What does Languish think about this? Do the pros outweigh the cons of such a measure?
QuoteDeath penalty for gays? Uganda debates proposal
By KATHARINE HOURELD and GODFREY OLUKYA, Associated Press Writers Katharine Houreld And Godfrey Olukya, Associated Press Writers 2 mins ago
KAMPALA, Uganda – Proposed legislation would impose the death penalty for some gay Ugandans, and their family and friends could face up to seven years in jail if they fail to report them to authorities. Even landlords could be imprisoned for renting to homosexuals.
Gay rights activists say the bill, which has prompted growing international opposition, promotes hatred and could set back efforts to combat HIV/AIDS. They believe the bill is part of a continentwide backlash because Africa's gay community is becoming more vocal.
"It's a question of visibility," said David Cato, who became an activist after he was beaten up four times, arrested twice, fired from his teaching job and outed in the press because he is gay. "When we come out and ask for our rights, they pass laws against us."
The legislation has drawn global attention from activists across the spectrum of views on gay issues. The measure was proposed in Uganda following a visit by leaders of U.S. conservative Christian ministries that promote therapy for gays to become heterosexual. However, at least one of those leaders has denounced the bill, as have some other conservative and liberal Christians in the United States.
Gay-rights activists say the legislation is likely to pass. But the bill is still being debated and could undergo changes before a vote, which has not yet been set.
The Ugandan legislation in its current form would mandate a death sentence for active homosexuals living with HIV or in cases of same-sex rape. "Serial offenders" also could face capital punishment, but the legislation does not define the term. Anyone convicted of a homosexual act faces life imprisonment.
Anyone who "aids, abets, counsels or procures another to engage of acts of homosexuality" faces seven years in prison if convicted. Landlords who rent rooms or homes to homosexuals also could get seven years and anyone with "religious, political, economic or social authority" who fails to report anyone violating the act faces three years.
Gay-rights activists abroad are focusing on the legislation. A protest against the bill is planned for Thursday in London; protests were held last month in New York and Washington.
David Bahati, the legislator sponsoring the bill, said he was encouraging "constructive criticism" to improve the law, but insisted strict measures were necessary to stop homosexuals from "recruiting" schoolchildren.
"The youths in secondary schools copy everything from the Western world and America," said high school teacher David Kisambira. "A good number of students have been converted into gays. We hear there are groups of people given money by some gay organizations in developed countries to recruit youth into gay activities."
Uganda's ethics minister, James Nsaba Buturo, said the death sentence clause would probably be reviewed but maintained the law was necessary to counter foreign influence. He said homosexuality "is not natural in Uganda," a view echoed by some Ugandans.
"I feel that the bill is good and necessary, but I don't think gays should be killed. They should be imprisoned for about a year and warned never to do it again. The family is in danger in Uganda because the rate at which vice is spreading is appalling," said shopkeeper John Muwanguzi.
Uganda is not the only country considering anti-gay laws. Nigeria, where homosexuality is already punishable by imprisonment or death, is considering strengthening penalties for activities deemed to promote it. Burundi just banned same-sex relationships and Rwanda is considering it.
Homophobia is rife even in more tolerant African countries.
In Kenya, homosexuality is illegal but the government has acknowledged its existence by launching sexual orientation survey to improve health care. Nevertheless, the recent marriage of two Kenyan men in London caused outrage. The men's families in Kenya were harassed by reporters and villagers.
In South Africa, the only African nation to recognize gay marriage, gangs carry out so-called "corrective" rapes on lesbians. A 19-year-old lesbian athlete was gang-raped, tortured and murdered in 2008.
Debate over the Ugandan bill follows a conference in Kampala earlier this year attended by American activists who consider same-gender relationships sinful, and believe gays and lesbians can become heterosexual through prayer and counseling. Author Don Schmierer and "sexual reorientation coach" Caleb Lee Brundidge took part; they did not respond to interview requests.
A third American who took part in the conference in Uganda, Scott Lively, said the bill has gone too far.
"I agree with the general goal but this law is far too harsh," said Lively, a California-based preacher and author of "The Pink Swastika" and other books that advise parents how to "recruit-proof" their children from gays.
"Society should actively discourage all sex outside of marriage and that includes homosexuality ... The family is under threat," he said. Gay people "should not be parading around the streets," he added.
Frank Mugisha, a gay Ugandan human rights activist, said the bill was so poorly worded that someone could be imprisoned for giving a hug.
"This bill is promoting hatred," he said. "We're turning Uganda into a police state. It will drive people to suicide."
Buturo played down the influence of foreign evangelicals, saying the proposed legislation was an expression of popular outrage against "repugnant" practices. But activists like Cato argue anti-gay attitudes are a foreign import.
"In the beginning, when the missionaries brought religion, they said they were bringing love," he said. "Instead they brought hate, through homophobia."
Susan Timberlake, a senior adviser on human rights and law from UNAIDS, said such laws could hinder the fight against HIV/AIDS by driving people further underground. And activists also worry that the legislation could be used to blackmail or silence government critics.
Cato said he thinks the Ugandan bill will pass, perhaps in an altered form.
"It's such a setback. But I hope we can overcome it," he said. "I cannot believe this is happening in the 21st century."
___
Associated Press Writer Katharine Houreld reported from Nairobi, Kenya.
Are due consideration, I am tentatively against it, but am open to persuasion.
See? I've been telling you people the blacks violently hate the gays for some reason unknown to me. :contract:
Sadly this won't stop Martinus complaining about how the US treats gays.
A fabulous destination for homo adventure-tourism? :w00t:
This has been news for a while now. Kudos to Canada and Harper's conservative government for being so far the only now to actively and loudly oppose this measure (I think they have called for Uganda to be excluded from the Commonwealth or something).
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 08, 2009, 04:15:07 PM
Sadly this won't stop Martinus complaining about how the US treats gays.
Why should it?
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 04:19:50 PM
This has been news for a while now. Kudos to Canada and Harper's conservative government for being so far the only now to actively and loudly oppose this measure (I think they have called for Uganda to be excluded from the Commonwealth or something).
That should definitely stop the next Ugandan genocide from happening.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 08, 2009, 04:23:01 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 08, 2009, 04:15:07 PM
Sadly this won't stop Martinus complaining about how the US treats gays.
Why should it?
Duh. The conventional wisdom on Languish is that you cannot criticize the US for something, as long as there is a single country or place on the face of Earth where the situation is worse. :rolleyes:
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 08, 2009, 04:23:37 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 04:19:50 PM
This has been news for a while now. Kudos to Canada and Harper's conservative government for being so far the only now to actively and loudly oppose this measure (I think they have called for Uganda to be excluded from the Commonwealth or something).
That should definitely stop the next Ugandan genocide from happening.
*shrug* Well, it's not like one can do much more. At least Canadians are doing something.
Funnily enough, some Catholic and Episcopalian bishops in Africa are among the most vocal opponents of decriminalization of homosexuality. Fucking Christians. I hate them so much.
Edit: Does not include Desmond Tutu. He rocks.
Criticize Poland. They're gonna lynch you once they find out, Marty.
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 04:19:50 PM
This has been news for a while now. Kudos to Canada and Harper's conservative government for being so far the only now to actively and loudly oppose this measure (I think they have called for Uganda to be excluded from the Commonwealth or something).
You're welcome.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 08, 2009, 04:23:37 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 04:19:50 PM
This has been news for a while now. Kudos to Canada and Harper's conservative government for being so far the only now to actively and loudly oppose this measure (I think they have called for Uganda to be excluded from the Commonwealth or something).
