Evangelical extremist?

[Alien]

He seems a nice enough bloke for sure.

We all break the law from time to time, but what is the government supposed to do with people who in principle put their personal beliefs above the law of the land ?  The content his particular beliefs might not be so subversive, but there is a principle that no one should be above the law.

It is difficult, isn't it. Should the suffragettes have broken the law? Should anyone have had homosexual sex prior to it being decriminalised in the 1960s? Were the anti-Nazi plotters wrong to try to assassinate Hitler during the Second World War?

It is difficult to know where to draw the line.

[torridon]

It is difficult, isn't it. Should the suffragettes have broken the law? Should anyone have had homosexual sex prior to it being decriminalised in the 1960s? Were the anti-Nazi plotters wrong to try to assassinate Hitler during the Second World War?

It is difficult to know where to draw the line.

Yes I agree.  There is no such thing as a perfect law and maybe in a sense it is platitudinous to say that no one should be above the law.  Should conscientious objectors have been imprisoned ?  When you boil this down, it comes down to the fact that there is no such thing as objective morality.  Oh, no, what have I done 

[Gordon]

A couple of questions:

1) I would say that sometimes discrimination is justified, e.g. not allowing a Christian to be in charge of the British Humanist Association or the Muslim Council of Britain. Would you agree?

I'd tend to see that as being not suitably qualified for the role in relation to what the role requires. So, rhetorically speaking, would I be discriminated against if I was rejected in my application to be the head honcho of the body that administers English cricket: I'd say not since I'm spectacularly unqualified for this role.

2) When does someone fall into the category "extremist"? Do you have some objective criteria that can be used?

No, since I think it is a subjective view that is relative to the issue under consideration although it may be the case that some scenarios are considered to be more 'extreme' than others to the extent of being legislated against. What we'd class as 'terrorism' is undoubtedly extreme when it comes to events such as those in France and elsewhere in recent times, although no doubt there may be some who see such acts differently.

In relation to SSM in the UK, on the basis of someone saying that they'd legislate to limit the legal definition of marriage so as to accord with what Hope referred to as 'Christian principles', by using 'scripture' as an authority to define marriage, then I would see that as an extremist position in a secular democracy: so not in my name thank you, since I see nothing in 'scripture' that is authoritative or binding on me or society at large.

Thankfully our UK legislators (exc. NI) took a similar view and over-ruled religious objections by legislating to remove discrimination that prevented homosexual people from marrying whomever they wanted to (provided the other person was legally free to marry). 

[Spud]

I'd tend to see that as being not suitably qualified for the role in relation to what the role requires. So, rhetorically speaking, would I be discriminated against if I was rejected in my application to be the head honcho of the body that administers English cricket: I'd say not since I'm spectacularly unqualified for this role.

I'm interested that you think being refused a role one is not suitably qualified for is not discrimination, but that refusing marriage to people of the same sex is discrimination. I know the latter could be said to be qualified in that they are able to have a 'loving' relationship. But does this justify applying the name, marriage, which is commonly given to something that is unique to opposite sex couples, ie a loving, life-long relationship capable of producing and rearing offspring - does it justify applying that name to a loving, life-long relationship between two people of the opposite sex for whom that is not, by design, possible? Does that not deprive opposite-sex marriage of any uniqueness? Surely it does, and will ultimately lead to a confused society.

[Gordon]

I'm interested that you think being refused a role one is not suitably qualified for is not discrimination, but that refusing marriage to people of the same sex is discrimination.

These are two different issues, which is why I pointed out that suitability for an organisational role (as mentioned by Alan) is a matter of competence whereas marriage is a legal entitlement: denying this legal entitlement to certain people based on their sexuality is discrimination.

I know the latter could be said to be qualified in that they are able to have a 'loving' relationship. But does this justify applying the name (marriage) given to something that is unique to opposite sex couples, ie a loving, life-long relationship capable of producing and rearing offspring, to a loving, life-long relationship between two people of the opposite sex for whom that is not, by design, possible?

Yes, once you ditch your prejudices and the notion that marriage should be exactly how you'd prefer it to be even where you try to add the additional rider of children: not everyone wants children you know, irrespective of their sexuality. Of course it is possible, since no doubt there are many examples of happy same-sex married couples, just as no doubt their are unhappy ones too - just like mixed-sex marriage.

Does that not deprive opposite-sex marriage of any uniqueness? Surely it does, and will ultimately lead to a confused society.

No, your prejudices are affecting your reasoning: having been married for 43 years to the wonderful Mrs G, with 3 children and 4 grand-children (so far) I don't feel my marriage is in any sense devalued by other marriages (be they gay, straight, childless or have bred like rabbits).

