Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is complicated...
As for lesbians being at lesser risk of STDs than hetero women, I refer you here:
...to a website that is funded and promoted by NARTH, "The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality," a group that advocates for "conversion therapy" for gay people, and that claims to be "secular" but whose leadership often espouses theology and prayer and has ties to Focus on the Family.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
Ok, but who said that? Not me.
But it is rather telling that an admitted Christian made that argument, but that humanists do not. In any case, it shows that belief in God does not equate to holding more ethical beliefs than humanism.
No, I'm not claiming that it's ok, only that it was allowed by God and that it wasn't akin to the racial slavery we're familiar with.
Not just "allowed," but "endorsed." At least if you believe that the Bible is the word of God.
And getting back to the original poster, it means either that your belief is no less "arbitrary" than humanist beliefs, or that there is an objective morality that trumps what the Bible says. I have no problem with either conclusion, but the OP would.
Am I to take it that you're next going to decry countries such as North Korea where Christians are locked up for life in gulags and forced to work until they die?
Of course. Why wouldn't I? Christians are people too, and no people should be locked up for life in gulags and forced to work until they die because of their religious beliefs. Just like they shouldn't be locked up because of their lack of adherence to religious beliefs.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
Amazing. Here's the accusation that started this whole thread:
What is right for you can be wrong for someone else and who is to say either of you are right or wrong since there is no right an wrong? By your own logic, slavery was ok back in the day.
And now, here you are, making exactly the argument that the OP accused humanists of making: "not all of the slavery in the OT is to be regarded as an intrinsic evil. 'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord.'"
Simply amazing.
It's a good thing you don't speak for all of Christianity. I think you're going to get a stern talking-to when you reach the ol' pearly gates.
Does anyone here have any idea how and from where ER receives articles for inclusion and publication in its various journals/reference books? [...] My familiarity with the "process" does not extend to how various articles get from the original rights holders or later rights holders like journals to ER.
Elsevier is the (privately owned) publisher that owns the journals in question.
If you follow the link to the other Techdirt article, you'll get this description of Elsevier's M.O.:
They don't pay their writers, the academics who submit articles (for some journals in some fields, academics actually have to pay significant sums to submit articles), they don't have to pay the peer reviewers who do such reviews for free. So they get content and a certain type of editing entirely for free. Then, they charge obscene sums of money to universities for subscriptions and try to block off all kinds of other access to research if people don't pay up -- which is especially troubling when the research is federally funded. Oh yeah, they also claim the copyright on any research submitted.
1. Authors do not have to assign copyright to publishers. There is no law requiring it.
2. Authors do not have to use a "publisher" at all now that we have the Internet and e-books. There is no law requiring it.
What there is, however, is a "publish or perish" mentality in academia. The idea is that if you don't have a significant body of works published in respected academic journals, it is nigh-impossible to get a tenured position.
This puts tremendous pressure on academics to publish works - and specifically with "respected" periodicals. This means that "respected" journals (read: legacy publishers) have a tremendous amount of bargaining power over academics: if they don't sign over the copyright to the article, they won't get published, and probably won't get tenure.
Moreover, since academics generally don't care about the market value for their articles themselves, they often don't see any problem with assigning the copyright to the periodical.
Big Academia has brought ignominy upon itself with such nonsense as "Big Bang", "Global Warming", "Holocaust"
...and now you put on your tin foil hat. "Big Academia" must mean "everyone who believes in empirical evidence," that's what supports all of the "nonsense" you've just mentioned.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
Disagreement and fear are two different things.
Creating threats where none exists is not "disagreement." It is fear, and it is fear-mongering.
Do you consider maids, butlers and live-in servants to be slaves?
That is not even remotely what the Bible was talking about.
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life..." (Leviticus 25:44-46)
"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." (Exodus 21:20-21)
Now, once again, very few Christians (in fact, none that I'm personally aware of) actually believe this. But, if the original commenter's argument is right, that means that those Christians are actually turning away from "the absolute truth." Their morality is "completely arbitrary," and based on "nothing but opinion."
