7 ms·
That’s what happens when the society fails to get religious extremists - in this case Christian fundamentalists - under control.
by trasz 5y ago
That’s what happens when the society fails to get religious extremists - in this case Christian fundamentalists - under control.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- briantakita 5y agoThey obviously need gay pride parades every week & convicted child molesters to teach their children the benefits of pedophilia.
- gjsman-1000 5y agoEither LGBTQ Rights will be more important than Religious rights, or Religious rights will be more important than LGBTQ rights. You can't have both, it's a fight over which one is more important.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> You can't have both, it's a fight over which one is more important Of course you can. Most religious people the world over are tolerant and accepting in their beliefs.
- gjsman-1000 5y agoExcept that if you check what Catholics, many Christians, and Islamic texts teach about LGBTQ behavior, you'll find that what the Churches/Mosques teach is very different than what the majority of people in those churches follow. The "tolerant and accepting" ones are the ones the churches would call "apostate" or "heretical."
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> if you check what Catholics, many Christians, and Islamic texts teach about LGBTQ behavior, you'll find that what the Churches/Mosques teach is very different than what the majority of people in those churches follow One, most of those texts have been translated and transliterated many times over. Two, it's no shock that every religion heavily editorialists its scripture. Three, the only people calling out heretics and apostates among their flock are, almost by definition, the extremists. TL; DR You can be well received in the eyes of your God(s) without having to promote or support the murder and oppression of your fellow human beings.
- gjsman-1000 5y agoYou are drawing a straw man. Outside of Islam (which Sharia law, I believe, calls for death by stoning for Gay sex), most Christian religions do not call for the death of LGBTQ people. They oppose the agenda and oppose adoption, that's very different than supporting "murder." Second, the claim "You can be well received in the eyes of your God" is a religious statement, because you don't know what my God is. Third, "heretics and apostates among their flock are, almost by definition, the extremists." Maybe religion itself is "extreme" and most of its followers are lax, not that the followers are tolerant and there are a few extreme and intolerant members.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> oppose the agenda and oppose adoption "Oppose the agenda" is opposition to their right to exist as equal members of society. (In places like Ghana, the "agenda" is survival.) > maybe religion itself is "extreme" and most of its followers are lax This is a hypothesis. It's falsified by the observation of numerous tolerant and religious societies.
- trasz 5y agoThe only reason Christians no longer call for killing gays is because they have been convinced to stop doing this - often using force.
- gjsman-1000 5y agoLike when? Like when has force ever been used outside of, say, lawsuits?
- trasz 5y agoThe first major step towards making Church civilized was probably the Great Revolution. But it required many, many more sacrifices over the next few centuries.
- trasz 5y agoThe texts largely don’t matter, Catholicism for example has very little to do with what’s there in the Bible.
- gjsman-1000 5y agoA Catholic will firmly disagree with that belief.
- trasz 5y agoOnly the illiterate one.
- gjsman-1000 5y agoWrong. Here's a Catholic's Biblical Guide to Homosexuality and why it is not acceptable. They can read. They also can quote the original Greek. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-bible-on-homosexual-behavior https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-bible-on...
- trasz 5y agoI’m sorry, but it’s a Christian equivalent of Flat Earth. There’s too much bullshit there to even start untangling it.
- gjsman-1000 5y agoOr maybe it disagrees with your worldview, you can't wrap your head around other people's beliefs and refuse to even try to understand where they may be coming from (making you a de-facto bigot), and you call it a name because you don't care to understand it or unwrap it.
- trasz 5y agoIt’s not about the worldview, it’s about understanding what’s written and realizing it’s all bullshit. In this particular case it’s about a fake criterium, which was only invented after deciding “shellfish good, gays bad” to provide an excuse.
- taneq 5y agoI think you're kind of missing the point here that "LGBTQ" rights are just human rights. If the regime you live under doesn't respect individual autonomy then everyone is gonna have a bad time.
- gjsman-1000 5y agoWhat happens when they force you to bake the cake? No respect for the baker's autonomy there.
- mrguyorama 5y agoThe supreme court sided with the baker
- gjsman-1000 5y agoIn the narrowest ruling possible, for that one time only on a technicality, which means that baker is currently being sued again. And it doesn't change most LGBTQ activists want him to lose, with their agenda triumphing over his autonomy.
- taneq 5y agoWhat on Earth could be next? The government is gonna force your publicly advertised shop to serve <insert racial epithet>?
