HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

Andrew Ference Marches in Pride Parade (Edmonton)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-12-2014, 07:08 AM
  #151
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
But it should be thrown out there that both Obama and Jason Collins cited their Christian faith in their decision to publicly support of gay marriage and open equality.
That kind of language is part of the history of the American struggle towards equality all the way back to abolitionism and the beginning of the Evangelical movement. However, the recognition of human equality informs popular religion, not the reverse. Just as the notion that black people are people informed the view that they might be elect (not the reverse), the notion that gay people are fully people informs the view that Christianity may accept their marriages (not the reverse).

Dan-o16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 12:35 PM
  #152
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 16,748
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
That kind of language is part of the history of the American struggle towards equality all the way back to abolitionism and the beginning of the Evangelical movement. However, the recognition of human equality informs popular religion, not the reverse. Just as the notion that black people are people informed the view that they might be elect (not the reverse), the notion that gay people are fully people informs the view that Christianity may accept their marriages (not the reverse).
The recognition of human equality may be the starting point for you, but historically conceptions of human equality developed hand in hand with religious understandings of human equality. We cant will our 2014 conception of "equality" into any other time. The teachings of Jesus very much informed the world in which he lived about recognizing human equality, Moses too, and Muhammad.

JMiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 12:54 PM
  #153
bombers15
5-14-6-1
 
bombers15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
However, the recognition of human equality informs popular religion, not the reverse.
Yes, a lot of religions have been slow to act on this specific instance of homosexual equality. But this statement of yours is really not true if you delve into any sort of historical analysis.

The reason that most European countries now have a pretty elaborate welfare system is because of the Church's past involvement in ruling these lands. There was an implicit belief that everyone has a right to life. It may be a crappy one, but the Church is there to support the poorest people. This wasn't really the case in the foundation of other countries, like the US. There, you only had a right to what you could acquire on the market. Humans are only as valuable as what they can earn.

Universal healthcare started because of religious belief, not mainstream society's. The civil rights movement started because of religious belief, not mainstream society's. The abolition movement started because of religious belief, not mainstream society's.

Religious folk have gotten many a thing wrong, no question. But the foundation of most of the world's main religions is that every person is equal under the eyes of God. That is not the case in a purely evolutionary understanding of the world. I would argue, therefore, that the concept of human equality began because of this basic religious belief about equality under God.

It is easy to criticize religious folk when they do something wrong, but I don't think you can make this blanket statement. Religion had a lot to do with the mainstream idea that humans are equal and all valuable.

bombers15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 01:16 PM
  #154
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
The recognition of human equality may be the starting point for you
Incorrect. The primacy of rationality and human conscience for the recognition of Jesus's goodness was fundamental. Not the other way around. You are discounting the profound effect the German enlightenment had on American thinking. America is built on German rationalism, thank G_d.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bombers15 View Post
The reason that most European countries now have a pretty elaborate welfare system is because of the Church's past involvement in ruling these lands. There was an implicit belief that everyone has a right to life. It may be a crappy one, but the Church is there to support the poorest people. This wasn't really the case in the foundation of other countries, like the US. There, you only had a right to what you could acquire on the market. Humans are only as valuable as what they can earn.
Is this what social democrats tell themselves when they worry that socialists/the labor movement might actually get some credit for pushing them a little here and there?

Dan-o16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 01:19 PM
  #155
bombers15
5-14-6-1
 
bombers15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
Is this what social democrats tell themselves when they worry that socialists/the labor movement might actually get some credit for pushing them a little here and there?
I don't know what they tell themselves. I'm just saying that the Church, historically, has a lot to do with a welfare system that protects the most vulnerable people. Because, as I said, there is a belief that all human beings are equal under God.

bombers15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 01:27 PM
  #156
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 16,748
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
Incorrect. The primacy of rationality and human conscience for the recognition of Jesus's goodness was fundamental. Not the other way around.
Again, you are imposing a later form of epistemology that did not exist at the time and calling it a pre-condition. That's fine if you want to use them to judge your perspective, by not fine to judge their perspective of their own world.

Quote:
You are discounting the profound effect the German enlightenment had on American thinking. America is built on German rationalism, thank G_d.
Not at all, that' could certainly be one hand of the "hand in hand" development I meant.
Just like how you are not saying that "American thinking" was built on german rationalism alone.

JMiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 02:11 PM
  #157
RollTheBones109
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 317
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bombers15 View Post
I don't know what they tell themselves. I'm just saying that the Church, historically, has a lot to do with a welfare system that protects the most vulnerable people. Because, as I said, there is a belief that all human beings are equal under God.
That's all well and good. Aristotle did a lot to advance the conception that Democracy should be available to more people than the small group Plato had articulated. No one will mistake Aristotle as appropriately-progressive and forward-thinking for today's world, however.

The point I'm making is that, while Religious institutions have been fundamental in the betterment of equality, they still have beliefs that are entirely unacceptable or indefensible given what we now know. There comes a time where we discard the bad (Aristotle's misogyny, racism, and elitism) and keep the good (Aristotle's philosophical contributions).

It is harder to do that with Religion, because most conceptions of God demand absolute acceptance. I'd love if we all said "thanks for your help Jesus, we can take it from here without the hating of gays and non-believers" (and obviously many, many people do), but the very nature of Religious beliefs defy that sort of jettisoning of the wrong/outdated.

Anyway, just my two cents. Good for Ference. I'm not much of a Bruins fan or an Oilers fan, but I've always heard good things about him as a person.

RollTheBones109 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 02:14 PM
  #158
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
Again, you are imposing a later form of epistemology that did not exist at the time and calling it a pre-condition. That's fine if you want to use them to judge your perspective, by not fine to judge their perspective of their own world.
Are you joking? Late 18th century epistemology didn't exist in the mid 19th century? The idea of a holy spirit dynamically fashioning the human intellect and conscience to reunderstand the scripture was all the rage in the mid 19th century.

Quote:
Just like how you are not saying that "American thinking" was built on german rationalism alone.
No, but without it it's hard to see how human equality would have become the consensus point of view.

But, in general, the idea that it is Jesus-loving that is fundamentally responsible for progress has it wrong from two perspectives - from the relevant religious perspective, and from the current perspective in general. Whether Jason Collins thanked God is utterly irrelevant to how we should understand the gay rights movement.

Dan-o16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 02:27 PM
  #159
bombers15
5-14-6-1
 
bombers15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RollTheBones109 View Post
The point I'm making is that, while Religious institutions have been fundamental in the betterment of equality, they still have beliefs that are entirely unacceptable or indefensible given what we now know.
First of all, speaking of "religious institutions" as one monogamous, singular voice is troubling. We can not put them all into the same box.

Do some institutions believe things that are silly? Sure they do. And what of it? Ban religions? Ban those people? Send them to the gulag?

I agree that people should not think of homosexuals as less-than-equals. (Not a position entirely unique to the religious, by the way, but I digress.) And while you may think that thinking this is "unacceptable," we have to allow stupid ideas to exist. A modern, secular society has to allow for a plurality of ideas. Discrimination should not happen and everyone needs to be equal under the law, but you can't really call an idea unacceptable. Try to convince people otherwise, but ideas, however dumb, have to be allowed to exist.

Not that that's what you were necessarily proposing, but I just kind of went off on a tangent there.

Anyway, I guess I don't really know your point. Yes, some ideas held by some religious institutions are dumb. Therefore, what?

Sometimes religion is ahead of the curve, sometimes it is behind. But bad religious ideas will tend to be done away with as the old staunch conservatives die off.

bombers15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 02:39 PM
  #160
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bombers15 View Post
Do some institutions believe things that are silly? Sure they do. And what of it? Ban religions? Ban those people? Send them to the gulag?
I think the only thing at issue here is giving them credit where it is not deserved, not any of this silly stuff.

Dan-o16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 02:44 PM
  #161
RollTheBones109
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 317
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bombers15 View Post
First of all, speaking of "religious institutions" as one monogamous, singular voice is troubling. We can not put them all into the same box.

Do some institutions believe things that are silly? Sure they do. And what of it? Ban religions? Ban those people? Send them to the gulag?

I agree that people should not think of homosexuals as less-than-equals. (Not a position entirely unique to the religious, by the way, but I digress.) And while you may think that thinking this is "unacceptable," we have to allow stupid ideas to exist. A modern, secular society has to allow for a plurality of ideas. Discrimination should not happen and everyone needs to be equal under the law, but you can't really call an idea unacceptable. Try to convince people otherwise, but ideas, however dumb, have to be allowed to exist.

Not that that's what you were necessarily proposing, but I just kind of went off on a tangent there.

Anyway, I guess I don't really know your point. Yes, some ideas held by some religious institutions are dumb. Therefore, what?

