Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't like it, either, but from what I've seen it's true. Reasoning won't reach the religious majority; only preaching will. It's hard to come between a religious man and his religion, so you instead convince him that the cause you want to support was part of his religion to begin with. This is one reason it's so hard to change things in this state. You have to appeal to the conscience, and here the conscience is guided by what the people hear on Sunday. Almost any cause you want the people to support has to go through this thick religious filter.
Maybe the filter could be thinned out, though, if other points of view were introduced and the religious people's consciences were turned in another direction? I mean, if hatred, violence, discrimination, etc., were "justified" to the people's minds, and continue to be, why not something more productive? I don't know; it's just a thought.
We differ over what the issue really is.
I don't think civil rights laws change many opinions or feelings about discrimination. I'll even go one step further. As much as I disagree with bigots and homophobes, I don't dispute their rights to hold those beliefs.
What I dispute is their right to act on those beliefs by discriminating against a group in terms of employment, housing, voting, education, and/or the provision of public accommodations. That's the real issue. I do believe that if it takes dragging people kicking and screaming, fining people, and issuing injunctions to secure those rights to minority groups that that is what should be done.
I think the good people of Alabama will begin to wake up when suddenly federal courts are entering huge damage awards in lawsuits for discrimination against the state and its officials. If they refuse to pay you find where the state keeps money in a bank and you use the legal process to garnish the bank account. When officials are held in contempt of court for their actions and begin to see the inside of a jail cell, many will have a change of heart.
Some speak of this in ominous tones as "Big Brother" taking away their freedom. I speak of it as the court system enforcing rights through time-tested methods.
I just don't understand how you feel everyone else must change to accept your choice. I really find it offensive and a very bigoted attitude from your side to think you have the right to deny us our freedoms and right to decided things in our state. Then some on your side call us whom they wish to deny rights to names. That's why we don't listen to your side.
I don't mean to be ugly to you. You have a right to do anything you want to. But when it involves my government and tax dollars and overturning a majority vote, I take issue with it. So far when I state my views all your side does is call me names. That proves to me you don't have a reasoned cause.
I know where you're coming from, but this is a very complicated issue, much more complicated than our governments and religious institutions have let us understand. For one thing, the open hatred against gays was and always will be unjust. (At one point in history, we didn't even try to find a cure for AIDS, because we thought that it was only affecting them, not us. It was the same with the open bullying and prejudice against gays that was allowed in the public schools. People eventually learned that it was affecting all children, not just the ones they didn't like, so society then decided that it was worth opposing, and anti-bullying programs were instituted in the schools.) As Christians, or even just moral citizens, we have a duty to oppose unjust laws and seek freedom and peace for our fellow citizens. It says "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
In Alabama, though, and many religious parts of the United States, and probably the world, we also have the duty to protect our faith from corruption or possible destruction. Here, that comes before the duties we have to our neighbors and friends, although I think the Bible really puts them at equal weight. It says "love the Lord thy God with all of thy heart, AND love thy neighbor as thyself." We've been taught the "love the Lord thy God" part means opposing any laws that might, not necessarily will, but might jeopardize free practice of our faith in the future. If say gay marriage eventually becomes as socially acceptable as interracial marriage, ministers who refuse to perform them may be seen as in violation of the Constitution. (As far as I know, no minister can refuse to perform an interracial marriage on the basis of his or her faith. If he or she did, it would be greatly frowned upon by the majority.) Maybe that's just flawed thinking, though. We don't trust the federal government down here, really. We know that it doesn't care about us, especially not the religious people. We've heard enough speeches calling our brand of Christianity a "cultural movement" that we know they don't understand our point of view and won't even try to. They dismiss our zeal as "backwardness" "ignorance" or "foolishness," but it's an integral part of our decision-making, for better or worse.
I think the only answer would be to get the people thinking for themselves, but that would mean somehow stopping the people who craft messages that make the people afraid to act on what they would otherwise believe was right and proper. The majority only has one brand of Christianity here. Why can't we have another? I, for one, am tired of the confusion. It seems like the only thing we can agree on is what we hate anyway. A change would be refreshing. At the very least, if the religious people opened their eyes and saw America for the festering leper she is, perhaps they would be reluctant to condemn what some people esteem as just one more spot. Maybe they would see that they are essentially looking for another scapegoat so that they can continue their way of life.
