Research on Belief in God

[rhubroma]

Why can't I pray in school. That is discrimination just the same.

This is not discrimination and it totally rejects a simple, constitutional principle of a separation of Church and State, and the secular philosophy this presupposes. This means, at the institutional level, religion belongs to the private domain and there all its freedoms and rights are guaranteed. The public domain, at the institutional level, is lay and must remain so to guarantee the same rights to religious non-descrimition which every citizen constitutionally enjoys. The only way this is possible is for religion to stay out of the public institutions, also because it becomes an infringment upon the non-religious to live in a free, secular society when participating in the civil state. Of course, if we want to be historical about the issue, these secular priniciples once arose from the need for such citizens to even be protected from the religious and the religous authorities from torture, lynchment or being burnt at the stake. Conversely if the religions, all religions, also enjoy complete freedom within the religious context, it was also because of the same secular philosophies, which the religious, while they had power never willingly arrived at themselves, thus a neutral arbiter was required.

If you don't like it then go live in a theocracy. There are still plenty around the world, so pick your choice.

At any rate in civil society, of the progressive, secular Western type (into which you were born and raised), the state does not discriminate anyone based on religious creed and practice - in fact "Freedom of Religion" is another constitutional precept - but, at the same time, will not in the public domain promote any one of them. Hence in our civil society, one's rights have limits, and the state can establish the rules and terms of conduct in its public institutions, which also means public schools.

Public schools are not religious institutions, they are not churches, which are the proper settings for prayer gatherings: they are for imparting a secular education that respects the multi-ethnic/cultural and religious backgrounds of the students it accommodates by not getting officially involved with the religious biz.

It would thus be unconstitutional for the schools to allow for a single student, or group of students to impose their religion upon the other students with prayer displays, or other ritualistic practices. As a secularist I would take that as a gross infringement on my child's right to a receiving a neutral, lay education.

This is also because the state allows for private schools of the religious mold, where anybody can choose to send their kids and where you can pray till the moon comes out, as if one were at church or in the private space of one's own home.

Having said that, given the sensitivity of bigots like yourself, I see no reason why in the public schools, during a given time that doesn't interfere with the classroom lessons, and in a separate space designated for "prayer," those that absolutely can't wait to pray to their god during the period since they actually came to school in the morning and when they leave in the afternoon, can do so in peace; while respecting the rights of the many students who don't pray and don't desire to have to support the vane display of self-righteous piety that often becomes simply ludica, as Christ spoke of the hypocritical pharisees, of their zealous piers.

This is, it seems to me, the best one can hope for being conceeded, within the legal framework of the same tolerance to religious freedom that living in a secular, constitutional state affords. But that tolerance is not to be misconstrued by fanatics, as the religious having unlimited right to impose their faith on the terms of coexistence in the state's public institutions.

Again if you don't like it, go live in a theocracy, or go to a private religious school of your liking.

 

[Netserk]

Not necessarily, generally monozygotic twins share the same environment, so that is also a factor. You would have to look at monozygotic twins who have been brought up separately. Probably too small a sample to say definitively.

Nah, you'd just need control groups. Like dizygotic twins of the same gender. If it's more common for monozygotic twins to share sexuality than dizygotic twins, I'd say that is very strong evidence that it is genetic/hereditary.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Nah, you'd just need control groups. Like dizygotic twins of the same gender. If it's more common for monozygotic twins to share sexuality than dizygotic twins, I'd say that is very strong evidence that it is genetic/hereditary.

Well then it would be fairly strong evidence that genetics/heriditary factors play a role. Maybe some people have a bigger chance of developing homosexuality because of these types of factors, I certainly wouldn't deny that hereditary factors can possibly play a role. I'm objecting the idea that it would simply be completely genetically determined like race or gender, which is how its often portrayed in liberal western popular opinion.

 

[Tank Engine]

Nah, you'd just need control groups. Like dizygotic twins of the same gender. If it's more common for monozygotic twins to share sexuality than dizygotic twins, I'd say that is very strong evidence that it is genetic/hereditary.

Fair point. Are there any such results?

Well then it would be fairly strong evidence that genetics/heriditary factors play a role. Maybe some people have a bigger chance of developing homosexuality because of these types of factors, I certainly wouldn't deny that hereditary factors can possibly play a role. I'm objecting the idea that it would simply be completely genetically determined like race or gender, which is how its often portrayed in liberal western popular opinion.

You are right, but generally the mainstream press does not present scientific/statistical results in an objective light. A trait may have a low, but significant, heritability, and the press would often just describe it as genetic (or even genetically determined).

 

[Netserk]

On another forum I from time to time read, this topic was up as well and a poster there named Corribus, who is a scientist, did a search in the literature about it: http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=40236&PID=1215927#focus

This will be brief because I just lack the time today to investigate this fully, but evidence was asked for, so evidence shall be received:

A quick 30 min search of the primary literature yielded a number of studies that show positive genetic influences on male homosexuality. Without validated animal models, most studies appear to look for linkages between chromosome regions and homosexual phenotypes. (Identifying homosexual phenotypes is not as straightforward as, say, identifying color blindness. Many studies appear to use the Kinsey scale, which has been the subject of some criticism.) A number of studies in the late 1990s independently identified strong correlations between male (but not female) homosexuality and a specific region of the X-chromosome called Xq28. A short meta-analysis of this work can be found in the journal Science, published 1999, vol 285, page 803. It is well known that the X-chromosomes accumulates genes that influence sex, reproduction, and cognition.