Sometimes religion is ahead of the curve, sometimes it is behind. But bad religious ideas will tend to be done away with as the old staunch conservatives die off.
Oh I totally agree. I mean, I'd be fine with religious institutions no longer existing, in theory. I'm not sure they are needed anymore. I think secular morality CAN exist. But I also don't think we ought to do anything to remove them/outlaw religion, etc.

And I wasn't proposing anything radical, merely musing on the current lag of (the majority of) religious institutions regarding equality. The question becomes whether Religion will catch up or not. I'd like to think it will, and - as you noted - that may begin with the staunch believers accounting for less and less of the religious population in the future.

Until then, the response to silly religious ideas is the same as the response to silly secular ideas: resistance. I just refuse to give ideas that are silly and religious any special favour merely because the religion from which they were formed were once progressive. It is an important note that many atheists (including, more often than I'd like, myself) will miss, but it is not an immunity to ridicule/disagreement (not that you or anyone here was making that argument! I have heard it elsewhere though, which is why I was inspired to join in this talk).

Also, regarding an idea being 'unacceptable', I meant to an objective society as an actionable idea. Anyone can believe anything they like, but the idea that homosexuals deserve fewer rights is, in my opinion, unacceptable as a determining belief for policy or social rules. Definitely should have worded that more clearly!

RollTheBones109 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 02:45 PM
  #162
bombers15
5-14-6-1
 
bombers15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
I think the only thing at issue here is giving them credit where it is not deserved, not any of this silly stuff.
I guess so. But what I was originally replying to was not giving religion/the Church enough credit in promoting human equality.

bombers15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 02:50 PM
  #163
bombers15
5-14-6-1
 
bombers15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RollTheBones109 View Post
Oh I totally agree. I mean, I'd be fine with religious institutions no longer existing, in theory. I'm not sure they are needed anymore. I think secular morality CAN exist. But I also don't think we ought to do anything to remove them/outlaw religion, etc.

And I wasn't proposing anything radical, merely musing on the current lag of (the majority of) religious institutions regarding equality. The question becomes whether Religion will catch up or not. I'd like to think it will, and - as you noted - that may begin with the staunch believers accounting for less and less of the religious population in the future.

Until then, the response to silly religious ideas is the same as the response to silly secular ideas: resistance. I just refuse to give ideas that are silly and religious any special favour merely because the religion from which they were formed were once progressive. It is an important note that many atheists (including, more often than I'd like, myself) will miss, but it is not an immunity to ridicule/disagreement (not that you or anyone here was making that argument! I have heard it elsewhere though, which is why I was inspired to join in this talk).

Also, regarding an idea being 'unacceptable', I meant to an objective society as an actionable idea. Anyone can believe anything they like, but the idea that homosexuals deserve fewer rights is, in my opinion, unacceptable as a determining belief for policy or social rules. Definitely should have worded that more clearly!
Yeah, I tend to agree with all of this.

bombers15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 06:10 PM
  #164
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 16,748
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
Are you joking? Late 18th century epistemology didn't exist in the mid 19th century? The idea of a holy spirit dynamically fashioning the human intellect and conscience to reunderstand the scripture was all the rage in the mid 19th century.
No, late 18th century epistemology didn't exist in the first century communities where Christian messages of god and human equality were formed.

Quote:
No, but without it it's hard to see how human equality would have become the consensus point of view.
It's only hard to see if you refuse to see how religious understandings pointed to it earlier times.
Quote:
But, in general, the idea that it is Jesus-loving that is fundamentally responsible for progress has it wrong from two perspectives - from the relevant religious perspective, and from the current perspective in general. Whether Jason Collins thanked God is utterly irrelevant to how we should understand the gay rights movement.
this is off all over the place. First it should be Jesus/loving rather than Jesus-loving; second I don't think the your "relevant" religious perspectives include the relevant religious perspectives ; and third Jason Collins and Obama didn't thank God, they based their decision to take a stand on Christian teachings and upbringings.

From Collins coming out article
Quote:
I'm from a close-knit family. My parents instilled Christian values in me. They taught Sunday school, and I enjoyed lending a hand. I take the teachings of Jesus seriously, particularly the ones that touch on tolerance and understanding. On family trips, my parents made a point to expose us to new things, religious and cultural. In Utah, we visited the Mormon Salt Lake Temple. In Atlanta, the house of Martin Luther King Jr. That early exposure to otherness made me the guy who accepts everyone unconditionally.
And from Obama
Quote:
Mr. Obama also invoked his Christian faith in explaining his decision.