[jeremyp]

I read an article with him a little while ago and he said he was conflicted on the subject of SSM.

He might have voted against because voting for would increase the stresses on the Anglican Church.

[jeremyp]

Not sure why you're surprised, Gordon.  The same occurs here, when one or more posters accuse those who stand on mainstream Christian principles of being extremist.

Who here has accused a mainstream Christian of being extremist.

[Hope]

Who here has accused a mainstream Christian of being extremist.

OK, lets start with Floo; then you can mention the likes of Gordon and anyone who regards those who oppose things such as SSM as extremists.  In fact, Gordon has described me as being such an extremist on this very thread.  Re-read his post #9 where he not only describes Justin Welby as an extremist for voting against SSM, but - by extension - anyone else who holds that view.

[floo]

OK, lets start with Floo; then you can mention the likes of Gordon and anyone who regards those who oppose things such as SSM as extremists.  In fact, Gordon has described me as being such an extremist on this very thread.  Re-read his post #9 where he not only describes Justin Welby as an extremist for voting against SSM, but - by extension - anyone else who holds that view.

People who threaten others with burning in hell if they don't get 'saved' are extremists, imo.

[Hope]

Leaving 'worldview' to one side, since I have no idea what this is in my case, my position is quite simple: if they want my kids (or grand-kids) to say prayers and sing hymns etc then I call that proselytising when it involves kids of primary school age: so we were having none of it.

You could equally be accused of proselytising by such a refusal to allow them to learn about the full range of human experience, Gordon.  OK, it would probably be more proselytisation by omission rather than commission, but its no better than what you accuse others of. 

That would be your choice, and I fully respect that for some parents involving their children in religion is an expression of their love and care for their children: we just exercised the same love and care by not exposing them to religion as young children.

Does deciding to block a child from learning about all aspects of human life show love and care?  Surely, by doing so, one is denying that child their right to choose - after all, as has been pointed out here on numerous occasions, children brought up in the way you claim to have brought yours up either make the move into the radical extremes of faith or don't move that way at all.

Yes, since seeking to maintain discrimination on the basis of personal sensitivities so as to maintain the discrimination of homosexual people is in my view an extremist position. I suspect you are flying a kite again when it comes to the 'scientific': so what are these grounds exactly?

I've tried to find a site which covers as many such arguments as I can.  I was pointed towards this by a gay friend a few months back - http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-there-any-good-secular-arguments-against-gay-marriage.  Whilst I don't agree with some of the arguments listed, its existence shows that there are arguments against the idea from non-religious sources.

[Hope]

People who threaten others with burning in hell if they don't get 'saved' are extremists, imo.

If someone comes up to you, Floo, and 'threatens' you with death if you insist on walking across a motorway every day, do you ignore them?

[Gordon]

OK, lets start with Floo; then you can mention the likes of Gordon and anyone who regards those who oppose things such as SSM as extremists.  In fact, Gordon has described me as being such an extremist on this very thread.  Re-read his post #9 where he not only describes Justin Welby as an extremist for voting against SSM, but - by extension - anyone else who holds that view.

Indeed I did, and I make no apologies for doing so, and for context you should my other posts in this thread (such as #27).

[floo]

If someone comes up to you, Floo, and 'threatens' you with death if you insist on walking across a motorway every day, do you ignore them?

Of course not because walking on the motorway is provably dangerous. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the hell-fire myth!

[Gordon]

You could equally be accused of proselytising by such a refusal to allow them to learn about the full range of human experience, Gordon.  OK, it would probably be more proselytisation by omission rather than commission, but its no better than what you accuse others of. 

How so? You also seem to be suggesting that life without religious experience is incomplete, which may well be your opinion but it isn't mine - I didn't want them exposed to Mormonism either, or any of the various political philosophies at a young age, so why would I make an exception for Christianity?

Does deciding to block a child from learning about all aspects of human life show love and care?  Surely, by doing so, one is denying that child their right to choose - after all, as has been pointed out here on numerous occasions, children brought up in the way you claim to have brought yours up either make the move into the radical extremes of faith or don't move that way at all.

How can a child of primary school age have sufficient critical thinking skill to 'choose' when it comes to abstract ideas? Far better surely to protect them until they have developed sufficiently given the risks that they will believe what they are told at an impressionable age: after all, surely teachers don't want to mislead young children! 

I've tried to find a site which covers as many such arguments as I can.  I was pointed towards this by a gay friend a few months back - http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-there-any-good-secular-arguments-against-gay-marriage.  Whilst I don't agree with some of the arguments listed, its existence shows that there are arguments against the idea from non-religious sources.

