Sunday Assembly Detroit [[aka Atheist Church)

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Empathy is not a dirty, when it motivates private action, but I keep emotion out of public policy. I don't favor making policies based on emotions. And, DotWC, I would select choice "A" married in one of the several states where the elected legislature legalized it, not subject to judicial overturn. That will include Michigan, and most states, in the next few years. About judicial decisions: judges are not the be all and the end all. Take for instance the Virginia marriage decision from Friday, where the judge cited language in what she termed "the Constitution" but meant the Declaration of Independence. That is an error of legal judgment a smart high school civics student could detect, and will take several minutes in an appeals court to overturn. Basing one's freedom on the creative writing skills of a politically motivated judge is bad governance. And it screws over those who "get married" just to have their marriage placed in limbo.

Now the race is on for me to find a husband before Michigan legalizes marriage. And I ride wherever I want on the bus; but I prefer to walk.

[Pam]

Not sure how we got off on this tanget, but FYI Unitarians also support marriage equality.

http://www.uua.org/lgbtq/witness/marriage/

[Honky Tonk]

Now the race is on for me to find a husband before Michigan legalizes marriage.

Detroit Connections?

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

Empathy is not a dirty, when it motivates private action, but I keep emotion out of public policy. I don't favor making policies based on emotions. And, DotWC, I would select choice "A" married in one of the several states where the elected legislature legalized it, not subject to judicial overturn. That will include Michigan, and most states, in the next few years. About judicial decisions: judges are not the be all and the end all. Take for instance the Virginia marriage decision from Friday, where the judge cited language in what she termed "the Constitution" but meant the Declaration of Independence. That is an error of legal judgment a smart high school civics student could detect, and will take several minutes in an appeals court to overturn. Basing one's freedom on the creative writing skills of a politically motivated judge is bad governance. And it screws over those who "get married" just to have their marriage placed in limbo.

Now the race is on for me to find a husband before Michigan legalizes marriage. And I ride wherever I want on the bus; but I prefer to walk.

No need to hurry. Your fellow conservatives are not about to change their bigotry. And I assume you agree that in any state that legislatively approved of same gender marriage, you would have personally opposed those progressive legislators? You can keep voting Republican/right wing , and keep fantasizing that they don't hate you.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

Not sure how we got off on this tanget, but FYI Unitarians also support marriage equality.

http://www.uua.org/lgbtq/witness/marriage/

Do you attend First UU or another UU church?

[Pam]

Do you attend First UU or another UU church?

None currently. Attended a suburban UU church in the past.

[Warrenite84]

Christians are the largest persecuted religious group in the world. Atheists receive some persecution, but not nearly as much as Christians. Source:

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/01/14/r...pecific-groups

[poobert]

Christians are the largest persecuted religious group in the world. Atheists receive some persecution, but not nearly as much as Christians. Source:

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/01/14/r...pecific-groups

Very interesting, thanks for posting.

I'd venture to say that part of the reason is that Christianity is, by far, the world's most adhered to religion and is practiced in the vast majority of countries around the world.

[rb336]

Christians are the largest persecuted religious group in the world. Atheists receive some persecution, but not nearly as much as Christians. Source:

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/01/14/r...pecific-groups

Atheists are mentioned nowhere in that article, therefore it is not exactly a good source for your second comment. For more on atheist persecution, look here

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2268681.html

[Warrenite84]

Hi rb336. Atheists are part of the group labeled "others". Check the chart labeled, "Number of Countries Where Religious Groups Were Harassed, by Year".

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

No need to hurry. Your fellow conservatives are not about to change their bigotry. And I assume you agree that in any state that legislatively approved of same gender marriage, you would have personally opposed those progressive legislators? You can keep voting Republican/right wing , and keep fantasizing that they don't hate you.

Most people who oppose gay marriage are not bigots, they have a different point of view on a recent societal change, informed by their own life experience. To label them "bigots" would mean that just about everyone was a bigoted gay hater just a few years ago. Even the people who are now proponents of it, would have been oppressive trolls a short time ago. Of course they weren't: they changed their opinion over time. Some people aren't there yet, but they will be. Ten years ago you could count on one hand the number of national politicians that favored legal gay marriage. Not favoring legal gay marriage is not similar to lynching people. Pretending a difference of opinion is an attempt to impose a new Nazi regime is absurd, and trivializes real bigotry. I have lots of conservative friends; some favor gay marriage already, some will take more time. But I'm working on it. But I know they'll never come around if I call them hateful bastards and slam an indignant door in their face. I want to persuade people, not destroy them.

[corktownyuppie]

teach them well and let them lead the way

I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky.

[noise]

To label them "bigots" would mean that just about everyone was a bigoted gay hater just a few years ago.

Yes. Yes they were.

[Zacha341]

Excellent points made including this one...

Pretending a difference of opinion is an attempt to impose a new Nazi regime is absurd, and trivializes real bigotry.

[noise]

Christians are the largest persecuted religious group in the world. Atheists receive some persecution, but not nearly as much as Christians. Source:

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/01/14/r...pecific-groups

Did you read beyond one graph? Did you understand the methodology?

By their definitions, atheism could not be counted accurately. The impinging on the practice of religion is something you can quantify. It's a lot more difficult to do that with a population that, by definition, doesn't practice religion.

That said, atheists are said to represent less than 2.0% of the world population. Christians make up about 32.0%.