Unfortunately these cases are still few and far-between when compared with the full scope of their activity.
About half of the cases where they defend religious rights are cases where they defend the rights of Christians. That's not "few and far between."
They didn't get a reputation for being anti-Christian for nothing.
No, they got a reputation for being "anti-Christian" because they also defend the religious rights of Jews and Muslims. The "anti-Christian" reputation is fomented by a minority of Christian fundamentalists, who believe that defending any other religion is akin to worshiping Satan. These are the types of people who believe "religious freedom" is the freedom to force their religion on everyone else.
The ACLU is also seen as a "leftist atheist" group because of their support for things like gender equality or their advocacy for teaching evolution. Of course, the majority of Christians also believe in these things, so in this case it's simply the Christian right attacking anything that's not the Christian right, including Christians on the left or in the middle.
Try not to believe them.
I noticed that these few instances were all recent
I purposely only listed the recent cases - as I said. The reason is because if I went back further, there would be far too many to list. They've been defending the rights of Christians for decades.
It's a whole lot more than "just a few isolated cases." Here's a sampling:
The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2012) filed a brief in support of a fifth grader's right to share her religious beliefs with classmates by distributing invitations to a Christmas party hosted by a local church.
The ACLU of Louisiana (2012) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a member of Raven Ministries, a Christian congregation that regularly preaches the Gospel in New Orleans's French Quarter. The lawsuit challenged a city ordinance that restricts religious speech on Bourbon Street after dark.
The ACLU of Virginia (2012 and 2010) opposed bans on students' right to wear rosary beads at two public middle schools.
The ACLU of Utah (2012) filed a lawsuit on behalf of members of the Main Street Church, a non-denominational Christian church in Brigham City, who were denied access to certain city streets for the purpose of handing out religious literature.
The ACLU of New Mexico (2012) filed a lawsuit on behalf of two Christian street preachers who were arrested multiple times for exercising their First Amendment rights by preaching in public.
The ACLU of Texas (2011) opposed a public high school's policy prohibiting students from wearing visible rosaries and crosses in the Brownsville Independent School District.
The ACLU of Nebraska (2011) opposed a policy at Fremont Public School that would prevent students from wearing Catholic rosaries to school.
The ACLU of Texas (2011) filed a brief in support of students in the Plano school district who wanted to include Christian messages in their holiday gift bags.
The ACLU of Virginia (2011) defended the free religious expression of a group of Christian athletes in Floyd County High School who had copies of the Ten Commandments removed from their personal lockers.
The ACLU of Connecticut (2011) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Naval officer who sought recognition as a conscientious objector because of his Christian convictions against war.
The ACLU of Colorado (2010) supported the rights of students in Colorado Springs School District 11 to wear crosses, rosaries, and other religious symbols.
The ACLU and the ACLU of Texas (2010) filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a Texas state prisoner seeking damages after prison officials denied him the opportunity to participate in Christian worship services.
Those are all since 2010, and they all defend the rights of Christians to openly practice their faith. There are lots more.
Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
the 'slavery' referred to in the Old Testament was more the order of indentured servitude, usually to pay off debt.
He was the one that accused me (and all other humanists) of thinking that "slavery was ok back in the day." Of course, no humanist that I am aware of believes this, but if you accept his argument, then Christians must believe this. The fact that "slavery" was more like "indentured servitude" is irrelevant; whatever you call it, you as a Christian must accept that it is moral - not just "back in the day" (for that would mean your morals "are whatever you want them to be), but today and forever more.
If you believe his argument, that is. Which most people (including Christians) do not.
The ultimate purpose of pushing for 'same-sex marriage' is to open the doors to legislating behavior and thought crime
I personally know many other people pushing for same-sex marriage, and that is complete hogwash. The only thing they want is for two people of the same gender to be able to get the same rights as two people who are not of the same gender.