There is also a statistically significant difference in the way that mothers of homosexual men exhibit extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation compared to mothers of heterosexual men (Bocklandt et al, Hum Genet 2006 118, 691-694). (Each cell in a woman has an inactivated X-chromosome because women have two X-chromosomes and men have only one. Typically the inactivation is randomly determined, but there are mechanisms for non-random inactivation as well.) This was particularly evident in women with multiple homosexual sons. A paragraph from the authors' conclusion that might be of interest: "Recently, several identified autosomal loci suggested a multi-gene regulation of the sexual orientation pathway (Mustanski et al. 2005), as expected for a complex behavioral trait. We hypothesize that one central neuronal pathway establishes sexual attraction to eithermales or females, usually towards the opposite sex. However, a variety of genetic and non-genetic biological effects might intersect this pathway. Hence, there might be several subgroups of gay men and women, each with their own specific biological origin. Although these results need to be replicated, the unusual X chromosome methylation pattern in our sample of mothers of homosexual men supports a role for the X chromosome in regulating male sexual orientation and offers a path for further research on the (epi)genetic basis of a complex and biologically critical human trait."

Not related to humans, a landmark study in 1996 (Ryner et al, Cell, 1996, 87, 1079) showed that male sexual behavior of fruit flies, including sexual orientation, was conctrolled by a single gene. Granted, fruit flies may not be an appropriate animal model for human sexual behavior (and doubtless many have made that argument). Still, it does establish that sexual behavior has a clear genetic basis in a least one species. There's no reason to suspect that other species should be different.

Artu has already briefly described a body of literature related to the incidence of homosexuality in twins, which is higher than what you would expect, statistically, for a nonheritary trait. My search also turned up a number of studies related to this, which again supports a biological, and likely genetic, basis for sexual orientation. Co-incidence of phenotypes in twins have also been investigated. In one interesting study (Hall and Love, Arch. Sex. Behav., 2003), the authors looked at the ratio of the 2nd to 4th finger length, which is a "sex-dimorphic characteristic in humans, which may reflect relative levels of first trimester prenatal testosterone". Interestingly they found that this ratio in lesbian females was consistent with the ratios exhibited by average European males, while the ratio in heterosexual participants was consistent with the ratio of average European females. No difference was found among homosexual/heterosexual males. The conclusion from this (and a number of related studies on interdigital ratio): lesbian sexual orientation is associated with higher androgen levels during prenatal development. This supports a biological basis, but not necessarily genetic basis, for homosexuality in females.

There have also been some studies that show fraternal birth order (FBO) may play a role in sexual orientation. On the surface this would appear to support a basis of social environment, and not biology/genetics, for homosexuality. However FBO has been linked to immunological effects in the prenatal conditions. It goes something like this (from Bogaert and Skorska, Sex. Diff. Sex. Behav. Orient., 2011): "After the first child, a mother develops an immune reaction against a substance important in male fetal development during pregnancy, and this effect becomes increasingly likely with each male gestation. This [auto]immune effect is hypothesized to cause an alteration in (some) later born males' prenatal brain development. The target of the immune response may be molecules (Y-linked proteins) on the surface of male fetal brain cells, including in sites of the anterior hypothalamus, which has been linked to sexual orientation in other research. Antibodies might bind to these molecules and thus alter their role in typical sexual differentiation, leading some later born males to be attracted to men as opposed to women." This was taken from a review article, which then went on to review the dozens of studies in support of this hypothesis. Again, this would support a biological, but not necessarily genetic, basis for male homosexuality.

Anyway, I could go on, but I think it's clear: there is ample evidence in support of a biological basis, and possibly genetic basis, of homosexuality in both males and females - although the mechanisms appear to be quite different for males and females. This brings home an important point: it is true that there is probably not a single "gay gene". For one thing, there appears to be a strong biological but non-genetic component (hormonal or immunological) to some homosexuality phenotypes. (These could still be ultimately genetic in origin, but that kind of secondary effect hasn't been studied as far as I can tell.) For another, complex human behaviors are the result of dozens, if not hundreds of genes, the individual purposes of which are not easy to determine. The studies I have found talk about "regions" of chromosomes rather than specific genes. The end result is that homosexuality is not a monolith; there are likely different variations, possibly largely indistinguishable from each other, each with its own separate suite of causes. It's important to stress that at present, it seems that the evidence is limited to genetic correlations, and precise chemical causes (i.e., proteins involved) are still largely unknown. Certainly each related study in the literature (like any scientific study) is open to criticism, although from what I can tell most criticism has been lodged by nonscientists who have pre-established agendas.

The claims that there is no scientific evidence to support a biological basis of sexual orientation are false. The persistance of such claims is due probably to a combination of factors: ignorance of the science is one, fear by media outlets to report on a touchy subject is another, poor communication by scientists a third, and also an unwillingness by laypersons to listen to or believe in evidence that conflicts with pre-established viewpoints also contributes. Face it, people don't like the implications of research that suggests that human behavior has a genetic basis. There's a discomfort with the idea that we aren't totally in control of our desires, ideas, intentions, and behavior patterns. It destroys, or seems to take away from, our cherished notion of free will. Conflict with religious or cultural beliefs don't help, and there are also social and legal implications as well. (If a man is genetically predisposed toward violence, is it fair to punish him when he murders someone else for no apparent reason?) Certainly, the book isn't closed on the biological basis of sexual orientation - indeed, it's barely been opened - but I think it's dangerous to assume that any aspect of human behavior is purely a matter of human choice with no biological influences whatsoever. Dangerous and also rather absurd.

