Remove Advertisements

LGBT rights discussion

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Treck » Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:27 pm

Klaudandus wrote:Should be noted that what you believe in is more often than not determined by where you or your parents were born..

Its simple Geography.
Image
User avatar
Treck
 
Posts: 2120
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:10 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:27 pm

Shoju wrote:God, is the literal English translation of names given to "God" in the Holy Bible. While I'm not going to go searching to find out what he has been called forever, I can point out that since 1611, when the "Official" King James Translation of the bible was set forth, The term God was used in place of Jehovah / Yahweh in the Bible.

There is some debate that Judaeism has been replacing "God's Name" with "The Lord", or with "God" for even longer than that, since they feel that his name is too holy, too sacred, too important, to speak regularly.

Arabic Speaking Muslims are more apt to refer to "him" as Allah which, like I posted earlier, is the literal Arabic word for God. Many English Speaking Muslims will still reference him as Allah, but will also refer to him as God as well. If need be, I can track down sources on this.
What I mean is, I don't think the phrase "in God we trust" was ever some popular religious phrase among those three religions. I'm not saying the word God doesn't apply, but if you wanted to make an overtly specific slogan, it's rather easy to do and I don't think that would qualify.

Shoju wrote:You can claim that it doesn't "reference the Christian God" but History unfortunately does not agree with you:

How do you figure that? Are you really suggesting that the only way this phrase could be remotely neutral is if it was sponsored by aethists? That seems rather silly doesn't it?


Shoju wrote:In a society such as what existed in the 1860's, no. Not Extreme. IN a society such as what existed in the 1950's, probably not. In a society like what we have today, 62 years later, It may not be extreme yet, but culture polls would suggest that the United States is far less "Christian" than it was previously.
The cultural aspect is but one aspect, that said "less Christian than it was previously" hardly suggests extremism. Again, I said that I (and probably "we" as a nation)wouldn't be in favor of adding these phrases today, but that hardly classifies them as extreme. Even aside from the cultural reference which is still pretty strong, it's hard to ignore the historical references to the notion of God. We probably wouldn't use Anno Domini or Before Christ or In the year of our Lord today either (and at some point we probably won't) but they aren't extreme despite being exclusively Christian.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Skye1013 » Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:45 pm

Shoju wrote:
Skye1013 wrote:I suppose it should also be noted with US money, that phrase is in all caps, so you can't legitimately claim it is God as opposed to god.


Not Always True. When the slogan was first set forth, it wasn't always in all caps.

Image

This is the reverse of the Morgan Silver Dollar. A coin with which, I am very familiar with, as it comprises most of the numismatic knowledge that I have accumulated. As you can see, Clearly, The I in "In", and the G in "God" were the only capital letters placed in the phrase. This coin is an 1895, but the Morgan Silver Dollar Design was implemented in 1878, and ran until 1921 (with a break from 1904 to 1921) with no change in design.

Point... however, you are referencing an early 1900s coin. When was the last time it was printed/minted like that? Has it been done so recently? Just because it happened at one time, doesn't mean it's still ongoing. Things change and if it hasn't been done so recently, then I believe my argument still stands.
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3918
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Shoju » Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:02 am

Fridmarr wrote:What I mean is, I don't think the phrase "in God we trust" was ever some popular religious phrase among those three religions. I'm not saying the word God doesn't apply, but if you wanted to make an overtly specific slogan, it's rather easy to do and I don't think that would qualify.


And like I posted, the origination of the phrase in God we Trust was the 4th stanza of the Star Spangled Banner, which read slightly different, and was indeed a reference to the "Christian God".

The fourth Stanza of The Star Spangled Banner is in turn a reference to Psalms Chapter 146 Verse 3.
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
Because if you don't put your trust in princes or in the son of man, who do you put your trust in? Oh Right. They put their trust in God.


Fridmarr wrote:
Shoju wrote:You can claim that it doesn't "reference the Christian God" but History unfortunately does not agree with you:

How do you figure that? Are you really suggesting that the only way this phrase could be remotely neutral is if it was sponsored by aethists? That seems rather silly doesn't it?



Did you not read a damn thing I posted? I'm saying it's not neutral, because the whole DRIVE to put it on the currency was headed by a group of PROTESTANT Pastors. They weren't doing it to reference "some" God, or "Someone else's God", or "For all 'Gods'". They did it to reference THEIR ALMIGHTY GOD. I fail to see how that can even be remotely portrayed as "neutral".