I know where you're coming from, but this is a very complicated issue, much more complicated than our governments and religious institutions have let us understand. For one thing, the open hatred against gays was and always will be unjust. (At one point in history, we didn't even try to find a cure for AIDS, because they thought that it was only affecting them, not us. It was the same with the open bullying and prejudice against gays that was allowed in the public schools. People eventually learned that it was affecting all children, not just the ones they didn't like, so society then decided that it was worth opposing, and anti-bullying programs were instituted in the schools.) As Christians, or even just moral citizens, we have a duty to oppose unjust laws and seek freedom and peace for our fellow citizens. It says "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
In Alabama, though, and many religious parts of the United States, and probably the world, we also have the duty to protect our faith from corruption or possible destruction. Here, that comes before the duties we have to our neighbors and friends, although I think the Bible really puts them at equal weight. It says "love the Lord thy God with all of thy heart, AND love thy neighbor as thyself." We've been taught the "love the Lord thy God" part means opposing any laws that might, not necessarily will, but might jeopardize free practice of our faith in the future. If say gay marriage eventually becomes as socially acceptable as interracial marriage, ministers who refuse to perform them may be seen as in violation of the Constitution. (As far as I know, no minister can refuse to perform an interracial marriage on this basis of his or her faith. If he or she did, it would be greatly frowned upon by the majority.) Maybe that's just flawed thinking, though. We don't trust the federal government down here, really. We know that it doesn't care about us, especially not the religious people. We've heard enough speeches calling our brand of Christianity a "cultural movement" that we know they don't understand our point of view and won't even try to. They dismiss our zeal as "backwardness" "ignorance" or "foolishness," but it's an integral part of our decision-making, for better or worse.
I think the only answer would be to get the people thinking for themselves, but that would mean somehow stopping the people who craft messages that make the people afraid to act on what they would otherwise believe was right and proper. The majority only has one brand of Christianity here. Why can't we have another? I, for one, am tired of the confusion. It seems like the only thing we can agree on is what we hate anyway. A change would be refreshing. At the very least, if the religious people opened their eyes and saw America for the festering leper she is, perhaps they would be reluctant to condemn what some people esteem as one more spot.
Actually preachers can refuse to marry anyone they choose. Just last year there was a church that refused to marry a black couple, one that refused to marry an interracial couple, and one that refused to marry a couple because the preacher did not approve of the brides dress. No church is required to marry an interfaith couple, or a couple of a different religion. No church is forced to marry a previously divorced couple.
So, as far as preachers refusing to marry people being unconstitutional, you are incorrect. As far as the general public not liking it, that is part of a persons freedom of speech. If a church does something I don;t like, I am well within my rights to speak out against their actions.
Actually preachers can refuse to marry anyone they choose. Just last year there was a church that refused to marry a black couple, one that refused to marry an interracial couple, and one that refused to marry a couple because the preacher did not approve of the brides dress. No church is required to marry an interfaith couple, or a couple of a different religion. No church is forced to marry a previously divorced couple.
So, as far as preachers refusing to marry people being unconstitutional, you are incorrect. As far as the general public not liking it, that is part of a persons freedom of speech. If a church does something I don't like, I am well within my rights to speak out against their actions.
I'm pretty sure they got national attention and lost parishioners and funding, too. They were hurt for their actions one way or another, but that's the danger of public opinion. It's really hard to remain part of a religious group if it constantly bends to society's pressures. Anyone acting the way they think they're supposed to act is immediately condemned, regardless of their motives, and those who compromised won't stand with them, nope. If you try to act on your faith and it turns out wrong, you stand alone in this country. No one wants to be stigmatized as a "religious bigot" or one "standing on the wrong side of history," so we often compromise. When fear overcomes us, and we act according to what we really believe, then, people are shocked, and they condemn the one or ones who acted. There's no forgiveness without compromise in the world of public opinion.
I'm pretty sure they got national attention and lost parishioners and funding, too. They were hurt for their actions one way or another, but that's public opinion and the fear it carries.
That is part of doing anything. Churches have no protections from public opinion of their actions just like companies groups or people have no protections from public opinion for their actions. Everyone has to deal with the consequences of their actions.
But that is not the same as there being any law or governmental force in making churches do anything in regards to their beliefs.
