cluster****ing mess that is debating religion to its own messy corner and actually solve a real problem of discrimination and hurt.

Kumbayah?

You will never solve any issues - be it discrimination or whatever else - that are dogmatized and perpetuated by organized religion (or similar institutions) simply by proclaiming it's futile to even discuss - using the mother of all strawman arguments for support - while you ride off on your high horse proclaiming you have more important things to do.

The specific worldview isn't really the problem, whatever it currently is, which makes your argument pretty much miss the point. You are on the wrong (meta) level.

The problem is how religion perpetuates dogma through the ages and the untold harm it causes.
I.e. our problem is more or less a meme, a quite virulent one: Set belief that defies evidence to the contrary. Spread from parent to child.
The different religions we have are merely a manifestation of this belief, this meme.
Organized religion isn't the only institution to spread dogma either, just the most prominent one.

Social sciences can explain why we have religion. Biology, specifically Evolution offers a whole slew of explanations. Aboves meme/viral theory being just one of them.
None of these explanations requires a higher being. Religion however does... or the belief in a higher being anyways... which is one of the things leads us headlong into this obnoxious confrontation of religion/belief vs. rationality/the scientific method.

The question that remains is why Religion as such (not just Christian religion) is still granted that special status in society and especially American society, to be above scrutiny, to be a justification for pretty much anything, including the denial of education to children, drug abuse, displays of racism or other discrimination, et cetera.

[Luis Dias]

In this particular case, "religion" is obviously to be blamed. Religious people will disagree, and we could settle then for a rephrase. Let's adopt the christian talking points, for instance, and declare that what this awkward group has done is a sort of a "pagan" exercise. By declaring it "pagan" we can excuse religion of this ****hole demonstration of ignorance and descrimination, and perhaps unite a whole bigger bunch of reasonable people against this "pagan" sort of thinking.

We could use this "rephrasing" technique to whatever the most civilized bunch of religious people feel where their own religion could be "upgraded", and let the cluster****ing mess that is debating religion to its own messy corner and actually solve a real problem of discrimination and hurt.

read this like six times and it still doesn't make any sense, which is troubling because you seem to be under the impression that it is obvious that "religion" is to blame

Well, I can say the same about your own comment. I don't understand why my senselessness is troubling *because* of a particular impression that I might or might not have. But I agree that I usually have problems in stating things unequivocally and clearly.

In summary, yeah, I also believe that a *particular* kind of religious thinking is to be blamed here, namely the absolutist belief that homossexuality is an unholy sin against the sacredness of everything regarding sex and marriage, etc., the righteous nature that is justified for having none other than the most absolute power in the universe on their side of the equation, and the pretensiousness that all the "praying for their souls" activity demonstrates (yeah let's all close our eyes and ask the universe to bend itself and change other people's minds just because we do so politely and "humbly"!).

Although one thing in defense of christianity has to be said: it's quite better than bullying the couple into submission by stoning them to death.

You will never solve any issues - be it discrimination or whatever else - that are dogmatized and perpetuated by organized religion (or similar institutions) simply by proclaiming it's futile to even discuss - using the mother of all strawman arguments for support - while you ride off on your high horse proclaiming you have more important things to do.

Not my intent at all. I was merely trying the pragmatic approach. If religious people will never accept that this is a problem that stems from religion, then we should approach it slightly different, since many religious people will also cringe at this type of news, showing that they can also do something about this idiocies, if we can agree to that.

The specific worldview isn't really the problem, whatever it currently is, which makes your argument pretty much miss the point. You are on the wrong (meta) level.

NO U

[Polpolion]

In summary, yeah, I also believe that a *particular* kind of religious thinking is to be blamed here, namely the absolutist belief that homossexuality is an unholy sin against the sacredness of everything regarding sex and marriage, etc., the righteous nature that is justified for having none other than the most absolute power in the universe on their side of the equation, and the pretensiousness that all the "praying for their souls" activity demonstrates (yeah let's all close our eyes and ask the universe to bend itself and change other people's minds just because we do so politely and "humbly"!).

go back and read some of my responses to swantz (tl;dr intolerance in religion is a symptom not a cause)

[Mikes]

In summary, yeah, I also believe that a *particular* kind of religious thinking is to be blamed here, namely the absolutist belief that homossexuality is an unholy sin against the sacredness of everything regarding sex and marriage, etc., the righteous nature that is justified for having none other than the most absolute power in the universe on their side of the equation, and the pretensiousness that all the "praying for their souls" activity demonstrates (yeah let's all close our eyes and ask the universe to bend itself and change other people's minds just because we do so politely and "humbly"!).

