All Comments (29)

Dear Rabbi, quite a kettle of fish and chips you bring for us today. Could the universal concept of Love bridge the gap as far as adoption is concerned? I think adoption should be a very gradual process for the benefit of the child and that the child's support network...chiefly friends, and school should remain intact as the child is introduced and slowly becomes more dependent upon either the foster, or adoptive environment. This would, or should alleiviate concerns of undue influence of same sex couples on modeling behavior and it would be healthier for the child in any case. That is my theory on the outside looking in anyway. One would not send Harry Potter to just any school now would one? God Bless you and yours. It is always good to see you.

In response to Ann O.
"You seem to think that only literal speech can convey truth."

I'm not sure how I might have left that impression, as speech and writing are generally what is used in lying, although not the only thing. Demonstrateable evidence, particularly that of physics, clearly should be more acceptable as truth than some literal speech.

Miracles of course can happen. God the Creator could surely write if he wanted to, but why would He go to the trouble of writing commandments on stone and then let Moses put them it a box and not let the people see them. Should 'raise eyebrows'. Have you ever wondered what happened to the fragments of the stone(s) that Moses got mad and bursted! He certainly didn't act out of any 'fear of God'; that seemed to be all reserved for the people. Why would rocks that God Himself had written on not be important to people back then?

Once you catch on - other stuff starts falling in place.

Genesis 3:19
By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground

That doesn't leave much room for help from God. If God helps us then that command is nullified. There isn't a single issue that does not either directly or indirectly lead to economic, source of bread, considerations.

Therefore all else in the Bible where God is helping out must be the work of some other God than the one that gave the command above. Devil is also god but not God. It's a fine, nit picking point but the spelling of the word G, O, D, is very importand. Angels are gods that are employed by God.

All help recieved from supernatural beings is a violation of God's command. Only Devil and those relying on Devil will do that, violate God's command.

You can and must discard all the Bible from Genesis 3:19 forward as the word of Devil including all miracles and verbal "love" potions. Those who speak to God are speaking to Devil for God's command has a limit of one's life without relief. It's Devil and not God that allows us to take our neighbors bread by force or trickery.

STAN quotes Ann O. : "I don't' think that makes it a whole new ball game. And I don't think that history shows that theologians are all out to control people with concepts."

STAN replies:
It makes it a whole new ball game because then:

1. Genesis and Exodus didn't happen as written and if someone then takes it literally as the truth they have been deceived and the question soon becomes "where did the deceit start and stop".

ANN replies: I don't think it is deceitful to give someone simplified explanation of something when the person could not understand a full explanation. The primitive people knew nothing of geology, and the history of the emergence of different species, much less DNA. So I don't think such simplified explanations are deceitful

STAN continues: 2. The world is not divided into good and evil but there may be many classifications; and all the stuff that tries to divide things into only two categories is based on an invalid concept.

ANN: I don't understand your point here. I don't know of any theologians who say that the world is divided into good and evil. Are you talking about moral goodness and evil or what?

STAN: 3. Eating of the fruit of the Tree of Life is not what caused people to be programmed to die but rather that was the design of the Creator. So the concept of sin being the cause of death is out the window

ANN: I don't know much about the theological connection between sin and death (theologians argue about this text), but I have to ask you: how do you know what programmed us to die?

STAN: 4. The Creator didn't work for six days then rest the seventh so therefore the Creator didn't write the 10 Commandments as the second commandment assumes creation in six calendar days.

5. Then the preamble to the 10 Commandments is also not written by the Creator if the Creator didn't lead the children of Israel out of bondage in Egypt and across a Sea.

ANN: I don't understand this. But whatever, I don't read Genesis literally, so what you write here is not a problem for me.

STAN 6. Then the whole history of the middle east has been based on 'metaphors' which people have been, and are, willing to die for thinking they were the literal truth.

ANN: OH, yes, I do agree that a great deal of the history of the Middle East has been due to reading the scriptures of the various religions literally. And the problem persists until today with the extremist Muslims still reading the Koran literally.

STAN: The problem with recognizing "evolution" as being seeable in the Bible, is that the concept was/is 'Evolution of Species by Natural Selection' which is quite different from design evolution and it was put forth as an alternative to the Genesis writings. Design evolution implies some form of God/Creator, which many evolutionists would not want to do.

