SSM Plebiscite

[Thryleon]

Well said. The 'masculinity models' have been in dire need of overhaul for many centuries. Organised religion has much to answer for... but, as you might say, that's another topic for another day (along with the knuckle dragging machismo cultural influences).

Sorry Spotted One, but I have to disagree with you on, "...and heterosexual women do harass gay males, just as heterosexual males harass lesbians, they are real world events!" Nuh, you'll find far too many hetero males deriding gay women (out of abject ignorance) but seldom will you find hetero women being anything but engaging with gay males. It is one of those cliches that is, in the main, quite true. In fact I believe you'll find that women in general are far more accepting of and engaging with gay men and women (unless they've been indoctrinated by some fundamentalist religious claptrap).

Come again?

Why does religion as a whole cop it when its got nothing to do with the price of fish?

This overarching discussion is a complete red herring.

People are told by their religions to treat others as they would have others treat them and then a bunch of other things to help guide people to act the right way based on free will. Ultimately people are never blind sheep.  They like to make up their own mind, and wont simply "do as they are told".  So you get the good with the bad in religion, and then use statistics that are pretty well skewed towards the rotten bunch of the physically dominant gender (lets face it, it would be in reverse if women had the upper hand, and thats just pure biology talking).


If you look for a reason to perpetuate misandry, you will find it.  The trick is to read between the lines.  The vast majority of males could easily be perpetrators, yet choose not to, even though they have the power to become part of the problem.  The reason they don't is because they ACTUALLY respect people.  The ones who don't are the outliers, and the statistics would show that the majority of issues are perpetrated by the minority of males that are simply abusing their status.

END>

Stop attacking all men, and these arguments gain more ground, but it garners a lot of support in certain circles who just happen to be major misandrists.  My generation of males (born 1982 and beyond) is bearing the brunt of all the old dinosaurs who are the majority of the issue.

[LP]

Well said. The 'masculinity models' have been in dire need of overhaul for many centuries. Organised religion has much to answer for... but, as you might say, that's another topic for another day (along with the knuckle dragging machismo cultural influences).

Sorry Spotted One, but I have to disagree with you on, "...and heterosexual women do harass gay males, just as heterosexual males harass lesbians, they are real world events!" Nuh, you'll find far too many hetero males deriding gay women (out of abject ignorance) but seldom will you find hetero women being anything but engaging with gay males. It is one of those cliches that is, in the main, quite true. In fact I believe you'll find that women in general are far more accepting of and engaging with gay men and women (unless they've been indoctrinated by some fundamentalist religious claptrap).

While I agree in general, the use of an adjective like engaging is very subjective, unless every-time you have witnessed this behavior you have actually asked "the victim" the question to validate that perception. Provocative isn't it, the choice of adjective from a certain perceptive cannot be labeled invalid, but it doesn't mean because it can't be invalidated that it is valid!

The problem with the door opening example, is that there was no protest at the time, the lack of protest wasn't a valid reaction, and no feedback was offered to the persecuted. Thry's point on this matter is very valid. Subjectively I could say the act of opening the door was nothing more than being engaging, yet it was label as offensive because of a personal perspective, and a committee agreed! When or how can that be predicted, it seems chaotic?

That door opening case as an example is just as valid as Jenkins reference to lesbian conversions, are we really free to pick and choose which carries greater weight? It seems arbitrary to discount one and reinforce the other.

It's not right Baggers, no matter whether positive discrimination is the right solution or not!

[Baggers]

Organised religion has evolved based on anthropocentrism, dualism and patriarchy.  The spirituality that underlies the various religions is actually pretty good IMO.

Couldn't agree more. In the words of Carl Jung, (paraphrased), 'religion gets in the way of spirituality/spiritual experiences.'

[PaulP]

...................

People are told by their religions to treat others as they would have others treat them and then a bunch of other things to help guide people to act the right way based on free will. Ultimately people are never blind sheep.  They like to make up their own mind, and wont simply "do as they are told"........
.................

