The results are not surprising. It is easy to understand how some of our GLBT friends have left religious communities and faiths in which they were not welcome and treated with hostility.

Fortunately, there are organizations and denominations that are welcoming and provide an alternative.

Whether those that have left completely will go back is yet to be seen, but surely no one can fault them for their decision to leave.

to the RCC's stance on same sex marriage, might leave the RCC in favor of a faith in keeping with their values.

I'm curious why the inconsistency here?

"Whether those that have left completely will go back is yet to be seen, but surely no one can fault them for their decision to leave."

Is it that they are victims of that hostility, rather than simply being unwilling to be counted among people hostile to SSM/LGBT people or issues?

If I only read this post, I would never have guessed you could possibly author the things you said to me, in Religion.

But let me ask a question I didn't get to ask yesterday - do you feel like the tone in the Religion forum is appropriate or do you feel like it is nasty and rude?

My theory is that those of you, like the two yesterday and yourself, generally like the hectoring tone of Religion. And at least in this case I feel born out as you came her to hector cbayer. So you wouldn't have a problem if Interfaith turned into Religion 2 - another place for Atheists to attack and belittle believers.

But you might understand why believers here in this safe haven aren't eager for that transition.

Bryant

I am not here to hector cbayer, I want to know why this post (which okasha pointed us to, being re-posted here) is 100% opposite of what cbayer indicated in 2 religion threads where I made a very simple, mild suggestion;

That people invest in faiths that are in keeping with their values. That's all. Not a controversial idea.

In this thread, suddenly the answer is different, and I would like to know why. That is not 'hectoring'.

are generally making simple, mild suggestions that religious folk go crazy over? Or to put it another way - if this forum were open to you and other atheists who regularly post in the Religion Forum, what guarantees would we have that this wouldn't simply become a clone of the Religion Forum?

I am guessing by the way that by your second paragraph you mean that people in invest in say the RCC or the Mormon faiths are doing so because they are comfortable with the uglier beliefs associated with those faiths.

Bryant

I would link you to the original thread, but that caused some sort of kerfuffle last time, but no, it was not my intent to suggest they were comfortable with it. In fact, they are not. As I also posted, Catholics poll in higher approval of contraceptives than the general public. (In fact, that was one of the topics.) My suggestion was, rather than attempt to change the church from within, why not simply re-subscribe to another faith that is in keeping with their values.

It does not seem a controversial suggestion, and Cbayer's point above about not blaming them for leaving, which I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with, seems to indicate she agrees with the principle behind my statement.

I want to know why mine was objectionable, yet hers is, to her, acceptable.

I didn't even suggest they leave religion entirely, as the people in Cbayer's example have done, I suggested they just find one that is amenable to their values instead.

As I trashed the religion forum. I got tired of having my faith explained to me, of being called thoughtless and dishonest, and of hearing how religion kills kids. So I'll have to take your word that it was as mild as you suggest.

Possibly it's because cbayer here is talking to friends, while in the religion forum every discussion is a chance for the atheists who post there to attack and humiliate believers. I certainly know that I choose my words more careful when I'm in a hostile environment, which the religion forum definitely is.

Bryant

Otherwise, I would not have stopped and asked.

You tell me if my tone was an attack or attempt to humiliate. I will link to my own post.

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=130271
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=130311

That seems pretty mellow to me.

Edit: Sorry, you said you can't view it. Excerpt:

"You can see examples of it in the religious left right here in this folder. People who have faith, but have let go of religious doctrine that is today understood to be sexist, misogynistic, or homophobic, etc.

No controversy, no headline.

"The religious fundamentalists have succeeded in gaining a great deal of power. What shall we do to counter that. I agree with the author that we essentially pave the way for them at times."

The only way for the religious left to change a 'faith' that includes doctrine of the sort I mentioned, really, is to leave it and find greener pastures in keeping with their faith.

Members of the catholic church that find something as un-controversial as contraceptives as acceptable, is actually HIGHER than the average US citizen's acceptance of same. Members of the RCC appear to have very little pull to change the official doctrine of the church on contraceptives.

If you can't change it, and individuals seek to either change it, or find other faith communities in which their values are respected, they are under no obligation to stay put and suck it up, where they can neither change it, or feel welcomed for their values. It would be a special kind of sadistic torture for outsiders to demand they do so."

I can see where you are coming from, from your view point. If all religions are false, than picking the one that suits you best is probably the smart thing to do, because the decision has no more importance than picking a gym or a country club or a gaming group. You might like it, you might not, and if you don't changing isn't any big deal.

That said Catholics presumably believe that the faith they believe in is the correct one - even if they have issues with how that faith works in the real world. There is something about the Catholic Church, unique to the Catholic Church, that they believe in that is important to them. Now you aren't likely to see what that is (and as I'm not a Catholic, I may not be able to either) but one has to presume that they see it.

Which means that some people are going to stick with the Catholic Church despite the "torture" you mention, and other people are going to decide that they don't need to stick with the Catholic Church and find another faith to practice. That's their choice.

But I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that you would argue that sticking with the Catholic Church and trying to reform it is the wrong choice.

