Homosexual marriage

[Nurvingiel]

Personally I don't think that the point of Imagine was to suggest banning organised religion.

People fight and die for the religions to which they belong. They also fight and die for the countries where they live, and "Imagine there's no countries" is a line as well.

Interesting that imagining there's no religion, one aspect of the song, is the focus of this thread.

In my opinion, the purpose of the song is to get listeners to think about what life would be like if the world was peaceful because of an abscence of factors that often encourage violence.

It is not a call to ban religion, countries, et cetera.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

The problem is that the consequences of religion, like sex, don't stay in the bedroom. I mean, it's kindof a stupid idea to keep your offspring in the bedroom, isn't it? Religion affects people's lives, there's no "containing" it to the bedroom.

Great one, Hector!

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Great one, Hector!

Well thank you Rian


One more thing: Elton John said he would ban all religion. Yeah, I think that includes christianity too. Pretty sure about it.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

One more thing: Elton John said he would ban all religion. Yeah, I think that includes christianity too. Pretty sure about it.

Oh. And here I thought you were talking about the song Imagine.

When did he say that?

Also, I think the point of previous comments was to point out that banning all religions does include Christianity, but is not just Christianity. This shouldn't automatically be contrued as a "War against the Christians" thing, unless it can be justified in context.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Also, I think the point of previous comments was to point out that banning all religions does include Christianity, but is not just Christianity. This shouldn't automatically be contrued as a "War against the Christians" thing, unless it can be justified in context.

And it makes how much of a difference? Next to none.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Oh. And here I thought you were talking about the song Imagine.

Are we confusing Elton John with John Lennon?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Are we confusing Elton John with John Lennon?

I think they both ribbitted, er...sang that song. Elton John DID mention Lennon in the statement...


By the way, did you guys hear that Elton John doesn't like LotR? Talk about banning...I'd ban him on that alone!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Are we confusing Elton John with John Lennon?

Um... oops.

Yes.


Yeah, so when did Elton John say organised religion should be banned? And what is your problem with him anyway Hector?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Um... oops.

Yes.


Yeah, so when did Elton John say organised religion should be banned? And what is your problem with him anyway Hector?

What's HIS problem with me?

See here. http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...,00.html?f=rss

[Nurvingiel]

I read the link. While I see where Elton is going with that, it's too simplistic, overly dramatic, and of course, would never work at all.

As much as banning organised religion is a stupid idea, nothing was directed at you Hector. He said religions should be banned because they promote hatred of gays.

Nothing is directed at practitioners of religions, though if I was religious I'd probably be offended at the gross stereotype.

It is actually a bit ironic that in response to prejudice against gays, Elton John responds with accusatory stereotypes?


I'm putting this whole thing down to someone shooting their mouth off solely because they're famous and they know people will listen. I'm not trying to quash this thread, necessarily, but IMO it shouldn't be validated with discussion.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I read the link. While I see where Elton is going with that, it's too simplistic, overly dramatic, and of course, would never work at all.

As much as banning organised religion is a stupid idea, nothing was directed at you Hector. He said religions should be banned because they promote hatred of gays.

As I said before, I'm not falling over weeping...

Nothing is directed at practitioners of religions, though if I was religious I'd probably be offended at the gross stereotype.

No? Wow, I just really didn't get that. Organized religion can work without practicioners. That's really something.

It is actually a bit ironic that in response to prejudice against gays, Elton John responds with accusatory stereotypes?

As I suggested before, if we were to use Elton John's reasoning, we might just as easily ban gays.

I'm putting this whole thing down to someone shooting their mouth off solely because they're famous and they know people will listen. I'm not trying to quash this thread, necessarily, but IMO it shouldn't be validated with discussion.

Well, BJ was talking about something closely-related in the Book banning thread, and I hoped it didn't have to be JUST about Elton John....


Forgot to add: "Simplistic"...hit the nail on the head Nurv

[Anglorfin]

If he specifically said Christianity then I'd call him an idiot. The idea of banning all religion makes at least a little more sense; though it's clear he didn't think it through before he spoke.