This is a huge topic which is well beyond a footy forum, but at a bare minimum, you need to distinguish between the rank and file and the hierarchy in most religions, because IMO, the gap is huge. What you say about basic respect for others is indeed representative of the rank and file (who "generally" try to do good), not just contemporaneously, but also throughout history, where you had mendicant orders like the Dominicans which were established specifically to go out into the world and help others and generally do good. The church hierarchy is another matter entirely.

 

[Thryleon]

This is a huge topic which is well beyond a footy forum, but at a bare minimum, you need to distinguish between the rank and file and the hierarchy in most religions, because IMO, the gap is huge. What you say about basic respect for others is indeed representative of the rank and file (who "generally" try to do good), not just contemporaneously, but also throughout history, where you had mendicant orders like the Dominicans which were established specifically to go out into the world and help others and generally do good. The church hierarchy is another matter entirely.

Exactly why attacking religion is wrong.  You want to attack the "CLERGY" of SPECIFIC religions and not religion itself.  As an orthodox christian, who donates what I wish, and receives nothing but spirituality in return, I resent anyone lumping religion into one category.  My local priest is a good family man, as the Greek Orthodox Church allows priests to be married and have their own church.  Our priest visits our family and knows and remembers everyone even though he is well into his 70's.  Where people use dogma to their own end, all they show you is how evil people can be.

[PaulP]

Exactly why attacking religion is wrong.  You want to attack the "CLERGY" of SPECIFIC religions and not religion itself.  As an orthodox christian, who donates what I wish, and receives nothing but spirituality in return, I resent anyone lumping religion into one category.  My local priest is a good family man, as the Greek Orthodox Church allows priests to be married and have their own church.  Our priest visits our family and knows and remembers everyone even though he is well into his 70's.  Where people use dogma to their own end, all they show you is how evil people can be.

Religion is a fairly loose word that on a detailed level, can mean different things to different people. For some, the church hierarchy is the church, and one can't look at the rank and file without looking at the hierarchy.

Now priestly celibacy is an interesting topic for another 1000 page discussion..........

[Baggers]

Exactly why attacking religion is wrong.  You want to attack the "CLERGY" of SPECIFIC religions and not religion itself.  As an orthodox christian, who donates what I wish, and receives nothing but spirituality in return, I resent anyone lumping religion into one category.  My local priest is a good family man, as the Greek Orthodox Church allows priests to be married and have their own church.  Our priest visits our family and knows and remembers everyone even though he is well into his 70's.  Where people use dogma to their own end, all they show you is how evil people can be.

Firstly, I should qualify what I am discussing when I use the word 'religion' in a negative way - Old Testament, fundamentalism, in fact any religion that sets itself above other religions/spiritualities and without whose blessing (due to unswerving loyalty) you'll be condemned to an existence of eternal suffering after death.

Secondly, 3 Leos, I absolutely do not want to offend you or call into question the validity of your commitment to your faith. There are many, many decent folks who do their religion/spirituality proud. Sadly, the same cannot be said of many in positions of power/control/leadership. So much good has been done at community level by Christians who seem to get 'spirituality' and go about their work without negative judgement and assessment and condemnation of those 'different' to them, or having a different 'faith' or no faith.

Thirdly, millions of people have had their lives devastated, in a myriad of ways, by religious teachings.

Fourthly, I'd like to be thought of as not 'attacking' religion but rather calling into question its validity and influence over the centuries, not to mention the whole idea of reverence, fear and obedience to an invisible 'man' in the sky.

My experiences and observations of fundamentalist interpretations of the Old Testament are that considerable power was and is placed in the hands of a few men at the top of the church tree. So many of these men were and are psychologically ill-equipped to have such control over peoples lives (and their subordinates - though the present day Pope seems different, he seems to be someone who understands spirituality... and humility). The literal interpretations/teachings (or manipulated misinterpretations) of the Old Testament are simply dangerous... as evidenced by the incredible guilt they embed in their followers, their reduction of women and demonizing of gay folks... not to mention violence toward those they deem 'unfit'...etc.