Bryant

membership approval of contraceptives as a long running and well documented example that the members have no pull to change church doctrine on really any matter at all. It does not resemble a democratic, bottom-up power/voting structure.

The only 'vote' I can see that seems to matter at all, is a loss of membership, either through schism into a whole new church, or individuals leaving. But even that hasn't always changed RCC doctrine.

That's why I specified in the following language:

"And if someone supports legal recognition of SSM AND also belongs to a church like the RCC, I don't think it's wrong to suggest they re-evaluate whether they are in the right place."


I didn't say they must leave, or they are bad people if they don't leave, or they are implicit in the church doctrine if they don't leave. I chose my words very carefully, yet it came across as, apparently, a very controversial thing, because I got back something very vehement in response that I essentially had no business suggesting it.

Yet here, in this thread, I see 'no one can fault them' for leaving.

It's unquestionably acceptable they leave, but verboten that I suggest they might leave? This does not compute, for me. I sought clarification. I will, apparently, not receive it.

It's facile to suggest that there's not a tinge of moral condemnation of those who choose not to leave the Catholic Church.

It's possible that you didn't intend that - I don't recall your personal statements on the Catholic Church, but I've obviously seen posts suggesting that belonging to the RCC makes one a bigot and worse. Consider that one isn't even allowed to agree with Pope Francis when he suggests that the wealthy have too much power without going 10 rounds of Catholics are misogynist, homophobic, child-abusers.

Bryant

are members of the church. I can't say I've NEVER done what you ask, but I don't think so.

The delta between church doctrine on contraceptives and membership approval was a great wake-up call to me, that membership doesn't imply approval of the entire platform, much like a Democrat may vary on political platform for certain line items. That is why I used it as a substitute example.

I have taken very strong issue with church doctrine, and with high-ranking members of the church over things they have said in an official capacity, but I hope I have not broad-brush attacked the members of the church. That would be unfair.

that this topic was available in Interfaith, your response was that you were talking just fine in that group. Now here you are, discussing not the topic--which you're more than welcome to address--but another poster. You're verging on stalking. Keep to the topic, please.

The material is the same. The position is the opposite. I am asking why.

You sent me here, so please do not attempt to color this thread as something it is not.

Because that poster went after him. Perhaps you could address El Bryanto and his attitude.

it will turn into a clone of Religion. I don't want that to happen. If people want to butt heads and be talked down to, well, the religion forum is right there.

Bryant

Normally I give this folder a wide berth. I understand your concern.

But the material I wanted to address happened to be posted here, so either I must bump a very old thread in Religion, and link to this one, or address it here.

I will not argue here with you or anyone else. I will wait patiently for Cbayer to address the question.

Edit: I hope post 11 explains adequately WHY I am asking the question.

Apparently they don't have enough space on DU to badger religious people.

I posted this article in Religion and said essentially the same thing there.

Telling people they should leave and noting that they have and understanding why they have are two entirely different things.

There is no inconsistency.

I came into this thread to have a discussion, not be personally attacked for my thoughts on this.

Leave me alone.

I suggested it as an option, as I have linked downthread.

I am here because Okasha suggested this was reposted.


I disagree with your answer, but I will not pursue this further in this venue.

(Not you, hrmjustin, or the topic)

At this point, I really don't care if any of y'all are keeping it civil and within the SOP. What you are doing is objecting to HOW a member discussed the topic in another group! I will not allow Interfaith to become yet another version of the Religion group.

If you want to have a discussion, then do so. Have a conversation, on topic as posted by hrmjustin. But I will not tolerate these fights with other members spilling into here from other groups! Shape up, or I will ship you out!

I apologize for the disruption.

That are being civil and following the SOP? That's an interesting position to take.

Better that we go.

That's the extent of "my peril. " I have no desire to post anymore in this group that clearly isn't welcoming to atheists that are civil and follow the SOP.

You historically haven't been capable of that. So what exactly would you add, except additional anger and contention?

If an atheist came in here without your particular history, who was capable of treating different belief systems with respect, he or she would probably get a different reaction.

Bryant

How many more times until you do so and cease dragging your grudges and games through this formerly peaceful group.

to take the discussion here, right?

So who exactly is playing games? Huh?

Thank you.

The one that says "In conclusion, fuck you, you fucking fucker.".

I'm pretty sure that if I wrote that here I would be banned blocked banished and denounced.

It was an invitation for persons interested in this topic to discuss it here without having to slog through the nudge-nudge yuck-yuck non-responses that derailed that thread in Religion. I suggest you take kentauros at his word and stop trying to engage in similar behavior here.

But if it wasn't a challenge then why post about it right in the self-derailed thread for all of us to see? Huh? it was sort of a neener-neener we're taking it to our clubhouse, so there. C'mon, be honest at least on that part.

Read the SoP you've just violated.

They were a very welcoming bunch and had a robust contingent of LGBT members in the congregation.

of congregations, which would be consistent with this data.

Some are UU, but others are catholic, united church of christ, Episcopalian and Jewish. I don't know any GLBT people personally who are muslim or hindi or mormon, but I enjoy some authors who have blogs.

