What about freedom FROM religion?

Ross Dolan

Well-known member
Contributor
Interesting op ed piece about freedom FROM religion in the Washington Post this morning. I recommend it, although it may be behind a paywall.

It is by Kate Cohen and is titled, “Why are we so tolerant of churchy bigotry?”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/06/religious-bigotry-lgbtq-homophobia/

Here’s a taste of it:

Are we just so accustomed to the anti-LGBTQ stances of conservative religious institutions that they don’t even register? Are we so used to church-sponsored homophobia that we ignore the vast, forbidding landscape of prejudice while celebrating the tiniest signs of change?

It made the news, for example, when Pope Francis told the Associated Press recently that homosexuality should not be criminalized, as it is in 67 countries, and urged bishops around the world to recognize everyone’s dignity. Amen.

He noted, however, that homosexuality is still a sin. The Catholic Church will keep calling it a sin, and urging sinners to repent, and it will keep refusing to recognize same-sex marriage or to condone adoption by same-sex parents, but in a way that also totally recognizes their dignity!

(Not for nothing: Where does the pope think those countries first got the idea that homosexuality should be a crime?)


(snip)

The Episcopal Church, for example, now officially sanctions same-sex marriage. And the Albany diocese — well, it’s working on it. A statement on the Episcopal Church website notes: “As with all spiritual journeys, everyone walks at their own pace. Some Episcopal congregations are actively involved in LGBTQ ministry and their arms are open wide; others are more reserved, but their doors are still open to all; some are still wrestling with their beliefs and feelings.”


(snip)

Now, let’s pretend that instead of talking about LGBTQ people, the church was talking about congregations “wrestling with their beliefs and feelings” about Black people. Would our spirit of patient forbearance extend to that?

Not too long ago, many American Christian institutions defended slavery, pointing to Bible verses such as Ephesians 6:5: “Slaves, obey your masters.” They then battled integration and interracial marriage, arguing that God meant for the races to be separated. Bob Jones University, from which the founders of Pensacola Christian College graduated, prohibited interracial dating until 2000.

Homophobic policies are no different — except in that, apparently, people are still more accepting of them.

One day, maybe, the Catholic Church and the Church of England will treat its LGBTQ congregants as equals. Maybe even Pensacola Christian College will evolve. In the meantime, let’s not be fooled by the “religious belief” talk: It’s just old-fashioned bigotry.
 
As opposed to this "serve the Pope or die" genocide pogrom of USA citizens born in Washington, D.C. with bungling GI Joe biding his time like Russia's Orthodox Church rootin' tootin' Putin having no shame happening....
 
show us on this doll where religion has hurt you......
s-l500.jpg
 
I think the Catholic church needs to change some of it's doctrines.

But before we get to hasty in patting ourselves on the back, it was only 20 to 30 years ago most Democrats were opposed to gay marriage and gay adoption. I literally can't remember anyone I knew in the 1970s and 80s advocating for gay couples to adopt children and get married to each other. It was only a fringe minority.

Sometimes these things take time. Hopefully Sooner rather than later.
 
I wonder how many Christians would be appalled by the number of LGBTQ people in the pagan community? They are there because, by and large, pagans are far more accepting than Xtian churches. Most of us recognize that we have a spiritual aspect, and desire to nourish it with others of like mind. According to Xtian doctrine, we heathens are hell-bound. Yet it is because of widespread Xtian rejection that we pagans have so many LGBTQ brothers and sisters.

Jesus would not have rejected them.
 
are people being forced to attend church or worship services? Is the government forcing people to declare themselves christians?

No.

But the government is forcing us to signify that we are a "nation under god" in order to pledge our allegiance to this Republic.

And the money we use to pay or bills still indicates that we "trust" this god of yours.
 
show us on this doll where religion has hurt you......

Just as an aside are you familiar with "Scrupulosity"? It's a devastating form of OCD. It's a strange mental illness in which the sufferer believes that they need to be right with God and the slightest thing can make them feel they have violated something sacred or blasphemed or thought something blasphemous. It's not just a matter of telling the person that they are thinking about God the wrong way. It's a chemical imbalance in the brain.

It can cause more pain than you can imagine. I once knew a young man who couldn't walk more than 10feet before had to stop, kneel down, touch the floor 7 times, say a silent prayer for forgiveness and then get up and continue along. It's not like he was doing it by choice.