The moment they argue for "legislating behavior and thought crime," I'll be right there with you. But that's not even remotely what's happening.
That outlook is a perfect example of homophobia. You are, quite literally, afraid of homosexuality. You believe (though it's not true) that homosexuals gaining rights is somehow threatening to you personally. You're doing nothing but manufacturing a non-existent threat - and like all paranoid beliefs, it stems solely from fear.
When this is the very first sentence of the ruling:
Having found itself litigating against a more formidable adversary than an empty chair, plaintiff turned to unfounded accusations and wholesale obfuscation.
start booking gay establishments for prayer meetings and hire their venues for parties for straights.
Every single gay owner of an establishment does this already. Do you honestly believe that an owner of e.g. a hotel would turn away straight people merely because he's gay? His hotel would go out of business in a week.
More to the point, how many gay photographers do you think would refuse to take photographs of straight weddings? There are quite a few gay photographers out there, and I've never heard of a single one doing this.
As for the posters asking if they had a business, could they turn away blacks and gays? Sure- it's your business and you can choose whom to serve and whom not to serve.
No, you can't. The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." This covers hotels, restaurants, theaters, gas stations, etc. See 42 USC 2000a.
Additionally, there are numerous state laws that expand the equal protections to categories of people (e.g. sexual orientation) and places that aren't covered under the Federal statutes.
If you haven't figured it out by now, this is part of the gay political movement's campaign of extortion and terrorism to get their way on gay marriage.
This is the most ridiculous hogwash I've ever seen. "The gay political movement" (as if there even is a single "gay political movement") generally does not go around bombing businesses that disagree with their political stance. Unlike, say, certain anti-abortion activists.
you already know what's going to happen to you if you refuse.
The general public will see that you're discriminating against homosexuals, and refuse to do business with you.
Because the general public - including its religious members - recognize that discrimination is a bad thing, and don't want to give their money to people who do it.
That's not "extortion." That's a consequence of unethical behavior.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
What do you folks have against someone who believes in a higher being?
Plenty of people who believe in a higher being do not support prejudice against gay people.
I am agnostic and it doesn't bother me a wit what religious people believe unless they try to force their views on me, which rarely happens.
I'm glad that is your experience, but it is not mine. It certainly is not the experience of many gay people.
But, you want to force a lifestyle on them they absolutely disagree with.
Saying that you shouldn't discriminate against gays is not forcing a gay lifestyle on them.
The photographer has a right to believe whatever she wants. It's an immoral belief, but people have a right to believe immoral things.
The debate is whether she can refuse to do jobs for others because of her immoral beliefs. I actually think the photographer is legally in the right, but I'm not required to agree with her beliefs to think that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
I've always thought that atheists and agnostics can claim to be more moral than believers in an authoritative god for just this reason.
That would require that people think "authoritarianism" is morally wrong in and of itself. Unfortunately, this belief is not particularly widespread among the religious.
I see many here dropping names like homophobe but have you ever seen anyone who had any fear of a homosexual?
Yes. I have also met people who had a fear of their own homosexual tendencies (or tendencies that they perceived as being homosexual), and turned this fear into hatred of others who were homosexual.
A simple example is the idea that gay marriage "threatens" heterosexual marriage. It's obviously bunk: the fact that gays can marry does not in any way impact the ability for straight people to get married. Yet it is perceived as "threatening." That's homophobia in a very literal sense.
You say that Christians are on the wrong side of history.
Most Christians do not support discrimination against homosexuals. Most Christians would not support this photographer's stance. That stance is what is on the wrong side of history, not Christianity itself.
Why do you think the photographer is even "wrong" if there is no God? Without God, there is no right, no wrong, no morals, no absolute truths.
You do not need to believe in God to know that hurting others is wrong, and discrimination hurts others.
By your own logic, slavery was ok back in the day.
