Sunday Assembly Detroit [[aka Atheist Church)

**Lowell** · February-14-14, 05:38 PM

What happens if you cross a Unitarian and Jehovah Witness?

?

You get someone knocking on your door for no particular reason.

**EastsideAl** · February-14-14, 05:43 PM

I think that for a lot of non-believers who were raised going to church the act of going somewhere for fellowship and community on a Sunday morning has some significant meaning and comfort. Being from a non-religious family myself, I always thought that one of the real benefits of my atheism was having my Sunday mornings free.

So I was rather baffled when I first ran into this phenomena of what I thought of as the Church of God [[Without God). But having more recently run into a lot of people who have left the world of religion, and having even gone a couple of meetings of things like the Ethical Humanists, I think I understand it a little better. It's still not for me, but I do have some insight into why others feel a need for it.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · February-14-14, 05:52 PM

I am a churchgoing Catholic, but I was an avid atheist for about 10 years in my youth. Churches provide religious teaching & guidance, of course. But they also provide fellowship and community. So I understand people's desire to join a group for that purpose. I find a lot of organized atheists to be actively anti-religious, campaigning against and maligning other people's beliefs. If that's not the case here- and I don't have any reason to believe it is- then I wish them the best and hope they find organizing to be fulfilling and worthwhile.

GUSHI · February-14-14, 07:14 PM

I'm Roman Catholic and I could care less about people's sexuality. I think priest should be able to get married and we should allow woman to be priest. I can also say no other religous organization has done as much for the poor as the Catholic Church and they keep on doing. I'm proud to be Catholic,

**Wesley Mouch** · February-14-14, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by noise

Sure, I'll challenge all of this...

So which is it? You do not agree with the "act" of gay marriage or you're okay with the "act" but not the descriptor? You can't have it both ways.

This "argument" has circulated through homophobic circles long enough to have been long ago discredited by anyone interested in its validity. It seems only to persist for homophobes to feel better about their homophobia. You're not fooling anyone other than yourself.

I mean, it's an argument about the word. And for that matter, it's a word with an add-on. It's "gay marriage". What changes? Why does it matter? Definitions have evolved for as long as language has existed. This is manufactured outrage over an issue you're not honest with yourself about.

As far as your convenient "tolerance" comments go...being tolerant does not extend to intolerance. That's as intellectually dishonest as it comes and is an embarrassing refrain most often used by conservatives who think they're being witty. It doesn't work.

Denying rights, even when carefully veiled, definitely does do everyone tangible harm.

I'm totally riding the wave on this thread. I hope nobody chokes on their popcorn.

Precisely what rights do I deny? None. Except the right to the word. And while you say words don't matter -- you insist on your terms.

Tolerant so long as you get your way. And I'm a backward-thinking conservative. Nothing I said was conservative. Unless you think denying the word to gays is wrong. And you can't tolerate differing opinions, it seems.

Try telling the gay community that the word doesn't matter. Good luck with that.

**rb336** · February-14-14, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Precisely what rights do I deny? None. Except the right to the word. And while you say words don't matter -- you insist on your terms.

Tolerant so long as you get your way. And I'm a backward-thinking conservative. Nothing I said was conservative. Unless you think denying the word to gays is wrong. And you can't tolerate differing opinions, it seems.

Try telling the gay community that the word doesn't matter. Good luck with that.

Actually, that was EXACTLY THE POINT Noise was making

**noise** · February-15-14, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Precisely what rights do I deny? None. Except the right to the word. And while you say words don't matter -- you insist on your terms.

Tolerant so long as you get your way. And I'm a backward-thinking conservative. Nothing I said was conservative. Unless you think denying the word to gays is wrong. And you can't tolerate differing opinions, it seems.

Try telling the gay community that the word doesn't matter. Good luck with that.

Great job not reading what I typed and not addressing the actual issues I had with your post.

**southofbloor** · February-15-14, 09:56 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/us...=fb-share&_r=0

“It is becoming increasingly clear to judges that if they rule against same-sex marriage their grandchildren will regard them as bigots”

Yep they will. Maybe even their children. Its difficult to sound credible protecting 'marriage' as a word solely for heterosexual unions blessed by god when it has also been used to define civil unions that have nothing do do with any church.

**southofbloor** · February-15-14, 09:57 AM

"It's" not "its". Apologies.

**Wesley Mouch** · February-15-14, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by noise

Great job not reading what I typed and not addressing the actual issues I had with your post.

Thanks.

This is what really interests me. Why two reasonable people can talk right past each other. I don't get your points, and you don't get mine.

I do struggle with how to express ideas and have a reasonable debate on issues, not personalities. I am really curious about how people think and what leads them to what I perceive as rigid opinions. I suspect you don't think of yourself that way. Neither do I. But we both think of each other that way.

**coracle** · February-15-14, 02:40 PM

Is the Sunday Assembly of Detroit going to be SAD?

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · February-15-14, 02:47 PM

I am an avid supporter of gay marriage, and have been for twenty years. I am not for judges deciding the matter though, for 2 reasons.