That should definitely stop the next Ugandan genocide from happening.
It's not clear what else you should do. Sweden is talking about cutting off HIV funding, but that seems a bit shitty.
Quote from: DGuller on December 08, 2009, 03:52:09 PM
What does Languish think about this? Do the pros outweigh the cons of such a measure?
Nobody is surprised to find some african backwater be such a 'beacon of civilization' I hope?
G.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 08, 2009, 04:23:01 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 08, 2009, 04:15:07 PM
Sadly this won't stop Martinus complaining about how the US treats gays.
Why should it?
You and Garbon are free to bitch all you want.
But on a global scale we're pretty high up on issues regarding fair treatment of gays. Foreigners, especially ones whose own country and society is as bad as ours, should really focus their efforts elsewhere.
maybe we could execute Uganda? Free up some livingspace for gorillas. Would improve the place much, in both beauty and intelligence
Quote"The youths in secondary schools copy everything from the Western world and America," said high school teacher David Kisambira. "A good number of students have been converted into gays. We hear there are groups of people given money by some gay organizations in developed countries to recruit youth into gay activities."
Ah America land of the gay. I love being seen as a bunch of sexually deviant pervs by one half of the world and sexually repressed prudes by the other half. Everybody hates Amerikkka's sexuality.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 08, 2009, 04:54:06 PM
But on a global scale we're pretty high up on issues regarding fair treatment of gays. Foreigners, especially ones whose own country and society is as bad as ours, should really focus their efforts elsewhere.
Meh. There's no obligation to focus ones efforts where they will do the most good, or even any good at all, else we wouldn't be on this forum. Defining the "greatest good for the smallest effort" is in any event a task with no end.
Sure. It's just that it gets annoying sometimes.
Who'd have thought. After all they have a cock on their flag.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 08, 2009, 05:04:55 PM
Sure. It's just that it gets annoying sometimes.
Being "annoying sometimes" is pretty much Languish's raison d'être.
...that and ACW hijacks.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 08, 2009, 04:54:06 PM
You and Garbon are free to bitch all you want.
But on a global scale we're pretty high up on issues regarding fair treatment of gays. Foreigners, especially ones whose own country and society is as bad as ours, should really focus their efforts elsewhere.
Yay, America treats its gays better than a third world country does? :huh:
Quote from: syk on December 08, 2009, 05:11:04 PM
Who'd have thought. After all they have a cock on their flag.
So they do :lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mapsofworld.com%2Fimages%2Fworld-countries-flags%2Fuganda-flag.gif&hash=9a779442fa74fbdd14f55cda4bda31be35517360)
Quote from: ulmont on December 08, 2009, 05:12:01 PM
Being "annoying sometimes" is pretty much Languish's raison d'être.
...that and ACW hijacks.
Those get annoying too. ;)
Quote from: Caliga on December 08, 2009, 03:58:44 PM
See? I've been telling you people the blacks violently hate the gays for some reason unknown to me. :contract:
Yeah, Ugandans = African Americans
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2009, 04:58:26 PM"The youths in secondary schools copy everything from the Western world and America," said high school teacher David Kisambira. "A good number of students have been converted into gays. We hear there are groups of people given money by some gay organizations in developed countries to recruit youth into gay activities."
:bleeding:
You know, stuff like this really makes it hard to be "tolerant". Some part of me just wants to agree that the best thing that could have happened to modern day Africans is having their ancestors sold into American slavery.
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 05:33:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2009, 04:58:26 PM"The youths in secondary schools copy everything from the Western world and America," said high school teacher David Kisambira. "A good number of students have been converted into gays. We hear there are groups of people given money by some gay organizations in developed countries to recruit youth into gay activities."
:bleeding:
You know, stuff like this really makes it hard to be "tolerant". Some part of me just wants to agree that the best thing that could have happened to modern day Africans is having their ancestors sold into American slavery.
Since when did you try to be tolerant? :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on December 08, 2009, 05:34:22 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 05:33:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2009, 04:58:26 PM"The youths in secondary schools copy everything from the Western world and America," said high school teacher David Kisambira. "A good number of students have been converted into gays. We hear there are groups of people given money by some gay organizations in developed countries to recruit youth into gay activities."
:bleeding:
You know, stuff like this really makes it hard to be "tolerant". Some part of me just wants to agree that the best thing that could have happened to modern day Africans is having their ancestors sold into American slavery.
Since when did you try to be tolerant? :huh:
I try to be tolerant, ideologically. I just can't, emotionally.
Gay activities: shirts & skins
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 04:24:49 PM
Duh. The conventional wisdom on Languish is that you cannot criticize the US for something, as long as there is a single country or place on the face of Earth where the situation is worse. :rolleyes:
Duh! The conventional wisdom the our gay Polish self-proclaimed lawyer bit of Languish is that the US must have done nothing to oppose any injustice that that gang opposes unless it is done so in channels that even morons cannot ignore. :rolleyes:
The US has come out in ardent opposition to the bill, and its actions if the bill passed will certainly amount to more than making a motion to remove Uganda from a symbolic international organization.
Quote from: grumbler on December 08, 2009, 05:57:21 PM
The US has come out in ardent opposition to the bill, and its actions if the bill passed will certainly amount to more than making a motion to remove Uganda from a symbolic international organization.
I think you'll find the Commonwealth is far from a symbolic international organization.
Quote from: grumbler on December 08, 2009, 05:57:21 PM
The US has come out in ardent opposition to the bill, and its actions if the bill passed will certainly amount to more than making a motion to remove Uganda from a symbolic international organization.
Agreed. United States will never let a senseless massacre happen in Africa without strongly condemning it.
On second thought gumbler is probably just trolling wrt the Commonwealth.
Quote from: Barrister on December 08, 2009, 06:07:41 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 08, 2009, 05:57:21 PM
The US has come out in ardent opposition to the bill, and its actions if the bill passed will certainly amount to more than making a motion to remove Uganda from a symbolic international organization.
I think you'll find the Commonwealth is far from a symbolic international organization.
I think it is becoming more symbolic with every passing day.
Mmm, Commonwealth... :bowler: :mmm:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.contentreserve.com%2FImageType-100%2F0292-1%2F%257BAD09EC72-8A6E-41B0-8C40-BCBA84744E6C%257DImg100.jpg&hash=af6749573da7d8448a22d4966963162f5f20b328)
side boob!
Quote from: Caliga on December 08, 2009, 03:58:44 PM
See? I've been telling you people the blacks violently hate the gays for some reason unknown to me. :contract:
Mix missionaries with Kalashnikov-carrying cattle rustlers, and it amazes me anyone could be surprised by the result.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 08, 2009, 07:00:24 PM
Quote from: Caliga on December 08, 2009, 03:58:44 PM
See? I've been telling you people the blacks violently hate the gays for some reason unknown to me. :contract:
Mix missionaries with Kalashnikov-carrying cattle rustlers, and it amazes me anyone could be surprised by the result.
You mean +6% revolt risk?
Just read that someone proposed Canada be booted from the Commonwealth because of their failure to live up to Kyoto treaty obligations.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2009, 07:47:04 PM
Just read that someone proposed Canada be booted from the Commonwealth because of their failure to live up to Kyoto treaty obligations.
Well, nobody important.