By your own logic, slavery still is OK, since it is frequently endorsed in the Bible (e.g. Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6, Exodus 21:7-11, Ephesians 6:5). Unless, of course, you subjectively decide to ignore some parts of the Bible and not others.
Also, morality may not be based on belief in God, but that does not mean it is completely subjective. Just as basing your morality on belief in God does not mean it is not completely subjective.
This is basic Religion 101 stuff. Even a first-year seminary student could debunk it.
Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
Actually, there's an even simpler argument to be made.
My very point is they do and it is completely arbitrary.
But there is no objective proof that God exists - certainly not that a particular God exists. Religious people agree with this; it's why faith is required.
So, religious morality derives from a subjective belief in a particular God, which is just as "arbitrary" as morality derived from atheist or humanist beliefs.
Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
My very point is they do and it is completely arbitrary.
You don't accept arbitrary morality by looking to God as absolute moral arbiter. For, God may have completely arbitrary moral standards too. That was the whole point of Socrates' Euthyphro.
Saying something is moral "because God said so" isn't a belief in morality, it's a belief in authoritarianism.
Also, if you're claiming that atheists behave less morally than religious people, then you're empirically wrong.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is complicated...
Not according to every nation-wide psychological association, they shouldn't.
Note that they *offer* conversion therapy; they don't force it.
No, they don't "offer" it. They advocate for it. Forcing it upon others is exactly what they are trying to do.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is complicated...
...to a website that is funded and promoted by NARTH, "The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality," a group that advocates for "conversion therapy" for gay people, and that claims to be "secular" but whose leadership often espouses theology and prayer and has ties to Focus on the Family.
If you want a history of this group, read:
http://www.truthwinsout.org/narth/
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/bro wse-all-issues/2012/spring/queer-science
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/policy/ex-gay.pdf
http:/ /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_%26_Therapy_of_Homosexuality
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
But it is rather telling that an admitted Christian made that argument, but that humanists do not. In any case, it shows that belief in God does not equate to holding more ethical beliefs than humanism.
No, I'm not claiming that it's ok, only that it was allowed by God and that it wasn't akin to the racial slavery we're familiar with.
Not just "allowed," but "endorsed." At least if you believe that the Bible is the word of God.
And getting back to the original poster, it means either that your belief is no less "arbitrary" than humanist beliefs, or that there is an objective morality that trumps what the Bible says. I have no problem with either conclusion, but the OP would.
Am I to take it that you're next going to decry countries such as North Korea where Christians are locked up for life in gulags and forced to work until they die?
Of course. Why wouldn't I? Christians are people too, and no people should be locked up for life in gulags and forced to work until they die because of their religious beliefs. Just like they shouldn't be locked up because of their lack of adherence to religious beliefs.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
What is right for you can be wrong for someone else and who is to say either of you are right or wrong since there is no right an wrong? By your own logic, slavery was ok back in the day.
And now, here you are, making exactly the argument that the OP accused humanists of making: "not all of the slavery in the OT is to be regarded as an intrinsic evil. 'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord.'"
Simply amazing.
It's a good thing you don't speak for all of Christianity. I think you're going to get a stern talking-to when you reach the ol' pearly gates.
On the post: Elsevier Ramps Up Its War On Access To Knowledge
Re:
Elsevier is the (privately owned) publisher that owns the journals in question.
If you follow the link to the other Techdirt article, you'll get this description of Elsevier's M.O.:
If you want more, this is a good resource:
http://thecostofknowledge.com/
On the post: Elsevier Ramps Up Its War On Access To Knowledge
Re: Publishers
2. Authors do not have to use a "publisher" at all now that we have the Internet and e-books. There is no law requiring it.
What there is, however, is a "publish or perish" mentality in academia. The idea is that if you don't have a significant body of works published in respected academic journals, it is nigh-impossible to get a tenured position.
