Religious Liberty?
As same-sex civil unions were legalized in Connecticut on Saturday, October 1, the Hartford Courant covered an organized protest set up by those upset with the new legal right. The collection of groups assembled against same-sex civil unions included the Family Institute of Connecticut, whose executive director, Brian Brown, proclaimed that “This civil union law is…a serious threat to religious liberty.”
A serious threat to religious liberty? How can a law that permits the formation of civil unions between same-sex couples be said to constitute “a serious threat to religious liberty?” After all, the law only permits individuals to gain legal recognition by the state of Connecticut. It doesn’t require religious institutions to perform union ceremonies or in any other way condone or support the unions. The only “religious liberty” that seems to be threatened here is the liberty conservative fundamentalists have long felt to force other people to live by their standards. If conservative fundamentalism can only thrive when it forces others to adopt its bigotries, it must be a very weak religious force indeed.
The Company They Keep
What are the roots of conservative fundamentalist opposition to civil unions? We can glean some cues by noting the secondary allegiances of the people attending the anti-unions protest. According to the Courant, more than twenty percent of those in attendance at the October 1 protest displayed allegiance to the White Wolves, a white supremacist organization.
Just to prove I am no the incarnate of evil in the eyes of all liberal’s I would like to express my stance on same sex marriages.
Personally I am strongly morally opposed to them, but what I think Christians, or “right wing fundamentalists/activists (you never claim to be unbais, thank goodness)”, need to realize, is that the God they believe in gave them the free will to make that choice. Illegalizing same-sex marriages does not deter the sin that Christians associate with homosexuality, it only further splits ideals into “Christian” and “Not Christian”. So while I don’t support same-sex marriages, neither do I support anti-gay legislation, because it really accomplishes nothing… unless you want to argue that same sex marriages weaken the integrity of society, but that is a socialogoical, not theological, debate, so if you focus on that debate, you shouldn’t focus on Christians or religious liberty.
Nobody here ever said you were the incarnation of evil. We’re just arguing against the assumptions underlying your statements in support of pushing intelligent design theology in public school science classes.
It’s sadly typical of Christian fundamentalism to assume that disagreement automatically translates into damnation. We liberals don’t believe in such a judgmental condemnation.
Oh, I just meant that evil thing as a joke, that’s all. And again, for clarification, I’d be fine if students were informed of the holes in evolution and intelligent design wasn’t even mentioned, but they knew there were other theories out there. That’s all… I really didn’t think that disagreement was damnation, it truly was just a joke. And knowing more Christian fundamentalists than you (at least I would I assume I do) I feel obligated to inform you guys that disagreement does not mean damnation in most of their eyes… of course there are a few extremists on either end.
Religion is shit it causes wars and people should just let same sex people live their lives and keep there arrogant noses out
OtherSide,
Sure, there are holes in the theory of evolution, no scientist will deny that; but the holes are very small compared to the foundations of the theory. In no way, shape, or form do these holes disprove the theory. Also, there are no other valid scientific theories for the development of life on planet Earth! ID and creationism are simply theological ideas and have no basis in scientific fact.
Theories never have to be “disproven”, they have to be proven. And I think that each student should have the right to decide what is a valid scientific theory for themselves, not defined by you or anyone else. I think ID is a valid scientific theory. If they make it so ID isn’t even labeld a scientific theory, but mentioned (or at least mention the abundant faults with evolution), and let the students postulate their own ideas, I’m happy.
Otherside, in your latest remark you’re showing your limited contact with scientific method.
Hmm… I concede that I should rephrase my comment. Or at least add to it. You can always claim that something is not disproved because of this or that. Just like I could claim that you have not proved there are no WMD’s in Iraq (or ‘disproven that there are WMD’s in Iraq). Perhaps they don’t have to be proven, but its much better to show support for a theory than attempt to negate attacks on the theory (such as, we’ve looked here and here and here and here and haven’t found any, its no likely they exist; as opposed to refuting the point that places still exist to look), if you understand my meaning. And besides, what are the properly performed experiments that support evolution? Mutated fruit flies?? As Jonathan Wells noted, all the mutated ones do not have the necessary physical capabilities to continue their ‘new species’. All but the first sentence of my prior comment can stand by itself.
Again, please, lets continue this on the forums… its much easier to navigate to, especially considering how frequently new articles are added.
OtherSide, there are no “abundant faults” with evolution.
Would you also compel, because of your religious beliefs, that in physics class, teachers be forced to talk about some make-believe “abundant faults” with the theory of gravity?
Science, unlike the loosey-goosey realm of religion, has strict standards of proof. Intelligent design can’t even come close to meeting those standards. Please, keep your religious agenda out of my kids’ school. In return, I won’t require your church to teach about the immense and very abundant faults of Christianity.
No abundant faults with evolution? Where did consciousness come from? What about the cosmoligical argument? The Cambrian explosion? The almost devoid-ness of ‘missing links’?
Gravity is completely different. You see evidence of gravity in everything, but, you do not see evidence of evolution in everything. You can claim you do, but I’ve never seen any macro-evolution, I’ve never seen affects of evolution, but I have seen many affects of gravity. And my physics class, and my chem class, have discussed the problems with gravity and how it can be explained… but there is no equivalent to that in my biology class about evolution.
“Abundant faults” with gravity? I haven’t heard of any… we can’t explain gravity, sure, but we don’t have faults that work AGAINST gravity, but there are problems that go against evolution. That’s the difference.
You guys keep trying to blend things that can’t really be blended, and then try to use it as proof… you can keep doing it, but I’ll keep arguing against those ‘blends’ as well.