Quote from: grumbler on December 08, 2009, 05:57:21 PM
The US has come out in ardent opposition to the bill, and its actions if the bill passed will certainly amount to more than making a motion to remove Uganda from a symbolic international organization.
Well kudos to the US too, then.
Richard Cohen: Gay-To-Straight 'Therapist' Spars With Rachel Maddow (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/08/richard-cohen-rachel-maddow_n_385057.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/08/richard-cohen-rachel-maddow_n_385057.html)
Rick Warren Mentor Tied To Effort Behind Uganda's "Kill the Gays" Bill
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/rick-warren-mentor-tied-t_b_382480.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/rick-warren-mentor-tied-t_b_382480.html)
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 04:26:22 PM
Funnily enough, some Catholic and Episcopalian bishops in Africa are among the most vocal opponents of decriminalization of homosexuality. Fucking Christians. I hate them so much.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.huffingtonpost.com%2Fgen%2F124646%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=67df755b87feb3b82d043d05fd1194cad142de11)
Oboma voters? All of them, really?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2009, 03:28:18 AM
Oboma voters? All of them, really?
Yes, all of us. Whatever it is we are doing are saying. I haven't read the entire thread.
Quote from: citizen k on December 09, 2009, 03:05:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 04:26:22 PM
Funnily enough, some Catholic and Episcopalian bishops in Africa are among the most vocal opponents of decriminalization of homosexuality. Fucking Christians. I hate them so much.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.huffingtonpost.com%2Fgen%2F124646%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=67df755b87feb3b82d043d05fd1194cad142de11)
Thanks for that pic. It rocks. :D
Quote from: citizen k on December 09, 2009, 02:57:57 AM
Rick Warren Mentor Tied To Effort Behind Uganda's "Kill the Gays" Bill
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/rick-warren-mentor-tied-t_b_382480.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/rick-warren-mentor-tied-t_b_382480.html)
I can't even get worked up by this shit anymore. I just want all kinds of "Christianity is nice and fuzzy" people like Valmy to read this. We call on moderate muslims to stand up and oppose atrocities done in the name of Islam by extremists - what have you done to fight Christian fundamentalism, Valmy? If nothing, then you are the enemy.
Quote from: citizen k on December 09, 2009, 02:57:57 AM
Rick Warren Mentor Tied To Effort Behind Uganda's "Kill the Gays" Bill
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/rick-warren-mentor-tied-t_b_382480.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/rick-warren-mentor-tied-t_b_382480.html)
Yeah, this is old news. I must admit that Warren's whole "purpose-driven society" thing is a hoot. It is essentially The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, only with Christians instead of Jews, and not a secret.
Well it seems that I'm going to hell.
Not that there were any doubts.
You could repent and give up the gangsta rap...
but I don't want to give up Evolutionism.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2009, 03:28:18 AM
Oboma voters? All of them, really?
Leviticus Chapter 24 Verse 23
And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had voted for Obama, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 09, 2009, 09:18:26 AM
Well it seems that I'm going to hell.
Not that there were any doubts.
Keep in mind that what these people call "hell" (full of the evils of dancing, fornication, drinking, merriment, and tolerance) sounds a hell of a lot more attractive than what they think of as "heaven."
I think they actually have the two places confused, so say 'I certainly hope so" when one of them tells you you are "going to hell."
As Sartre noted, hell is other people.
:yes:
More Marilyn, Less Augustine.
Quote from: Martinus on December 09, 2009, 05:07:08 AM
I can't even get worked up by this shit anymore. I just want all kinds of "Christianity is nice and fuzzy" people like Valmy to read this. We call on moderate muslims to stand up and oppose atrocities done in the name of Islam by extremists - what have you done to fight Christian fundamentalism, Valmy? If nothing, then you are the enemy.
:bleeding: What have YOU done to fight Christian fundamentalism? :)
Quote from: Martinus on December 09, 2009, 05:07:08 AM
I can't even get worked up by this shit anymore. I just want all kinds of "Christianity is nice and fuzzy" people like Valmy to read this. We call on moderate muslims to stand up and oppose atrocities done in the name of Islam by extremists - what have you done to fight Christian fundamentalism, Valmy? If nothing, then you are the enemy.
Besides reject all their beliefs as false and oppose them politically? Not sure what else I can do.
It gets hard because the right is courting Christian fundies and the Left thinks all third world fundies are great and should be respected...you know for tolerance's sake. Fuck that I say.
Quote from: Caliga on December 09, 2009, 10:25:28 AM
:bleeding: What have YOU done to fight Christian fundamentalism? :)
Corrupted the youth? :unsure:
According to Marty, unless you personally take down a dozen or two fundies you AREN'T DOING ENOUGH.
(then he will bitch about the crime rate in America)
Quote from: PDH on December 09, 2009, 11:04:05 AM
According to Marty, unless you personally take down a dozen or two fundies you AREN'T DOING ENOUGH.
(then he will bitch about the crime rate in America)
'Enraged Texas fan breaks into evangelical church and guns down several UT offensive linemen who were attending services there.'
'Only in America' :rolleyes:
Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2009, 11:05:33 AM
'Enraged Texas fan breaks into evangelical church and guns down several UT offensive linemen who were attending services there.'
'Only in America' :rolleyes:
Yeah, sure. More likely we'll find you at a church in Tuscaloosa. :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 09, 2009, 11:24:27 AM
Yeah, sure. More likely we'll find you at a church in Tuscaloosa. :P
I will just cap McElroy when he goes home to Southlake for Christmas.
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 04:19:50 PM
This has been news for a while now. Kudos to Canada and Harper's conservative government for being so far the only now to actively and loudly oppose this measure (I think they have called for Uganda to be excluded from the Commonwealth or something).
Harper's bizarre.
Quote from: derspiess on December 09, 2009, 01:22:35 PM
At least he's no Fairy.
but he's sticking up for them :contract:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 09, 2009, 01:24:53 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 09, 2009, 01:22:35 PM
At least he's no Fairy.
but he's sticking up for them :contract:
I should have spelled it "Ferry" to make it more obvious :(
Quote from: Martinus on December 09, 2009, 05:07:08 AM
I can't even get worked up by this shit anymore. I just want all kinds of "Christianity is nice and fuzzy" people like Valmy to read this. We call on moderate muslims to stand up and oppose atrocities done in the name of Islam by extremists - what have you done to fight Christian fundamentalism, Valmy? If nothing, then you are the enemy.
For all your Catholic hate you don't even realize that US Catholics (here I mean the regular believers, not church officials) are quite liberal on gay issues and many strongly Catholic areas support gay rights. It's the Protestants who are backward conservatives, generally.
Ironically modern Catholicism is by far more liberal than modern Protestantism.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 09, 2009, 01:44:19 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 09, 2009, 05:07:08 AM
I can't even get worked up by this shit anymore. I just want all kinds of "Christianity is nice and fuzzy" people like Valmy to read this. We call on moderate muslims to stand up and oppose atrocities done in the name of Islam by extremists - what have you done to fight Christian fundamentalism, Valmy? If nothing, then you are the enemy.
For all your Catholic hate you don't even realize that US Catholics (here I mean the regular believers, not church officials) are quite liberal on gay issues and many strongly Catholic areas support gay rights. It's the Protestants who are backward conservatives, generally.
Ironically modern Catholicism is by far more liberal than modern Protestantism.
This gets touted around a lot but there is little evidence to support that assertion. In fact, two organizations that have always come up in strong support of all US state amendments banning gay marriage are the catholic church and the mormons.