1) What a judge grants, a different judge can take away.
2) It causes political blowback and causes people to harden in their opposition to gay marriage.

Over time legislators and voters are [[already) making gay marriage legal; that trend will continue unabated.

I do think that legal [[civil) marriage should allow any consenting adult to marry any other consenting adult. But I think the laws permitting gay marriage should make certain that those who oppose gay marriage are not trounced upon. People who act on their own religious beliefs should not be punished or ridiculed for it. The New Mexico baker who doesn't want to bake a gay wedding cake should not be obligated by a court to do so: we would not tolerate a court instructing a kosher deli requiring to a make a ham sandwich for gentile. A county clerk, however, as a function of their public duty, should not be able to deny a marriage license due to a moral opposition to the would-be wedding. For the purposes of law and interactions with the state, gay marriage should be legal. Private people in their own business and life should be free to make their own judgments. I won't see any more Woody Allen movies because he married someone who is essentially his daughter. But I think he should be allowed to make movies; he just won't get my money.

**coracle** · February-15-14, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Lowell

What happens if you cross a Unitarian and Jehovah Witness?

?

You get someone knocking on your door for no particular reason.

That is a great one.
I saw a "christian" story recently;
A guy was desperately looking for a parking spot because he was late for a very important meeting. He looked upwards and pleaded to God to find him a spot and he promised he would go to church every Sunday for the rest of his life and give up drinking. Immediately, a spot opened up in front of him. He quickly reversed in and looked up to God again and said "You can forget it God, I've found one"

**coracle** · February-15-14, 03:27 PM

MikeyinBrooklyn; In your world, how do you equate
"I do think that legal [[civil) marriage should allow any consenting adult to marry any other consenting adult". with "I won't see any more Woody Allen movies because he married someone who is essentially his daughter." ?
Were they not both adults? Does your freer thinking carry its own built in limits now that you're getting yours?

**rb336** · February-15-14, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by southofbloor

"It's" not "its". Apologies.

I am waiting for the post where you call yourself a grammar cop

**southofbloor** · February-15-14, 04:25 PM

Would there be a pay raise? ~rubbing hands with glee~

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · February-15-14, 09:35 PM

Coracle, I was making the point that there is a difference between legal marriage and people's personal moral opinions. As adults, Woody and Soon-yi are [[and should be) free to marry; I, as an individual, am free to feel that marrying the man who was the romantic companion of your mother in your house while you were growing up is kind of gross. Consenting adults should be free to legally marry; thinking adults should be free to have their own opinions. I think butcher shops should be able to sell horse meat; I personally wouldn't dine with someone who ate it. Government shouldn't be in the business of approving or disapproving of personal relationships.

**noise** · February-15-14, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Thanks.

This is what really interests me. Why two reasonable people can talk right past each other. I don't get your points, and you don't get mine.

I do struggle with how to express ideas and have a reasonable debate on issues, not personalities. I am really curious about how people think and what leads them to what I perceive as rigid opinions. I suspect you don't think of yourself that way. Neither do I. But we both think of each other that way.

You're not talking past me. Your points have no merit and there are gaping holes in your ideology. You either don't get it or pretend it's untrue.

My opinions on this matter are 100% rigid because I am right. And history has been and will continue to be on my side.

**Chinman** · February-15-14, 10:57 PM

There is NO such thing as a Religious Marriage in a Legal Sense. When a Couple gets Married in a Church, A Court Ceremony or the like...The Couple Signs an agreement and it MUST be registered within 5 days to be legal.

**Chinman** · February-15-14, 11:08 PM

I got Married in a Catholic Church on my second time and was told that it wont be legal until the County of Records can record it and make it Legal. Hense...Religion in this Country do's NOT make Marriage LEGAL!!!! Recording with the County DOES!!! Signing a Document is what enables me and her to claim rights to property and tax rights!

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · February-16-14, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

I am an avid supporter of gay marriage, and have been for twenty years. I am not for judges deciding the matter though, for 2 reasons.

1) What a judge grants, a different judge can take away.
2) It causes political blowback and causes people to harden in their opposition to gay marriage.

Over time legislators and voters are [[already) making gay marriage legal; that trend will continue unabated.

What one legislature or group of voters decide can be taken away as easily [[or easier in many cases) than issues settled by judicial precedent. And putting rights up to popular vote has generally worked, um, not so well in this county.

Would you have wanted Mildred and Richard Loving to wait until the Commonwealth of Virginia repealed is odious anti-miscegenation laws? They were married in 1958, sentenced to jail in 1959, and only avoided serving time because of a deal for them to move to D.C. When the courts overturned the law in 1967, 16 [[of course all southern or border states) still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books. If not overturned by the courts, how long would they have still been in effect?

Have you been following the current proposal in Kansas [[passed by their GOP House but likely to die in their Senate, which was originally thought be be ready to pass it) that would allow virtually every provider of any good or service in the state to deny service to any LGBT person because of their "religious" convictions?

**Wesley Mouch** · February-16-14, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by noise

You're not talking past me. Your points have no merit and there are gaping holes in your ideology. You either don't get it or pretend it's untrue.