Fridmarr wrote:The cultural aspect is but one aspect, that said "less Christian than it was previously" hardly suggests extremism. Again, I said that I (and probably "we" as a nation)wouldn't be in favor of adding these phrases today, but that hardly classifies them as extreme. Even aside from the cultural reference which is still pretty strong, it's hard to ignore the historical references to the notion of God. We probably wouldn't use Anno Domini or Before Christ or In the year of our Lord today either (and at some point we probably won't) but they aren't extreme despite being exclusively Christian.


And I'm saying it might not be considered "Extreme" right now, but it is more "extreme" as a stance, or point NOW Than it was 148 years ago when it was done, or even 57 years ago when it was added to paper currency and the Pledge of Allegiance. It is endorsement of religion, which can be seen as an extreme point to take, when compared with not endorsing any religions, or specifically endorsing atheism.


Skye1013 wrote:Point... however, you are referencing an early 1900s coin. When was the last time it was printed/minted like that? Has it been done so recently? Just because it happened at one time, doesn't mean it's still ongoing. Things change and if it hasn't been done so recently, then I believe my argument still stands.


[nitpick on]
Actually, I'm referencing a late 1800's coin. A coin that was minted for 27 years. From 1878 to 1904, and then again in 1921. One of the most famous coins (and widely used) in the history of American Currency and Coinage.
[/nitpick off]

Your argument would stand if there had been a law, decree, referendum or "something" that happened that made them change the motto from "In God we trust" to "In god we trust" But that isn't the case. The reason that motto is more often than not minted in all caps on coinage comes from the way that the dies are made. This is done in an attempt to ensure that the detail features of the coin can stand up to the rigors of circulation for a longer period of time. This design choice was not "religious" in anyway, it was a functional design choice, due to the fact that when using capital letters, they are able to build details in the coin which have wider dimensions, therefore using more metal, and thereby holding up in circulation longer.

IT was kept in all caps on paper currency so that there was a unified usage in type. No law, referendum, or choice has been made to change the Official Motto's wording, and grammar from "In God we trust".

Functional design choices for currency don't change that our currency carries "In God we trust" because of a protestant movement starting in 1861 to put a reference to "the Almighty God" of their church on the coin, or that it was influenced (suggested I will admit) to come from the 4th Stanza of our National Anthem, as a further integration of patriotism from a Patriotic piece (the National Anthem) to a National Symbol (Currency).
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 6349
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:45 pm

This foray into the numismatic arts is possibly entertaining on some level, but I am losing the point if it all. Is anyone suggesting that because the initial placement of the word "God" on money was enacted by protestants, that it is their god we must consider when looking at the currency?

I don't think it has to be. I think it's just an homage to the manifest destiny that drove US expansion. And while that was again the same protestant god, I think it has evolved into "we must be favoured by <insert name of deity here> because look how badass we are". Which, while quaintly egocentric, is somewhat endemic to the US psyche, at least when seen from outside.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1971
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Shoju » Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:22 pm

Koatanga wrote:This foray into the numismatic arts is possibly entertaining on some level, but I am losing the point if it all. Is anyone suggesting that because the initial placement of the word "God" on money was enacted by protestants, that it is their god we must consider when looking at the currency?


A lot of people think that, yes. Especially those who don't espouse to a religion that has "God" as a part of it. Including, but not limited to: Hindu, Buddhists, and Atheists, all of whom live in a country that has language in it's laws set out to preserve and acknowledge their differences. To some of these people, the fact that our Currency, and our Pledge contains these reference is a problem.

For the record, I'm not weighing in on whether or not I think it "Should" or "Shouldn't" Be there. I'm saying "This is why it is there. This is why it is done the way it is."

Koatanga wrote:I don't think it has to be. I think it's just an homage to the manifest destiny that drove US expansion. And while that was again the same protestant god, I think it has evolved into "we must be favoured by <insert name of deity here> because look how badass we are". Which, while quaintly egocentric, is somewhat endemic to the US psyche, at least when seen from outside.


And the problem is, people don't agree with that. People don't agree with the homage, because they don't believe that there is a deity, or at least, not a deity named in such a way.

IT all goes back to the picture that was posted, and the idea that there are extremes. I'm firmly in camp of people who think that the pic is a bit propoganda ish in reason, but has some merit. The Religious Conservative section of the US "political world" is trying to paint the views of the liberal side as being just as extremist in nature, when in actuality, they aren't as extreme as what they would make you believe.

To be completely fair, the Liberals in the US do the same thing to the Conservatives on other issues (Oil drilling, fracking, etc...) so it's a 2 way street. I just don't know enough about those streets to debate them, so I don't. But I'm fairly knowledgable about religion (even if people don't agree with my opinions), and I'm well versed on Numismatics and the related laws, so I can, debate those points.