American Catholics may be liberal, but the Catholic Church: America Chapter isn't. :contract:
Interesting. I didn't know that modern Protestantism here was so monolitically conservative.
Quote from: derspiess on December 09, 2009, 01:27:42 PM
I should have spelled it "Ferry" to make it more obvious :(
I got the reference. Good puns should work at face value as well though. :P
Also, I couldn't think of a way to work Ron Harper or Harper Collins into a response.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 09, 2009, 01:57:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 09, 2009, 01:27:42 PM
I should have spelled it "Ferry" to make it more obvious :(
I got the reference. Good puns should work at face value as well though. :P
Also, I couldn't think of a way to work Ron Harper or Harper Collins into a response.
I hate puns anyway :D
Quote from: derspiess on December 09, 2009, 01:49:15 PM
Interesting. I didn't know that modern Protestantism here was so monolitically conservative.
Are you doubting the view on American protestants coming from an orthodox Russian living in Finland? <_<
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2009, 07:47:04 PM
Just read that someone proposed Canada be booted from the Commonwealth because of their failure to live up to Kyoto treaty obligations.
It's some bunch of "scientists" (read: green leftists with no education in science whatsoever but are still regularly interviewed by left-leaning medias) , quoted by the Guardian. Search their site, you'll find the article.
Imho, it's payback for our Uganda stance ;)
After reading Marti's posts on the religion, I wonder if the Westboro church takes donations.
I don't have a problem with fags, but fag enablers just get to me.
Quote from: Martinus on December 09, 2009, 01:47:51 PM
This gets touted around a lot but there is little evidence to support that assertion. In fact, two organizations that have always come up in strong support of all US state amendments banning gay marriage are the catholic church and the mormons.
Which is why I said Catholic believers, not the church. Catholics have a long tradition of not doing what their bishops say.
Also, since when am I Orthodox? Once again you talk out of your ass.
Quote from: The Brain on December 09, 2009, 02:08:11 PM
I don't have a problem with fags, but fag enablers just get to me.
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on December 09, 2009, 01:47:51 PM
This gets touted around a lot but there is little evidence to support that assertion. In fact, two organizations that have always come up in strong support of all US state amendments banning gay marriage are the catholic church and the mormons.
Because of course, being against gay marriage is the same as voting a bill to execute people for the crime of being homosexuals and jailing their accomplices, those who did not report their crime of homosexuality.
The more I think about it, the more I see your point...
Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2009, 02:13:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 09, 2009, 01:47:51 PM
This gets touted around a lot but there is little evidence to support that assertion. In fact, two organizations that have always come up in strong support of all US state amendments banning gay marriage are the catholic church and the mormons.
Because of course, being against gay marriage is the same as voting a bill to execute people for the crime of being homosexuals and jailing their accomplices, those who did not report their crime of homosexuality.
The more I think about it, the more I see your point...
Are you retarded? Or are you saying that someone who is not voting for death penalty for gays is "liberal" by the US standards?
Quote from: Martinus on December 09, 2009, 02:15:24 PM
Are you retarded? Or are you saying that someone who is not voting for death penalty for gays is "liberal" by the US standards?
You're saying Catholics are bloody fanatics because they are agains't gay marriage. I'm disputing your statement.
Quote from: Martinus on December 09, 2009, 02:05:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 09, 2009, 01:49:15 PM
Interesting. I didn't know that modern Protestantism here was so monolitically conservative.
Are you doubting the view on American protestants coming from an orthodox Russian living in Finland? <_<
Let me see...
Catholics do not oppose evolution.
Catholics do not bomb abortion clinics.
Catholics do not support the use of gays as practice for seal hunting season.
So far, no Catholic organization has called for the killing of gays, or actively sought them to remind them how their evil ways will lend them in Hell.
Catholics do not oppose homosexual unions outside of churches (like the civil union in Quebec), only marriage (civil or religious). Try getting that in Mississipi or South Carolina.
Catholics do not seek to actively convert gays away from their homosexuality and return them to normality.
I think there's a pretty long list in favor of Catholics.
Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2009, 02:18:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 09, 2009, 02:15:24 PM
Are you retarded? Or are you saying that someone who is not voting for death penalty for gays is "liberal" by the US standards?
You're saying Catholics are bloody fanatics because they are agains't gay marriage. I'm disputing your statement.
This went like this:
Me: Catholics in Uganda are supporting gay penalty for gays.
Solmyr: But Catholics in the US are liberal.
Me: Not true. They support ban on gay marriage.
I didn't say catholics in the US are "bloody fanatics", only that they are not liberal. They are bloody fanatics in Uganda.
Is this so hard to understand?
Quote from: Martinus on December 09, 2009, 02:21:00 PM
This went like this:
Me: Catholics in Uganda are supporting gay penalty for gays.
Solmyr: But Catholics in the US are liberal.
Me: Not true. They support ban on gay marriage.
I didn't say catholics in the US are "bloody fanatics", only that they are not liberal. They are bloody fanatics in Uganda.
Is this so hard to understand?
Everyone not gay in Uganda seems to be supporting the DP for gays. Protestants, catholics and muslims if there are any.
Imho, occidental Catholics, especially in the US, are much more moderate than their Protestants counterparts.
Probably the communists too.
Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2009, 02:25:22 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 09, 2009, 02:21:00 PM
This went like this:
Me: Catholics in Uganda are supporting gay penalty for gays.
Solmyr: But Catholics in the US are liberal.
Me: Not true. They support ban on gay marriage.
I didn't say catholics in the US are "bloody fanatics", only that they are not liberal. They are bloody fanatics in Uganda.
Is this so hard to understand?
Everyone not gay in Uganda seems to be supporting the DP for gays. Protestants, catholics and muslims if there are any.
Imho, occidental Catholics, especially in the US, are much much more moderate than their Protestants counterparts.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsas-origin.onstreammedia.com%2Forigin%2Fgallupinc%2FGallupSpaces%2FProduction%2FCms%2FPOLL%2F1bjrkbfjbekwr2islvknka.gif&hash=c2cc1ab49c9abfd3902d4b88ed7412e8b0bd3593)
Quote from: Martinus on December 09, 2009, 02:21:00 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2009, 02:18:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 09, 2009, 02:15:24 PM
Are you retarded? Or are you saying that someone who is not voting for death penalty for gays is "liberal" by the US standards?
You're saying Catholics are bloody fanatics because they are agains't gay marriage. I'm disputing your statement.
This went like this:
Me: Catholics in Uganda are supporting gay penalty for gays.
Solmyr: But Catholics in the US are liberal.
Me: Not true. They support ban on gay marriage.
I didn't say catholics in the US are "bloody fanatics", only that they are not liberal. They are bloody fanatics in Uganda.
Is this so hard to understand?
I love the strawmanism. You are teh funnay. Dunno why anybody responds seriously to your inane comments, but I enjoy them for the pure fail they embody.
Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2009, 02:25:22 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 09, 2009, 02:21:00 PM
This went like this:
Me: Catholics in Uganda are supporting gay penalty for gays.
Solmyr: But Catholics in the US are liberal.
Me: Not true. They support ban on gay marriage.
I didn't say catholics in the US are "bloody fanatics", only that they are not liberal. They are bloody fanatics in Uganda.
Is this so hard to understand?
Everyone not gay in Uganda seems to be supporting the DP for gays. Protestants, catholics and muslims if there are any.
Imho, occidental Catholics, especially in the US, are much much more moderate than their Protestants counterparts.
