Beren and martian, if you read my post, i never said that there was only hatred and violence in these books, nor did i say that religion was the only cause for the violence and wars. All i'm saying is that there is A logical path from religion to violence. (not the only path)

1) Thank you for getting my name right. Spell-check sometimes switches it to "Martin." So thank you for that.

2) When I hear "religion," my first thought is "Christianity." Christ's way isn't to start wars; that's not what he taught, so I was coming to Christianity's aid specifically without thinking of the others. Sorry about that.

3) You are not wrong. The Aztecs are a prime example.

I'm not really sure this post belongs on the forum of a online risk game..

It does as long as it is in the 'Off-topic" forum, which it is. This is the section where everyone is annoyed by everybody equally, except for your leader Жұқтыру, who tries to disprove everything in existence. He has been disliked by everyone who visits this forum at least once.

i think there was a point hinted at but not fully formed. marriage is a religious ceremony to some, but in the eyes of the law, marriage is just about law.

before the supreme court ruling you could still get married to a person of the same sex, but certain states wouldn't recognize the marriage and wouldn't give you the same rights as a sanctioned married couple. what the supreme court said, essentially, is that same sex marriages get the exact same rights as opposite sex marriages.

there is nothing religious or anti-religious about what the supreme court did. gay people were getting married before any state "legalized" it, sometimes in front a priest. the only thing that changed is the legal rights granted to gay marriage.

don't worry, ruth bader ginsburg didn't force god to let homosexuals into heaven. she only allowed homosexuals to fill out joint tax returns.

@125ch209, ah OK, it seemed like you were trying to claim that religion is only a source of violence. Like I said, if people want to do these things, they're very good at coming up with justifications for them, and religion is often a very convenient one.

Typical. Simply blame religion for all the world's problems. You're trying to label something as evil simply because of radicals doing bad things. Worse things have been done over money,political power,resources,etc.

No. Their books all have parts you can interpret to support those things. If you don't want me to call your religion barbaric, just make up one that doesn't have parts like Leviticus, Deuteronomy,... All those atrocities didn't happen out of a vacuum, but because your omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent "god" in all its "might" failed miserably at conveying its "message of peace" to its followers for ages, if it had the intent of bringing any kind of peace and tolerance to the world. LOL

As to be expected you focus on everything bad religions have done in the past while conveniently ignoring all the good things that have been. In older times religious monasteries and libraries would often be one of the only safeguards of ancient knowledge. In modern times religious groups are often the highest donors to charity groups and tend to perform a lot of public service around the world.

Yes, what else did you expect, that I use the good parts to argue it's bad? I don't ignore the good parts, for obvious reasons I just don't use them to argue religion is bad. I don't for one second think the higher fraction of charity being religiously motivated you claim and all those other things come anywhere close to outweighing e.g. christianity's murderous rampages and oppressions over the centuries. Just saying.

Marriage is a religious ceremony, thus religious people have the right to not perform a marriage that would violate their beliefs. Go have a government judge do it instead if the priest says no. Don't cry and whine about religion getting involved with your life when you won't stop shoving your nose into other people's religion. If you blame religion for your problems and try to force people to violate their beliefs,then YOU are the problem, get over it!

I don't agree they should have that right. I don't care if you call something religious. I don't consider "religious" a word that deserves recognizion in the law. If you invent some superstitious club and say "come and get married - as long as you aren't gay/black/etc.", I think some universal anti-discrimination laws should stop you from that. It's as simple as that. I want a society where racism and discrimination is made a thing of the past.
Also for the record, I absolutely wouldn't want religious marriage myself. I'd prefer to see christianity be a thing of the past, and I'd wish gay people would look back at history what it has done and stop wanting to associate with it. To me it's almost as stupid as a jew who becomes nazi. But until that day, I don't feel any sympathy to protect some christians' eager to discriminate, lol.

I'm getting fed up with all the people who think that the wishes of minority groups should always trump the views and beliefs of any larger groups.