As far as utopian societies go, the danger with eliminating all factors that might stir up contention between people will ultimately lead to total conformity and be just plain boring. Besides if the solution would include the need to ban something, that stirs up contention right there.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

As I suggested before, if we were to use Elton John's reasoning, we might just as easily ban gays.

You already do.

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well it sure as heck makes it a whole lot easier to. Whenever you say a certain subset of the population are vial lecherous sinners who follow an abomination of a life style and who arent even worthy of marriage you are basically endorsing hate of that group by bigots and ignorants of all stripes and colors. Sad but true. And time christians started admitting this reality about their religion. That the way they treat gays makes it easier to hate gays no matter how much you say you are doing it in the name of “love�.

So if I say that a murderer or a rapist has no right to live free, but should be put in prison, I am endorsing hatred against them? Or let me put it this way: Let us suppose that my little sister lied. My parents tell her this is wrong behavior and send her away to her room for the night. Does the fact that they pointed out to my sister that she did wrong mean that they hate their daughter? Or by any means endorse anyone's hatred of her? Of course not! This is what the secular world does not understand about Christianity and its position on homosexuality: it's nothing more personal than this: people who practise homosexuality, according to the God of the Bible, are committing sin. Sin will put you in Hell. Simple as that. Doesn't matter if you have a habit of lying or axe-murdering or of acting on an attraction to members of the same gender. And that is not the judgment of Christians: we do not make the rules of our faith. That's according to the God of the Bible.
Christians often miss the mark of Christianity. It is very easy for anyone to get self-righteous, and forget that we were cleansed from sins just as damnable as homosexuality. You can't ban a religion because people use it to purport their own views or loves or hates, because no one person is perfect. You can only look to what they are supposed to be; what the final object of Christianity is. And that is to reconcile all mankind with their Creator for the salvation of their souls.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

The problem is that the consequences of religion, like sex, don't stay in the bedroom. I mean, it's kindof a stupid idea to keep your offspring in the bedroom, isn't it? Religion affects people's lives, there's no "containing" it to the bedroom.

I wasn't talking about kids. I was talking about how you choose to practice sex (within the realm of legality, of course). It's a personal thing, much like religion. And if people kept religion more or less to themselves, there would be a lot less issues.

Imagine the trouble I'd cause if I started going around telling people about the right and wrong ways to have sexual relations? And, for the sake of example, we'll limit it to the heterosexual kind so as to not open that other can of worms. People would say, "why do you care and what *smurfin'* business is it of yours?".

It doesn't matter if you choose to believe Saddam is the Antichrist, or Bush is the Devil anymore than it matters how you spend your time alone with your mate. What matters is if you try to force these beliefs/actions upon the general public.

We need to foster the ability to separate personal belief from actually coexisting peacefully with one another. The best way to do this is to keep the personal beliefs where they should be... personal.

It's embracing a certain amount of hypocracy for the greater good.

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I wasn't talking about kids. I was talking about how you choose to practice sex (within the realm of legality, of course). It's a personal thing, much like religion. And if people kept religion more or less to themselves, there would be a lot less issues.

Imagine the trouble I'd cause if I started going around telling people about the right and wrong ways to have sexual relations? And, for the sake of example, we'll limit it to the heterosexual kind so as to not open that other can of worms. People would say, "why do you care and what *smurfin'* business is it of yours?".

It doesn't matter if you choose to believe Saddam is the Antichrist, or Bush is the Devil anymore than it matters how you spend your time alone with your mate. What matters is if you try to force these beliefs/actions upon the general public.

We need to foster the ability to separate personal belief from actually coexisting peacefully with one another. The best way to do this is to keep the personal beliefs where they should be... personal.

It's embracing a certain amount of hypocracy for the greater good.

I agree with you here, about not forcing your beliefs on others. The reason that a lot of people came to America was to escape the control of their religion(s) and beliefs by government. It seems pointless to me to then turn around and set up a system that does exactly that. The sins that people commit against one another can be controlled by law--say stealing or assualting, etc. But laws that restrict your personal beliefs and behavior, that tell you not only how to act but how to think, are rather unamerican, if you ask me.