ANN: I didn't say that "evolution" was seeable in the Bible -- I said that the incremental steps of creation as presented in Genesis can be seen as a metaphor of evolution -- that is, an expression which is partly like and partly different from evolution in the contemporary sense. Both have incremental steps, so they are partly alike, but they are also very different.

You seem to think that only literal speech can convey truth. That, I think, is our big disagreement.

Ann O.

Ann O. wrote: "I don't' think that makes it a whole new ball game. And I don't think that history shows that theologians are all out to control people with concepts."

Some comments in reply:

It makes it a whole new ball game because then:

1. Genesis and Exodus didn't happen as written and if someone then takes it literally as the truth they have been deceived and the question soon becomes "where did the deceit start and stop".

2. The world is not divided into good and evil but there may be many classifications; and all the stuff that tries to divide things into only two categories is based on an invalid concept.

3. Eating of the fruit of the Tree of Life is not what caused people to be programmed to die but rather that was the design of the Creator. So the concept of sin being the cause of death is out the window.

4. The Creator didn't work for six days then rest the seventh so therefore the Creator didn't write the 10 Commandments as the second commandment assumes creation in six calendar days.

5. Then the preamble to the 10 Commandments is also not written by the Creator if the Creator didn't lead the children of Israel out of bondage in Egypt and across a Sea.

6. Then the whole history of the middle east has been based on 'metaphors' which people have been, and are, willing to die for thinking they were the literal truth.

7. etc. etc.

That should be enough to start on.

Concerning the second part: It wasn't intended to imply that "theologians" were necessarily out to control people but rather that the people controlling governmental type processes, mostly 'behind the scenes', are those guilty of using religion to manipulate people.

Since the Bush crowd has indicated, and apparently assume and act on, that they make their own reality then it is fairly easy to see a pattern with the "metaphors" in the Bible.

The problem with recognizing "evolution" as being seeable in the Bible, is that the concept was/is 'Evolution of Species by Natural Selection' which is quite different from design evolution and it was put forth as an alternative to the Genesis writings. Design evolution implies some form of God/Creator, which many evolutionists would not want to do.

STAN writes: I can see getting passed creation in six days; but I'm not near as sure about "Evolution of Species by Natural Selection" as you would seem to be. (At least that didn't seem to originate with the Egyptians.)

I can see getting passed creation in six days; but I'm not near as sure about "Evolution of Species by Natural Selection" as you would seem to be. (At least that didn't seem to originate with the Egyptians.)

ANN replies: The reason I"m sure about evolution (at least the ovreall pattern) is because I have reason to think that the scientists have been gathering data for over a hundred years and Darwin's evolutionary theory seems to be the best explanation of an overall pattern implicit in the data. I also assume that the scientists are truthful people and know what they're talking about, at least when they talk about science.

True, science doesn't go beyond explaining what the pattern is and how it works out. It doesn't answer this most basic question: why does anything at all *exist* in the first place? Not that that is a question for science -- it's a question for philosophy, which questions all sorts of things, not just physical patterns.

How can I explain the Parting of the Red Sea? I can't. That is a matter of belief. But as a philosopher I can say that it is not irrational to think that different physical laws might operate at different times and places -- there is nothing self-contradictory about "other physical laws" and "other times" and "other places". Even many contemporary physicists are now starting to talk about "alternative universes" and "many dimensions" and since the time of Einstein they have talked about a very different conception of "space-time".

STAN: What if the writers of Genesis had the correct concept of incremental design changes by the Almighty but rather over eons rather than six days?

ANN replies: They *did* have the notion of incremental design. So we can view the beginning of Genesis as a *metaphor* for evolution. Genesis is a problem only if you always take the Bible literally. If you don't, then Genesis seems to be quite a remarakable explanation of things, and one must wonder whether the writers had some Holy Help :-)

STAN: How would theologians handled that since the implication would be a "whole new ball game"; and would "wreak havoc" with all the carefully crafted concepts of controlling people through religion and now "faith".