This puts tremendous pressure on academics to publish works - and specifically with "respected" periodicals. This means that "respected" journals (read: legacy publishers) have a tremendous amount of bargaining power over academics: if they don't sign over the copyright to the article, they won't get published, and probably won't get tenure.
Moreover, since academics generally don't care about the market value for their articles themselves, they often don't see any problem with assigning the copyright to the periodical.
Big Academia has brought ignominy upon itself with such nonsense as "Big Bang", "Global Warming", "Holocaust"
...and now you put on your tin foil hat. "Big Academia" must mean "everyone who believes in empirical evidence," that's what supports all of the "nonsense" you've just mentioned.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
Creating threats where none exists is not "disagreement." It is fear, and it is fear-mongering.
Do you consider maids, butlers and live-in servants to be slaves?
That is not even remotely what the Bible was talking about.
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life..." (Leviticus 25:44-46)
"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." (Exodus 21:20-21)
Now, once again, very few Christians (in fact, none that I'm personally aware of) actually believe this. But, if the original commenter's argument is right, that means that those Christians are actually turning away from "the absolute truth." Their morality is "completely arbitrary," and based on "nothing but opinion."
It shows how full of BS his argument is.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ESPN Jesus Ad
About half of the cases where they defend religious rights are cases where they defend the rights of Christians. That's not "few and far between."
They didn't get a reputation for being anti-Christian for nothing.
No, they got a reputation for being "anti-Christian" because they also defend the religious rights of Jews and Muslims. The "anti-Christian" reputation is fomented by a minority of Christian fundamentalists, who believe that defending any other religion is akin to worshiping Satan. These are the types of people who believe "religious freedom" is the freedom to force their religion on everyone else.
The ACLU is also seen as a "leftist atheist" group because of their support for things like gender equality or their advocacy for teaching evolution. Of course, the majority of Christians also believe in these things, so in this case it's simply the Christian right attacking anything that's not the Christian right, including Christians on the left or in the middle.
Try not to believe them.
I noticed that these few instances were all recent
I purposely only listed the recent cases - as I said. The reason is because if I went back further, there would be far too many to list. They've been defending the rights of Christians for decades.
Here's a site with some more cases:
http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com
Here's a defense of the ACLU from none other than Christianity Today:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/may/22.64.html
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ESPN Jesus Ad
Obviously you didn't actually go to the actual page, since it didn't list any actual cases, just provided links to other pages which did.
Here's a page that does list actual cases:
https://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression
It's a whole lot more than "just a few isolated cases." Here's a sampling:
Those are all since 2010, and they all defend the rights of Christians to openly practice their faith. There are lots more.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
He was the one that accused me (and all other humanists) of thinking that "slavery was ok back in the day." Of course, no humanist that I am aware of believes this, but if you accept his argument, then Christians must believe this. The fact that "slavery" was more like "indentured servitude" is irrelevant; whatever you call it, you as a Christian must accept that it is moral - not just "back in the day" (for that would mean your morals "are whatever you want them to be), but today and forever more.
If you believe his argument, that is. Which most people (including Christians) do not.
The ultimate purpose of pushing for 'same-sex marriage' is to open the doors to legislating behavior and thought crime
I personally know many other people pushing for same-sex marriage, and that is complete hogwash. The only thing they want is for two people of the same gender to be able to get the same rights as two people who are not of the same gender.
The moment they argue for "legislating behavior and thought crime," I'll be right there with you. But that's not even remotely what's happening.
That outlook is a perfect example of homophobia. You are, quite literally, afraid of homosexuality. You believe (though it's not true) that homosexuals gaining rights is somehow threatening to you personally. You're doing nothing but manufacturing a non-existent threat - and like all paranoid beliefs, it stems solely from fear.
On the post: Yet Another Court Not Happy With A Prenda Lawyer
Read the ruling
...you know it's going to be good.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: ACLU
Right, which is why they defended the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie.
Oh, wait...