Now, you’re last paragraph, Claude, is very interesting. I would plead with you to have my church teach about the immense and abundant faults of Christianity, because I want to know the TRUTH.
How many times do I have to say that even if you don’t mention ID, just let them know about the problems with evolution?? Mentioning the problems with evolution is religious, not scientific? That doesn’t make sense, and that definitely sounds like censorship.
OtherSide, the idea that the fossil record is nearly devoid of links between known species is nothing more than Creationist propaganda. It’s just not true. Have you read anything about the discoveries in human evolution that wasn’t published by a Creationist press? Please, go out and get a recent comprehensive book on hominid paleontology before you make such rash and ridiculous comments. The richness of species linking humans with apes is amazing – and that’s just in the fossil record. Have you ever read anything about the work that’s been done with comparative DNA analysis?
It’s not just human evolution. Consider the evolution of whales, will you? Have you read anything about the wonderful fossils that have been found showing the progression of evolution in whales from land to sea?
In terms of consciousness, you’d be surprised at what scientific studies have been done – if you bothered to read the science, that is, and not just accept your church’s depiction of science.
Cosmoligical argument???? What are you talking about?
The transition from pre-Cambrian species to a wider Cambrian diversity is an example of evolution at work, not evidence against it.
Besides, what is your alternative? The idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old????? Give me a break!
As a matter of fact, there is a great deal that is not understood about gravity, but in science, that’s not a sign that gravity is a falsehood, but rather that it needs greater investigation.
Come clean, OtherSide, and don’t be disingenous. If you are really willing for the government to mandate that churches teach about the falsehoods, frauds, and logical gaps in Christianity, then you’re taking a stand against religious liberty that is intolerable.
OtherSide,
You say “Theories never have to be “disproven”, they have to be proven.” You obviously have no scientific education if you can say something so blatantly false. Actually, the exact opposite is the way science is conducted. Ideas become theories only after being supported by a vast preponderance of evidence, but do not need to be proven. A single piece of contradictory evidence is all it takes to disprove a theory. Missing information (e.g. gaps in the fossil record) or incomplete understanding (e.g. the Cambrian explosion) are NOT contradictory information.
You name some items that you say are faults with the theory of evolution. What scientific evidence do you have that shows that an intelligent designer created human conciousness, created species in ways that would leave gaps in the fossil record, or caused the Cambrian explosion? Like Perigrin Wood, I don’t know what you mean by the problem with the cosmological constant, but what scientific evidence do you have that your designer created this?
You want to know a fault with the theory of gravity? Here’s one. The Pioneer spacecraft were launched in the early 1970s. In the 30 years or so that they have been travelling away from Earth they have not travelled quite as far as calculated given our current understanding of the theory of gravity. Each of the spacecraft are short of their predicted locations by about 400,000 km. By your logic we should now completely discard our theory of gravity in favor of something else. How about this: an omnipotent God who is omnipresent moves all of the atoms in the universe in such a way as to make it appear that gravity exists. It makes just as much sense as your idea of Intelligent Design.
You need to understand that simply by pointing out gaps in our understanding of a scientific theory, or apparent conflicts in the facts is not sufficient support for YOUR idea of an intelligent designer. You need to have facts (observations) that directly support your idea before it can become a valid scientific theory.
The thing about intelligent design is, it doesn’t have its own scientific theory.
It points to gaps in the fossil record and problems with the theory of evolution, then fills them in with a religious theory (an intelligent designer).
It proposes a certain kind of symbiosis whereby the current imperfections in scientific theory and knowledge are corrected not by refining the theory or searching for new evidence, but by saying “God did it.”
If the solution to every gap in scientific theory or data is God, then science stops altogether. Similarly, every single scientific discovery of evidence or refinement of theory disproves the validity of this approach–turns out it wasn’t God after all.
I agree with Peregrin. Go to the library and get a comprehensive book on the history of human evolution that is not written by a creationist. Take a look at the fossil evidence. Think it over. Then come back and talk.
And POOF! Startled by the actual depth of information refuting the Creationist intelligent design nonsense, the fundamentalist troll fades away into nothingness.
I don’t know if he’s a troll. He seems more like just a poor kid who’s been failed by the people around him: failed by his school, his church, etc.
I think he honestly doesn’t understand what science is. He seems to actually believe that scientists only think the way they do because of faith.
I think he is genuinely incapable of fathoming a way of understanding the world that does not derive directly from someone or some text in a position of authority arbitrarily proclaiming what’s what.
I really wish he were a troll just trying to say ridiculous things to get our goat. But I think he truly believes what he says, which I find more troubling.
religion uses scare tactics to keep the flock in line almost with as much dexterity as the republican war/profit mongers do.
what the flock is with that?
Here’s and Idea for a T-shirt – a very large rainbow across the chest and in bright purple, a man and woman holding hands with the the words “taking back the rainbow”
I was about to use some of the information on this website for an article, but some comments insulting my God stopped me in my tracks. I understand opposing opinions, but the Scotland Scorpian story was too much. The Bible wasn’t written as a terot card or a crystal ball to let you know every single event on the timeline. It was put there by grace so that sinners like myself would know exactly how to live – like Christ. God is my Best Friend, my Father, and the ruler of all I do including my HETEROSEXUAL relationship. I have a heart full of love every person in this world who shares the opinions expressed on this site. There’s a 99.9% chance that I’ll never come back to the site, so you don’t need to waste any time responding.
With Love,
A Jesusfreak