NSFW! :mad:
Quote from: syk on December 09, 2009, 04:17:40 PM
NSFW! :mad:
some people might be surprised by their search results, but if they're searching for this, I think they already know it's NSFW :P
Quote from: Lacroix on December 09, 2009, 02:39:46 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsas-origin.onstreammedia.com%2Forigin%2Fgallupinc%2FGallupSpaces%2FProduction%2FCms%2FPOLL%2F1bjrkbfjbekwr2islvknka.gif&hash=c2cc1ab49c9abfd3902d4b88ed7412e8b0bd3593)
and that proves my point.
Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2009, 04:33:09 PM
Quote from: syk on December 09, 2009, 04:17:40 PM
NSFW! :mad:
some people might be surprised by their search results, but if they're searching for this, I think they already know it's NSFW :P
Fred Phelps is weeping for you! :lol:
Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2009, 04:33:39 PM
Quote from: Lacroix on December 09, 2009, 02:39:46 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsas-origin.onstreammedia.com%2Forigin%2Fgallupinc%2FGallupSpaces%2FProduction%2FCms%2FPOLL%2F1bjrkbfjbekwr2islvknka.gif&hash=c2cc1ab49c9abfd3902d4b88ed7412e8b0bd3593)
and that proves my point.
i was disagreeing with you, although i'm not sure catholics are "much much more" moderate than protestants. i think it depends on where you're looking. german catholics in the rural midwest might hold similar beliefs to norwegian protestants in the same area, whereas catholics/protestants in the northeast would have different views
Quote from: Lacroix on December 09, 2009, 05:27:03 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2009, 04:33:39 PM
Quote from: Lacroix on December 09, 2009, 02:39:46 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsas-origin.onstreammedia.com%2Forigin%2Fgallupinc%2FGallupSpaces%2FProduction%2FCms%2FPOLL%2F1bjrkbfjbekwr2islvknka.gif&hash=c2cc1ab49c9abfd3902d4b88ed7412e8b0bd3593)
and that proves my point.
i was disagreeing with you, although i'm not sure catholics are "much much more" moderate than protestants. i think it depends on where you're looking. german catholics in the rural midwest might hold similar beliefs to norwegian protestants in the same area, whereas catholics/protestants in the northeast would have different views
You also should distinguish between people who identify themselves as belonging to a particular religion due to family or historic reasons (but haven't attended a service in years), and those who regularily attend.
Quote from: Barrister on December 09, 2009, 05:29:42 PM
Quote from: Lacroix on December 09, 2009, 05:27:03 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2009, 04:33:39 PM
Quote from: Lacroix on December 09, 2009, 02:39:46 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsas-origin.onstreammedia.com%2Forigin%2Fgallupinc%2FGallupSpaces%2FProduction%2FCms%2FPOLL%2F1bjrkbfjbekwr2islvknka.gif&hash=c2cc1ab49c9abfd3902d4b88ed7412e8b0bd3593)
and that proves my point.
i was disagreeing with you, although i'm not sure catholics are "much much more" moderate than protestants. i think it depends on where you're looking. german catholics in the rural midwest might hold similar beliefs to norwegian protestants in the same area, whereas catholics/protestants in the northeast would have different views
You also should distinguish between people who identify themselves as belonging to a particular religion due to family or historic reasons (but haven't attended a service in years), and those who regularily attend.
Yup, and catholicism is one of the most "sticky" religions.
I don't think I've seen that Catholic table enough times yet to really grasp its import. Could maybe three or four more posters please quote it?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2009, 05:40:57 PM
I don't think I've seen that Catholic table enough times yet to really grasp its import. Could maybe three or four more posters please quote it?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsas-origin.onstreammedia.com%2Forigin%2Fgallupinc%2FGallupSpaces%2FProduction%2FCms%2FPOLL%2F1bjrkbfjbekwr2islvknka.gif&hash=c2cc1ab49c9abfd3902d4b88ed7412e8b0bd3593)
er, wasn't disagreeing with you* :Embarrass:
Quote from: Lacroix on December 09, 2009, 05:27:03 PM
i was disagreeing with you, although i'm not sure catholics are "much much more" moderate than protestants.
You realize that this quote is noit a quote, and in fact verges on a strawman, right? "Far more moderate" was the actual phrase used, and is significantly less emphatic than "'much, much more' moderate" is.
I don't have a stance on the issue
per se; the Catholics I know (that i know are Catholics) are quite liberal, but anecdotal evidence isn't very useful.
Quote from: grumbler on December 09, 2009, 05:54:11 PM
Quote from: Lacroix on December 09, 2009, 05:27:03 PM
i was disagreeing with you, although i'm not sure catholics are "much much more" moderate than protestants.
You realize that this quote is noit a quote, and in fact verges on a strawman, right? "Far more moderate" was the actual phrase used, and is significantly less emphatic than "'much, much more' moderate" is.
I don't have a stance on the issue per se; the Catholics I know (that i know are Catholics) are quite liberal, but anecdotal evidence isn't very useful.
but that's what viper said..
QuoteImho, occidental Catholics, especially in the US, are much much more moderate than their Protestants counterparts.
Well it depends what you mean by moderate and what you mean by Protestant really.
In England the Catholic Church is a bastion of inflexible moral values roundly ignored by an upper middle class faithful and fiercely upheld by an immigrant population (from Irish to Poles). In comparison to the Church of England it is terrifyingly hard-line on everything. However the Catholic Church is effectively a guitar led ecumenical sing along in comparison to the Kirk of Scotland. I mean Scottish Churches don't even have cushions in case anyone accidentally enjoys themselves.
Quote from: Lacroix on December 09, 2009, 06:10:38 PM
but that's what viper said..
QuoteImho, occidental Catholics, especially in the US, are much much more moderate than their Protestants counterparts.
Didn't see that tagged on at the bottom of that post. My apologies, and observation withdrawn.
it's cool, i figured that's what had happened. :hug:
Quote from: grumbler on December 09, 2009, 05:54:11 PM
Quote from: Lacroix on December 09, 2009, 05:27:03 PM
i was disagreeing with you, although i'm not sure catholics are "much much more" moderate than protestants.
You realize that this quote is noit a quote, and in fact verges on a strawman, right? "Far more moderate" was the actual phrase used, and is significantly less emphatic than "'much, much more' moderate" is.
I don't have a stance on the issue per se; the Catholics I know (that i know are Catholics) are quite liberal, but anecdotal evidence isn't very useful.
One much too much, sorry. ;)
"Much more moderate."
They seem less preachy to me. More open to compromises.
I've never heard of a Catholic priest trying to cure gays in the US or here. Much less catholic missonaries than Jehovah's Witness knocking at my door. And once you tell them to fuck off, they don't come back endlessy.
Imho, a proper question to ask in a survey would be "Would you vote for a candidate that openly declares himself atheist". There we'll have a good comparison on their fanatism level ;) :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 09, 2009, 06:50:17 PM
Well it depends what you mean by moderate and what you mean by Protestant really.
In England the Catholic Church is a bastion of inflexible moral values roundly ignored by an upper middle class faithful and fiercely upheld by an immigrant population (from Irish to Poles). In comparison to the Church of England it is terrifyingly hard-line on everything. However the Catholic Church is effectively a guitar led ecumenical sing along in comparison to the Kirk of Scotland. I mean Scottish Churches don't even have cushions in case anyone accidentally enjoys themselves.