I'm pretty sure they got national attention and lost parishioners and funding, too. They were hurt for their actions one way or another, but that's the danger of public opinion. It's really hard to remain part of a religious group if it constantly bends to society's pressures. Anyone acting the way they think they're supposed to act is immediately condemned, regardless of their motives, and those who compromised won't stand with them, nope. If you try to act on your faith and it turns out wrong, you stand alone in this country. No one wants to be stigmatized as a "religious bigot" or one "standing on the wrong side of history," so we often compromise. When fear overcomes us, and we act according to what we really believe, then, people are shocked, and they condemn the one or ones who acted. There's no forgiveness without compromise in the world of public opinion.
What I am increasingly hearing is something like this. The problem is less government allowing gay marriage than it is those who criticize the church for its actions opposing gay marriage. I wonder if those who belong to some of these churches who hold these views believe that as "part of religious freedom" that no one should be allowed to criticize their actions?
No one in America is immune from criticism. Particularly those who hold a position of power.
If church members don't want to be stigmatized as religious bigots than they should stop doing things that appear to the rest of the country as bigoted.
Again, tell me who is being forced to enter into a gay marriage and how are the members of the church losing their religious liberty because gay marriage is now the law of the land?
That is part of doing anything. Churches have no protections from public opinion of their actions just like companies groups or people have no protections from public opinion for their actions. Everyone has to deal with the consequences of their actions.
But that is not the same as there being any law or governmental force in making churches do anything in regards to their beliefs.
True, but they do seem to be related. People start to see a church standing up for its constitutional rights as a church taking liberties or practicing discrimination when opinions change. There's no alternative culture here. The majority tends to think, or at least pretends to think, the same thing. I think the public does these people a disservice by only presenting one side of the story, but that's the way it has been and probably the way it always will be. I'm tired of all of it, to be honest. There's no room for a new perspective. It's always framed as "us" versus "them," "good guys" versus "bad guys," but well-meaning people exist on both sides of this debate. The most depressing aspect of this is religious people certainly don't want to be the bad guys, but they can't go against what they've learned as God's law to support popular opinion. For those of us churchgoers in Alabama, that means we're stuck accepting any strange rule that's shoved down our throats, if it's been "justified" by the Bible and not opposed from the pulpit. Most of us try to keep up with scripture, but we aren't ministers, and it's very difficult to "disprove" any of what we're given, especially if most agree that it's in the Bible.
Actually preachers can refuse to marry anyone they choose. Just last year there was a church that refused to marry a black couple, one that refused to marry an interracial couple, and one that refused to marry a couple because the preacher did not approve of the brides dress. No church is required to marry an interfaith couple, or a couple of a different religion. No church is forced to marry a previously divorced couple.
So, as far as preachers refusing to marry people being unconstitutional, you are incorrect. As far as the general public not liking it, that is part of a persons freedom of speech. If a church does something I don;t like, I am well within my rights to speak out against their actions.
And I seriously doubt very many gay couples are going to be lining up to be married by a bigoted homophobic preacher. There may be a few, but most people prefer to be married by someone who respects them for who they are.
True, but they do seem to be related. People start to see a church standing up for its constitutional rights as a church taking liberties or practicing discrimination when opinions change. There's no alternative culture here. The majority tends to think, or at least pretends to think, the same thing. I think the public does these people a disservice by only presenting one side of the story, but that's the way it has been and probably the way it always will be. I'm tired of all of it, to be honest. There's no room for a new perspective. It's always framed as "us" versus "them," "good guys" versus "bad guys," but well-meaning people exist on both sides of this debate. The most depressing aspect of this is religious people certainly don't want to be the bad guys, but they can't go against what they've learned as God's law to support popular opinion. For those of us churchgoers in Alabama, that means we're stuck accepting any strange rule that's shoved down our throats, if it's been "justified" by the Bible and not opposed from the pulpit. Most of us try to keep up with scripture, but we aren't ministers, and it's very difficult to "disprove" any of what we're given, especially if most agree that it's in the Bible.
So I should be denied a civil marriage because your church might be looked at poorly for not allowing SSM in their church?
No one is making any Christian go against their religion, nothing is being "shoved down your throat? by allowing me to go to city hall and get a marriage license. You would not be forced to marry someone of the same sex. You would not be forced to attend a same sex wedding. You will not be forced to have a same sex wedding in your church. You will not be forced to like that some people have a same sex marriage. You will not be forced to do diddly. You can preach that it is a sin all you want, what you can not do is use your religious beliefs to force others to conform to what your religion believes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