Martin Luther was a famous sufferer of scrupulosity. He was able to take his Scrupulosity and thrive in his faith, but that isn't the case for everyone. Imagine for a moment that the one thing that is the most important thing in your existence (your relationship with God) and your brain and it's serotonin are such that you live in absolute horror that you have offended that being every minute of every day.

That's pain.
 
No.

But the government is forcing us to signify that we are a "nation under god" in order to pledge our allegiance to this Republic.

And the money we use to pay or bills still indicates that we "trust" this god of yours.

1. Adding 'under God' was a bipartisan effort of democrats and republicans.
2. nobody is forcing anyone to recite the pledge of allegiance.
3. you are free to go cashless. the Constitution empowers congress to coin money, so democrats and republicans are responsible for the money we use to have those words on them. Nobody is forcing you to use cash.
4. just because a majority of people don't protest over the status quo of a God you don't believe in, doesn't mean that they believe in that God. There are believers, atheists, and agnostics......
 
Just as an aside are you familiar with "Scrupulosity"? It's a devastating form of OCD. It's a strange mental illness in which the sufferer believes that they need to be right with God and the slightest thing can make them feel they have violated something sacred or blasphemed or thought something blasphemous. It's not just a matter of telling the person that they are thinking about God the wrong way. It's a chemical imbalance in the brain.

It can cause more pain than you can imagine. I once knew a young man who couldn't walk more than 10feet before had to stop, kneel down, touch the floor 7 times, say a silent prayer for forgiveness and then get up and continue along. It's not like he was doing it by choice.

Martin Luther was a famous sufferer of scrupulosity. He was able to take his Scrupulosity and thrive in his faith, but that isn't the case for everyone. Imagine for a moment that the one thing that is the most important thing in your existence (your relationship with God) and your brain and it's serotonin are such that you live in absolute horror that you have offended that being every minute of every day.

That's pain.
I have never heard of this, thanks. It would be awful.
 
1. Adding 'under God' was a bipartisan effort of democrats and republicans.

Yeah, that is what I said. Government.

2. nobody is forcing anyone to recite the pledge of allegiance.

But if one wants to pledge his/her allegiance to America...the pledge, as written, contains that phrase..."one nation, under god." It shouldn't be there.


3. you are free to go cashless. the Constitution empowers congress to coin money, so democrats and republicans are responsible for the money we use to have those words on them. Nobody is forcing you to use cash.

Yeah...the government. As for "nobody is forcing you to use cash"...if I want to use cash, I must use cash that tells me that I trust some god. I do not trust any gods. I should be able to use the cash of my country without that proviso. There is no need for that insertion. And except for the fact that you are a rather stupid fellow...you would realize that.

4. just because a majority of people don't protest over the status quo of a God...

What the hell is that supposed to mean?


... you don't believe in, doesn't mean that they believe in that God. There are believers, atheists, and agnostics......

What are you trying to babble here? You are not doing a very good job of it.
 
Yeah, that is what I said. Government.

But if one wants to pledge his/her allegiance to America...the pledge, as written, contains that phrase..."one nation, under god." It shouldn't be there.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religio...rt-upholds-under-god-in-pledge-of-allegiance/


Yeah...the government. As for "nobody is forcing you to use cash"...if I want to use cash, I must use cash that tells me that I trust some god. I do not trust any gods. I should be able to use the cash of my country without that proviso. There is no need for that insertion. And except for the fact that you are a rather stupid fellow...you would realize that.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...l-over-in-god-we-trust-on-money-idUSKCN1LD24K


Now, since most people like to claim that the SCOTUS is the determination of Constitutionality, it appears that your arguments are without merit.
 
https://www.pewresearch.org/religio...rt-upholds-under-god-in-pledge-of-allegiance/




https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...l-over-in-god-we-trust-on-money-idUSKCN1LD24K


Now, since most people like to claim that the SCOTUS is the determination of Constitutionality, it appears that your arguments are without merit.

What the fuck???

Are you nuts as well as stupid?

Where have you ever seen me suggest anything about the Constitutionality of the issue?

Wake the fuck up.

My arguments HAVE merit. You are just not up to the job of understanding what they are.
 
maybe you should look at the dates that those two cases were decided and then re-evaluate your idiot premise

I already assumed that, but will never waste the opportunity to take a shot at the present horrific SCOTUS.

The founders are at fault--serious fault--for promising freedom of religion instead of the far more necessary freedom from religion.
 
Back
Top