ANN: I don't' think that makes it a whole new ball game. And I don't think that history shows that theologians are all out to control people with concepts. Some probably have been -- there are rotten apples in every group. The ones I have known (about 4) have been extremely honorable and loving people. One in particular, Fr. Joseph Buckley, was a friend of my fathers. He wasn't a bishop, but he was the head of one of the religious orders, and he was one of the theologians who gave an extremely important speech at Vatican II. In it he presented the theology of religious freedom and conscience of an theologian John Courtney Murray. Murray, who was an American, was very, very much in favor of religious freedom and freedom of conscience, and Fr. Buckley, using Murray's ideas, was instrumental in persuading the bishops to vote for Murray's viewpoint. Freedom of conscience and religion is now an official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

I must admit, however, that freedom of conscience has been a problem in the Catholic theology. There seems to be a fundamental conflict between saying "you must follow your conscience above all" and "you must form your conscience in accordance with Church teachings". So what gives? ISTM the basic problem is that the official Church ("the Vatican" or "the Pope") seems to think that it's the *whole* Church and so it thinks what it says goes, at least for defined matters. But Vatican II also made it clear that the Vatican is not the whole Church, so what does "the Church" in "the teachings of the Church" MEAN? This is another case, ISTM, when we just don't have a clear answer to our question. The upshot is that today you will find Catholics like me who say that freedom of conscience reigns, while the fundamentalist sort of Catholic will say that the Vatican reighs. There's a lot of argument in the RCC since Vatican II. That's about par for the course of the RCC.

Ann O.

It also seems to me that too many people assume that God has promised to answer all of our questions. He made no such promise. In the Bible Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit will be with us always, but He doesn't promise that the H.S. will answer all our questions -- as I interpret the passage Jesus just meant that the Holy Spirit is there to help us on our way to truth. We have to be humble enough to say sometimes, "I don't know. I would like to know the answer, but I don't". This is no reason to stop asking questions, certainly. But we must realize that we are quite limited beings who are prone to error. All the more reason to be careful in our thinking

STAN: (Just a note, but it is never heard that Bush is a "religious" man but rather he is a "man of faith". Current events would seem to indicate his faith is only in himself!)

ANN: You point out an important problem here, I think. The words "religion", "religious", "religiosity", "faith", "belief", "spiritual", "spirituality", "spirit" all have long histories and so they're extremely ambiguous with many different shades of meaning. But we don't seem very willing to clarify them. It seems to me that's because they are not concerned with the physical, public events which we can share, but rather with our interior, non-shared, non-physical life.

Ann O.

To: Ann O.

Thanks for the write up and explanations.

If we get passed the flood, Noah, and Abraham how is it explained about the crossing of a Sea by the Israelites walking, presumably, with, against, or across a wind strong enough to hold back gobs of water on either two or four sides?

I can see getting passed creation in six days; but I'm not near as sure about "Evolution of Species by Natural Selection" as you would seem to be. (At least that didn't seem to originate with the Egyptians.)

What if the writers of Genesis had the correct concept of incremental design changes by the Almighty but rather over eons rather than six days?

How would theologians handled that since the implication would be a "whole new ball game"; and would "wreak havoc" with all the carefully crafted concepts of controlling people through religion and now "faith". (Just a note, but it is never heard that Bush is a "religious" man but rather he is a "man of faith". Current events would seem to indicate his faith is only in himself!)

STAN replies to Ann: Ann O. who gave a description on logic.

Please apply whatever it was you said, based on knowledge we now have, and the descriptions provided of the incidents, to Noah's flood and the Israelites crossing the Sea (of Reeds or Red, whichever)and let us know what your application of logic concludes.

If the incidents were "miracles" actions that the god of Abraham applied anomalous to the physics of the world he created then you can state that as logic, if it meets your test.

Although an "Almighty", "Providence", and Nature's God etc.would seem rather "logical" in an ordered universe converting and applying those concepts to the "god of Abraham" doesn't seem very logical but rather the direct opposite, when the term "god of Abraham" is a limiting term.

ANN O. replies: I agree that miracles do not follow logically from the laws of physics at all -- that's what makes them miracles. So how could they happen? I'm not a theologian, but as one who knows some philosophy I could say that when a mira cle happens some other laws are applied. There might possibly even be some other sorts of matter involved. We just don't know. I cannot say that the Creator is incapable of creating other sorts of matter with different laws. In other words, it is not unreasonable to assume that miracles might happen. If they do, however, we have to look to some other sort of explanation of them besides the laws of physics.