There are arguments for and against almost everything, and that there are such arguments doesn't mean they are all valid. I'll have a look at this site later (baby-sitting this morning).

[Gordon]

If someone comes up to you, Floo, and 'threatens' you with death if you insist on walking across a motorway every day, do you ignore them?

Interesting choice of analogy: and the point you are making via this analogy is what, exactly?

[Hope]

Interesting choice of analogy: and the point you are making via this analogy is what, exactly?

In the analogy I have used, I am warning of a consequence.  This is exactly what Jesus and the Biblical writers do - they warn that certain actions and behaviours will send a person in one direction; and other actions and behaviours will send them in another.

To pick up on a comment made elsewhere on this board, I suppose that Heaven and Hell could be the same place - depending on your outlook on life whilst alive.  What is more responsible, to let people wander blindly into their after life, or to warn them that if they follow a certain route they will suffer sadness in that after life?

[Gordon]

I've tried to find a site which covers as many such arguments as I can.  I was pointed towards this by a gay friend a few months back - http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-there-any-good-secular-arguments-against-gay-marriage.  Whilst I don't agree with some of the arguments listed, its existence shows that there are arguments against the idea from non-religious sources.

Have had a look at this, and I'm surprised that having read it yourself you posted it at all. I consists of posts in a Forum where there are 10 current replies in support of the motion 'Are there any good secular arguments against gay marriage?'  and they contain both simplistic nonsense and a goodly number of fallacies. Let's look at some, with some extracts.

The quotes below are all from:  http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-there-any-good-secular-arguments-against-gay-marriage.

a. This one misses the point in understanding that the aim of SSM is to provide equal access to marriage before descending into hyperbole plus a splash of ad populum.

By passing laws which prevent discrimination against a particular class of people. We set their rights above the majority and it destroys our freedom of speech, our freedom of conscience, and our right to make a living.

b. Here we have an argument from ignorance.

Perhaps the most compelling of arguments is the fact that gay marriage isn't a way to reproduce. We've been taught in school how evolution requires a survival of the fittest. If homosexuals can't reproduce, then it reduces the rate of growth of humans. Obviously, it wouldn't cause a great deal of distress in the beginning, but over the years, there will be an impact in the population.

That even goes deeper into the 'nature or nurture' argument. If homosexuality really is against the theory of evolution, then one has to ask: How could there be a homosexual gene in one if they can't possibly reproduce?

c. Then there is the slippery slope fallacy - twice in fact in separate posts.

Those who are in "same sex" relationships are not looking to be married, they want to be in a same sex union. (since marriage is only between a man and woman) If we then allow 2 men to be married, should we let 3 men be married or 2 sets of couples that swing, be married.... Legally, where could we draw the limit.

No culture in history until modern times has called a committed sexual relationship between two men or two women 'marriage.' What is quickly passing for our western requirement for marriage is that two people be 'in love.' If this is all that is required, eventually there can't logically be reasons to refuse any arrangement of loving persons, and marriage will assume a wide variety of structures. It seems that the end result is that marriage becomes undefinable and extinct as a social institution. Many believe that this is the ultimate goal.

d. This abominable example is an argument from authority, amongst its other horrors.

Why are homosexuals afraid to "come out"? It is simply because deep down they realize that it is not natural and it is not right to be gay. Yes, the Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. It also says that it is a sin and it is an abomination. Take religion out of the equation and all you have is two human being that are incapable of reproducing. You still need a heterosexual couple to reproduce in order to have children. Christians do not discriminate against any human being. God loves his creation because we are created in God's image. But He abhors the sin.

If you are citing the likes of these views as being valid secular arguments against SSM I'd suggest you think again: apart from some not being secular at all, they contain several obvious fallacies and spurious points that would be funny if they weren't so deeply unpleasant.

[Gordon]

In the analogy I have used, I am warning of a consequence.  This is exactly what Jesus and the Biblical writers do - they warn that certain actions and behaviours will send a person in one direction; and other actions and behaviours will send them in another.

Super - but hardly very profound: I can't see that we need divine agency to work out that some things are dangerous and could have consequences that would be best avoided, such as choosing to walk on motorways.

To pick up on a comment made elsewhere on this board, I suppose that Heaven and Hell could be the same place - depending on your outlook on life whilst alive.

My outlook suggests to me that they are adjacent to Narnia, on the left, which can be found by following the signs to Mordor: be careful on the roads mind, since they can be dangerous places to walk!

What is more responsible, to let people wander blindly into their after life, or to warn them that if they follow a certain route they will suffer sadness in that after life?

What would be more responsible would be to first establish this 'after life' as being a certain follow-on from this life before worrying people about it. 