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re:
Every single gay owner of an establishment does this already. Do you honestly believe that an owner of e.g. a hotel would turn away straight people merely because he's gay? His hotel would go out of business in a week.
More to the point, how many gay photographers do you think would refuse to take photographs of straight weddings? There are quite a few gay photographers out there, and I've never heard of a single one doing this.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Right to discriminate, but wrong reason given
Sure- it's your business and you can choose whom to serve and whom not to serve.
No, you can't. The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." This covers hotels, restaurants, theaters, gas stations, etc. See 42 USC 2000a.
Additionally, there are numerous state laws that expand the equal protections to categories of people (e.g. sexual orientation) and places that aren't covered under the Federal statutes.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re:
This is the most ridiculous hogwash I've ever seen. "The gay political movement" (as if there even is a single "gay political movement") generally does not go around bombing businesses that disagree with their political stance. Unlike, say, certain anti-abortion activists.
you already know what's going to happen to you if you refuse.
The general public will see that you're discriminating against homosexuals, and refuse to do business with you.
Because the general public - including its religious members - recognize that discrimination is a bad thing, and don't want to give their money to people who do it.
That's not "extortion." That's a consequence of unethical behavior.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
Plenty of people who believe in a higher being do not support prejudice against gay people.
I am agnostic and it doesn't bother me a wit what religious people believe unless they try to force their views on me, which rarely happens.
I'm glad that is your experience, but it is not mine. It certainly is not the experience of many gay people.
But, you want to force a lifestyle on them they absolutely disagree with.
Saying that you shouldn't discriminate against gays is not forcing a gay lifestyle on them.
The photographer has a right to believe whatever she wants. It's an immoral belief, but people have a right to believe immoral things.
The debate is whether she can refuse to do jobs for others because of her immoral beliefs. I actually think the photographer is legally in the right, but I'm not required to agree with her beliefs to think that.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
That would require that people think "authoritarianism" is morally wrong in and of itself. Unfortunately, this belief is not particularly widespread among the religious.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Open question to the non-religious here
Yes. I have also met people who had a fear of their own homosexual tendencies (or tendencies that they perceived as being homosexual), and turned this fear into hatred of others who were homosexual.
A simple example is the idea that gay marriage "threatens" heterosexual marriage. It's obviously bunk: the fact that gays can marry does not in any way impact the ability for straight people to get married. Yet it is perceived as "threatening." That's homophobia in a very literal sense.
You say that Christians are on the wrong side of history.
Most Christians do not support discrimination against homosexuals. Most Christians would not support this photographer's stance. That stance is what is on the wrong side of history, not Christianity itself.
Why do you think the photographer is even "wrong" if there is no God? Without God, there is no right, no wrong, no morals, no absolute truths.
You do not need to believe in God to know that hurting others is wrong, and discrimination hurts others.
By your own logic, slavery was ok back in the day.
By your own logic, slavery still is OK, since it is frequently endorsed in the Bible (e.g. Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6, Exodus 21:7-11, Ephesians 6:5). Unless, of course, you subjectively decide to ignore some parts of the Bible and not others.
Also, morality may not be based on belief in God, but that does not mean it is completely subjective. Just as basing your morality on belief in God does not mean it is not completely subjective.
This is basic Religion 101 stuff. Even a first-year seminary student could debunk it.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
My very point is they do and it is completely arbitrary.
But there is no objective proof that God exists - certainly not that a particular God exists. Religious people agree with this; it's why faith is required.
So, religious morality derives from a subjective belief in a particular God, which is just as "arbitrary" as morality derived from atheist or humanist beliefs.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
You don't accept arbitrary morality by looking to God as absolute moral arbiter. For, God may have completely arbitrary moral standards too. That was the whole point of Socrates' Euthyphro.
Saying something is moral "because God said so" isn't a belief in morality, it's a belief in authoritarianism.
Also, if you're claiming that atheists behave less morally than religious people, then you're empirically wrong.
Next >>