About Sacred Scripture, I know enough Catholic theology to say that the RC Church recognize that Sacred Scripture makes many sorts of statements. Parables are one sort of text, and they obviously aren't meant to be taken as true stories, as history, but, rather, they are inventions to illustrate a moral principle. There are also different forms of speech in the Bible which derive from the ways the people of the time spoke to get their points across. For instance, exaggeration was a common form of rhetoric which, apparently, was not intended literally. We also speak rhetorically sometimes. I had a neighbor who once threatened his son, "Michael, if you don't behave, I'm going to tear your arm off and beat you with the bloody stump!!!" Everybody laughed, of course -- Mike's father wasn't one to hit his kids. But Michael also knew that way of talking meant business :-)

Some Biblical statements *are* obviously meant as history, such as "Jesus was born in Bethlehem". I'm actually not sure the Bible puts it exactly so clearly, but from the context we surmise that we are to think that this is literally true.

In other words according to Catholic theology, one cannot simply read the Bible and know what God meant to reveal to us. *All* words must be interpreted for the simple reason that words are essentially ambiguous: any word can mean anyting, so every word can mean *everything*. We must always look to the context of individual words to try to find the meaning(s) which the writer(s) intended. To complicate things, it is always possible that more than one person contributed to a text, which makes the job of the interpreters even more difficult.

So you don't find Roman Catholic theologians among the fundamentalists anymore. That is, Catholic theology does not claim to have *the* meaning of the texts. Yes, we believe that we can get at least very good approximations, but, then, we have to interpret these interpretations too, and it is always possible that our interpretations are not the fulness of meaning which the Lord intends. For instance, we can agree that "Jesus died for our salvation", but what *exactly* does the word "salvation" MEAN? That's where things get sticky.

What this implies is that theology and Biblical exegesis (interpretation) is a work in progress -- just as science has been a work in progress through the centuries. Catholic theologians, and many others, are quite willing now to accept the help of the sciences when trying to answer the question about a particular text: what does this MEAN? What does the Good Lord want us to think here?? Anthropology, history, psychology, linguistics all have big contributions to make.

And so does geology -- all the scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the world was not made in 7 days -- it took eons. Plus the biological evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Because Catholic theology assumes that there can be no real conflict between science and *God's own intended meanings*, Genesis cannot be interpreted literally. Rather it must be interpreted as something like a parable or a metaphor. There is truth there, but it is not as clear as 2 plus 2 equals 4.

The notion that faith and reason cannot be inconsistent goes at least back to some of the medieval theologians. It remains true, however, that theological thinking about the infinity of God soon runs into some contradictions -- just as scientific thinking about infinities also runs into contradictions. But the Catholic explanation of these inconsistencies is that our minds are limited and we just can't seem to understand infinities -- not yet, anyway. Catholic theology does not admit that matters of faith are *intrinsically* inconsistent with each other or with the facts of the universe. It does admit that our limited thinking about Scripture and the world makes mistakes or doesn't or can't see the whole picture.

Fundamentalist Christians generally do not agree with any of this, and this is one of the greatests differences between Catholic theology and fundamentalist theology.

Sorry to go on at such great lengths, but it seems to me that it is important in our discussions to recognize that not all Christian theologies interpret the Bible literally and that many Christian theologies (not just the Catholic ones) insist that faith and reason must ultimately be consistent with each other.

Oops -- I see I neglected your question about "the God of Abraham". That is a whole huge topic in itself. Suffice to say here that "God" or "Jahweh" is a MOST ambiguous term, and that Catholic theology emphasizes always that our knowledge of Him will forever remain incomplete because He is infinite and beyond our total understanding. Our knowledge of Him is always at best metaphorical.

Double oops -- I should qualify my statements about "Catholic theology". There are some "mystical theologians" of the Catholic faith who are not too troubled by inconsistencies. But this is not typical of Catholic theology. And they often get into trouble for it.)

Ann O.

To: Ann O. who gave a description on logic.