It's actually interesting to me that Xerox wants to deny a biological/genetic basis for homosexuality. In my experience many homosexuals seem eager for there to be a proven genetic basis, I guess as a route toward legitimization. That's a double-edged sword, though, because there are plenty who would use that as an argument to treat homosexuality as some kind of genetic disease that can be "cured". I don't subscribe to that opinion, because again I think most of us are slaves to biology and chemistry to a greater extent than we think. Genetic "disease" is a rather vague statement to begin with, and brings up questions about "normality" and, in the case of psychological states, ethics regarding "treatment". It's a complicated area, one that science alone cannot solve. That doesn't mean we shouldn't ask the scientific questions. The difficulty for scientists is to be objective when interpreting and reporting on the answers, because certainly nobody else is going to be.

 

[red_flanders]

I wonder how people would feel about the cake-selling scenario if it were not Christians and gays involved, but rather a muslim shop owner who would not sell to Christians.

Now I'll be the first to say if a shop wouldn't sell to me, I'd just move on down the street. Either way. But I'm not a minority, I'm a white male. If I were a minority who was regularly discriminated against, I'm sure I'd have a very different set of feelings about this kind of scenario.

Let's say a muslim shop owner refused to sell a wedding cake to a Christian couple because, among many reasons, the woman's head was uncovered, she was wearing clothes which allowed the shape of her body to be seen, and her arms were uncovered. Let's say this woman was well known to the neighborhood shopkeeper, and had come in over the years with a variety of boyfriends. Maybe she's bi and has come in with a female lover in the past and the shopkeeper has noticed. The shopkeeper feels this woman is promiscuous and not following the guidelines of Sharia law, and as such the shopkeeper refuses to bake a cake for her wedding.

Is this different? How so?

How would people honestly feel about this? Would not selling be discrimination based on religious principle? If the couple sued, should she win?

 

[Tank Engine]

On another forum I from time to time read, this topic was up as well and a poster there named Corribus, who is a scientist, did a search in the literature about it: http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=40236&PID=1215927#focus

Thanks for that. I looks like a very reasoned argument.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

I wonder how people would feel about the cake-selling scenario if it were not Christians and gays involved, but rather a muslim shop owner who would not sell to Christians.

Now I'll be the first to say if a shop wouldn't sell to me, I'd just move on down the street. Either way. But I'm not a minority, I'm a white male. If I were a minority who was regularly discriminated against, I'm sure I'd have a very different set of feelings about this kind of scenario.

Let's say a muslim shop owner refused to sell a wedding cake to a Christian couple because, among many reasons, the woman's head was uncovered, she was wearing clothes which allowed the shape of her body to be seen, and her arms were uncovered. Let's say this woman was well known to the neighborhood shopkeeper, and had come in over the years with a variety of boyfriends. Maybe she's bi and has come in with a female lover in the past and the shopkeeper has noticed. The shopkeeper feels this woman is promiscuous and not following the guidelines of Sharia law, and as such the shopkeeper refuses to bake a cake for her wedding.

Is this different? How so?

How would people honestly feel about this? Would not selling be discrimination based on religious principle? If the couple sued, should she win?

I don't think it's completely parallel, but I wouldn't feel it is discrimination, or at least not discrimination of the kind that should dealt with through legal persecution.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Only 15% of the people on here believe in a god.

It seems they have strong opinions though...

 

[red_flanders]

I don't think it's completely parallel, but I wouldn't feel it is discrimination, or at least not discrimination of the kind that should dealt with through legal persecution.

It is Orwellian to me that when a group who has been (actually) persecuted for millennia chooses to exert legal rights in the most civil manner possible, within the legal system, that they would be accused of "persecution" for resisting discrimination.

Challenging discrimination legally in no way fits the definition of persecution.

It's funny to watch people react to change. I don't understand people who don't want to cede even the tiniest bit of consideration to others for fear that recognizing others detracts from their cultural identity.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

It is Orwellian to me that when a group who has been (actually) persecuted for millennia chooses to exert legal rights in the most civil manner possible, within the legal system, that they would be accused of "persecution" for resisting discrimination.

Challenging discrimination legally in no way fits the definition of persecution.

It's funny to watch people react to change. I don't understand people who don't want to cede even the tiniest bit of consideration to others for fear that recognizing others detracts from their cultural identity.

Okay I guess I kind of inappropriately used the word persecution in this instance. I just meant I didn't think it should be something against which legal action should be taken.

I'm still not convinced refusing to provide a certain service for a certain ceremony because you think this specific ceremony is immoral should be called discrimination at all by the way, but even if you want to call it discrimination I don't think it warrants legal action.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Only 15% of the people on here believe in a god.

It seems they have strong opinions though...

30% if you include Johnny Hoogerland.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

30% if you include Johnny Hoogerland.