I'll admit the Anglican community seems a lot more open than the Catholics. Not much of these around here, though. In fact, I have no idea of how many Catholics we have left here. Got to be somewhere around 50-60% of the people calling themselves Catholic.
mormons and jehova witnesses are their own, crazy little sect.
here are some catholics going against gay marriage, etc
http://www.americancatholic.org/news/report.aspx?id=1829
there are also protestant groups that are open to gay marriage, gay and female pastors, and the like. it just depends on a number of factors
Quote from: Lacroix on December 09, 2009, 11:25:58 PM
mormons and jehova witnesses are their own, crazy little sect.
here are some catholics going against gay marriage, etc
http://www.americancatholic.org/news/report.aspx?id=1829
there are also protestant groups that are open to gay marriage, gay and female pastors, and the like. it just depends on a number of factors
Aren't female pastors completely normal for protestant churches, or is that just a lutheran thing?
Quote from: syk on December 10, 2009, 12:07:33 AM
Aren't female pastors completely normal for protestant churches, or is that just a lutheran thing?
Nondenominational churches are useually opposed; I think Baptists are, but am as lazy as you about googling it.
Quote from: syk on December 10, 2009, 12:07:33 AM
Quote from: Lacroix on December 09, 2009, 11:25:58 PM
mormons and jehova witnesses are their own, crazy little sect.
here are some catholics going against gay marriage, etc
http://www.americancatholic.org/news/report.aspx?id=1829
there are also protestant groups that are open to gay marriage, gay and female pastors, and the like. it just depends on a number of factors
Aren't female pastors completely normal for protestant churches, or is that just a lutheran thing?
Not just Lutheran - I think most (all?) protestant denominations don't have an issue with women.
Viper, I think you are confusing "moderate" with "non-crazy". It's true that catholics are, on average, much less likely to have crazy charismatics, snake handlers, flat-earthists and the like (though it has more to do with having a central authority weeding out the crazies than with anything else). However, they are not really more progressive than protestants.
Several protestant groups have stuff like lesbian bishops - something that would be unheard of in the catholic church.
Quote from: Martinus on December 10, 2009, 02:57:59 AM
Viper, I think you are confusing "moderate" with "non-crazy". It's true that catholics are, on average, much less likely to have crazy charismatics, snake handlers, flat-earthists and the like (though it has more to do with having a central authority weeding out the crazies than with anything else). However, they are not really more progressive than protestants.
I am not sure how much this just has to do with the limited number of Protestants in Poland, though. I would argue that, in the US, on the other hand, your "average Catholic" probably is more progressive than your "average Protestant," if only because the Protestant average is skewed by the evangelicals. In the US, btw, charismatics are distinctly different from snake handlers and the like. I think that maybe what is called the charismatic movement in Poland is called the neocharismatic movement in the US (though even that movement, in the US, is pretty far from the snake handlers and speakers-in-tongues). Or, maybe what you guys call charasmatic is what is called Pentecostalism in the US.
Just goes to show how hard it is to make generalizations across cultures. The words can mean very different things, even when translated literally.
Quote from: Martinus on December 10, 2009, 02:57:59 AM
Several protestant groups have stuff like lesbian bishops - something that would be unheard of in the catholic church.
Exactly. Protestantism covers everything from Episcopal gay bishops to Seventh Day Adventists. To say Catholics are more progressive isn't terribly useful because we don't know who they're being compared to. They're more liberal than most evangelical groups, for sure (in a whole number of ways) but they're not significantly more 'moderate' than, say, the Episcopal Church of the USA.
American Catholics are usually too drunk to get riled up about sin.
Quote from: Barrister on December 10, 2009, 01:13:38 AM
Quote from: syk on December 10, 2009, 12:07:33 AM
Quote from: Lacroix on December 09, 2009, 11:25:58 PM
mormons and jehova witnesses are their own, crazy little sect.
here are some catholics going against gay marriage, etc
http://www.americancatholic.org/news/report.aspx?id=1829
there are also protestant groups that are open to gay marriage, gay and female pastors, and the like. it just depends on a number of factors
Aren't female pastors completely normal for protestant churches, or is that just a lutheran thing?
Not just Lutheran - I think most (all?) protestant denominations don't have an issue with women.
Thanks, I thought so. The head of "our" branch of the church is a female bishop and divorced no less. Only recently the Russion Orthodox cut their links to the German Lutherans because of Margot Käßmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margot_K%C3%A4%C3%9Fmann).
Quote from: syk on December 10, 2009, 09:06:27 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 10, 2009, 01:13:38 AM
Quote from: syk on December 10, 2009, 12:07:33 AM
Quote from: Lacroix on December 09, 2009, 11:25:58 PM
mormons and jehova witnesses are their own, crazy little sect.
here are some catholics going against gay marriage, etc
http://www.americancatholic.org/news/report.aspx?id=1829
there are also protestant groups that are open to gay marriage, gay and female pastors, and the like. it just depends on a number of factors
Aren't female pastors completely normal for protestant churches, or is that just a lutheran thing?
Not just Lutheran - I think most (all?) protestant denominations don't have an issue with women.
Thanks, I thought so. The head of "our" branch of the church is a female bishop and divorced no less. Only recently the Russion Orthodox cut their links to the German Lutherans because of Margot Käßmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margot_K%C3%A4%C3%9Fmann).
there's still some controversy over it. my mother is extremely opposed to it, i do know that
http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg4.htm
however, i think this is the minority rather than the majority
Just noticed that this would be the perfect thread for Paradox OT. :hug:
Quote from: Lacroix on December 09, 2009, 11:25:58 PM
there are also protestant groups that are open to gay marriage, gay and female pastors, and the like. it just depends on a number of factors
Are there protestant groups out there that do not allow female ministers/reverends/pastors?
Does "protestant" cover everybody who is Christian and not Catholic or some sort of Orthodox variety? Do my church or the Unitarians count as "protestants"?
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2009, 09:21:03 AM
Are there protestant groups out there that do not allow female ministers/reverends/pastors?
The hillbilly Southern Baptist kids I went to high school with were allowed to skip church whenever a woman was conducting the service (non denominational church).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2009, 09:25:39 AM
The hillbilly Southern Baptist kids I went to high school with were allowed to skip church whenever a woman was conducting the service (non denominational church).
Glad to see somebody pays attention to the Epistles to Timothy.
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2009, 09:28:15 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2009, 09:25:39 AM
The hillbilly Southern Baptist kids I went to high school with were allowed to skip church whenever a woman was conducting the service (non denominational church).
Glad to see somebody pays attention to the Epistles to Timothy.
Oh most of those were just letters chiding him for being to over-enthusiastic.
Women preachers? Awful.
They can't testify good enough.
Quote from: Barrister on December 10, 2009, 01:13:38 AM
Not just Lutheran - I think most (all?) protestant denominations don't have an issue with women.
Southern Baptists. My wife was horrified when she found out that my childhood church had had a woman pastor. And even moreso when she found out that they had replaced all the Bible teachings with socialism and anti-Americanism.
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2009, 09:22:52 AM
Does "protestant" cover everybody who is Christian and not Catholic or some sort of Orthodox variety? Do my church or the Unitarians count as "protestants"?
Are Unitarians actually Christians? Seems like new-age bullshit to me.
Quote from: grumbler on December 10, 2009, 08:11:47 AM
In the US, btw, charismatics are distinctly different from snake handlers and the like.
