Gay persecution vs. "Anti-religion bigotry" thread

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by ZedMan

Uh, Joseph Stalin's USSR???

Timely reference.

[PepsiFree]

I don't believe religion is a bad thing. I think it's helpful for a lot of people and does a lot of good, a lot more good than bad in my opinion.

In saying that, I've yet to ever hear a criticism of homosexuality or a gay persons right to some common life events (like getting married, adopting) that wasn't founded in religion. Especially when there is significant evidence (high rates of divorce, high numbers of children in 'the system') that show being straight doesn't stop you from completely demolishing any respectable version of marriage you think exists, or stop you from completely ruining a child's life.

As far as I'm concerned the whole LGBT community only exists and highlights the irrelevant differences between us because getting together is the only way to be heard and (sometimes, clearly not this week) to be safe. Asking to live a life with the exact same freedoms as anyone else isn't a big ask but man do some people sure make it seem like it is.

You can't blame religion for violence (humans are violent, if not for God it'd be something else) but I don't see how any religious person can feel like a good person while denying that religion gives that violence direction.

[Red Ice Player]

Originally Posted by GGG

I was more looking at North America, and your Catholic numbers aren't really that accurate because it includes lapsed Catholics with much more moderate views than the hard line the church takes.

Its odd you point out the United church doctrinal changes because there is nothing within the Christian faith that makes accepting gay people non compatible any more than eating shellfish.

In Canada 5 million of 22 million Christians are Anglican or United. Which represents a significant portion of mainstream Christianity (wiki)

And this still ignores the large number of cultural / lapse Catholics that still self identify yet hold a wide variety of views on social issues.

I'm one of those lapsed Catholics, and my views have evolved. I now accept marriage equality and am dead set against discrimination based on gender, sexuality or religion. My recently departed very pious mother at age 84 welcomed Pope Francis' conciliatory statements regarding the church and homosexuals.

“If someone is gay and searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”
Pope Francis 2013

Now the more cynical voices here may dismiss the Pope's words as mere platitudes, but these words came from the head of the church and carry a lot of weight, even with the elderly who are supposedly inflexible. I'm not going back to the church as I don't have faith, but it is encouraging that the hard line that the Catholic church has always clung to is being challenged by the head priest of the entire institution.

http://time.com/3975630/pope-francis-lgbt-issues/

[DuffMan]

All you have to do is google "ted Cruz attends, kill the gays rally" and realize a person that had a chance of becoming the President of the United States, could do something so disgusting, to realize why I am not keen on religion, at all.

or check into Republican senators Jim Inhoffe's trips to Uganda etc. to spread the word of chrisitanity and their views on gays, which is the death penalty, to realize why I am not keen on religion, at all.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

...

[pylon]

I'll never get in the way of someone's beliefs, they can believe what they want. I also won't preach atheism to them either. Not my business. But I'm not going to lie when I say internally, I judge religious people as less intelligent, and of poor judgement. No different than I judge people that watch shows about psychics and mediums. Or people that fall into MLM traps. You're just kinda stupid if you fall into that trap, and I think less of you for it.

[polak]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Does this mean to imply that in order not to be a bigot, you must be against all religions to exactly the same degree, rather than being more opposed to one than another?

Because I think that's going to fall apart really quickly once you notice that all major religions have hugely different precepts and demand different things of their adherents (even the Abrahamic ones, which are fundamentally the same).

For example, if I'm anti-religion, I can be anti-Christianity for different reasons than I'm anti-Islam - in fact, I really should be if my position is anything other than hopelessly superficial. Some of the reasons will overlap, others won't.

I think you're overthinking it. People who are anti-religion think that believing in what is essentially a story with little basis in reality or any evidence of it's truth and then basing your life on it is silly.

It doesn't have to do with any particular views from certain religions.

Any anti-religion people disagree?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by pylon

I'll never get in the way of someone's beliefs, they can believe what they want. I also won't preach atheism to them either. Not my business. But I'm not going to lie when I say internally, I judge religious people as less intellegent, and of poor judgement. No different than I judge people that watch shows about psychics and mediums. Or people that cal into MLM traps. You're just kinda stupid if you fall into that trap, and I think less of you for it.