Please apply whatever it was you said, based on knowledge we now have, and the descriptions provided of the incidents, to Noah's flood and the Israelites crossing the Sea (of Reeds or Red, whichever)and let us know what your application of logic concludes.

If the incidents were "miracles" actions that the god of Abraham applied anomalous to the physics of the world he created then you can state that as logic, if it meets your test.

Although an "Almighty", "Providence", and Nature's God etc.would seem rather "logical" in an ordered universe converting and applying those concepts to the "god of Abraham" doesn't seem very logical but rather the direct opposite, when the term "god of Abraham" is a limiting term.

Religious Tests

It is PERFECTLY clear that there must be NO religious test.

I think the approach is looking at the Candidate's public record.

If her public record includes
naming Jesus as your favorite political philosopher , or
engaging a network of donors within your own Mormon Church who have pretty identifiable political positions

Then a candidates Religious history that is in the public record has undeniable relevence to the debate. We can't bar him from runnning and we don't want to. But we can decide whether we want someone who can't name a political philosopher other than Jesus to be president
and cast our vote accordingly.

I think the Eisenhower approach is nice. Don't ask, don't tell.
The subject doesn't come up because the candidate doesn't mention it or evince it ostentatiously in his private life.

Gay ADoption,Morality and Bigotry

Faith,
as the past Board President (volunteer) of a prominent children's service agency that has done many adoptions with same sex parents, with at least as high a "happiness rate" for the children involved

i find your ignorance and bigotry
morally despicable.

You are free to find me morally despicable too, of course.

I don't think your attitude is "quite as bad" as those who supported slavery

but it is an attitude that deserves the same place in
The Moral Hall of Fame of Shame

as the attitudes that supported slavery.

Faith:

Gee whiz, thanks for the info. I will be sure to tell my wife tonight that her Lesbian mothers who raised her were "untenable". I am sure that will be a big relief and comfort to her.
Obviously she would have been much better off in a group home or with Foster parents then with her loving mother. What a wonderful Christian you must be, so full of love and understanding. Must be wonderful to know so much about how everyone ELSE must live. I am so glad that you and yours get to make the rules for the rest of us.
Who needs a free country anyway when there are kind, loving and understanding "Christians" like yourself who decided they get to make the rules.
You are a truly a ray of light.
Thank you!

STAN tells us: Faith or belief in a book, or system, that all logic would describe as evil or nutty or both and or made up for political control should certainly disqualify anyone from high political office in the United States of America.

ANN replies: Logic, as logicians will tell you, does not *describe* anything. Descriptions ultimately must be based on observations. Then and only then can logic operate. Take for instance this argument:

Yellow dogs are evil and must be killed.
Your dog is a yellow dog.
Therefore your dog must be killed.

The argument is quite logical. But the descriptions, the premises might or might not be *true*. For logic to work the premises must be based not on the rules of logic but, ultimately, on experience.

As an old logic teacher I can tell you that this is one of the hardest things to get across to some freshmen logic students -- I mean the difference between the *truth* of premises (which have to be grounded in some sort of experience) and the *validity* of arguments (properly going from premises to conclusions). Appeals to the logical relations among the premises are never enough to prove something.

Ann O.

As I read through comments in these forums, I notice that we have a lot of internet un-savvy people engaging in discusssions with some obvious internet Trolls. For those of you not familiar with large forums such as those commonly assocaited with RPGs like World of Warcraft or Guild Wars, here is the definition of a Troll (from Wikipedia):

In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.

Unfortunately, it does not stop there. Trolls commonly post inflammatory comments in order to direct you to a web site. These web sites sometimes contain keyloggers. Keyloggers exploit security vunerabilities to record keystrokes, which in turn allows them to steal credit card numbers and other personal information. Sometimes the site merely relies on "hits" for revenue.

So, a word of caution, please be careful when directed to other websites. Most forums are moderated and warnings of this kind are given, but this one has an anonymous option where you don't get the warning. I hope no one is forced to learn about Trolls the hard way. Many are from other countries (North Korea is a good example) and are untouchable.

I'll post this in a couple of the other threads as my good deed for the day.

Stan:

Conscience like accidents can and is sometimes planned. That's why it must never be used. Dubya spoke to a "higher power" before phonying the WMD evidence.