[Wesley Mouch]

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.

While no doubt a very true statement for some -- or maybe even many, I think you are wrong about that as a generalization.

I suggest to you that you are not using the right measuring stick. Opposition to welfare does not say anything about empathy. It says something about the conservative view of the effectiveness of welfare. It doesn't work.

You might try looking at other measuring sticks.

It is not a true conservative value to ignore the poor. It is a true value to believe that private and religious giving produce better results than state welfare has shown. I'll take the Little Sisters of the Poor over Obamacare's contraceptive mandate any day.

[Zacha341]

^^^ WM you make compelling points re. the default generalizations out there from one might say a more chess-level evaluation relative to politics, views and values.

Often the checkers-level broad assessment is that conservatives: Mean. Take away stuff and are bad, vs 'perfectly' opposite liberals: Empathetic. Good and give us stuff.

That narrative at best is permeable as we see in the worse case 'taking' and politicking on all sides and gifts that come with a price [[obligation). Thus I weigh anchor towards neither party or side too heavily.

In any event Timeo Danaos et dona ferente is my approach when the gov. and lawmakers promise or dictate too much...

[Wesley Mouch]

...In any event Timeo Danaos et dona ferente is my approach when the gov. promise too much...

Amen. I personally like a government that looks out for all citizens -- but the degree of that looking out for is very limited. Warming shelters, not subsidized housing. Free dental, not free Viagara. A soup kitchen, not food stamps.

Cruel am I? You can decide. I don't see that government bearing gifts has solved any problems. [[Although I really liked what Bill Gates said on Charlie Rose the other week about how international aid is changing the face of the world for the better. And his money's there too -- Mr. 1% personified isn't greedy -- but is improving life on government scale with corporate rip-off profits going to good. I like that much more than having Rick Santorum or Barney Frank making those decisions.)

[Jimaz]

...I know that empathy is generally a dirty word to conservatives....

While no doubt a very true statement for some -- or maybe even many, I think you are wrong about that as a generalization....

I think that's a most valid generalization and here's why: conservative strategists notoriously sought to elevate, and succeeded in elevating, sociopathy to the level of an aspiration among their followers. Ever since, their followers have been falling all over themselves trying to appear less empathetic than the next conservative. We've all seen it played out in plain sight.

But I'm sure you're aware of all that as the namesake of an Ayn Rand character.

[EastsideAl]

To label them "bigots" would mean that just about everyone was a bigoted gay hater just a few years ago.

Yes. Yes they were.

How incredibly soon they forget...

[3WC]

It appears that this thread has gotten way off-topic. Back to the atheism issue.

Disclaimer: I believe in "God," both the intellectual and religious concepts. To believe in the religious concept, one must have the "gift of faith." Not everyone does of course.

From pre-historic times through the ages people have attributed god-like status to every imaginable object, e.g. the sun, the moon, the stars, witch doctors etc. It is understandable that there must be athiests when the concept of "god" is so viewed. I'd be one too.

However, I don't understand how intelligent people with some degree of formal education don't believe in a "first cause, uncaused," one of the several proofs of the existence of "God" by St. Thomas Aquinas. Intellectually, I believe that thinking people can't ignore that the physical universe was not spontaneously created out of nothing. Even the "Big Bang" theory doesn't claim that occurred.

In other words, we're all here as a result of an initial event, creation of the universe, caused by whatever you want to call it, a supreme being, first cause, uncaused, "God" [[for lack of a better word), Allah, Yahway, Harold, or [[insert here your own word.)

The issue here is one of semantics.

[noise]

The issue here is one of semantics.

Maybe, but only if you're really stretching to describe a natural [[or unnatural, but certainly not supernatural) occurrence as a "God". And one you'd choose to worship, at that.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

How incredibly soon they forget...

Labelling your opponents as hateful homophones is an intellectually lazy attempt to disqualify them from debate. Most people, including most liberals, were opposed to legalized gay marriage just a few years ago. Most Democrats opposed it within the last few years, including our president. In fact, as recently as early 2012 [[and all throughout the 2008 campaign) he articulated that marriage was between a man and a woman. Bill Clinton signed the most anti-gay federal law of the last 50 years [[DOMA)!

So, what to take away from this? When a liberal changes his mind, everyone on the other side is suddenly just an awful human who's opinion is beneath contempt and ought not to be considered. Even though they agreed with them the day before.

I think the intelligent and pertinent argument to be made for legal gay marriage is that it will strengthen gay relationships and provide legal grounding for spousal rights and responsibilities. The liberal argument is that we are weak victims who should be pitied and protected. Also, my reasoning calls upon gay people to step up, and engage in committed, monogamous relationships and be a part of the larger society. There is a reputation among gay men particularly that we are promiscuous, self-segregating hedonists. I relish the chance to disprove that by showing we can be good parents, informed voters, successful business owners, and yes, church-going members of the community. That doesn't need pity. It needs a chance.

[noise]

Of course, it could simply be a case of: you used to be wrong, now you're right.

Unless you want to have an intellectually stimulating discussion about the merits of returning to the days of slavery.

And that is definitely not the "liberal argument" for gay marriage. WTF is wrong with you?

[NickCharles]

I'm not sure of just how many criss-crossing, digressive arguments may be in play, here in this thread, but I think MikeyinBrooklyn is winning his.