My opinions on this matter are 100% rigid because I am right. And history has been and will continue to be on my side.

Well that certainly clarifies things. If only I'd known.

Except I think I'm right... but my opinions are flexible based on discussion, reason. I hope we all share positively so we can all learn.

**NickCharles** · February-16-14, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Well that certainly clarifies things. If only I'd known.

Except I think I'm right... but my opinions are flexible based on discussion, reason. I hope we all share positively so we can all learn.

Once again, a willingness to engage mature discourse has been repelled.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · February-16-14, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast

What one legislature or group of voters decide can be taken away as easily [[or easier in many cases) than issues settled by judicial precedent. And putting rights up to popular vote has generally worked, um, not so well in this county.

Would you have wanted Mildred and Richard Loving to wait until the Commonwealth of Virginia repealed is odious anti-miscegenation laws? They were married in 1958, sentenced to jail in 1959, and only avoided serving time because of a deal for them to move to D.C. When the courts overturned the law in 1967, 16 [[of course all southern or border states) still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books. If not overturned by the courts, how long would they have still been in effect?

Have you been following the current proposal in Kansas [[passed by their GOP House but likely to die in their Senate, which was originally thought be be ready to pass it) that would allow virtually every provider of any good or service in the state to deny service to any LGBT person because of their "religious" convictions?

First, discrimination based upon race is not comparable to discrimination based upon sexual orientation, for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, skin color is a characteristic that can be detected at first glance. As such, in the old south, it constituted an existential threat to any person of color not behaving as the law and culture instructed. 3500 black people were hanged in the old south; I suspect there have not been 3500 gay-targeted murders. Second, the US Constitution had already been amended to protect citizenship & voting rights for black Americans, establishing legal precedent for anti-discrimination court action. No comparable legal standing for a case against gay discrimination. Third, marriage between a man and a woman had long-term legal recognition, going back as far as recorded law. The Lovings were not allowed to enter into that traditional institution. Gay marriage is new; it is not something with a history, legal or otherwise, before recent years. It would be silly to think that it would just be simultaneously absorbed by everyone all at once. It will take some people time to see that it is not highly consequential to non-gay people, and a net benefit for society. That is already happening [[even in the South, polls show rapidly shifting attitudes towards gay marriage, and acceptance of gay people in general).

As for the proposed Kansas legislation [[I have not followed it), I have several reactions. 1) If your summary is a true distillation of the bill, I find it unlikely to pass. 2) How would the providers of most goods or services be able to ascertain the sexual orientation of their would-be consumers? 3) If such legislation did pass, it would certainly not be followed by most businesses, and certainly none that do business elsewhere as well. Many businesses would willingly cater to the gay clientele; we gays earn and spend more per capita than heterosexuals. 4) The bakery in New Mexico that received national attention for not wanting to make the wedding cake for the gay couple's ceremony offered the names of bakeries that would make their cake, and said he would cover the difference if they were more expensive. The couple involved knew full well he was a devout Christian, and chose him in spite of the fact that there were many other competent cake makers available. 5) How would a situation such as this be different from a kosher restaurant refusing to serve cheese on your roast beef sandwich? Should the state intervene to prevent the deli owner's religious beliefs from determining the status of your food? Should convents be required to admit men? [[Note: the federal government does not currently consider convents to be religious institutions). Should a tax exempt Baptist community center with a black congregation be allowed deny use of it's meeting space to a white supremicist group? It is ultimately an awful thing to have the government determining the validity of the citizens beliefs. People on the Left used to embrace the argument that the government should not make moral decisions; but now that some judges are ruling for them, they are gobbling it up. That is chilling. By this line of thinking, since every possible action a human takes might at least possibly affect someone else, no action a human takes should be allowed to be affected by their religious beliefs, lest they be "imposing their beliefs" on someone else. George Orwell would not need to write fiction today.

I support gay marriage because it is a good idea, for both the couples involved and society as a whole, I think. The commitment and responsibility make for more stable and happy lives for many people. Stable and happy people are are better builders of strong communities. I do not like gay marriage because we are oppressed victims, but because we are ready to step up and join everybody else.

P.S. DotWC: You have already established in the past that I am unaware of the oppression under which I am living. I hope I wake up from that before my wedding!

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · February-16-14, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

P.S. DotWC: You have already established in the past that I am unaware of the oppression under which I am living. I hope I wake up from that before my wedding!

Actually Mikey, I'd say that as a true conservative you are primarily concerned with your own oppression or perceived lack thereof. If you do not feel oppressed you are not at all concerned if others are or feel they are. But then again, I come from a very conservative background and I know that empathy is generally a dirty word to conservatives.

As a gay conservative, if you are to have a wedding you will either [[a) go to a more liberal state to take advantage of rights not afforded to you by those you vote for, or [[b) will go to a state to take advantage of rights afforded to you by a judge, whose decision you disagree with. And you are willing to wait in the back of the bus for the dominant society to dole out rights as they see fit. And if they don't, no problem. Sort of the Mary Cheney approach to life.