UU is generally ahead of everyone else, but more and more are catching up.

for a gay friend's mother. (A wonderful, grand old lady. She made it to a round 100.) Now, my friend is an old-fashioned queen; he does marvelous female impersonations and wears eye liner and shadow even with a three-piece suit and tie. As he did for his mom's funeral.

That church was packed with gay couples. I think the only straight people I saw there were the pianist and my friend's sibs and their spouses. When the time came for Communion, there was an aisle-long line of LGBT Catholics. All received. No one was turned away. No one was made unwelcome.

There is the official Church teaching on the subject. And there is the way individual priests and parishes serve their members. This priest and parish were open and loving. I think we're going to see more of that, simply in response to the reality in the pews and a changing community.

There are so many official positions that are not observed in the real world, and that is what will drive change in the long run, imo. It's a huge and lumbering ship, but it can be turned.

I am so glad for people like your friend and his friends. Even if the church has abandoned them, they have not abandoned the church.

I am fairly immersed in St. Francis right now. I have been visiting the places where he lived and had his amazing experiences. He changed the church by being open and loving and he changed it profoundly.

There is always hope for the good.

His love for the earth and all who live on it was part of his love of God. He (and more quietly, Clare) made a huge difference in the Church.

They really see him as the most hopeful thing to have happened in a long time.

I have recently had the opportunity to visit multiple places that were central to St. Francis's life and learned much more about him. I understand why the pope chose his name and think he is following a similar path.

Clare is a fascinating subject as well. I have seen some beautiful frescoes that include her.

and all...!

Last edited Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Bringing it up as an example of how welcoming religious institutions are to the LGBT community doesn't work.

Other religions that welcome LGBT congregants probably enjoy higher memberships as well...there are congregations within broad religious groups that accommodate as well:

That it flies in the face of your dogma about how backward religion is, is entirely your problem.

UU may represent many different religions....

since "represent" means: "Being entitled or appointed to act or speak for (something)"


but it is not representative of very many religions. "Representative" has a completely different meaning than "represent".

Representative: "TYPICAL of a class, group or body....."



How can something that is such a small % of the set of "religion" be "representative"?

I believe that Christians are a small minority of the overall UU membership around the world.

My personal story has a connection to this. My wife is a Christian, I'm an atheist, and we are members of a UU congregation. There is a strong statement in its bylaws that we welcome people of all beliefs. Unfortunately our congregation does not live up to that statement - in practice people of all beliefs except Christianity are welcome. This is, of course, just an anecdote from one UU but apparently it is common enough across other UUs that it has a name. In a hallway conversation about welcoming all beliefs, our UU minister (who is herself somewhat hostile to Christianity) laughingly referred to it as "ABC", which she explained means Anything But Christianity. I should clarify that there are some members of our congregation who do agree with and live up to our welcoming statement.

On the other hand, I do understand (and share) the feelings of our members who have wounds from interacting with Christianity, including those who know the history and are affected by it. One member did a lay-led service about the persecution of Michael Servetus, who was burned at the stake because he would not renounce his unitarian beliefs in favor of trinitarianism. The service was presented in a respectful way, not as a broad brush attack on Christians but rather as denouncing those who actually carried out such actions. It was well received by all, including our few Christians.

I'm on the board of trustees and have made sure to put myself on committees about amending our bylaws and refreshing our mission, vision, and covenant. One of my reasons is to try to keep the welcoming statement in bylaws, mission, etc., and also to have a chance to lobby some of our leaders on living up to it.

I've gone on for a while here because the topic of the relationship between UUism and Christianity is a complicated and nuanced business that even longtime UUs can find challenging. It's an interesting topic and one that can be illuminating, in my opinion, on the more general question of interfaith relationships.

It seems inconsistent.

We're relative newcomers so I don't know the history. I suspect that statement may have been aspirational when it was inserted in the bylaws but then there was no followup to change the culture.

also a member of a Quaker meeting.

Both are welcoming with a number of gay members, and both even have interracial gay couples. Can't get more welcoming than that, especially since we consider them just members and don't make a big deal about it.

I think many of them are slowly, painfully, coming to that conclusion as well.

Had I not been called to serve on a jury I would not even have seen the usual suspects bringing their agenda in here.

To me, that is very inappropriate and a gross boundary violation.

This is a safe-haven. PERIOD!

Anyone is welcome here as long as they obey the sop.

the easiest way to quiet it down would be to simply not argue with the alleged disruptors. I've noticed quite a few discussions where someone doesn't come in with a "You guys are idiots" attitude but asks a question or makes a fair comment. Then the argument starts and goes on for a long subthread with a threat to ban somewhere in there often as not.

If we prefer not to argue here, then just don't argue.

I suppose the best thing to do is for every individual to scan every reply carefully before hitting POST, to ensure there's not a lot of accusatory YOUs in there, or angry swears, or snide remarks about a belief/no belief system.

What ever happened to the simple "I don't agree with that?" I wonder. It's such a simple way of saying "I have a different opinion" without all the "I bet YOU think...." and "We know all about your kind..." type of snark.

It does get old. It's not really clever. Unfortunately, some people regard it as sport, and it's way too easy to get one's back up when one is slammed in that fashion...