Fortunately, your view against gay marriage is a minority view here in Denmark and won't trump the views and beliefs of the majority for it.

Bla's post seemed to imply that even religious leaders should have to perform gay marriage, so that's what I was talking about.

They don't have to. They can just stop marrying people if they can't handle not discriminating.

Bla's post seemed to imply that even religious leaders should have to perform gay marriage, so that's what I was talking about.

They don't have to. They can just stop marrying people if they can't handle not discriminating.

Or gay couples could be married in court.

I don't for one second think the higher fraction of charity being religiously motivated you claim and all those other things come anywhere close to outweighing e.g. christianity's murderous rampages and oppressions over the centuries. Just saying.

You can't hold a modern group responsible for the crimes committed by their ancestors, that's utterly ridiculous. This is like treating Germany as an evil country because of what the Nazis did. Or saying that Denmark is evil because of the Vikings pillaging,raping,etc.

Does the modern day good of Christianity outweigh the crusades? Invalid question, for you can't put a group on trail for crimes it's modern day members had NOTHING to do with.

I don't consider "religious" a word that deserves recognizion in the law.

It doesn't matter if you consider it or not. Freedom of religion is built into the very constitution of many countries around the world. Your anti-religious prejudice doesn't change that.

I think some universal anti-discrimination laws should stop you from that.

You can't use anti-discrimination as justification for discriminating. Forcing a religious institution to perform gay marriage against their beliefs IS clear violation of freedom of religion.

I want a society where racism and discrimination is made a thing of the past.

But anti-religious prejudice runs rampant. Such forward thinking.

I don't feel any sympathy to protect some christians' eager to discriminate

I don't feel any sympathy for some homosexuals who are trying to shove their views on others by attempting to force churches to marry them against their own beliefs when there is a clear and obvious alternative, marriage by the court.

Fortunately, your view against gay marriage is a minority view here in Denmark and won't trump the views and beliefs of the majority for it.

That's funny, I clearly recall you moaning in another thread (Or was it earlier in this very thread?) about how badly gay people get treated in Denmark. (Despite Denmark being one of the most gay friendly countries in the world.)

They don't have to. They can just stop marrying people if they can't handle not discriminating.

Or how about this? Gay couples can go and get married by the state courts instead of being tyrants attempting to force their more liberal views on traditional leaning people. Most already do this, but you want to defend the twisted minority that doesn't.

Bla, your attitude sickens me. I know a lot of Atheists and a lot of LGBT supporters, and you're making both groups look bad. You attack religion with the same prejudice and bigotry you claim to oppose. Look in the mirror sometime, you're more like your enemy than you think.

Edited 7/5/2015 17:57:05

You can't hold a modern group responsible for the crimes committed by their ancestors, that's utterly ridiculous. This is like treating Germany as an evil country because of what the Nazis did. Or saying that Denmark is evil because of the Vikings pillaging,raping,etc.

Does the modern day good of Christianity outweigh the crusades? Invalid question, for you can't put a group on trail for crimes it's modern day members had NOTHING to do with.

This wasn't a question of modern vs old christianity. Unlike Germany who abandoned the ideas put forward in Mein Kampf, the case isn't the same for religions, who cling to books filled with murderous verses. Those books have never changed. And so there's no surprise that still today we see ISIS, and also plenty of African countries like Uganda trying e.g. to implement death penalty for homosexuality, inspired by christianity and American missionaries. I'm not holding all christians responsible for that, because indeed not all christians believe in that, but I'm holding the religion responsible for it, because a part of its foundation contains the motivation for it. And any good and slightly competent god would've known what a failure that book turned out to be for humanity.

It doesn't matter if you consider it or not. Freedom of religion is built into the very constitution of many countries around the world. Your anti-religious prejudice doesn't change that.

Constitutions are written by people and can be changed. All it takes is a revolution.

You can't use anti-discrimination as justification for discriminating. Forcing a religious institution to perform gay marriage against their beliefs IS clear violation of freedom of religion.