Dude Brah this thread has some interesting points. Good example would be (I forget the members name but he has sky froom in yellow as his avatard) he has dated some ladies who in his words did not consider the back door as exit only. Then I'm not sure who it was who brought up the first aids victim who had 4000 partner's! Mad props to that guy! That was pretty viagra/cialis.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Dude Brah this thread has some interesting points. Good example would be (I forget the members name but he has sky froom in yellow as his avatard) he has dated some ladies who in his words did not consider the back door as exit only. Then I'm not sure who it was who brought up the first aids victim who had 4000 partner's! Mad props to that guy! That was pretty viagra/cialis.

That was me. And I was wrong. He "only" had 2.500 in approx. 10 years by his own estimation. Google Gaetan Dugas. You will get pretty much in-depth analysis... But he was/isnt the record holder.

BTW: No viagra back then...

 

[Beech Mtn]

ISIS were on the news today for throwing gay men off the tops of buildings.

But let's talk about bathhouses and thousands of sexual partners and the like. Wouldn't ever want to let homosexuals get married and live normal lives like the normal people that most are.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

But let's talk about bathhouses ...

Good idea. Since nobody came up with that idea by now. Who starts?

 

[aphronesis]

Re:

Consider an analogy. I own a liquor store, and someone I know to be an alcoholic comes in and wants to buy some of my product. I may not regard alcoholism as a sin--I'd say it's more of a disease--but it has very undesirable consequences, harmful for that person and probably others in his life, maybe even for strangers if he drinks and drives. I guess legally I have to sell to him, but if I took Jspear's attitude and decided that in conscience I couldn't, I certainly wouldn't tell him where he could buy liquor. That would be just helping him continue his addiction, no better than if I had sold him alcohol. The fact that I wasn't the one who made the sale would be very little comfort to me if he went out on a bender later and maybe someone died as a result.

This is a pretty good analogy. In my opinion it would be ridiculous to sue the owner of a liquor store for discrimination against alcoholics if he refused to sell alcohol to an alcoholic because of moral concerns. But yet there are several cases in the US of fundamentally the same happening with Christians refusing to provide services for a gay wedding.......

No, this is a false analogy in that it has to do with the effects of the object provided.

Should we go on and talk about how it inadvertently/subconsciously/reflexively invokes a certain degraded homo/identitarian politics that has arguably done more long term harm than good in the overall domestic aquiescence to one of the current world hegemons.

Provincials and ethnic puricists need not reply.

 

[Merckx index]

Here’s how the NCAA feels about denying service to gays based on religion:

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence says the "Religious Freedom" bill he signed into law Thursday isn't about turning back the clock to old-time bigotry where you could refuse service to blacks at restaurants, set up drinking fountains for whites only or post a job opening alongside a sign with NINA painted on it – No Irish Need Apply.

The NCAA and its president, Mark Emmert, responded with what most clear-minded people believe: that this law is about the state of Indiana protecting discrimination, effectively allowing businesses to deny service to gays and lesbians based on religious beliefs. As such, Emmert, whose organization is hosting the Final Four next weekend in Indianapolis where the NCAA is also headquartered, went far enough to threaten future events in the state and potentially moving their offices out of downtown Indianapolis.

The tide has turned. The young and more enlightened are rising up, which is why laws like this won't last 10 years; maybe not even five. This is the last gasp of open discrimination.

Soon enough everyone supporting these ideals of discrimination will be incredibly humiliated they ever did so, the way old timers hang their heads when asked about how they thought a segregated lunch counter for third graders was a just idea. Most will pretend they didn't agree with it in the first place. Shame will cause everyone to run from it.

After all, the best counter to these religious freedom measures has come from an Oklahoma representative named Emily Virgin.

She introduced an amendment in her state that would require a business that will refuse service to certain individuals to "post notice of such refusal in a manner clearly visible to the public in all places of business, including websites. The notice may refer to the person's religious beliefs, but shall state specifically which couples the business does not serve by referring to a refusal based upon sexual orientation, gender identity or race."

Essentially, it tells everyone your intentions, who you are and what you are about. That way the gay couple looking for a florist knows not to go inside … and the rest of the public who think you're an idiot can go find another florist, too.

Then the religious freedom florist will cling to a dwindling customer base until it goes out of business.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaa-s-res ... 33125.html

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Re: Re:

Why don't you cum to their AIDS?

Oh my, that is borderline, if not already over it. But I must admit when I first read your pun, I had some fun...
Now back too bath-houses and religion... then it cant get too sketchy

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Re:

Here’s how the NCAA feels about denying service to gays based on religion:

I don't know about this law, so I don't really have an opinion on this, but if you read this thread you will find nobody here defends refusing services to gays. I would say that refusing services to gays, because they are gay, is obviously wrong.

What people in this thread were concerned about is the right not to provide services for a gay marriage. That's quite a significant difference. There's a world of difference between refusing to provide services to a certain group of people who you think are behaving immorally and refusing to provide services for a celebration of this behaviour that you think is immoral. In the former you are actually discriminating people, in the latter you are respectfully declining (well I hope one does it respectfully) to get involved in a specific event which violates your consciousness.

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

Here’s how the NCAA feels about denying service to gays based on religion:

I don't know about this law, so I don't really have an opinion on this, but if you read this thread you will find nobody here defends refusing services to gays. I would say that refusing services to gays, because they are gay, is obviously wrong.