I agree though, we can probably move on, and back towards the original scope of the thread.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 6349
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:30 pm

Shoju wrote:Did you not read a damn thing I posted? I'm saying it's not neutral, because the whole DRIVE to put it on the currency was headed by a group of PROTESTANT Pastors. They weren't doing it to reference "some" God, or "Someone else's God", or "For all 'Gods'". They did it to reference THEIR ALMIGHTY GOD. I fail to see how that can even be remotely portrayed as "neutral".


There's no need for caps, bold, and red text (and certainly not all at the same time). To answer your question, yes I read what you wrote. I read a fair bit of what you linked, and your position makes me wonder if you actually read what you linked? If so then I think there's a clear disconnect from our perspectives. You think who advocated for a reference to god in some form appear on our coins matters, I really don't because of the obvious logical fallacy that creates which I pointed out among other things.

However even ignoring that logic problem, the letter itself (which to be fair is the first request, not the only request) asks for a reference to god be placed on a coin not so that people know that we are a christian nation, but so that people know we are not a heathen nation. It states "no citizen" would object to that sort of wording which implies a level of neutrality (though the words suggested are not what we have today). Further, this guy and his group didn't simply walk into the mint and place their slogan on the coin. The idea was deliberated through due process of our government, found to have merit, and the eventual wording was futher deliberated and approved.

Certainly, the reference was to their God from their perspective, but the wording was not specifically to their God so that other citizens could identify with it. After all, the government had ~75 years of experience with the first amendment by then, I'm sure they had an understanding that these words could not represent any one religion and they don't.

I think you and I have different working definitions for the word extreme. To me something that is not extreme, can't be more extreme than something else. I just don't see it that way.

Koatanga wrote:I don't think it has to be. I think it's just an homage to the manifest destiny that drove US expansion
Indeed.

I agree though, we can probably move on, and back towards the original scope of the thread.
I agree, this will be my last comment on this digression.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Passionario » Fri Aug 31, 2012 4:12 am

Fridmarr wrote:I think you and I have different working definitions for the word extreme. To me something that is not extreme, can't be more extreme than something else. I just don't see it that way.


There's a simple test for extremism: am I doing it, or is it other people?

I am neutral and balanced. They are dangerous bigoted extremists. I have a crucial social message. They are shoving their propaganda down everyone's throats. I uphold my convictions in the face of those who would bully me. They are pigheaded idiots clinically incapable of understanding reason. And so on.

Breaking out of this cognitive trap is not easy.
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 3349
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Malthrax » Fri Aug 31, 2012 5:03 am

I guess then that some would consider my ambivalence about this topic to be "extreme".
User avatar
Malthrax
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:23 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Shoju » Fri Aug 31, 2012 5:24 am

Fridmarr wrote:
I think you and I have different working definitions for the word extreme. To me something that is not extreme, can't be more extreme than something else. I just don't see it that way.


I think the problem that you and I have, is that I'm looking at this, and I'm saying that it might not be "extreme" right now, but it is more of an "extremist" stance now than it was before, and you are disagreeing with me. The climate and culture of the US is far more "secular" now than it was 60 years ago during the cold war, 150 years ago during the civil war, and 225+ years ago during the American Revolution, and the beginnings of the country. If you would have been able to take a Gallup pole back then, I would assume that the amount of people that would respond to being "Christian" would be staggeringly higher than what it is now.

So the idea of "God" and "Christianity" used to be a centrist, very middle of the road opinion. But as times have changed, so has the population, our sociological makeup, our religious makeup, which means that so has the centrist values and views of the American Populace.

IN recent years, we have also had major steps taken in our courts, and in our laws, to make sure that there is less of a sponsored religious presence in our society. There has been a further push to ensure that our government isn't pushing religious points of view while also being "our government". You can look at the points that prayer has been removed from public schools to a large degree, and that prayer has been removed from political / governmental meetings. You can see this evidenced in that prayers now happen prior to meetings being called to order.

I'm also trying to look at this without interjecting my own personal views, my own religious views, and the like. From a "Religious / Non - religious" point of view, The idea that there is still language in our government, laws, and politics that seems to sponsor a religion is one end of "an extreme"

That doesn't mean that I'm calling it extremist behavior, or that I'm saying that they are oppressing, but that if you are using a "line model", this is at one end of the line, while the picture shows the middle, and end of a line.

I will agree, (and I've said this before) that the idea, and image is mild propoganda. Extreme is the word that is used that sort of reinforces the propoganda aspect of the image. Extreme isn't the right word, but it is the word that is used, because of the idea, and the thought that it provokes.

A better way to look at it, might be to use wording like "On one end of the spectrum" , or "the contrary view to my perspective". But then the problem with that, is that it doesn't invoke the same ideology (like Passionaro talks about) that they are trying to bring about.