I'll simply have to disagree that it's discrimination to tell them not to discriminate or have another job.

That's funny, I clearly recall you moaning in another thread (Or was it earlier in this very thread?) about how badly gay people get treated in Denmark. (Despite Denmark being one of the most gay friendly countries in the world.)

When you write people "moan" and "whine" I think you're being a bit too imaginative. I'm sitting here typing some replies and it's not all that dramatic. Anyway the majority can be for gay marriage while there are still problems in schools and many other places with anti-gay attitudes. The two don't excude each other.

Or how about this? Gay couples can go and get married by the state courts instead of being tyrants attempting to force their more liberal views on traditional leaning people. Most already do this, but you want to defend the twisted minority that doesn't.

No thanks, any discriminating religion can change or become a thing of the past imo. No reason to preserve it.

Bla, your attitude sickens me. I know a lot of Atheists and a lot of LGBT supporters, and you're making both groups look bad. You attack religion with the same prejudice and bigotry you claim to oppose.

I find several peoples' attitudes towards gays here sickening too so I figured I'd make some posts. If I make either group look bad it's because you fail to see me as an individual, but take my views to represent groups that in no way have to share my views. Which is in essence prejudice that you just condemned.

You may call my views prejudiced and bigoted but whether those terms are accurate or not you can't simply assume I think religions deserve the same respect as sexuality. Religions make claims about the world that I think are important to discuss, and it's important to get rid of ideas that are clearly false and harmful to society. As for the prejudice note that my criticism is on religion and not all the people who follow it. I do know that there's indeed a lot of dispute over the meaning of supposedly divinely perfect texts, so I don't say all christians are anti-gay or should be punished.

Bla, by your logic:

Hey gay person! It's psychological, etc. You can't change it, well too fucking bad! Here are 2 7/10 broads! Go crazy! Oh, and if you don't go straight, you're going to be guillotined.

Hey atheist! Just a decision you've come to after years of thought? That's cool, that's cool. .. but, join the Mormons or we're giving you a lobotomy!

After all, if we can force a church to accept gays, we can force gay people to marry women and atheists to pray to God.

who the hell said churches now have to accept gays? every person against gay marriage is saying that in this thread, and it's complete paranoid bunker mentality nonsense. no one is forcing priests to perform gay marriages. gay people do not have an "agenda". it's not being "shoved down your throats". in fact a large majority of these threads are rants against gay marriage. so who is more likely pushing an agenda and shoving things down people's throats?

when i was born i was assigned a gender based on my anatomy. i was taught by every male in my life that i should be attracted to females, and if i wasn't then i was a degenerate freak. when boys wanted to REALLY insult someone they called them a faggot. when someone was particularly malicious they started rumours about someone being gay.

now that's what i call an agenda.

who the hell said churches now have to accept gays?

bla. Bla is saying this.

so who is more likely pushing an agenda and shoving things down people's throats?

I personally am not anti-gay. I just think that Supreme Court's authority in gay marriage equates to bullshit. I'm pushing the legal system of the US.

Gay couples can go and get married by the state courts instead of being tyrants attempting to force their more liberal views on traditional leaning people.

>Traditional

Lol

That is very malicious, shyb, but off topic.

who the hell said churches now have to accept gays?

Go back and read Bla's posts. He's the one I've been ranting against.

Also,hi there Lawlz. Contributing as usual I see.

Look at this, the off-topic gang's all here! The only one were missing is Xpapy.

Since I posted this I am now Off-Topic King.






LICK MY FEET SLAVES

oops i see now. i admit i just skimmed over bla's posts because they seemed to be unreasonable and coming from an angry place (something im guilty of myself).

i almost agree with him about christianity, but then again what he's talking about is a reverse witch hunt, which puts him on the same level as the people he's attacking.

freedom of religion does mean allowing people to think and act in ways you might not agree with. i don't respect anyone who discriminates, even if it's part of their religion, but i respect the fact that they have a right to their thoughts and ideas. i just wish certain vocal christians respected that right as well.