What people in this thread were concerned about is the right not to provide services for a gay marriage. That's quite a significant difference. There's a world of difference between refusing to provide services to a certain group of people who you think are behaving immorally and refusing to provide services for a celebration of this behaviour that you think is immoral. In the former you are actually discriminating people, in the latter you are respectfully declining (well I hope one does it respectfully) to get involved in a specific event which violates your consciousness.

So where do come up with the idea that getting married isn't a legal service provided by the state? And what does this have to do with your, or anybody else's, conscience, except for the two people involved.

Getting married in church is different. There all the bigotry and disdain for any other way of living except for the "right" way of living is the prerogative of those who insolently call themselves the faithful, which is guaranteed them by the same state that in the public domain must only defend the equal rights of all its citizens, irrespective of race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Reason alone means that to deny gay marriages is to deny a certain category of citizen a right others enjoy, irrespective of what your conscience says that is of now bearing on the matter. If the state says, and it should, that two gay people can enter into wedlock, then in its institutional marriage facilities no one can deny them that right. Period. And if some person objects on the principle of a violation of conscience, then that person should be removed from his or her post (and go join a seminary?).

In many European countries a married couple enjoys certain legal recognitions, like a spouse being able to make legal decisions for the other should he or she become fatally ill, or suffer lethal trauma. Thus all citizens, gays included, must be able to obtain such a legal status. Otherwise the principle of all citizens being equal under the law is violated: other than the bigots consciences.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Re: Re:

So where do come up with the idea that getting married isn't a legal service provided by the state? And what does this have to do with your, or anybody else's, conscience, except for the two people involved.

Getting married in church is different. There all the bigotry and disdain for any other way of living except for the "right" way of living is the prerogative of those who insolently call themselves the faithful, which is guaranteed them by the same state that in the public domain must only defend the equal rights of all its citizens, irrespective of race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Reason alone means that to deny gay marriages is to deny a certain category of citizen a right others enjoy, irrespective of what your conscience says that is of now bearing on the matter. If the state says, and it should, that two gay people can enter into wedlock, then in its institutional marriage facilities no one can deny them that right. Period. And if some person objects on the principle of a violation of conscience, then that person should be removed from his or her post (and go join a seminary?).

In many European countries a married couple enjoys certain legal recognitions, like a spouse being able to make legal decisions for the other should he or she become fatally ill, or suffer lethal trauma. Thus all citizens, gays included, must be able to obtain such a legal status. Otherwise the principle of all citizens being equal under the law is violated: other than the bigots consciences.

Clearly, since I referred back to the discussion that took place earlier in this thread in which examples of a florist and a baker declining the offer to provide flowers and a cake for a gay marriage were discussed, I wasn't referring to state provided services. So I don't really see how your post is a reply to mine, to be honest.

Also, just a piece of friendly advice, if you have any interest whatsoever in having a civil discussion in the 'God and Religion' thread, maybe you should stop continuously referring to conservative religious people as 'bigots' and using other similar language. I have a pretty thick skin, so I don't mind too much really. However, if you want people whom you disagree with to be open to your criticism, just as a rule of thumb, maybe you should try to avoid insulting them.......

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

So where do come up with the idea that getting married isn't a legal service provided by the state? And what does this have to do with your, or anybody else's, conscience, except for the two people involved.

Getting married in church is different. There all the bigotry and disdain for any other way of living except for the "right" way of living is the prerogative of those who insolently call themselves the faithful, which is guaranteed them by the same state that in the public domain must only defend the equal rights of all its citizens, irrespective of race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Reason alone means that to deny gay marriages is to deny a certain category of citizen a right others enjoy, irrespective of what your conscience says that is of now bearing on the matter. If the state says, and it should, that two gay people can enter into wedlock, then in its institutional marriage facilities no one can deny them that right. Period. And if some person objects on the principle of a violation of conscience, then that person should be removed from his or her post (and go join a seminary?).

In many European countries a married couple enjoys certain legal recognitions, like a spouse being able to make legal decisions for the other should he or she become fatally ill, or suffer lethal trauma. Thus all citizens, gays included, must be able to obtain such a legal status. Otherwise the principle of all citizens being equal under the law is violated: other than the bigots consciences.

Clearly, since I referred back to the discussion that took place earlier in this thread in which examples of a florist and a baker declining the offer to provide flowers and a cake for a gay marriage were discussed, I wasn't referring to state provided services. So I don't really see how your post is a reply to mine, to be honest.

Also, just a piece of friendly advice, if you have any interest whatsoever in having a civil discussion in the 'God and Religion' thread, maybe you should stop continuously referring to conservative religious people as 'bigots' and using other similar language. I have a pretty thick skin, so I don't mind too much really. However, if you want people whom you disagree with to be open to your criticism, just as a rule of thumb, maybe you should try to avoid insulting them.......

It is singularly hypocritical that you don't have a thick skin with me, for the reasons of incivility stated, when you insult, discriminate and negate the rights of an entire category and insolently call yourself a Christian. Other than civil.

 

[ray j willings]

God shall strike ye all down with a fish and cheese biscuit laser attack .

 

[Echoes]

Re: God and Religion

A great slap in the face of all those who believe in separation between Church & state and all those who supported the demonstration after the Charlie Hebdo attack, by Adrien Abauzit.

I bothered to translate the main parts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exh5-dle7WI (+ 3 other parts)

The Establishment is panicking because the means for social control that they had before start no longer working. […] Hence you’ll notice that those who understand the least what is happening, what globalism implies, are the older generations, 50+ year old, whom I call the Charlies. […] The younger generations how less educated, less learned they might be, understand the events better, how complicated they might be, because this mold is present inside their skull and when it is, it fissures.