[Walter]

In the analogy I have used, I am warning of a consequence.  This is exactly what Jesus and the Biblical writers do - they warn that certain actions and behaviours will send a person in one direction; and other actions and behaviours will send them in another.

To pick up on a comment made elsewhere on this board, I suppose that Heaven and Hell could be the same place - depending on your outlook on life whilst alive.  What is more responsible, to let people wander blindly into their after life, or to warn them that if they follow a certain route they will suffer sadness in that after life?

arrogance surpassing the ridiculous , I fear.

[Spud]

These are two different issues, which is why I pointed out that suitability for an organisational role (as mentioned by Alan) is a matter of competence whereas marriage is a legal entitlement:

Within certain boundaries, yes.

denying this legal entitlement to certain people based on their sexuality is discrimination.

Not if they are outside the boundaries.

Yes, once you ditch your prejudices

It's nothing to do with prejudice, at least in my post there was no prejudice that I am aware of. It is a matter of how the boundaries for entitlement are drawn. They have been widened to include divorcees, and this at first seems to justify including people of the same sex. If however we look at this in terms of the family unit: with divorcees at least there is a family unit, albeit leaving behind a broken one.

and the notion that marriage should be exactly how you'd prefer it to be even where you try to add the additional rider of children: not everyone wants children you know,

But a married man and woman form a family unit, whether or not they have children. Two men or two women do not form this unit. Those who do not marry an opposite sex partner remain in their parents' family unit.

irrespective of their sexuality. Of course it is possible, since no doubt there are many examples of happy same-sex married couples, just as no doubt their are unhappy ones too - just like mixed-sex marriage.

No, your prejudices are affecting your reasoning: having been married for 43 years to the wonderful Mrs G, with 3 children and 4 grand-children (so far) I don't feel my marriage is in any sense devalued by other marriages (be they gay, straight, childless or have bred like rabbits).

I said nothing about devaluing marriage - how can something that is not marriage devalue it? Marriage is the unique contract between a man and woman by which they form a lifelong family unit, whether they breed like rabbits or not at all. And because it is unique, it has its own name.

[Hope]

I said nothing about devaluing marriage - how can something that is not marriage devalue it? Marriage is the unique contract between a man and woman by which they form a lifelong family unit, whether they breed like rabbits or not at all. And because it is unique, it has its own name.

Nicely put, Spud.  It's pity that some people can't or don't appreciate this kind of thing.  It's also sad they feel that they can discriminate against people in the way they do.

[Hope]

arrogance surpassing the ridiculous , I fear.

If you believe that warning people of the consequences of their actions is arrogance, Walter, I can't see many doctors agreeing with you.

[Gordon]

Within certain boundaries, yes.

Not if they are outside the boundaries.

Whose boundaries are these, and to what extent are these authoritative and binding on society at large?

It's nothing to do with prejudice, at least in my post there was no prejudice that I am aware of. It is a matter of how the boundaries for entitlement are drawn.

Same question: whose boundaries?

They have been widened to include divorcees, and this at first seems to justify including people of the same sex. If however we look at this in terms of the family unit: with divorcees at least there is a family unit, albeit leaving behind a broken one. But a married man and woman form a family unit, whether or not they have children.

Whose definition of 'family unit' are you subscribing to?

Two men or two women do not form this unit. Those who do not marry an opposite sex partner remain in their parents' family unit.

Says who?

I said nothing about devaluing marriage - how can something that is not marriage devalue it? Marriage is the unique contract between a man and woman by which they form a lifelong family unit, whether they breed like rabbits or not at all. And because it is unique, it has its own name.

You seem to be saying that the marriages of those who don't adhere to your definition 'is not marriage': therefore you are devaluing these marriages by seeking to, in effect, deny these marriages are valid - it seems that the legislature don't agree with you, and it is they that set the boundaries that matter.

[Gordon]

Nicely put, Spud.  It's pity that some people can't or don't appreciate this kind of thing.  It's also sad they feel that they can discriminate against people in the way they do.

No - badly put Spud, as I've noted in #47.

[Gordon]

If you believe that warning people of the consequences of their actions is arrogance, Walter, I can't see many doctors agreeing with you.

I think that very simplistic warnings, such as your 'don't walk on motorways' effort earlier, is stating the bleeding obvious - which I think was what Walter was picking up on.

Most people can assess everyday risks, like traffic, without divine inspiration - which is why your motorway analogy linking to 'what Jesus and the Biblical writers do - they warn that certain actions and behaviours will send a person in one direction; and other actions and behaviours will send them in another.' was indeed ridiculous, as Walter noted.