The Devil made him do that, accidently of course.

Don't the British Catholics yet realize that they lost the war in the 1600's? Let them follow British law. And don't those 26 Anglican Bishops in the House of Lords (My God, talk about theocracy!) realize they're supposed to be protestants (lower case), not Anglo-Catholics?

Why are churches in the US tax exempt? Some of the preachers I see don't look like they are working for a non-profit organization.

Article 6, US Constitution:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Sorry, ma'am, but the US ain't the UK. Our Constitution says no religious test and it means it.

Thanks Ashley,

Ann O has done an excellent illustration of the distinction between reason and belief, and I totally agree. And I add that a same sex couple cannot conceive a baby and therefore it is not only a proven fact, but also contrary to belief. Thus fact and faith are in agreement in here!

I am not making a discriminatory statement other than making a statement of fact. If you can't accept that, then I guess you the mindless bigotry and not me.

But since you resort to such profanity, I understand and forgive you.

Faith said:

"Well, it's not as straight forward as that either. Belief is adherent to the principle that a baby naturally has a father and a mother, their orientation and socialization into society is an important part of their development into healthy responsible members. Same sex parents are contrary to that belief and therefore untenable."

Except that same-sex parents have raised and are raising hundreds of thousands of children successfully.

Oops!! Sorry to slip in a fact which might be inconvenient to your mindless bigotry. Please return to your regularly scheduled practice of rationalizing your religiously-based prejudices.

What about politicans with an evil conscience?

I thought we were supposed to be following our Constitution rather than someone's alledged 'conscience'. It would seem that the comments are that if someone's 'conscience' disagrees with the Constitution then that politician should follow his/her conscience, - and we are then back to making it up as we go along.

It also assumes that 'conscience' is based on 'good' as opposed to evil, which current events are proving is not necessarily so. It also assumes politicians have eaten of the fruit of the Tree of Knowlege of Good and Evil, and their conscience automatically choose good. As that writing is apparently, as is pointed out in BGONE's web site reference, based on Egyptian learning, although it is a good parable for learning, it is in reality not hard-wired into the human brain. When the brain becomes wired to the Devil or evil and that person then wants to follow his/her conscience then we have a major problem, as current events show.

John Dean's book addresses "Conservatives without Conscience" but maybe there is a case of "Leaders with an Evil Conscience".

Faith or belief in a book, or system, that all logic would describe as evil or nutty or both and or made up for political control should certainly disqualify anyone from high political office in the United States of America.

Hi, Folks,

It seems to me that in these discussions of matters of conscience that some people make the assumption that there is a fundamental opposition between matters of faith and matters of morality. It is the assumption that if someone's faith teaches that X is wrong that X must not be a matter of morality or ethics, and therefore X should be dismissed as a proper topic of public discourse.

But religious dogmas ("matters of faith") and ethical principles ("matters of reason") are not *always* mututally exclusive -- they overlap all the time. Consider "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor". It is both a matter of belief and ethics.

HOw can this be? Because (many of us think) there are two ways to learn what is morally right and wrong. First, there is the common experience of mankind that leads us to judge that lying is an evil (at least most of the time). Second, some of us also have reason to think there is *also* a revelation from God that lying is wrong. In other words, for Jews, Christians and Muslims this command is BOTH a matter of religious belief AND a matter of moral principle, a principle which is based on our ordinary, nonreligious human experience.

To repeat, there are two different sources of evidence (common experience and revelation), and sometimes they agree.

ISTM that when religious people think that X is morally right or wrong and they think that there should be laws concerning X, then they must attempt to *persuade* those who disagree with them by appeal to commonly available facts, not to revelation. Only such persuasion about fact-based moral positions can serve as the foundation of laws in a democratic society.

On the other hand, it makes no sense for nonreligious people to tell believers that because their religion teaches that X is wrong that the matter should not be discussed in the political forum. Some religious teachings *are* purely a matter of revelation, but some are *not*.

There are often overlaps of faith and reason, so to dismiss all religious moral beliefs as unreasonable and unrelated to public concern is patently unjustified. Yes, we religious people accept God's word that murder is wrong. But we also have our common experience to lead us to the same conclusion, and so our beliefs are sometimes quite relevant to public discourse.

Ann O.

BA'AL, they do have a hot line to a supernatural being! They do! It's the Devil himself.

Faith moves mountains. OK but can it get an unwanted baby into the arms of someone to love and nurture it? Evidently faith in Devil won't. Maybe they should try the "other" supernatural being. You know, the one that just loves everybody. Not gay folks of course.

Rabbi, there's a thing known as "the lemming effect." The cute little critters follow God's law to the letter and never practice birth control reproducing uncontrolled until their habitat can't support them anymore. Then a great leader arises among them and away they dash in a near stampede right over the cliff to their deaths. There's just a handfull of "smart" ones that do not follow the leader. But they do the same thing again and again. You might find an arguing poitn about where we are in the world today in there somewhere.

Faith says breed like lemming or become monks and nuns and his side has been winning for a while now. Is it time to rush over the cliff yet? Being creatures without "free will" lemming get their orders from a higher power. They must be in touch with Devil too.

People running for high office have a track record of observable actions and statements about where they stand on the issues of the day. One can check if the words and actions match, and one can make a decision whether one agrees with these words and actions.

That should be more than enough.

But the more religious people are, they more seriously they judge other people on those grounds. I think it's bad for the country -- mainly because I have very serious misgivings about anyone who thinks they have some sort of special hotline to a supernatural being who runs things.

Well, it's not as straight forward as that either. Belief is adherent to the principle that a baby naturally has a father and a mother, their orientation and socialization into society is an important part of their development into healthy responsible members. Same sex parents are contrary to that belief and therefore untenable.

Conscience of principles is one thing, and conscience of feelings is another; a politician may be torn between his feelings and his convictions. Within here lies the answer where I would back a candidate who stands upon principles rather than the one who goes with the flows.

Funny how Blair's decision could have been a principle one, but it's been rubbed off to his wife being a Catholic....

Dear Rabbi Neuberger:

I suppose it's a waste of pixels to inform you the Bible from which yourself and the warring bishops get your authority is a porved hoax. So I won't do that. Instead I'll ask if you've reviewed interpretation 1,501 of Exodus proving Moses sold his soul to Devil so he could be king or the equal of Israel. I understanhd that King of Israel is the highest office ever held by a man and not open to woman or gay person.

That's at http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul It should clear up a lot of your wonderings about why there's so much chaos in the world. Devil has a lot of agents and it would seem a few have taken residence in the house of lords. I hope your side wins but have no expectation the fighting will end soon.

The very best to you and yours.

DEAR RABBI NEUBERGER,

GOD BLESS YOU! RIGHT ON!! AMEN!!!

I suggest this column points directly to the stupidity of the intrusion of religions into the natural concern we all have for each other ( it's called humanity). This is a disgrace.

Thank you.

(I don't wish to appear arrogant, but I must confess to increasing boredom by such public display of "dumbness".)

Bob

The argument (as to why the Church ISN'T using children to cheaply blackmail the UK government and public by threatening to close adoption agencies rather than cater to gay couples) is that other adoption routes are also available. Sadly, this is the equivalent of saying "I may but up a sign in my shop window saying "No Gays", but they can still go to Walmart!

We already have laws preventing people from discrimination solely on a person's race or sex, it's absolutely right that we include sexuality - particularly since it is so obviously still an issue which is causing discrimination.

Catholics (and I used to be one) are free to believe that homosexuality is a sin. They're not being oppressed in their beliefs. What they're not allowed to do is act on those beliefs in public - because that's discrimination, and contravenes UK law. The Government decided that being gay is allowed, so an equality bill should enforce that.

I had some sympathy for the Church's position (not their anti-gay stance, but rather the way they could be forced to act against their beliefs) until the exact language being used became apparent.
Christians want to be able to "follow their conscience" and "act according to their morals", and don't want to 'encourage homosexual behaviour'. Meaning that they consider homosexuals to be *immoral* by definition, and the behaviour to be a choice. Well, that's fine as a personal opinion - if you think it's a sin, and that by going around 'being homosexual' these people are increasing the amount of evil/sin in the world, then you go with that. But you don't get to act on it in a civilised society.

"This bill means everyone must treat gays equally... unless you think they're evil." No, doesn't work like that.