I'm not sure about that. The "Charismatic Christian" church my Aunt and Uncle switched to definitely has a lot of speaking in tongues and the like...
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2009, 09:22:52 AM
Does "protestant" cover everybody who is Christian and not Catholic or some sort of Orthodox variety? Do my church or the Unitarians count as "protestants"?
Protestants are Western Churches that aren't Catholic. Globally they're not Catholic, Ortho or Oriental :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2009, 08:57:08 AM
American Catholics are usually too drunk to get riled up about sin.
:mad:
Quote from: Neil on December 10, 2009, 09:33:42 AM
Are Unitarians actually Christians? Seems like new-age bullshit to me.
Unitarianism is from the 16th century.
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2009, 09:28:15 AM
Glad to see somebody pays attention to the Epistles to Timothy.
Their dad also got up in another missionary's face because the bible he translated into Korean was not the real bible, i.e. the King James version.
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2009, 09:22:52 AM
Does "protestant" cover everybody who is Christian and not Catholic or some sort of Orthodox variety?
Protestant = Christians - Catholic - Anglican - Orthodox, yes.
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2009, 09:22:52 AMDo my church or the Unitarians count as "protestants"?
The Unitarians, yes.
Quote from: ulmont on December 10, 2009, 09:36:16 AM
The Unitarians, yes.
Just curious. That is a pretty big tent to make generalizations about then.
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2009, 09:35:47 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 10, 2009, 09:33:42 AM
Are Unitarians actually Christians? Seems like new-age bullshit to me.
Unitarianism is from the 16th century idiot.
And magical power crystals are millenia older than that, you dumb cunt. It doesn't make it any less new-age bullshit.
My impression is that Unitarianism is based on political correctness, not New Age weirdness.
I'd like to go to a service some time, check it out.
Quote from: Neil on December 10, 2009, 09:39:17 AM
And magical power crystals are millenia older than that, you dumb cunt. It doesn't make it any less new-age bullshit.
Go fuck yourself. I don't need this bullshit. If you need to believe not thinking Jesus is a zombie jew who committed a blood sacrifice to himself and everything else is "new age bullshit" go right fucking ahead.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2009, 09:44:10 AM
My impression is that Unitarianism is based on political correctness, not New Age weirdness.
Ah no that is Unitarian Universalism.
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2009, 09:38:06 AM
Quote from: ulmont on December 10, 2009, 09:36:16 AM
The Unitarians, yes.
Just curious. That is a pretty big tent to make generalizations about then.
Even "Baptist" is a big tent to make generalizations about, since just the differences in the US between "American Baptists," "Southern Baptists," and "Freewill Baptists" are great.
I've no idea what unitarians are. I think they're very American.
Unitarianism wouldn't work in this country. If you want the good bits of Christianity (cake sales, generally good moral shit, charity) without the difficulty of belief in the implausible then you just go to an Anglican church.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2009, 09:35:09 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2009, 09:22:52 AM
Does "protestant" cover everybody who is Christian and not Catholic or some sort of Orthodox variety? Do my church or the Unitarians count as "protestants"?
Protestants are Western Churches that aren't Catholic. Globally they're not Catholic, Ortho or Oriental :)
so, jehova witnesses are protestant? :unsure:
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2009, 09:47:03 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 10, 2009, 09:39:17 AM
And magical power crystals are millenia older than that, you dumb cunt. It doesn't make it any less new-age bullshit.
Go fuck yourself. I don't need this bullshit. If you need to believe not thinking Jesus is a zombie jew who committed a blood sacrifice to himself and everything else is "new age bullshit" go right fucking ahead.
You do need it. You need to know what you are and what the beliefs you have chosen represent, and you need Me to teach you.
Quote from: Lacroix on December 10, 2009, 09:51:29 AM
so, jehova witnesses are protestant? :unsure:
They're a branch of Protestantism, I imagine.
QuoteNoun 1. Jehovah's Witnesses - Protestant denomination founded in the United States by Charles Taze Russell in 1884
well, there you go. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2009, 09:22:52 AM
Does "protestant" cover everybody who is Christian and not Catholic or some sort of Orthodox variety? Do my church or the Unitarians count as "protestants"?
It doesn't cover Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites, etc. The Anabaptist churches trace their "lineage" to the apostles independent of the Roman Church.
Quote from: Maximus on December 10, 2009, 10:01:20 AM
It doesn't cover Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites, etc. The Anabaptist churches trace their "lineage" to the apostles independent of the Roman Church.
Did those guys all start up before the Reformation?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2009, 10:08:32 AM
Quote from: Maximus on December 10, 2009, 10:01:20 AM
It doesn't cover Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites, etc. The Anabaptist churches trace their "lineage" to the apostles independent of the Roman Church.
Did those guys all start up before the Reformation?
Yeah, but they are like Wiccans and believe that it was just all secret before then.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2009, 10:08:32 AM
Did those guys all start up before the Reformation?
Under those names(which were given to them by outsiders), probably. But they go back to apostolic times in their beliefs and baptismal lineage.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2009, 10:08:32 AM
Did those guys all start up before the Reformation?
Most of them started during the Reformation - 16th century - though there's a couple of heterodox groups in Europe who have similar beliefs before then. Saying they trace their beliefs and practices to the early Church isn't terribly useful because every single Christian Church claims that.
Amish make fantastic pies.
Quote from: Maximus on December 10, 2009, 10:12:55 AM
Under those names(which were given to them by outsiders), probably. But they go back to apostolic times in their beliefs and baptismal lineage.
Please elaborate.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2009, 10:15:27 AMSaying they trace their beliefs and practices to the early Church isn't terribly useful because every single Christian Church claims that.
Which is what makes them christian, but the protestants trace theirs through the Roman church. The Anabaptists do not.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2009, 10:15:52 AM
Please elaborate.
What's to elaborate? They existed since the apostles. Under different names, in different places, often in secrecy for obvious reasons.
Quote from: Maximus on December 10, 2009, 10:18:54 AM
Which is what makes them christian, but the protestants trace theirs through the Roman church. The Anabaptists do not.
No they don't. Protestants reject the Roman Church as an innovation and say they're a purifying movement with that great Reformation slogan of a 'return to the sources'. Almost all Protestant Churches establish themselves as directly linked to the Church Fathers or the Apostles which is why they reject Romanish 'innovation'.
Quote from: Maximus on December 10, 2009, 10:20:57 AM
What's to elaborate? They existed since the apostles. Under different names, in different places, often in secrecy for obvious reasons.
For starters what does baptismal lineage mean.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2009, 10:24:43 AM
For starters what does baptismal lineage mean.
Apostle A baptized guy B. Guy B baptized guy C. etc down to the modern day. All adult baptisms of course, upon the confession of faith.
Quote from: Maximus on December 10, 2009, 10:30:33 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2009, 10:24:43 AM
For starters what does baptismal lineage mean.
Apostle A baptized guy B. Guy B baptized guy C. etc down to the modern day. All adult baptisms of course, upon the confession of faith.
Anyone who claims something like that must be a fucking hoax. There is no fucking way there could be records of this through the early dark ages for example.
Quote from: Martinus on December 10, 2009, 10:31:45 AM
Anyone who claims something like that must be a fucking hoax. There is no fucking way there could be records of this through the early dark ages for example.
I believe the Waldensians claimed it and some Anabaptist groups claim descent from them. I've never seen the argument presented except to be dismissed in mainstream histories however.