Absolutist belief is the problem. Period. I would agree with that. Doesn't really matter what the actual issue is however.

The problem with Religion that remains however is that it nurtures, dogmatizes and perpetuates such belief more effectively than any other institution.

[Luis Dias]

I know what you believe, but you should pay attention to this detail: the fact that I understand your point is still not sufficient for me to accept it.

Intolerance exists, as you rightfully put it, everywhere where mankind exists. What some specific religions do, however, is to write down certain types of intolerance into holy rules, into dogma. And by doing so, they are telling everyone that these particular intolerances should be taught and should be beyond discussion. This is, itself, intolerable.

Now, from this point, we can say a lot of other things. We can say that many religious people don't give too much importance to the "dogmatic facts" of their own faith and they, as fellow human beings with decency in their hearts, will understand that intolerating gays and what nots is something that should be scrapped to the garbage bin of history. Then, they can tell to themselves that these intolerances are not "important" for their faith, so they can ignore them. They are obviously lying to themselves, but it's not an evil lie IMO.

We can also say that if we want to solve these problems, shouting out that religion "must go" won't get us anywhere interesting. I'd rather work with religious people to solve these matters than with atheists who think that destroying the religion is the solution, merely for pragmatic reasons alone.

What you won't have me agree with is the notion that religion is without any "responsibilities" over these matters. That is surely a lie.

[Grizzly]

As for your claim that Atheism can be just as bad... isn't that kinda paradox? You can certainly make a case for intolerance, hate, ostracism etc. being universal problems but...  as for Atheism being some kind of ideal that people would elevate over reason and scientific evidence and even die, kill or go to war for? Don't confuse Atheism as another religion, the whole notion is idiotic.

No - I said that Atheïsts can be just as bad, as there have been several god-less ideologies (Some based on scientific evidence) that people elevated over reason and died, killed, or went to war for.

[General Battuta]

And happy to see that little changes in HLP... with Battuta always playing the comical  "I'm the most atheistic person you'll ever meet BUT I hate when atheists speak" ridiculous card

Being a better atheist and scientist than most atheists is a tough job, and it carries certain responsibilities

[Luis Dias]

And happy to see that little changes in HLP... with Battuta always playing the comical  "I'm the most atheistic person you'll ever meet BUT I hate when atheists speak" ridiculous card

Being a better atheist and scientist than most atheists is a tough job, and it carries certain responsibilities

How could you possibly know? But yeah, I agree with your assessment and compliment. Thanks .

[General Battuta]

And happy to see that little changes in HLP... with Battuta always playing the comical  "I'm the most atheistic person you'll ever meet BUT I hate when atheists speak" ridiculous card

Being a better atheist and scientist than most atheists is a tough job, and it carries certain responsibilities

How could you possibly know? But yeah, I agree with your assessment and compliment. Thanks .

Hmm decent try but fumbled on the conversion and didn't carry the necessary chutzpah, I'll say 4/10

[Luis Dias]

I will never make anything contestworthy to your touchéan powers, I'll give you that.

[General Battuta]

I will never make anything contestworthy to your touchéan powers, I'll give you that.

No don't give up I was getting pangs of nostalgia

[Luis Dias]

Nah... you're just bored. Like I am. Damned renderings....

[General Battuta]

Nah... you're just bored. Like I am. Damned renderings....

Godspeed good sir I am going to run some ****ing ksmirnov tests

[Mikes]

As I said above... if Religious institutions made an honest effort at fighting discrimnation and overcoming dogma and we all got along well together, it would hardly be worth discussing.
Over here in Germany Religion is hardly anything that would need to be addressed as an actual "problem" for instance.

The US however appears to go full steam in the other direction and the difference appears to be the prevalence of absolutist belief/dogma/literal scripture interpretation. Now why should we worry about it and not just leave it alone?

