"Progressive Christianity"

[rocketwarrior]

...follow the money

Exactly, Jeff...
This Progressive Christianity thing seems 'on the track' vis-a-vis "inclusion" but, what do they do? They start organizing - calling it a religion, recruiting, picking up dues and contribuions and selling stuff.

 

[rocketwarrior]

Bingo, Keven

Keven,
Your point about the political agenda is, as your comments so often are, importantly insightful. Another concern about the PC movement (that initally had some interest to me - treating JC as a teacher, not a god) that I have is that I think they are a political movement. And there is 'arguably' a need for a "religious" political movement to counter the "religious" right. But I am uncomfortable with disguising a political movement as a religious movement. After the strong arming the Scientologists did to get their tax exempt status, and the political misbehavior of organized religion, I say take tax exempt status away from all so-called religions. Why do I, as a tax payer, have to subsidize such crap.

 

[alr2903]

Gays, God, Guns

I was raised baptist, and miss my spiritual guidance, somewhat. That said, when religions go on political rants such as prop 8, donating tons of money, it tee's me off. If the tax exempt money is not reaching children's hospital's or other charities, but spreading hate... it's a Big Problem. Do the Lords work and that's not hate mongering. alr2903

 

[gansky1]

Along the Catholic vein of this thread, have a look at the video linked. It's a debate at Oxford (U.K. not Mississippi) on the question of "The Catholic church is a force for good in the world."

There are some amazing points made to support each position and Stephen Fry's argument is truly inspiring and thought provoking. The entire two hour long debate is linked but you can watch Stephen Fry's ten minute argument here.

I have really enjoyed the religious discussions - well done all! It's nice to have these kinds of interactions without someone jumping in to damn us all to their version of hell for expressing opinion. So rare. That book sounds fascinating, Mark, will have to look for it.

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/iq2-video/2009/catholic-church

 

[hunter]

It's so ironic...

...to talk about religious organizations being tolerant.

I have not yet found one. Oh y'all talk about UCC and such being 'tolerant' but I tried a Unitarian service once and found that if you thought even SLIGHTLY different from the marxist party line, they hated you.

This was before I gave up on all religion, deciding that my ethics and morals were stronger than so-called religious organizations.

I find it ironic, while reading a news magazine when my wife was shopping in a fabric store and I was in the 'men's section' (1 of the 2 armchairs near the door with magazines to read) that large evangelical churches are trying to break down the racism that exists in most sects.

Don't believe that racism exists in church? Look around you when next in service. I can almost guarantee that every face will be the same tint as yours.

Indeed, a friend of mine in Massachusetts was apalled when a black family attended the Unitarian Universalist church of which he was a member, and was told 'oh you might be happier at the baptist church down the street.'

I may be bitter and clinging to my guns, as Mr. Obama said, but I'll leave the religion to others - I can't be that negative and hateful.

Hunter

 

[rocketwarrior]

A man of the cloth

whom I respect a lot sent me, among some more serious thoughts, the following note:
Note: I am indebted to Butch Hancock, a musician with a group called "The Flatlanders," for this bit of wisdom from West Texas:

"Life in Lubbock, Texas taught me two things:
One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell.
The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love."

 

[rapunzel]

I love this man!

Here is one individual who truly deserves our gratitude and admiration for his courage, honesty and humility. People like Prof. Dawkins are rare and precious.

The link will take anyone who is interested to an older documentary called 'Root of All Evil' - it is as relevant and on the money today as it was when it was filmed.

Sadly, the broader public are rarely exposed to such material.

I will post the first two segments of this two part series. All of its ten segments are on youtube and worth watching.

Then again, I converted long before I had heard of Prof. Dawkins. He expresses what I have felt for so long with such no-nonsense clarity and in a way that I would never be able to emulate.

Enjoy

Olav

 

[rapunzel]

Here is part two - just to whet the curiosity of those who h

Remember there is a lot more. Follow the number trail to each segment.

Olav

 

[rocketwarrior]

Olaf,

...thank you for this link. I lived as a closet infidel for a very long time. 'Tis wierd to be living in a place where anyone who is not a 'Christian' cannot be elected president. But, when I read a decision like that of the Iowa Supreme Court in the same sex marriage case, I have hope. You should read that, let me know if you need a link or pdf.

 

[rapunzel]

No link needed and, yes, it is great that the Iowa Supreme C

has legalized same sex marriage. I have always been of the opinion that disallowing same sex marriage is a gross human rights violation that flies in the face of modern social justice principles.

As long as modern, developed nations remain secular democracies, that are committed to pluralism and anti-discrimination policies, it stands to reason that same-sex marriages will eventually get full recognition under civil law. We all know that objections to same sex marriages are primarily driven by religious beliefs. The much-touted definition of marriage as being a union between people of opposite gender is also purely a religious one and hastily added by those strongly opposed to this issue.

There are no historical, scientific or sociological facts in evidence, anywhere around the world, that provide conclusive proof or reasons against same-sex marriages. Unless countries, like the US or Australia, become theocracies, it will only be a matter of time before we will follow other modern, civilized nations and resolve this issue intelligently and rationally.

It would seem that, at least in the US, changes are happening in drips and drabs. Here in Australia our States are not yet ready to tackle this issue head-on due to our relatively conservative politicians. Our Prime Minister Blahblah has already made it clear that he only supports civil unions for same sex couples, but his party will not table any legislative changes to bring about full and equal recognition of gay and lesbian relationships. He is also a good church-going man on weekends.

That's all for now. I'm going to bed.

Olav

 

[panthera]

Twice a year

I experience the delightful difference:
I get on the airplane in The Netherlands or Germany and am a full-citizen, a recognized human being with complete civil rights, including the right marriage.
I get off the plane in the US and I am a second-class citizen and sub-human.

If we don't fight for our rights, we won't get them. It is that simple.

 

[sudsman]

If you dont think one person can make a difference

Then look what at what Miss Rosa Parks started! A poor old tired colored lady refused to give up her bus seat for gringo. May she forever be remembered!

 

[rapunzel]

If you dont think one person can make a difference

That is true to a point. One person, with courage and conviction, may start the ball rolling. Though, it ultimately takes more than that. When Mrs Parks refused to move to the back of the bus, there were other people prepared to offer their support. Had it not been for the Montgomery bus boycott nothing much would have changed.

Poor Claudette Colvin also refused to vacate her seat for a white person, almost a year before Rosa Parks, but because she was only 15, dirt poor and became pregnant out of wedlock, she was seen as a liability by civil rights groups.

There had been previous attempts by (African-American) civil rights groups to challenge racial segregation on busses, going back to the mid forties. People organized themselves to protest these laws by breaking them, so that they would be arrested and charged. There were a number of supreme court decisions that declared racial segregation on interstate busses illegal. Yet, nothing much changed until the 1960s.

Now, Rosa Park's case gained public notoriety and had the support of a fast-growing movement behind it. I also think that the advent of television helped a great deal. Though, I surmise that previous acts of civil disobedience ultimately paved the way for success.

Olav

 

[rapunzel]

Keven,

I do find it interesting though that Germany has not yet gone beyond civil unions for same sex couples. There are also limitations to adopting children.

I believe that a survey, conducted some years ago, showed overwhelming public support for same sex marriage and adoption. Yet, German politicians have not moved on this issue to give gay people full and equal status the same as their heterosexual counterparts.

Olav