That said, using the metaphor here of sex kept in the bedroom, there is still a vast amount of propaganda available on the subject: how to do it, who to do it with, how to do it better, etc. The same ought not to be restricted in regards to religion: propaganda and the like. It's the individual's choice whether or not to accept such propaganda, and entirely within their right to say "why do you care and what business is it of yours?" But it's not, I don't think, within their right to ban the organization or its propaganda.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

That said, using the metaphor here of sex kept in the bedroom, there is still a vast amount of propaganda available on the subject: how to do it, who to do it with, how to do it better, etc. The same ought not to be restricted in regards to religion: propaganda and the like. It's the individual's choice whether or not to accept such propaganda, and entirely within their right to say "why do you care and what business is it of yours?" But it's not, I don't think, within their right to ban the organization or its propaganda.

You're right.

But can we at least make a law that stops them from knocking at my door?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You already do.

If I did, then you'd better SHOW me what the heck you mean...

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I wasn't talking about kids. I was talking about how you choose to practice sex (within the realm of legality, of course). It's a personal thing, much like religion. And if people kept religion more or less to themselves, there would be a lot less issues.

I know you weren't talking about kids; because you think it's just a simple issue. What I'm saying is that it won't stay in the bedroom.
And how far do you mean to keep religion at a personal level? Should people be able to talk about thier religion in public?
And what I mean about no being able to contain it is this: people that believe in God make decisions based on what they think he's telling them. That's the problme with banning religion: you're not just banning an act, because it's permeated into people.

Imagine the trouble I'd cause if I started going around telling people about the right and wrong ways to have sexual relations? And, for the sake of example, we'll limit it to the heterosexual kind so as to not open that other can of worms. People would say, "why do you care and what *smurfin'* business is it of yours?".

That's not a subject I really care about. I really don't give a pan what *bugaboo* people use in their bedrooms.

It doesn't matter if you choose to believe Saddam is the Antichrist, or Bush is the Devil anymore than it matters how you spend your time alone with your mate. What matters is if you try to force these beliefs/actions upon the general public.

Indeed, which is why I wonder what the heck people are trying to do pushing for gay marriage...shoving it down the throats of people who don't want it, and thus changing the course of traditional marriage, all just so they can feel good about "having defeated those bigots".

We need to foster the ability to separate personal belief from actually coexisting peacefully with one another. The best way to do this is to keep the personal beliefs where they should be... personal.

It's embracing a certain amount of hypocracy for the greater good.

I think we've actually lost a little something called "polite manners", and in it's place we have the rotten Political Correctness. And that's where all this crap comes from.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Yeah, so when did Elton John say organised religion should be banned? And what is your problem with him anyway Hector?

He says religion should be banned, hence there is a problem .

Originally Posted by Anglorfin

Besides if the solution would include the need to ban something, that stirs up contention right there.

Good point. If he wants to end religion to stop religious wars or abuses committed in the name of religion, trying to ban religion is exactly the wrong way to go about it. That's more likely to cause a religious war than anything else. Atheists against the world! His ideas are very similar to those of modern Islamic fundamentalism or Christianity during the Medieval Ages. He's got his own ideology and wants to impose it on the rest of society. And people accuse Pat Robertson of being bad in this way .

Originally Posted by Anglorfin

As far as utopian societies go, the danger with eliminating all factors that might stir up contention between people will ultimately lead to total conformity and be just plain boring.

That's a good argument for maintaining laws supporting racism, isn't it? Or laws supporting Anti-Semitism. They create contention in the society, and eliminating them might lead to a boring society, so leave 'em!

That's not at all a valid reason for objecting to Elton John's proposal, in my opinion. Our lives may not be quite so interesting now as they would be if there was a civil war, but there are some forms of "interesting" that are better not to experience . When some form of interesting consists of abuses and evils, it's best to eliminate that form of interesting from society.