Quote from: Martinus on December 10, 2009, 10:31:45 AM
Anyone who claims something like that must be a fucking hoax. There is no fucking way there could be records of this through the early dark ages for example.
What possible difference does it make?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2009, 10:32:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 10, 2009, 10:31:45 AM
Anyone who claims something like that must be a fucking hoax. There is no fucking way there could be records of this through the early dark ages for example.
I believe the Waldensians claimed it and some Anabaptist groups claim descent from them. I've never seen the argument presented except to be dismissed in mainstream histories however.
See, that's the problem with religious groups. No matter how much benign or harmless they may seem, you eventually arrive at some ridiculous bullshit that makes you wonder if these people are fucking nuts or just pretend to be.
Quote from: Martinus on December 10, 2009, 10:31:45 AM
Anyone who claims something like that must be a fucking hoax. There is no fucking way there could be records of this through the early dark ages for example.
I never said it wasn't a myth. All religions have their myths. All nations have their myths for that matter. It doesn't make it any less of a part of their beliefs.
@ Sheilbh. Yes the waldenses are a part of that lineage.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2009, 10:35:44 AM
What possible difference does it make?
They don't go back to the early church. They are Protestants who came about during the Reformation - historically speaking - regardless of their beliefs and the belief that they're directly linked to the Apostles isn't significantly different from the beliefs every other Protestant Church had that they were restoring the true Church after Romanish deviance.
Quote from: Martinus on December 10, 2009, 10:36:35 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2009, 10:32:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 10, 2009, 10:31:45 AM
Anyone who claims something like that must be a fucking hoax. There is no fucking way there could be records of this through the early dark ages for example.
I believe the Waldensians claimed it and some Anabaptist groups claim descent from them. I've never seen the argument presented except to be dismissed in mainstream histories however.
See, that's the problem with religious groups. No matter how much benign or harmless they may seem, you eventually arrive at some ridiculous bullshit that makes you wonder if these people are fucking nuts or just pretend to be.
Heh I saw an official geneology of the Kings of England, displayed at the Tower of London. Allegedly,
to this very day they claim ultimate descent from "Wotan" (Woden, or Odin). :lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C5%8Dden
A faked-up, impossible geneology as part of one's founding mythology is nothing new and not specific to religion (most English folk are not, at least these days, worshipers of the old Germanic gods and so presumably don't even believe "Wotan" exists, much less that their monarchs are descended from him).
Quote from: Martinus on December 10, 2009, 10:36:35 AM
See, that's the problem with religious groups. No matter how much benign or harmless they may seem, you eventually arrive at some ridiculous bullshit that makes you wonder if these people are fucking nuts or just pretend to be.
Meh. It's no more ridiculous than virtually everything that you believe.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2009, 10:46:57 AM
They don't go back to the early church. They are Protestants who came about during the Reformation - historically speaking - regardless of their beliefs and the belief that they're directly linked to the Apostles isn't significantly different from the beliefs every other Protestant Church had that they were restoring the true Church after Romanish deviance.
Point taken, but do you think that was the basis of Marty's objection?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2009, 10:46:57 AM
They don't go back to the early church. They are Protestants who came about during the Reformation - historically speaking - regardless of their beliefs and the belief that they're directly linked to the Apostles isn't significantly different from the beliefs every other Protestant Church had that they were restoring the true Church after Romanish deviance.
Except there is a difference. The Protestants started new organizations to get back to their roots. The Anabaptists neither started anything new nor generally increased in number during the reformation.
I should point out that I am arguing their position using their histories, much of which is unwritten and the rest of which is contained in religious texts. I am not claiming it holds up to academic historic standards, but if a church is not defined by its beliefs, what is it defined by?
Quote from: Maximus on December 10, 2009, 11:39:16 AM
Except there is a difference. The Protestants started new organizations to get back to their roots. The Anabaptists neither started anything new nor generally increased in number during the reformation.
But historically we know they did start something new. We know that the Swiss Brethren, for example, initially seemed at home in Zwingli's Zurich and then rejected it and were persecuted.
QuoteI should point out that I am arguing their position using their histories, much of which is unwritten and the rest of which is contained in religious texts. I am not claiming it holds up to academic historic standards, but if a church is not defined by its beliefs, what is it defined by?
Well in historical terms I think it's defined by its history. I don't think we should hold them to a lower standard than, say, the Catholic claim of Apostolic succession or Constantine's donation. Both of those are important in how the Catholic Church understands itself but historically we have to acknowledge that the latter's a fraud and the former highly, highly improbable. Even histories of the Catholic Church by Catholic historians, such as Eamon Duffy's history of the Popes admits that basically we don't know anything about the early Popes and that that element of Catholic history is more myth than history - which doesn't mean it's not important.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2009, 12:47:25 PM
Well in historical terms I think it's defined by its history. I don't think we should hold them to a lower standard than, say, the Catholic claim of Apostolic succession or Constantine's donation. Both of those are important in how the Catholic Church understands itself but historically we have to acknowledge that the latter's a fraud and the former highly, highly improbable. Even histories of the Catholic Church by Catholic historians, such as Eamon Duffy's history of the Popes admits that basically we don't know anything about the early Popes and that that element of Catholic history is more myth than history - which doesn't mean it's not important.
Which is prety much what I'm saying.
Quote
But historically we know they did start something new. We know that the Swiss Brethren, for example, initially seemed at home in Zwingli's Zurich and then rejected it and were persecuted.
The Swiss Brethren are not considered a part of that lineage since they started by baptizing each other after Zwingli switched to supporting infant baptism.
Quote from: Maximus on December 10, 2009, 11:39:16 AM
I should point out that I am arguing their position using their histories
FAIL
Quote from: Martinus on December 10, 2009, 02:57:59 AM
Viper, I think you are confusing "moderate" with "non-crazy". It's true that catholics are, on average, much less likely to have crazy charismatics, snake handlers, flat-earthists and the like (though it has more to do with having a central authority weeding out the crazies than with anything else). However, they are not really more progressive than protestants.
Several protestant groups have stuff like lesbian bishops - something that would be unheard of in the catholic church.
Well, of course, homosexuality is a sin in the Catholic church, yet there are openly gay priests.
And since the Catholic Church is a central authority, of course there will be protestant groups more open to gays, they leave the Catholic Church and found their own Church where they will marry gays in the tradition of catholocism. But these are fringe groups.
Being "moderate" and "non-crazy" for me is quite similar ;)
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2009, 09:47:03 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 10, 2009, 09:39:17 AM
And magical power crystals are millenia older than that, you dumb cunt. It doesn't make it any less new-age bullshit.
Go fuck yourself. I don't need this bullshit. If you need to believe not thinking Jesus is a zombie jew who committed a blood sacrifice to himself and everything else is "new age bullshit" go right fucking ahead.
:lol:
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 10, 2009, 09:32:48 AM
Women preachers? Awful.
They can't testify good enough.
If the woman preacher at my church ends up taking the 'executive' role at my church (we have like 5 or 6 ministers on staff), I'm moving to the smaller church down the street. Nothing against her personally, but female ministers tend to be either too soft to be taken seriously, or like an annoying nagging mother in law.
My best friend's dad was the ideal minister-- he had an amazing, booming voice that could get the point across, a great sense of humor, and an overall fatherly demeanor.
Quote from: derspiess on December 11, 2009, 12:36:42 PM
, but female ministers tend to be either too soft to be taken seriously, or like an annoying nagging mother in law.
:yes:
Plus, women are weak.