5.05 (vid 1): I’ll tell you. I have a lot of hope in the French youth. They have a lot of flaws. They have their head stuck on their iphone all day long, etc., A lot of the youth totally misses the point, the anti-fa, the bohemian-bourgeois, etc those who ignores the reality of globalism, whether it be its social consequences, migration, etc but beside these facts, there are whole sections of the youth that got rid of that mold. I’ll tell you something. The number of people that come to see me asking reading advice, “ Mr Abauzit, which history book would you recommend me?”, the number of people that come to see me in order to get baptized “could you put me in contact a priest?” While in the old days, religion, the love of the fatherland, of history, of the past, were things for the losers, you see. This whole Charlie Hebdo doxa only valued contempt for religion, the fatherland, etc while today there’s a whole new value system that is appearing within the French youth in which religion and the love of France are popular, etc etc. This is more than a change, it’s a dynamic, you know, well, it’s really a divine surprise, really.

Some would say, “yes but you are still a minority”. I’d say yes but not that much because I think you can measure that to easily several hundreds of thousands of people, based on the number of views on YT and Dailymotion, given the fact that several people could’ve seen the same video and somebody who saw a clip of Adrien Abauzit, Pierre Hillard, Michel Drac, you name it, could have talked about it with people around him/her. Etc, etc.

8.15: We are the only intellectual, sociological, political dynamic that there is in France. The bobocracy, the Antifas, all this is over. They represent 0% in terms of figures. […] We are the only “the place to be” dynamic, if you want.

11.40: The UMP/PS vote is largely supported by those I call the Charlies. If only the youngsters voted I’m not quite sure we would have had the same results at the elections. For example, the FN – with all the reservations we can have on it – and abstention are really taking off among youngsters. That means that young people are less inclined to put another coin in the machine. I’m objected that I should not give political lessons to 45+ year old people. I’m sorry you voted like morons for decades and so I don’t have a lot to learn from you, re politics. You voted like twats. Salving your consciences, you voted for people who objectively destroyed the future of your children, who defended policies that were objectively opposed to French interests. What is the use of making millions of Africans come to France, what is the use of making the parallel economy thrive? What is the use of the total freedom of capital movement? The Kings of France, when they took a decision they were wondering whether it was good or bad for the kingdom. […] I don’t have any lesson to get from the mediocre people – being fooled by Talleyrand is not the same being fooled by Hollande - who approved of this disgusting anti-French political class.[…] If your children don’t have jobs, if your children are persecuted by Austrian-Hungarians, that’s because you’ve voted like twats. So a bit of self-criticism! What amazes me with the Charlies is that they have a lot of troubles to reform themselves, traumas aside like the Charlie Hebdo attacks. You noticed that at the January 11 demonstration, people applauded the cops. That means that in those critical moment they totally abandoned their ideology. These people are the most anti-cop that there is. The Charlies radically turncoated and applauded the authority. They dropped everything. […] France has a millstone around its neck and that is its gerontocracy.
[…]
That was a white-skinned demonstration, with a few young people and people “from the diversity” but it’s essentially the white-skinned gerontocracy. That’s what is surprising. It’s a bit like those Antifas who claimed to be anti-racist etc and I’d say “but guys, there are only white people among you, you don’t find it weird?” I who is supposed to be a “far-righter” according to the Establishment’s standards am more followed by people from the immigration than the Antifas and yet I’m very harsh on the riffraff, remigration, etc.

24.11: Fundamentally what is to be done, remigration: indispensable, cultural reaffirmation of France – which means secularism to the toilet and flush -, reconnection with the French spiritual legacy. It means that the 1st article of the new constitution would be “France is a Christian land”. Art. 2: “If you disagree, get out.” When I’m saying this, I’m not addressing the non-Christian [read Muslims, etc] but rather the atheists or secularists who are p*ssing me off. Because the religion that harmed France the most is secularism [actually it’s not a religion but an ideology; worth noting that he uses the word ‘laïcisme’ and not ‘laïcité’ which is the word French usually use to refer to the separation between Church & State, because ‘laïcité’ is a Christian term referring to the distinction between the temporal & the spiritual, which isn’t the same]. We got to reintroduce the Christian referent into our institutions and into our LAWS.[…] France without Christ’s Cross does not exist. It’s still a hexagon, people are still living in it but it’s not France. It’s the republic of Enlightenment but it’s not France. It’s anti-France.
28.46: France’s salvation is conditioned by the French people’s truth to Christ’s cross. I know I’m going to be treated like a madman to secularists & naturalists but just read the history of France, that’s all I have to tell you, I mean. It’s the way it is. If you don’t agree, it’s all the same.
30.09: “Christian France” is a pleonasm […]. Israel is Jewish, it’s the way it is. India is Hindu, it’s the way it is. Japan is Shinto, it’s the way it is. If people don’t want France to be Christian, that exists, it’s called the Left, anti-France, the Republic of Enlightenment. […] You are entitled to it but we are not on the same political side. What interests me is France, the Republic of Enlightenment, I don’t give a flip about it.

Question of a viewer: the guest often expresses his hatred of the Left but has there been according to him an acceptable Left in the French history?