“The thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the golden rule — you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated,” he said. “And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids, and that’s what motivates me as president.”


Last edited by JMiller: 06-13-2014 at 06:29 PM.
JMiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 07:28 PM
  #165
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,594
vCash: 500
It doesn't look like the Pride Parade draws a lot of people in Edmonton by the looks of it. I guess I'm used to Toronto's way of doing it. For me personally, Ference can do what he wants. The actions of people in the Pride Parade around here are a bit of a joke and just downright embarrassing at times, even within the gay community not everyone likes it. I'd feel about as comfortable in one of those parades as OJ Simpson with a polygraph. And as you can see, most hockey players would as well since they're never there. But to each his own for Ference, it's a free country. Not sure the Oilers jersey really needed to be on display there since politics and sports don't mix very well and if that jersey was worn in any other controversial situation in the real world from an actual Oilers player it would create a stir.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 08:02 PM
  #166
Xelebes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,899
vCash: 692
The estimated turnout was 50 000, or about 4% of Edmonton's population showed up. The parade was very long this year, taking nearly two hours to complete. The traditional collapse at the end was supplanted by a pelting rain forcing everyone to seek the indoors. The rain did subside and everybody did make it out for the festivities at Churchill Square and elsewhere.

Xelebes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 08:15 PM
  #167
Concordski
Knockoff Jets FTW
 
Concordski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 8,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bombers15 View Post
I don't know what they tell themselves. I'm just saying that the Church, historically, has a lot to do with a welfare system that protects the most vulnerable people. Because, as I said, there is a belief that all human beings are equal under God.
Sometimes that was only taken to mean equal in terms of potential for pleasing god. The concept of that equality applying to material needs is relatively new. For example, the Catholic Church -- perhaps the Church most interested in welfare types of things -- didn't take the concept of the need for human dignity as a need for material things (welfare system) until relatively recently -- around the same time the socialist movements hit the scene. Prior to that, if you were poor, it was generally accepted that you had angered god. In many Calvinist faiths, if you were poor, it was generally accepted that you were predestined to be poor.

Social welfare in the name of the Church has come under two conditions in the Western tradition. The first is when the Church is trying to convert people and the second is when the Church is losing adherents to atheistic socialism.

Concordski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2014, 07:19 AM
  #168
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
No, late 18th century epistemology didn't exist in the first century communities where Christian messages of god and human equality were formed.
What sort of person would care to insist to credit 1st century Christians for laying the intellectual framework for 19th century abolitionism or for the 20th century gay rights movement? It's a bizarre claim. It's as if Christianity weren't around all during slavery, hatred of gay people, etc., etc. Bizarre.

The idea that civil progress involves more and more people being subject to the idea of equality to the point that everyone is subject to it is a 20th century idea. Nobody is responsible for it by themselves. But the idea that religious folks and ideas, in general (there are exceptions of course), are somehow responsible for equality amongst sexualities, genders, orientations, etc. is not only false, it's offensive.

I suspect you must really fear non-religious folks if you feel that you must explain all goodness in terms of Christian theology. What is it - a kinder, gentler zealotry?

Dan-o16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2014, 05:08 PM
  #169
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 16,748
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
What sort of person would care to insist to credit 1st century Christians for laying the intellectual framework for 19th century abolitionism or for the 20th century gay rights movement? It's a bizarre claim. It's as if Christianity weren't around all during slavery, hatred of gay people, etc., etc. Bizarre.

The idea that civil progress involves more and more people being subject to the idea of equality to the point that everyone is subject to it is a 20th century idea. Nobody is responsible for it by themselves. But the idea that religious folks and ideas, in general (there are exceptions of course), are somehow responsible for equality amongst sexualities, genders, orientations, etc. is not only false, it's offensive.

I suspect you must really fear non-religious folks if you feel that you must explain all goodness in terms of Christian theology. What is it - a kinder, gentler zealotry?
The people who were involved in the 19th century abolitionism, and 20th century gay rights movements, that's who.

The belief that there is some kind of sustained building of civil progress is a 19th century idea. The world wars, holocausts and eugenics movements kind of undercut that thinking in the 20th century.

And again I'm not saying all goodness and equality all comes from religion, but rather that religion has been central to it going as far back as we can tell (though some like to cut off the past when it seems inconvenient).

JMiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2014, 02:34 AM
  #170
aleshemsky83
Registered User
 
aleshemsky83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 10,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerz View Post
Well I also don't believe Polygamy or Incest or under-aged marriage should be allowed either and I'd venture to guess a majority of people feel the same way. Yet we don't hear about that infringing on anyones equal rights.

Should homosexuals be allowed to live and share their life together without being discriminated against or jailed or stoned? Yes. It's their lives..they should be able to live it how they see fit. Do I agree with it or see it as normal? No. I do not.
I dont have any problem with polygamy in all honestly.

aleshemsky83 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2014, 02:37 AM
  #171
aleshemsky83
Registered User
 
aleshemsky83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 10,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
It doesn't look like the Pride Parade draws a lot of people in Edmonton by the looks of it. I guess I'm used to Toronto's way of doing it. For me personally, Ference can do what he wants. The actions of people in the Pride Parade around here are a bit of a joke and just downright embarrassing at times, even within the gay community not everyone likes it. I'd feel about as comfortable in one of those parades as OJ Simpson with a polygraph. And as you can see, most hockey players would as well since they're never there. But to each his own for Ference, it's a free country. Not sure the Oilers jersey really needed to be on display there since politics and sports don't mix very well and if that jersey was worn in any other controversial situation in the real world from an actual Oilers player it would create a stir.
I wont lie, I have a hard time understanding pride parades, are these people being ironic when they walk around either half naked in their underwear or in some weird-ass costume and do all this effeminate and sexualized stuff?

aleshemsky83 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2014, 03:00 AM
  #172
RoryDelap
Stoke-on-Toronto
 
RoryDelap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Peanut Gallery
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aleshemsky83 View Post
I wont lie, I have a hard time understanding pride parades, are these people being ironic when they walk around either half naked in their underwear or in some weird-ass costume and do all this effeminate and sexualized stuff?

RoryDelap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2014, 07:21 AM
  #173
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aleshemsky83 View Post
I wont lie, I have a hard time understanding pride parades, are these people being ironic when they walk around either half naked in their underwear or in some weird-ass costume and do all this effeminate and sexualized stuff?
There was a point at which all of that stuff was intentional defiance - a way to try to shock people into realizing that there actually are a lot of LGBT people. I'm pretty sure that the "shock" intent doesn't make sense in NYC or San Francisco anymore. They've more become giant masquerade parties. I can't speak to what it's like in Edmonton.

My daughter was born on the 40th Anniversary of the Stonewall raid in the West Village, on the day of the Pride Parade. To her it will always be a giant party. She won't have much more than a textbook understanding of the struggles and tragedies of the 80's and 90's.


Last edited by Dan-o16: 06-17-2014 at 07:35 AM.
Dan-o16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2014, 07:34 AM
  #174
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
The people who were involved in the 19th century abolitionism, and 20th century gay rights movements, that's who.
I covered the abolition part. As far as the gay rights movement, that's pure lies and vanity. I lived through the '80's.

Quote:
The belief that there is some kind of sustained building of civil progress is a 19th century idea. The world wars, holocausts and eugenics movements kind of undercut that thinking in the 20th century.
No, the notion of progress changed from social Darwinism to something far better. Equality of all persons, regardless, was the kind of progress I was referring to. Not the onward march of mankind.

Quote:
And again I'm not saying all goodness and equality all comes from religion, but rather that religion has been central to it going as far back as we can tell (though some like to cut off the past when it seems inconvenient).
It is central only insofar as it has been central to everything. You can kick and scream as you like, but it is obvious to nearly everyone else that increasing secularization correlates strongly with increasing equality and justice. Especially and obviously wrt sexuality and gender issues.

Dan-o16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2014, 03:53 PM
  #175
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 16,748
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
I covered the abolition part. As far as the gay rights movement, that's pure lies and vanity. I lived through the '80's.



No, the notion of progress changed from social Darwinism to something far better. Equality of all persons, regardless, was the kind of progress I was referring to. Not the onward march of mankind.



It is central only insofar as it has been central to everything. You can kick and scream as you like, but it is obvious to nearly everyone else that increasing secularization correlates strongly with increasing equality and justice. Especially and obviously wrt sexuality and gender issues.
Again, nothing more than sweeping generalizations.

Oh well.

If we want to talk about equality why does it always stall at gay marriage of all things- why not include economic, social, criminal, equal access to healthcare and basic freedom?

JMiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:49 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.