Abe Lincoln refused to belong to a church and when asked why, he replied, "I have never united myself to any church because I have found difficulty in giving my assent without mental reservation to the long complicated statements of Christian doctrine which characterize their articles of belief and confessions of faith. When any church will inscribe over its altar as the sole qualification for membership the Savior's condensed statement of the substance of both law and gospel: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind, and love thy neighbor as thyself," that church I will join with all my heart."

Even in 1860 Abe dared point out the hypocrisy of Christianity. (When Abe said the above he silenced the Archbishop who was in attendance and critical of his non attendance at church).

You use the word, 'evil' perhaps in a biblical sense (the devil etc) whereas I see evil as a human construct... but that is another huge topic on its own.

[Raydan]

Why religion is being discussed has me baffled, there is only one religion that belongs on here and that's Carlton.

However not to slag and run, Religion is defended by many and is thought that is you are religious you are good, when that is so far from the truth it's not funny.

Look at all the things that have been done around churches; wars, denigration of gender, sexual orientation and race, child molestation... and there just for starters.

Religion and Gods were thought of by primitive man when they had no science to explain why certain things happened, why the sun went dark from time to time (eclipse) why there was floods, why droughts, why insect plagues.

I love to read Ricky Gervais and George Carlin's take on religion, they pretty much nail it, in my opinion. Jesus / God preaches tolerance, love and understanding, unless you disagree with anything that they say then you're beyond help, sounds like a cult to me, which is all that religion is. The Pope is the leader of the biggest cult ever and Catholicism says that a priest should not take a wife, if they do they will be cast out. However you can be a paedophile (it $hits me off that I know how to spell that word) and the church will protect you.

That being said, I have no problem with anyone belonging to any religion they wish. My three kids have the choice to believe in what they want, my eldest two don't believe in God, my youngest is in cubs and is taught some Christian things through there and he does and when my eldest two ask why, I say because he can.

Being a good person does not go hand in glove with being religious, despite what the religious would have you feel, some of the worst people in the world Adolf Hitler devout Christian who wanted to "cleanse the world of the Jewish" in the name of God, how many extreme Muslim factions have done harm to the world, or how many American Presidents, who all claim to be religious have ordered hits and civilian targets to win a battle?

Religion is unnecessary, just be good to people, treat them how you wish to be treated, if you have the tools to help someone, then help and bring your kids up well with respect and independent thinking.

[PaulP]

Ray, whilst I generally agree, I think if you look closely you will see that materialist science, which is the current dominant paradigm, has become as intolerant and dogmatic as religion was back in the day. Science cannot, and was never meant to, explain all of reality. Science is very useful, and it has certainly been successful, but it needs to restrict itself to the subset of phenomena that it is equipped to explore. The big problem is that science currently thinks that if it cannot explain something, then that something is either BS, pseudoscience, or simply not worth knowing. Which is completely wrong.

[deags]

Ray, whilst I generally agree, I think if you look closely you will see that materialist science, which is the current dominant paradigm, has become as intolerant and dogmatic as religion was back in the day. Science cannot, and was never meant to, explain all of reality. Science is very useful, and it has certainly been successful, but it needs to restrict itself to the subset of phenomena that it is equipped to explore. The big problem is that science currently thinks that if it cannot explain something, then that something is either BS, pseudoscience, or simply not worth knowing. Which is completely wrong.

This is just not correct.
Science aims to go past hypothesising about something, and actually testing the hypothesis in a non judgmental way in order to merely state "at this present time, under current conditions, this seems to be true/false".
The problem "science" has with pseudoscience is that pseudoscience is much like the philosophers of old. Pseudoscience draws conclusions based on observation without testing those conclusions. "Hey that kid has autism, he had immunisations, therefore the immunisations gave him autism". "Today is unseasonably cool. But I thought we were in the midst of global warming".
Science acknowledges that it is near impossible to prove a negative.