Abauzit: No, no, no. The Left is anti-France. What is Left? The Left is the political side that seeks to substitute a new civilizational basis to the French civilizational basis. The Christian roots are replaced by the Enlightenment. The Left was born at the Revolution. How was the Assembly asked to vote on the Royal veto issue? The opponents to the King’s authority went Left and the supporters of it went right. Enlightenment vs Tradition. After that the Right had been eradicated from the political spectrum at different period of French history. Under the Second Empire, e.g. At the start of the 20th century, it no longer existed on the political spectrum but still existed in the society. With the “Épuration” (Cleansing) of 1944 the Left tried to physically eradicate the executives of the Right: squires, royalists, etc. It was well conceived, don’t question it. So when Leftist give moral lesson, I laugh.

Interviewer: What is now presented as the Right-wing, is that Center-Right?

Abauzit: Yes, the heirs of what we called the Orleanists. The center-right emerged under the “July Monarchy” [1830-1848: constitutional monarchy with Louis-Philip as King] but it’s no longer the Right-wing because they considered the Enlightenment as civilizational basis and no longer Christianity. What I call the Right is those we call the Legitimists [supporters of the Bourbons] or Ultras under the Restauration [1815-1830: Bourbons back]. Then an old man tried to restore it a bit but he’s had problems. You know who I mean [Pétain]. The Right-wing is General Weygand. Read Weygand’s criticism of the 3rd republic in a text of June 26 1940 and quite frankly, if you are intellectually honest, you approve of everything. Everything is in there. Criticism of Freemasonry, of mass naturalization, return of God at school: “God, Family, Fatherland.” This guy is France incarnated [with Belgian roots !!]. Weygand, just look at his face, I mean. What emanates from him, smells France.

This does not mean to say that everything that comes from the Left is intellectual sh*t. There can be interesting criticism of capitalism, sociological criticism but the Left does not have a solution to our problems. Why? Because the Left is of necessity uprooted, materialist and atheistic and what is going to give taste and meaning back to our lives […] is the return to the roots and to Christ’s Cross. If you are telling that to leftists they are going nuts. The Left is fundamentally anti-religious. The Left is anti-France. That is the basics.

36.40: Mr Peillon [current minister of education] argues that school should be a place for transubstantiation in order to create Republicans, which means Jacobins […], separated from their social, family, regional, cultural, religious determinisms.[Raphaël Glucksmann argued that] “the project behind the Republican school was an uprooting project, a political project that aimed at taking children away from their ‘terroir’ and their bell tower, at creating citizens out of heirs.” Yes Mr Glucksmann, you perfectly understood what the Republican school’s aims are […]. But I don’t want to be a Jacobin. I’m true to France. What steeped me in culture is the French literature, the French history and being a Jacobin does not interest me.

40.45: The German philosopher Habermas argued that Europe should create a constitutional patriotism. But what is that crap ?? You don’t create the love of a country according to law! What makes you love France is not the trade code, the labour code. You’ve got to be a mentally *** left-winger – that’s a pleonasm, you know – in order to say that. It’s such crap, I mean that guy studied philosophy for 15 years, a great philosopher of our time, how can he drop such crap. You really should have Enlightenment deregulated brains to say that. […] You love a country because of its cultural heritage, its past, its great achievements, its history, its great men, re France: what it’s done for the Christian Cross; etc. etc.

Vid #2 19.50: I don’t think in terms of “Muslims”. What we currently call Islamophobia is the permission to criticize Maghreb people. It means that you may not criticize Maghreb people by calling them Maghreb people because it would be racism. However you may criticize them as Muslims because everybody’s entitled to criticize religions. […] But the Islamic theological canons are off topic for me. If some people decided to believe in it, it’s their problem. Personally, I’d rather they be Christians but if they decided to have these theological canons, it’s their business, you see. […] All Africans are not Muslims of course but Islam is only the veneer of multiculturalism. The heart of the problem is not there. [...] France is not anti-Muslim, if you want, just like it’s not anti-Hindu, not anti-Buddhist, it’s absurd. France has its identity and in its identity there is Christianism, which does not mean to say that you should hate the others on the ground that he’s got a different religion. […]
Everybody’s free not to believe in God, it’s not the problem, though I personally do not recommend it. But France’s identity is what it is and you won’t change it. Roger Martin du Gard in his saga “Les Thibault” had an interesting thought in the mind of his hero. He talked about the people who wants to put their political opinion in accordance with what they individually are: “because I’m homosexual, I advocate for gay marriage”: an individualistic view of things. You project what you individually are in a collective framework and you want to establish your individual interest as norm. […] You don’t have to agree with each component of the ship but you have to respect the way this ship was built. […]
I rather distinguish between “administrative” French and “cultural” French than between “original” French and “immigrant” French because the phrase “administrative French” encompasses all those White people who have denied France. […] a Leftist is a renegate, he’s denied his family, his fatherland, his religion, etc. […] It’s very true that what has caused France most harm in those last centuries is the Enlightenment, this secularism, this atheism, this materialism […] but […] nowadays in 2015, we are getting to the end of the Enlightenment and we are witnessing the concrete & disastrous outcome of this philosophical spirit and people start no longer to approve of it – except the Charlies because them , huh well, it’s too late.
I recently talked about it with a female FN voter who was anti-Islam through and through but at the same time she also rejected the Christian religion “I don’t want any interference of religiosity in the public sphere”, etc. – the idiotic secularist rationale in a way. In the decades to come, I don’t think there will be too many of those anymore because when you have a Islamic dynamic, millions of Muslims on the French territory - and Islam like all religions wants to live, to expand - the atheists won’t be able to oppose anything to Islam because Islam is a faith and faith is stronger the lack of it.[…] Against this dynamic, people will have […] to return to Christ’s Cross. This I’m telling you. […] Religion which used to be something for losers according to the Charlies is getting a new place in the value hierarchy of young Frenchmen.

Interviewer: Isn’t it a positive aspect of immigration? The Muslim community is driving the original French back to its religion. “Look we believe, you don’t.”

Abauzit: […] Yes I believe mass immigration is a Divine punishment for voting left, Enlightenment, etc in order to make France realise that she’s been messing around and to make her react and not to fall asleep in this idiotic, atheistic materialism. Perhaps it was what it took to get rid of this sh*t Enlightenment. […]

Video 3
9.10: Interviewer: The Left explained to the immigrant population that they had the right to be here because their parents had been “colonized”, so they may take their revenge AND you don’t need to integrate, and which is worse, they may exalted their differences, there was an exaltation of difference … TO a certain extent because when they saw veils everywhere, they [the Left] said NO to the difference.

12.28: [Abauzit explaining why the Left is less popular in multikulti areas]: I think that it’s mainly regarding the religious issue. These extra-European population have nevertheless been less “enlightened” than the Euros and there’s still some sort of respect for religiosity and they see that the Left clashes them head-on on that issue. […]
27.13: [Viewer’s question re: that statement] How can Adrien claim those wesh-wesh French with African roots have respect for religiosity when you see what rap music is? […]
[Abauzit’s answer] Well with regards to their family, they were sold a good image of religion but it’s the paradox of rappers. On one side, they value a certain pseudo-Muslim discourse and on the other side, all the values that they are spreading go counter to this faith they claim to be theirs. It’s true it’s ambiguous. Jacobins are schizos […]. So are the Afro-Jacobins.

13.08: [Viewer’s question]: Adrien, you present the Left as the cause of all our trouble… [Abauzit breaking] Yes, it’s the case, absolutely. [rest of the question] isn’t the progressive liberal bourgeois Right destroying France.
[Abauzit] But the liberal, progressive & bourgeois Right is the Left. The Right as I see it is not the UMP. The Right disappeared from the political spectrum in 1944, even at the beginning of the 20th century. The genuine Right, monarchist against revolutionaries, disappeared partly because of the “Ralliement” advocated by Leo XIII [Pope’s alliance with the Republic] but what the chatter is talking about is the Left. The Bourgeoisie’s ideology is the Left. In the 19th century, you had a very clear opposition between the liberal and Republican Bourgeois on one side who defended the Capitalist economy and on the other side the Royalist legitimists who defended the land economy. But the Bourgeoisie’s ideology is the Left. The Left invented capitalism. If you consider capitalism as the reign of money, the society in which the ultimate value and master power is money, then the Left created capitalism, since the Left destroyed the only forces that were able to control money, which means political & religious traditions. Only the spirit as saint Paul described it, can control the matter. Matter against matter, money always wins. And who is the Left dogging since its creation? (the Left is the Enlightenment, it’s a synonym) It attacks the spirit, the religions, the corporations. The Left delivered the working people to the Capital. It destroyed the corporations, the collective rights, the village communities, etc etc. The Left did create wild capitalism. I’m repeating myself because it’s got to sink in, the Left is essentially capitalistic because it attacks the only institutions that are capable of money control. Of course the far-left idiots see themselves as anti-capitalists but they want to destroy the cure to the harm that they claim to oppose to. There’s a mix of hypocrisy and stupidity there. The left idiotizes, anyway. Look at the current bourgeoisie’s discourse, what do you hear? Go to the Church? Vive la France? Defence of the army? Of the fatherland? It’s not really that, or else I’m deaf.

31.39: I already said I wouldn’t be against the expulsion of left-wingers out of France. They also hate France. [Interviewer] But where would they go? [Abauzit] They’ll sort that out themselves. It’s not inconsistent when you see the hatred of France driving an Antifa, e.g. I’d tell him: “but what are you doing here?”

34.27: I’ll tell you, the leftists, I don’t frequent them anymore. They p*ss me off. You can’t talk about anything. They’re structured by Pavlovian reflexes that intellectually tetanise them, which keep them from talking about many topics, they are often uncultured. You must abolish the past, you can’t help yourself from it, you see. I think nothing could be more boring than an evening with left-wingers. You are condemned to frivolousness. Or else you clash them and you are treated as a fascist, that can be fun, playing the bad guy, there was a time, I loved doing that, sending missiles … You are politically incorrect but you should not fear ostracism.

35.45: I’m not talking about Muslims. I don’t claim that the religious issue shouldn’t be raised at some point but it’s not the heart of the problem. There are original French who convert to Islam and I know some who are good people and even good “brothers in arms”. Personally I’d rather the whole humanity becomes Christian but I don’t reduce people to labels, while hoping that someday everybody joins Christ’s Cross, of course. I don’t like it when people say “the Muslims”. It does not mean anything. If you are talking about immigrant populations, a huge part of the sub-Saharian population who cause a lot of trouble to the French people are not Muslim.