Think of it like this:
Code: Select all
This end of the "spectrum"                                                                          "The other end of the Spectrum
<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Believes that the government                       believe that the government                        believes that the government
Should continue to use "God"                      should make no reference to                         should actively go out of their way
in the pledge, and on currency                    god or gods in pledge or money                      to be atheistic


It's basically what you are seeing in the picture, but it removes the word extreme, and is more accurate. In American Politics, you would find that the far left of this terrible line chart is the republican idea, and in the middle, you would have the current desire of most of the Democratic problem.

The problem that people have, is that the scale/line chart, goes further than the dem POV, to another POV, and its something that we aren't used to, because we are conditioned that those are the two "extremes" or "Perspectives" in our culture, even though, as we should have at least learned here on this forum, that there is probably even more to the left of this line graph (fundamentalist societies), and there is definitely more to the right side.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 6349
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Malthrax » Fri Aug 31, 2012 5:58 am

Shoju - the problem with your characterization is that "continue to use the word 'God' on currency" and "actively go out of their way to be atheistic" aren't polar opposites. Not even close. To be fair, your line chart should have another data point ideal - convert the United States of America into a Christian Theocracy (i.e. go out of their way to be overtly THEISTIC).

Also, flop the char left/right, so the left is the left and the right is the right :D
User avatar
Malthrax
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:23 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Shoju » Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:24 am

Malthrax wrote:Shoju - the problem with your characterization is that "continue to use the word 'God' on currency" and "actively go out of their way to be atheistic" aren't polar opposites. Not even close. To be fair, your line chart should have another data point ideal - convert the United States of America into a Christian Theocracy (i.e. go out of their way to be overtly THEISTIC).

Also, flop the char left/right, so the left is the left and the right is the right :D


I do believe that I addressed that.

Shoju wrote:The problem that people have, is that the scale/line chart, goes further than the dem POV, to another POV, and its something that we aren't used to, because we are conditioned that those are the two "extremes" or "Perspectives" in our culture, even though, as we should have at least learned here on this forum, that there is probably even more to the left of this line graph (fundamentalist societies), and there is definitely more to the right side.


They are two plots on a line going in different directions. I don't believe that I ever referred to them as Polar Opposites. They are at different "ends" of the "perspective spectrum", but they aren't polar opposites, even if they do fall on opposing sides of the argument.

You could have even further points than that as well. You could have "Theocracy", then you could have forced theocracy, then you could even have an extreme fundamentalist theocracy that went around putting bullets in the heads of its citizens for not abiding by every tenant of the law of the theocracy. Which is I why I closed with the paragraph that I quoted.

I purposely set the chart up in that "backwards" fashion. Call it a.... test, for my own amusement.

From a personal perspective, I don't think that the government should use God, or In God we trust, or anything like that, and my beliefs are out there, I do have some sort of belief in "God". But I also understand that my religious faith should have absolutely zero to do with politics, just like my faith shouldn't cloud my judgement in science. Personal religious beliefs shouldn't be used in decisions regarding governmental oversight, laws, and decision making in the United States. And because I feel that way, I also feel that In God we trust should be removed from our money, and from the pledge. Again, it's not because I'm Atheist, or Agnostic, or Buddhist. It's because I firmly believe that the only way that a countries government can continue to evolve and be progressive, is to remove religion from the governing of its citizens.

When I start looking at candidates, I actually try as hard as I can to not let their religious views into the equation. Religious issues are such a small part of the "big picture" when looking at it, that I don't even want it to matter. I want my government to regulate my rights regardless of my, or their, religious affiliation. I do feel like it is the biggest stumbling block in America towards having a society where anyone 2 consenting competent individuals can "marry" (civil union, whatever you care to call it) and be afforded the same legal rights as any other two consenting competent individuals
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 6349
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Passionario » Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:33 am

Shoju wrote:And because I feel that way, I also feel that In God we trust should be removed from our money


Clearly, the solution is to declare sovereign default. That way, fundamentalists will be the first ones to demand the removal of God's name from the face of failed currency. :twisted:
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 3349
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Malthrax » Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:33 pm

Passionario wrote:
Shoju wrote:And because I feel that way, I also feel that In God we trust should be removed from our money


Clearly, the solution is to declare sovereign default. That way, fundamentalists will be the first ones to demand the removal of God's name from the face of failed currency. :twisted:


As long as they let me know in advance, so I can convert my retirement portfolio into gold bullion first.
User avatar
Malthrax
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:23 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Shoju » Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:36 pm

[side rant about retirement portfolios]
Heh, I started buying gold and silver when gold was ~450 an ounce, and silver was ~8 an ounce. I've been debating when I should turn around and make a profit on my investment.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 6349
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest