Elton John, claiming believers become "hateful lemmings," feels religion should be be banned completely from society. Because most religions are anti-gay, Elton is anti-religion. He thinks banning it is the solution to many of the worlds problems.
Saying there aren't enough musicians performing concerts and rallying for peace like they did in the 1960s, things would be different if the late John Lennon were still alive today.
I agree not just because of the homosexuality issue but just in general. Religion is tearing this world apart. Elton should know that it's not even clear what The Bible says regarding homosexuality.
it's odd how people claiming to be liberal can be so ironically fascist. elton references the soviet bloc as part of his argument, yet if i remember correctly, didn't the soviet union also try to ban religion completely? hatred and intolerance is a bad quality in people, not religion. the majority of religions are philosophically sound. it's the imperfect interpretation which results in war and death. if you want to stop hatred then you're going to need to ban breeding. it's quite naive to think the end of religion equals the end of hate. we can say "oh, well religion is responsible for so many deaths..." yes, but using that logic we could also say that science is responsible for more. stop trying to find a scapegoat and fix your own hatred first. sir elton obviously has some of his own to resolve.
Banning religion will not solve anything much. Religion as such is not to blame. Power hungry leaders utilise whatever unites the people whether it is religion, nationalism, hunger, hatred... The only thing you'll do by banning religion is make it that much more popular, human nature being what it is.
People will always find ways to be hostile to one another. At the moment Religion is as good a reason as any. In fact, in recent times it's been used as an excuse/smoke screen to mask something more insidious. Take religion away and friction will only be caused by something else.
Lets look at some of the things that could and already do cause friction (for one reason or another):
Skin Colour Language Wealth Success Potential
All of the above (and this is a very quick list i didn't even need to start thinking about), can cause friction between one group or another.
Banning religion may be one way to cut down hostility I wont deny this. But its in our nature to want more than we have, to be envious of those who have what we don't and in some cases to use violence to gain what we want.
So I guess the real question should be: Are we inclined to eventually destroy ourselves?
What an ignorant comment. Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people. (And yes i expect people will probably try and flame me for that comment)
IMO he's just sore that most major religions don't support his lifestyle choice.
If we ban all religions does that mean we also ban jobs, cars, guns etc. I know plenty of people who worship their jobs and/or their positions of power. It's not the religions fault that people twist it to use it for their own benefits. An example is Christianity. It preaches to love your neighbor but to hate the sin they commit. People twist it to say hate your neighbor and love sin.
I don't know. It's comments like these that make me fail to see the difference between the terrorists spouting their messages, and idiots spouting stupid comments like this
It should be illegal to force children to go to church and participate in something to do not choose or understand. Religion should be introduced to children as a class in school, but not until they are 13 - 15 so they can make their own decision as to whether or not they want to be part of it. Parents who brainwash their children into any religion should be jailed, and should have their children taken away. Its child abuse.
You don't pick your skin colour, gender or sexual orientation, but you do pick your religious beliefs.
If you want to believe in a jolly fat man with a beard that rewards good behaviour and punishes the bad, then fine. Just don't try forcing it on me, or expect me to live by your daft rules.
You don't see people starting wars and killing a lot of people in the name of Darwin's book. So maybe religion should be used as a reference or intellectual book.
that religion is a matter of choice. I think society, parents, friends and geographical location has a huge impact on which religion we are going to believe in.
I think it bears close similarities to our language, which we don't choose either. It's already pre-chosen for us.
Becoming adults and thinking individuals (hah) we do however have a chance to change faith or get rid of it altogether . But most of the time we're just fine with what we already have.
"It should be illegal to force children to go to church and participate in something to do not choose or understand. Religion should be introduced to children as a class in school, but not until they are 13 - 15 so they can make their own decision as to whether or not they want to be part of it. Parents who brainwash their children into any religion should be jailed, and should have their children taken away. Its child abuse."
I think anyone with an opinion like this should be jailed and castrated. Not because it will help anything, but because you deserve it.
What's wrong with the opinion, other than that you do not like it? If you're defending the track record of the religious, you're doing a heckuva job. ;)
Oh not at all, unlike a lot of SN members I choose to represent myself, un-censored.
I am one of those guys that says what the average guy is thinking, but wont say.
The 'PC' generation has had enough fun, people need to stand up to it and just say what they think, instead of backing down from arguments when they get called things like "insensitive".
"It should be illegal to force children to go to church and participate in something to do not choose or understand...until they are 13 - 15 so they can make their own decision as to whether or not they want to be part of it."
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, the religious have already made it clear as they've forced various social agendas that children ought to be protected from things which may leave life-altering impressions upon them. Religion is certainly such a thing, in that it shapes a child's entire view and understanding of the world around them, so if gay marriage is to be forbidden because it somehow increases a child's exposure to homosexuality, how does religion get off the hook for shaping an entire worldview?
On the other hand, parents can teach their children whatever they like, within reason. I do, personally, support a child being able to adopt their own beliefs, rather than being indoctrinated with them, but to involve the government is just a bad idea. The government can barely deal with far more harmful abuses as it is.
"Parents who brainwash their children into any religion should be jailed, and should have their children taken away. Its child abuse."
No, you go too far - it is their choice. The VAST majority of these beliefs are no more harmful than belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. I do think we ought to break from the perception that religion is necessarily a positive influence on a child, but lets not go overboard.
"Religion should be introduced to children as a class in school..."
Let's not get the schools involved, it's just unnecessary. Kids of age could go to church for this just as easily and with much greater efficacy.
Yes, yes, I know how trendy it is in conservative circles to shoot your mouth off and say you're being un-PC. It's funny and ironic how a simple backlash can be seen as laudable, as if being more offensive for its own sake is better than being less. I also know how much of a tendency people have to ascribe their own beliefs to the majority, as you do.
If the majority think people ought to be jailed and castrated for having a strongly anti-religious opinion, we as a society have greater problems. Such an idea is just stupid and fanatical. Obviously it's just a thoughtless kneejerk reaction, too, since you cannot take up the challenge of defending such a foolish assertion.
I would say that schools are absolutely integral to making this work. What kids need is some context around the teachings presented to them through religion. The problem isn't really religion. As always, it is ignorance.
I suppose it would help if a child's first introduction to religions in general was a secular third-party providing a broad overview. I just wonder if we can trust our flawed education system with such a task.
Also, can you imagine how many lawsuits would be over people feeling their religion did not get quite enough attention?
Unfortunately I don't think our education system can do a good job of it. It certainly doesn't do a good job of providing context around science. I find it absolutely sickening how many 'educated' individuals will make 'science disproves god' arguments.
I don't really believe you need to teach specifics about each religion. Rather I want schools to provide the critical thinking skills that kids need to understand religion on their own. I believe those skills should be fundamental to a basic education. It's just too bad that real world education systems are more about socializing the kids than they are about educating them.
I could care less about gay marriage, abortion, drugs, etc.
People are going to do what they want anyway, why try to stop? It like me telling you your opinion is wrong. It isn't going to change anything, I could yell until I am blue in the face and the only thing it would accomplish is a stomach ulcer.
So, you go ahead and 'group' me if it makes you feel any better in your 'war against religion/government/conservatism' at the end of the day your just going to be blue in the face.
As for Sir Elton's comment; I just think it is funny that there isn't a religion that favors his lifestyle, so he lashes out against it all.
Bane: I think we agree, then, that an unbiased introduction would be best. It's a pity that is so hard to find these days, and I would reluctantly agree that the best institution to do so would be a school. That being the case, God help us all, pun intended.
Classy: I'll take a shot at making heads or tails out of what you're said here. Bear with me.
"I am about as 'conservative' as you are 'liberal'
I could care less about gay marriage, abortion, drugs, etc."
I assume you are trying to assert your non-partisanship here, given that I'm a Libertarian (financially/politically conservative). Since you've posted at length on these things (presenting Republican, not conservative, opinions) and try to peg me as some kind of Liberal later, I am more than a little confused...perhaps you'll clarify what you think you mean.
"People are going to do what they want anyway, why try to stop? It like me telling you your opinion is wrong. It isn't going to change anything, I could yell until I am blue in the face and the only thing it would accomplish is a stomach ulcer."
Right, so why insist upon castration for those with whom you disagree, save to simply be controversial and extremist? Why not engage the issue he presents?
"So, you go ahead and 'group' me if it makes you feel any better in your 'war against religion/government/conservatism' at the end of the day your just going to be blue in the face."
Wow, what irony, while you pigeonhole me as someone trying to pigeonhole you, you completely miss any point I was making. You make the mistake of assuming anyone not calling for John's head must be anti-religious, when in fact I defend Christianity (and most religions) as good ideas often hijacked by bad people. You make the mistake of thinking attempts to keep government out of enforcing religious policies and peoples' lives is anti-government, when in fact that it is merely a cornerstone of conservative belief that government ought to be kept small and keep out of social policy. And against conservatism? I contend you don't even know what the word means, and such people are the ones truly bringing the ideology down - much the same problem religion has.
If you are trying to say something else here, please add clarity, because I feel I've not much to work with.
"As for Sir Elton's comment; I just think it is funny that there isn't a religion that favors his lifestyle, so he lashes out against it all."
Actually, a number of churches and denominations have supported the GLBT community in the past and it becomes more common today. The idea that religion as a whole is vehemently anti-gay is an idea held only by the worst among them and the most uninformed or scarred apat from them. John may be what is best termed an "old queen" - jaded, tired, and bitter in his autumn years.
"Actually, a number of churches and denominations have supported the GLBT community in the past and it becomes more common today."
They support them...and don't talk about homosexuality in church (More PC/BS) - while the intent is good, its the eqivilant of a lie.
"Since you've posted at length on these things (presenting Republican, not conservative, opinions) and try to peg me as some kind of Liberal later, I am more than a little confused...perhaps you'll clarify what you think you mean."
You can classify my opinions any way that you would like - just because I don't agree with gay marriage doesn't make me a repub, or the popular 'neo-con' - I just don't agree with it. Sure, its a popular Conservative belief, I just don't consider myself a conservative.
"Right, so why insist upon castration for those with whom you disagree, save to simply be controversial and extremist? Why not engage the issue he presents?"
Ideas such as "We should not let people" "Or people shouldn't be allowed to" don't dignify a response. In the free world, people should be allowed to do as they please, as long as it does not physically hurt anyone/anything else.
Elton's career is on the down, his music is old, and not interesting to the modern market, so naturally it's time to stir the controversy pot and see what bubbles to the surface.
The world today is very little like the world of the 1960s, but that has next to nothing to do with religion.
There will always be people who are easily lead, and whose ignorance can be used as a weapon against any target at all - in this, religion is no different to any other motive force that can be applied to the mob mentality.
Religion, however, and in particular, Christianity, does have redeeming qualities - particularly in the teachings of Christ, and in the striving to live a life that exemplifies those teachings.
Humans are - and always will be - flawed and imperfect, mentally, emotionally, and even physically. It's called the human condition. The ultimate result of eliminating imperfection is the elimination of the entire human race.
It is very easy indeed to speak of something with the broad brush of generality - the problem is, it is rarely true. No two people think or believe exactly alike. The motivations that drive life can be categorized and treated generally, but the motivations of the individual more complex - the same reason theories and principles that can be used to predict group mentality and movement fall apart when applied to the individual.
For almost every Christian, the Bible reinforces only those beliefs they agree with, thus the difference between what is professed and what is believed and even what is desired. This is human nature and the limitation of prior experience. A person cannot truly hate gays or believe that they are evil, solely because the Bible says so - it must be a preexisting or otherwise evolved belief. The text reveals and supports the existing beliefs of people, it does not and cannot create them.
This is where the fallacy of blaming any construct or institution for humanity own faults falls down. Hate is by and large a function of ignorance and primitive aggression against what is not understood, accepted, or perceived as normal. However it is manifested, in whatever guise, it is the revelation of the human condition, and it will always exist, no matter what you legislate, outlaw or make taboo.
If we, with perfect eyes, could see and understand the entire universe of an individuals physical, mental, and emotional motivators, we would have no need to experience hate or ignorant aggression. In understanding comes acceptance, tolerance and compassion.
"[Certain churches] support [gays]...and don't talk about homosexuality in church (More PC/BS) - while the intent is good, its the eqivilant of a lie."
I don't even know where to start here. Who are you to say what they do or do not do, or what is true either behind their doors or in their hearts? Have you been to these churches, or are you merely imagining some dishonesty so their position makes sense to you? Once again, I see no factual basis for your assertions, merely unsubstantiated claims. They do not reject homosexuals. They do not oppose gay marriage. That much has been made public, and unless you have proof otherwise, you have nothing upon which to impugn their integrity.
"You can classify my opinions any way that you would like - just because I don't agree with gay marriage doesn't make me a repub, or the popular 'neo-con' - I just don't agree with it. Sure, its a popular Conservative belief, I just don't consider myself a conservative."
I really doubt at this point that you're really reading what I am posting. I do not care to classify your opinions (which seems to be your distraction), nor do I consider you Conservative because I do not consider your opinions Conservative. I do consider them socially conservative (in lacking all other elements of Conservatism) or more simply Republican/Neoconservative because they have a dogmatic, partisan-flavor. That aside, let's stop debating what I think of your positions or how you would label yourself and get to the ideas themselves, or why you "just don't agree with it." Too many people think that simply holding a belief is enough for it to be respected - not so.
"[Why suggest castration?] Ideas such as "We should not let people" "Or people shouldn't be allowed to" don't dignify a response."
But you did respond, and you advocated eugenics to curb a viewpoint you dislike. When questioned, you did nothing to step away from the response, but rather claimed it was honesty from the heart that most people are afraid to reveal.
"In the free world, people should be allowed to do as they please, as long as it does not physically hurt anyone/anything else."
That seems at odds with your past statements...so what is so wrong or harmful with questioning the benefit of religion to the young? Furthermore, in this free world, why oughtn't gays to get married, again? I really fail to see who is harmed by extending equal rights to them.
"This is where the fallacy of blaming any construct or institution for humanity own faults falls down."
Ah, but can one blame religion for the misdeeds (inciting hatred, meddling in politics, etc) of its agents and institutions? I would say not, but some of this darkness does reach pretty near to the top...
I suppose it all comes back to speaking in careless generalities.
"Furthermore, in this free world, why oughtn't gays to get married, again? I really fail to see who is harmed by extending equal rights to them."
I agree.
"don't even know where to start here. Who are you to say what they do or do not do, or what is true either behind their doors or in their hearts? Have you been to these churches, or are you merely imagining some dishonesty so their position makes sense to you?"
Yes, as a matter of fact the church i grew up in (19 years a member) started advertising to homosexuals, but would not dare preach about it. It was that sensitive 'PC' subject. Which is why i say, the intent is good(Getting people to hear the word), its a smokescreen(Cant tell the TRUE word without people being offended and leaving)
Ah, but what was the "true" word, by their interpretation? Perhaps their opinion was that what some regard as the true word worth preaching about was really an archaic, outdated passage with no relevance today, and thusly of no value in teaching the word of Christ (who said nothing about homosexuals). That would not be dishonesty, merely a different interpretation of scripture. It is so vehemently and widely preached in some churches because it is seen as a big deal, why mention it if you do not?
I grew up in an ELCA Lutheran church in the rural midwest (no gay community to advertise to there), and the topic was never emphasized. I imagine the readings may have meandered through Leviticus, but there was no stopping to talk aobut the sin of homosexuality. It simply was not important.
In regards to your discussion on introduction to religion, we need to be careful about what we wish for.
While I agree that many children are forced into the religion their parents follow (I know I was) I really don't want my kids exposed to religion at schools since they would get a picture of how the individual teaching the class sees that religion. Rather than teaching religion, I want schools to teach my kids how to think and use logic.
I know many people I know that grew up in religious families along with myself don't follow the same religion we grew up in (if any) because we thought things through and had open descussions about religion and found that most followers of organized religion DO NOT follow the teachings of that religion. Example in my life (raised Christain) was "love the sinner, hate the sin." That was constantly taught at our church but the people condemned you for the smallest of errors.
I see where people feel that young children get brainwashed when forced into a religion by their parents but I don't think it is the government's place to teach religion since we are supposed to have a seperation of church and state (at least here in the US).
Ok, done rambling: in summary; I agree with the concept, not the method of accomplishing it.
No, not really. I think it also comes down to personal responsibility - the fact that we are all, each of us, responsible for our own lives and how we act. It's very easy, for example, to blame Islam for the rise in Islamic violence, and the aggressive, hateful and intolerant statements and actions generated. This would be flawed though, as the root cause is mostly ignorance - and that encompasses a lack of understanding of other views, of our own place within the global community and the scope of human variety, of the causal path to events that effect us and so on.
We can very easily blame religion for the actions of its practitioners, but religion by itself is nothing more than a construct. It is a framework that is powered and directed by the practitioner.
An example: suppose that someone were heard to say "I wish the Bible wasn't against gays, so that I wouldn't have to hate them"
It is clear from this simplistic and contrived case, that the person merely uses the Bible to excuse their hatred of gays. The Bible does not drive their hatred, it justifies a hatred that is already there. If the person did not hate gays then they would find exception with the Bible on that point.
A personal example - I believe homosexuality is unnatural, and that it is wrong. This is my personal belief, in my eyes, the Bible reinforces this belief - however, even if it didn't, I would still feel just as strongly about the issue.
In Thelema, the golden rule is "Do what thou wilt, though it harm none" - roughly, do what you want as long as you don't harm anyone in the process. This rule can be used to justify and reinforce any of the practitioners beliefs that it matches with.
In the end, if people didn't agree with the tenets of their religion, they would not follow it. Agreement requires coincidence of a persons belief system with the codified rules of the religion.
kinda funny how he associated "religion" ONLY WITH CHRISTIANITY. Jesus isn't EVERYONE'S savior when it comes to religion....that are literally 100's of them - why would someone want to ban them all because a few may be "anti-gay"??? Maybe he should look into the Amish lifestyle - they're accepting of a lot of people. Quakers too. But, if he had this wish, everyone wouldn't be able to practice their faith.
I got a phrase that Elton John could go do...but I would probably have my IP blocked if I typed it.
Like I said, John seems to be an old queen these days, and we already knew he was eccentric. I see no point in defending him, but there is some merit to discussing childhood exposure to religion. Such discussion, though, seems to necessarily end with acknowledgement of A) parental rights, and B) the insufficiency of our present school system to deliver uniform, objective information. Frankly, I see no acceptable way around either.
If your going to do it, do it, if not then don't do it.
In the Bible homosexuality is condemned and in the same sentence as adultery, fornication and lying.
At the same time it is not for Christians to run around judging folks who do these things. You can teach them about these things but at the same time it's up to them to follow it or not. It's not up to you to run around town beating people and polictically protesting.
Instead of doing that you should do what Jesus did and teach people about the Bible if you love it so much.
Not beat people up with it. What would Jesus do? He wouldn't run around protesting and beating folks up for their lifestyle.
That is a personal choice, it's called free will. IF they do not choose our way of believing that is not our place. It's up to God to judge, not us.
Religion is a part of many problems, because they say they follow the Bible but as the Bible says, they have a form of Godly devotion but prove false
2 Tim 3:5 , 5 having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away
If you say you believe in the Bible, then actually do what it says. No hatred, you do your job of telling folks about the Bible, let them choose, and it's up to God at that point, not you. You are in no place to judge. God gave you your place to teach, but how can you teach anyone the Bible if you do not even follow it yourself in your "hatred teachings" and extremism
i purposely left out the hyphen in the title as i felt it would make the title misleading more so than without it. it ties the words closer together, and many people have not the mind to separate them, making it look closer to Antichrist, even without [the] definite-article included.
i did get stabbed for misleading title which was modified not by me.
from answers dot com: "The rules of style that apply to dashes and hyphens have evolved to support ease of reading in complex constructions; editors often accept deviations from them that will support, rather than hinder, ease of reading."
my choice was to leave it out.
elton john must be aware that he was given the title [Sir] by a British order of chivalry, The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire.
"The motto of the Order is 'For God and the Empire'."
"After some debate, St Paul's Cathedral was nominated by a special committee and approved by The Queen, as the Chapel of the Order."
w w w.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4886.asp
so, if he is against the church, it seems attaching the [Sir] to his name is an oxymoron.