Agreed although maybe no less intelligent but more dependent and weak mentally. I don't think less of people for it but I do sympathize somewhat for them living a life based on lies.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

...

[Looch City]

Maybe each religion needs a Modern Edition holy book released.

Coming soon to Chapters, The Bible Modern Edition, now with less non-sense and more stuff that's pertinent to 21st century life!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

...

[PostandIn]

^ That's a good idea. Second, we should stop referring to any text as 'holy'. None of them are. They are all man made / written. So let's start with that as the basis for any further discussion.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

...

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Agreed although maybe no less intelligent but more dependent and weak mentally. I don't think less of people for it but I do sympathize somewhat for them living a life based on lies.

I sympathize in that most people of faith are indoctrinated from a young age. In some sense, it's not their fault as the child mind is extremely impressionable. Many others that "find God" come from the weak or disadvantaged. How many well-to-do educated people find or change their religion while 20-50 years old? I'm sure I'm going to get a raft of famous examples, but the majority of people who aren't religious don't just become it because it makes sense, especially in its extreme forms.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't even think "criticizing" homosexuality makes sense. It'd be like "criticizing" someone's eye colour. But there are non-religious objections to gay marriage.

For example, some gay people I've heard say they think gay marriage should be legal if you really feel that marriage is for you, but wish most gay people wouldn't avail themselves of the right. The rationale is basically that gay culture has produced a ton of really great stuff, and contributed a hell of a lot to the culture generally, and the reason it's done so is because it was an outsider, trangressive entity. When who you are is transgressive against social norms, you can't help but push the envelope in all sorts of fields, from art to literature to politics to... whatever. Settling in in a suburban home with your husband an adopted kid, they'd suggest, runs contrary to that. It's not unlike all the good cultural stuff that's inextricably tied up in black culture in America that would not be there if not for the civil rights movement.

I don't know if I agree with their conclusion - that gay people should reject the institution of marriage themselves, rather than have society tell them they can't have it - but I understand the argument and see its merits. Personally, I'd just like people to be able to pursue happiness in their own lives, whatever form that takes, as long as it isn't significantly harming anyone.

I see your point, and understand you aren't necessarily advocating that gay marriage should be rejected. However, it seems to me that the those that say gay people should reject the institution of marriage themselves are falling into the same trap as anti-gay marriage types now. Even if a majority agree with that view, they are inexplicably removing that right from the minority. Don't get married, fine. But don't remove that option for others who may disagree.

[PostandIn]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Okay, but there will be no further discussion in that case because everyone who doesn't already agree with you will immediately reject your premise and walk away.

It's fine, actually. They can walk away like climate change deniers and smokers and over time they will become as marginalized. But let's start with facts as a base not mythology. It should be socially unacceptable to believe, for example, that the book you base your life's actions on was delivered to an illiterate person in a cave by the Archangel Gabriel. Or that golden plates, imprinted with the words of the creator of the universe, were dug out of some place in upstate New York.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

...

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Maybe each religion needs a Modern Edition holy book released.

Coming soon to Chapters, The Bible Modern Edition, now with less non-sense and more stuff that's pertinent to 21st century life!

"Now with less old Testament!"

[OMG!WTF!]

I don't think religious people are dumb. They've read at least one book I haven't. I'm more baffled by them. I don't how they really truly and honestly believe that stuff. I've tried but that chicken just doesn't cluck.

[AcGold]

Religion is not the issue. On its own as a principle religion is at worst delusional. The issue lies in the motivations and the application of power by powerful religious figures.

Religion is used as a political tool and therein lies the issue. Any organization based around emotion and spirituality is only as corrupt as its leaders as the application of edicts is directed by the leaders.

Just like how technology is only as malevolent as those who create it; religions are majority hierarchical structures and it seems nearly universal that when the power accumulates sufficiently corruption and violence are soon to follow.