I'm sure you've read that the number of fundamentalist Christians in the Air Force has risen from an estimated 20% to 30% in the last years.
Fundamentalism has generally been acknowledged to be a problem in the air force. (just google a bit)
I'm sure you've also heard about the "Jesus loves Nukes" ICBM training video scandal.
We already talked about the prevalence of faith in politics.
The situation is not static but follows an obvious trend.
The Christian Fundamentalism in question features all the usual baggage like end of the world, final war, rapture, 2nd coming of jesus, Apocalypse et cetera: And not to be mistaken, this is generally something that the faithful look forward to.

You believe the major world religions will solve issues of discrimination, hate and violence? Question would be... are they even remotely capable of doing anything of the sort or is the predisposition to believe instead of wanting to know a compounding factor that rather benefits the more extreme sects and religions, especially of the fundamentalist Christian flavor (by now already dubbed the "Christian Taliban" for the similarities in fanatism and willingness to commit violence) springing up in the US?

[Luis Dias]

These institutions are made of people. I'm sure that decency also creeps in them, albeit apparently slowly. This is something that we shouldn't expect them to perform for themselves. We should demand it from them. Freedom requires eternal vigilance.

[MP-Ryan]

Back on topic, it gets better still:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/life/Group+protest+lesbians+banishment+from+Hortons/5609452/story.html

Eric Revie, an assistant pastor at the Glad Tidings Community Church in Blenheim, 90 kilometres east of Windsor, was the one who expressed discomfort to the assistant manager at the Tim Hortons that day.

In a statement emailed to The Star, Revie said he did not ask the manager to tell the couple to leave, but rather did not want his two sons, aged nine and three, to witness what he called a "visibly lewd" public display of affection.

Revie added that his request had nothing to do with the fact that the couple was gay.

"At the time I thought it was a guy-girl couple. I was unaware it was two girls," Revie said.

Revie said the Facebook page was circulating "lies" and that he does not "preach hatred" nor does he "hate those with alternative lifestyles."

No word on the alleged prayer circle.

EDIT:  Oddly enough, it appears the National Post (Canada's equivalent of Fox News or the Daily Mail) seems to have more details, though considering the source I'm tempted to take it with a large chunk of rock salt...

Rev. Revie said he was out with a youth group and his four children, the youngest three years old, at a Tim Hortons last month when he spotted the couple on a bench outside with their tongues locked together and their hands down each other’s pants.

“They were straddling each other … and really making out,” he said. He asked a store manager to tell the couple to “tone it down” in front of his children.

“I don’t have anything against the gay community as a pastor. I don’t hate them,” he said. “My concern was I was in a public place, Tim Hortons, with my family and my children and if they had turned around they would have seen this nearly pornographic image.”

The dispute boiled over after the couple contacted Michelle Boyce, head of Alphabet Community Centre, a London, Ont., gay and transgendered group, to help them file a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Ms. Boyce’s account of the couple’s story on Facebook — including a description of how the church group held a 15-person prayer vigil for the women in the Tim Hortons parking lot that Rev. Revie said was actually just parents standing around chatting — elicited a huge outcry of support from as far away as California and prompted local organizers to plan a protest at the coffee shop on Thursday that had garnered more than 500 online supporters by Monday afternoon.

The plot thickens.  But again, I ask myself, if the display was really that egregious, why is Tim Horton's apologizing and not simply making the facts known?

[Luis Dias]

I don't get why the damned preacher feels the need to lie so blatantly. Oh wait, I do get it quite well.

[MP-Ryan]

I don't get why the damned preacher feels the need to lie so blatantly. Oh wait, I do get it quite well.

This is where you get yourself in hot water.  None of us have any means of knowing who is telling the truth and who is lying - all any of us have is suspicion based on the information reported in the media.

I posted the topic because I found it somewhat ludicrously amusing, not to start an intense discussion on religion which invariably leads to nutbar assertions on all sides with a few reasonable people desperately trying to keep a somewhat nuanced position in the middle of the debate.

For clarity, saying that the "damned preacher" is blatantly lying falls into the nutbar assertions category.