- OminousWeapons 5y agoAs an LGBT, I agree its a difficult situation. On the one hand, as you likely do, I feel strongly about private business owners having the freedom to run their businesses the way they see fit, including being able to choose their customers. If someone told me they don't want to sell to LGBT, I would accept that decision without complaint because I respect their autonomy (in fact, I would be happy I avoided giving them money). On the other hand, what happens when everyone in an area decides that LGBT, or black people, or Muslims, or anyone else universally aren't welcome. Those people basically get shut out of society, and that doesn't seem like something we want to encourage at a societal level either. Finally, as much as it pains me to say it, there is also the matter of logical consistency: Many Christians would go absolutely ape shit if they were stopped in a store while wearing a cross and told "hey, your kind isn't wanted here"; yet because their preferred exclusion is noted in an old book (which of course, they wrote) that is suddenly perfectly acceptable.
- p_j_w 5y agoIs the implication here that being a Christian requires making homosexuality illegal?
- gjsman-1000 5y agoWell, ask any Christian who considers themselves devout, and they'll happily remind you about Sodom and Gamorrah, Biblical cities which were destroyed by fire falling from heaven for homosexuality.
- trasz 5y agoAsk any Christian who know anything about their religion and they’ll know that Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality; it’s just a translation error.
- gjsman-1000 5y agoAsk any translator or Biblical Scholar and they'll say it's way less clear-cut than that.
- trasz 5y ago“Biblical scholars” are often theologians: political officers rather than scientists, they are trained to lie about that. Amount the actual scholars, it’s pretty much the consensus at this point.
- gjsman-1000 5y agoDefine "actual scholar." If most scholars aren't actually scholars, you may be committing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
- trasz 5y agoScholar, as in somebody doing science. Science follows certain rules. Catholic theology explicitly rejects those rules, thus it’s not a science. There is a science researching those topics, it’s called Religious Studies. It is to theology what chemistry is to alchemy.
- LadyCailin 5y agoLGBT rights. Religious rights should be at the absolute bottom of the barrel when they come in contention with any other civil rights. Anybody can make up whatever bullshit they want and call it a religious belief, and when that doesn’t violate someone else’s rights, then fine, you do you. But just because you believe some bullshit or another doesn’t mean you have the right to trample my civil rights.
- fortran77 5y agoYou can go to jail for 10 years for homosexuality in Gaza, too, yet many "progressives" don't have a problem with that as you can see from the downvotes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_State_of_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_State_of_Pa...
- blacktriangle 5y agoMuslims outrank LGBT on the progressive stack of priviledge.
- trasz 5y agoThey don’t. However, many right-wingers can’t quite understand how one can defend someone being persecuted for racial reasons (Muslims in this case), yet strongly disagree with them on some other aspect.
- blacktriangle 5y agoMuslim is not a race
- trasz 5y agoRacism is not always about the biology, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_racism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_racism
- kbelder 5y agoIronically, treating it as a race is racist.
- woodruffw 5y agoI've never understood this response: everybody already knows that "Muslim" is not a race. When people refer to racism against Muslims, they're referring to the ways in which Western countries, in particular, racialize a religious group: our tendency to treat Islam as a uniquely Arab/ME phenomenon and to assume the contrapositive as well (that anybody who looks vaguely Middle Eastern is Muslim). These are all patently obvious ways in which people are racist against Muslims, even though "Muslim" itself is not a race.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> when the society fails to get religious extremists I have a difficult time disentangling chicken and egg. Would a society in Ghana's state wind up with similarly-hateful policies absent religion? That is, does the situation create the calling to which religion happened to be proximate this time, but, in its absence, some other organized majority (e.g. nationalists) would rise? (More practically: is targeting the religion the most efficient way to solve the problem.) The irony of all this being such policies promot the situation. Such laws encourage brain drain. They de facto bar many foreign firms from investing or even letting their employees visit. They also add friction to every foreign aid talk.
- trasz 5y agoNot “absent religion”, but with a non-homophobic religion. I’d you look at the history of Catholic Church (I like this particular example, because I know it much better than any other religion), you’ll see that it’s a repeating pattern of: 1. “The law, given to us by Christ themselves, requires us to condemn and fight against <insert any of the Human Rights>“ 2. Eventually the society forces the Church to stop this nonsense 3. “The Church has always been a proponent of <that same human right>“ 4. GOTO 1 This is a slow process, so people no longer remember the Church was against eg woman voting rights, or against freedom of thought or freedom of religion. Same way in a hundred years nobody will remember it used to be homophobic.
- gjsman-1000 5y agoActually, this has never happened. Women voting rights was never doctrinal - no Catholic was bound to believe women should or should not be able to vote, it was just a popular opinion among the laity with room for disagreement. "Freedom of thought" - the Catholic Church, was, is, and remains against certain types of thought. You can't be a Satanist for example. However, other types of thought are once again not doctrinal, so it is a matter of personal opinion again. "Freedom of religion" - the Catholic Church once again does not put this in doctrine and has not edited doctrine, but once again there is a popular opinion that may change, but nobody is obligated to have an opinion on it. The opinions of it's members are changing, but the doctrines (the things you must believe) remain unchanged, even when unpopular. The Church's ban on birth control is very unpopular among the laity but hasn't moved.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]