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.
Amazing that this has gone on for as long as it has. It's a testimony to the intolerance of the non-religious. If this was a kid that simply told his parents that he didn't want anything to do with their religion, great....end of story. But Mom and Dad dare to tell the kid that his lifestyle is wrong, and people freak out. 378 posts later, the C-D group is still arguing over it.
Many of the people who are decrying these parents are in fact religious.
Thankfully, our G-ds see right through your religious posturing.
Which, as I said, makes it seem very fragile. I hear what you are saying, I am just pointing out that if you have to indoctrinate your children from birth, from both sides, in order to keep them in the religion, it seems very fragile.
.
It has nothing to do with indoctrination as you likely assume it happens; it is about the amount that needs to be learned. For example, learning Hebrew. That takes a lot of time just reading the different letters and words much less learn what the words mean. It is a lot of work but crucial to appreciate and understand Judaism. Most Americans can't even speak one foreign language. So, you can see that it has nothing to do with just teaching some doctrine. It's just a lot to learn. That could be hard to understand for people who don't appreciate a lot of studying and want to rely on pure faith without exploring and investigating and understanding at least the basics of their religion. Good for them but that is not how it works.
Okay, so I decided to do a little research (Thank you for making me interested in this topic), and came up with this. It basically says that, yes, according to the old doctrine, you shouldn't step foot in a church, but the last line in the article says something else. Something we are used to hearing when talking of religion.
Fear of entering a church may have been relevant in certain countries in earlier periods, but does not apply today. It smacks either of religious cowardice or of time-warp mentality.
You also read the answer of the Orthodox rabbi, then, I assume. So, you have your answer. Reform and Orthodox have very different approaches and each individual Jew chooses what to do for themselves.
In the 1980's, two gay men wrote guidelines in how to further the gay agenda and make gay marriage legal and acceptable.
Guidelines...
#1.........label anyone opposed to gay marriage as " homophobes"
#2........label any religion/church opposed to gay marriage...." a church of hate"
#3.........quiet any one not supportive of gay marriage by accusing them of being gay themselves
Yup, what side is the one who perfected "labeling" and "accusing " ?
Pretty sure none of that is in the article they wrote, though it may have been in their subsequent book, I don't know.
As Kirk and Madsen (the two men you reference) said in the article:
"MAKE THE VICTIMIZERS LOOK BAD.
At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights-long after other gay ads have become commonplace-it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified. (This will be all the more necessary because, by that time, the entrenched enemy will have quadrupled its output of vitriol and disinformation.) Our goal is here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream's self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types...
A campaign to vilify the victimizers is going to enrage our most fervid enemies, of course. But what else can we say? The shoe fits, and we should make them try it on for size, with all of America watching."
and
There are one hundred reasons why the campaign could not be done or would be risky. But there are at least 20 million good reasons why some such program must be tried in the coming years: the welfare and happiness of every gay man and woman in this country demand it. As the last large, legally oppressed minority in American society, it is high time that gays took effective measures to rejoin the mainstream in pride and strength. We believe that, like it or not, such a campaign is the only way of doing so anytime soon."
There's no denying that, whatever one may think of their tactics, they felt justified in fighting back against the attitudes and behaviors of those who wanted to maintain the right to silence, dehumanize and discriminate against the gay community.
Do they also avoid working for Christians? Do they avoid selling items to Christians? Do they avoid going into Christians homes? Anything like that? Is it just the building they have an issue with? The pastor/preacher? Color me confused as to why this would matter when it concerns your son's wedding.
The answer varies from person to person. From my personal life: Certainly people would prefer to work for a Jew because then you'd get the Jewish holidays and Shabbat off. But there's no reason not to work for a Christian. Business; no problem. Visiting Christian homes; no problem. Though I know of somebody who had a surgery in a Christian hospital (the doctor insisted because they had the best equipment or something) and there was a cross in the room - the person covered it up during the hospital stay. Yet, the very same person was friends with several Christian ministers/priests.
It has nothing to do with indoctrination as you likely assume it happens; it is about the amount that needs to be learned. For example, learning Hebrew. That takes a lot of time just reading the different letters and words much less learn what the words mean. It is a lot of work but crucial to appreciate and understand Judaism. Most Americans can't even speak one foreign language. So, you can see that it has nothing to do with just teaching some doctrine. It's just a lot to learn. That could be hard to understand for people who don't appreciate a lot of studying and want to rely on pure faith without exploring and investigating and understanding at least the basics of their religion. Good for them but that is not how it works.
In fact, it does. If you start teaching your child a religion from the time they are born, you are indoctrinating them into the religion. It doesn't matter if you teach them Hebrew or not. I love studying and exploring things, which is why I am not religious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliksder
You also read the answer of the Orthodox rabbi, then, I assume. So, you have your answer. Reform and Orthodox have very different approaches and each individual Jew chooses what to do for themselves.
I did. Very interesting. It seems that the sole reason they don't want people to go into a church is fear. Fear that they will convert, fear that they will "feel Jesus", and fear that this will somehow creep into their lives. It is primitive thinking, at best.
I can understand them saying, "Don't go into a church for their service", but to say "Never go into a church ever because you may get Christianity on you" is ludicrous... at best. Especially if it means missing your child's wedding. You just proved your Orthodox religion is more important than your child. Not cool.
The answer varies from person to person. From my personal life: Certainly people would prefer to work for a Jew because then you'd get the Jewish holidays and Shabbat off. But there's no reason not to work for a Christian. Business; no problem. Visiting Christian homes; no problem. Though I know of somebody who had a surgery in a Christian hospital (the doctor insisted because they had the best equipment or something) and there was a cross in the room - the person covered it up during the hospital stay. Yet, the very same person was friends with several Christian ministers/priests.
Well, I guess my point, is that if you do any of those things, you are a part of Christian lives just as much as if you go to a wedding at a church. A church is a building, nothing more. You can ascribe a further meaning to it if you want, but there isn't one. Like in your above post, the guy who covered a cross.... Why? What is the point? You can't stand the sight of it that much? Your religious beliefs are so tenuous that you can't even look at a cross?
Well, I guess my point, is that if you do any of those things, you are a part of Christian lives just as much as if you go to a wedding at a church. A church is a building, nothing more. You can ascribe a further meaning to it if you want, but there isn't one. Like in your above post, the guy who covered a cross.... Why? What is the point? You can't stand the sight of it that much? Your religious beliefs are so tenuous that you can't even look at a cross?
The reasoning behind it all just baffles me.
Or you're afraid of displeasing God? What do you think God is going to do to you if you go to your child's wedding?
......Just because something is legal doesn't prevent it from being immoral or sinful......
(but you saw my 2nd sentence , and ignored it ...............how clever of you !
You've ignored a bunch of questions I asked you.
Which leads to the obvious conclusion that answering questions isn't especially important to you.
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.
