At last ... the religions unite!

pH

... for a spot of gaybashing

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6243323.stm

Surely it's good to see that for all their fundamental theological differences they can get together and agree on something.

That 2 people of the same sex who want to spend their life together and enjoy some state protection fundamentally breaches their rights to be intolerant.

He said: "Christians have no desire to discriminate unjustly on the grounds of sexual orientation, but they cannot and must not be forced to actively condone and promote sexual practices which the Bible teaches are wrong.

"It is a fundamental matter of freedom of conscience."

No one is forcing them to promote or condone these 'practices'. They're being forced to tolerate them and not discriminate against them.

In the same way as no one forces a white racist to marry a black woman, but if that person owns a hotel we do force that person to allow black residents stay

5uspect

So we have the idea that it is better to discriminate against people we know exist than to offend the supposed teachings from something that we have no idea exists?

I would like see some Christians to comment on this. Perhaps a poll in the Christianity forum?

EDIT: Interesting comments form that page:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=5187&&edition=2&ttl=20070109130451

Dades

Reminds me of Monty Python.

"So we're agreed you have the right to be bigoted, just that you can't actually practice bigotry."

To be fair it seems most religious orgs have enough sense to distance themselves. It's only the zealous types such as the "Lawyers' Christian Fellowship" that seem to embarrassing them.

Article harks back to this old favourite.

Beruthiel

He said: "Christians have no desire to discriminate unjustly on the grounds of sexual orientation, but they cannot and must not be forced to actively condone and promote sexual practices which the Bible teaches are wrong.

How very christian of them

humanji

What I find disturbing are comments like this:

What about the rights of normal people, we are now becoming social outcasts because we are hetrosexual.
All people are equal and should be treated so, not treated differently beacuse they are gay or for examlpe have red hair.
Ban gay rights all of us should have equal rights!

It seems a lot of people still haven't figured out what gay rights means. They just assume that it means they will become slaves to homosexuals everywhere! :eek:

MoominPapa

The same book of the bible, Leviticus, states that the eating of shellfish, well any sea creature without scales, is an abomination. When was it decided to ignore that bit, or that it is of less importance to the bronze age sun god than back door shananagans?

5uspect

MoominPapa wrote:

The same book of the bible, Leviticus, states that the eating of shellfish, well any sea creature without scales, is an abomination. When was it decided to ignore that bit, or that it is of less importance to the bronze age sun god than back door shananagans?

Can't you see that that bit is obviously supposed to be a metaphor? :rolleyes:

MoominPapa

5uspect wrote:

Can't you see that that bit is obviously supposed to be a metaphor? :rolleyes:

You mean the bit about selling my children into slavery is not meant to be taken literally? :mad:

robindch

> [...] Leviticus, states that the eating of shellfish, well any sea creature
> without scales, is an abomination.

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com

Actually, it's worth reading the commandments that almost everybody ignores:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2034&version=31

Especially the bit about not cooking a goat in the milk of its mother. I still think we should organize a barbecue with shrimps, goat-milk stew, bacon bangers and wine (in excess) and other biblically problematic foodstuffs. Actually, while we're at it, we could invite JC along too and offer him his year-old salt-water steaks.

5uspect

ooh can we have the BBQ on a boat! The Ark! Bring me two of every animal! mmm animal....

Fallen Seraph

If practicing religion were suddenly outlawed they'd sure be pissed, but it's okay for them to pass laws against ways other people choose to live their lives? It makes me sick. Have they got no concept of tolerance....

To be fair though, it's hardly religion's fault.

pH

robindch wrote:

Actually, it's worth reading the commandments that almost everybody ignores:

These ones?

"Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in that month you came out of Egypt."

OR

"The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons. No one is to appear before me empty-handed"

OR

"Celebrate the Feast of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year. Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD, the God of Israel. I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the LORD your God"

OR

"Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning."

OR

"Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk."

Surely all modern Christians follow them to the letter?

robindch wrote:

Especially the bit about not cooking a goat in the milk of its mother. I still think we should organize a barbecue with shrimps, goat-milk stew, bacon bangers and wine (in excess) and other biblically problematic foodstuffs. Actually, while we're at it, we could invite JC along too and offer him his year-old salt-water steaks.

Yea, but at least you're not thinking of inviting GAYS!!!!!!!!

Fallen Seraph

Just playing devil's advocate if you will, but even with all the odd laws of the OT and Jesus's refusal to give a clear answer on whether the old laws hold good, Bible bashers still have legs to stand on with their "we can hate gays even if we ignore the rest of the OT" stance. One of the gay passage in the bible specifically says that "God hates [homosexual acts among men]" so it can be argued that this isn't a law or prescription, in the way all the others are. Also romans riles about about them too...

That's what they could say. Personally I'd be inclined to take the pedantry a little further and assert that the wording of the passage implies that it's okay for women to do it, but they never seem to pick up on that.

Dave!

As I think Jon Stewart once said with relation to the recent gay pride march in Israel:

"Ahh gays... is there anything that hating you won't solve?"

coffee_cake

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Just playing devil's advocate if you will, but even with all the odd laws of the OT and Jesus's refusal to give a clear answer on whether the old laws hold good, Bible bashers still have legs to stand on with their "we can hate gays even if we ignore the rest of the OT" stance. One of the gay passage in the bible specifically says that "God hates [homosexual acts among men]" so it can be argued that this isn't a law or prescription, in the way all the others are. Also romans riles about about them too...

That's what they could say. Personally I'd be inclined to take the pedantry a little further and assert that the wording of the passage implies that it's okay for women to do it, but they never seem to pick up on that.

If you mean Romans, it's generally argued to be a mistranslation of pederasty(same sex), not homosexuality
They don't really have that much to stand on, it's just personal ...bigotry? and an attempt to justify it with scripture to make themselves feel better
...imo.

Fallen Seraph

bluewolf wrote:

They don't really have that much to stand on, it's just personal ...bigotry? and an attempt to justify it with scripture to make themselves feel better
...imo.

Oh I totally agree that it's bigotry and not based on the bible, I'm just saying that, unfortunately, there do exist passages in the bible which let them hate gays and eat seafood without being outright hypocritical.

robindch

> Personally I'd be inclined to take the pedantry a little further and assert that
> the wording of the passage implies that it's okay for women to do it, but they
> never seem to pick up on that.

Yes, I always wondered about that too. One fundamentalist did admit to me that lesbianism wasn't "as threatening" as male homosexuality, but that was the closest I ever got to finding out what the root of the hatred was.

Of course, the other things that's notable by its general absence is any biblical condemnation of abuse of the environment, other life forms or even human kids. It's almost as though the deity thinks that adult males are the only important things he ever produced -- any apparent bias on the part of the adult males who wrote the book is presumably unintentional.

Son Goku

What I can't understand is God's perspective. Basically:
"Well I've created space and time, matter seems to be forming correctly. Let's see......hhmmm.....yeah, galaxies are coalescing, the strong force seems to be working correctly. Alright, with that out of the way time for my greatest work yet, stopping dicks entering asses."

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

It's almost as though the deity thinks that adult males are the only important things he ever produced -- any apparent bias on the part of the adult males who wrote the book is presumably unintentional.

Ha, a book written by men for men, how can it be anything but bias.

Beruthiel

Bring back the celtic, pagan times when women were warriors!

coffee_cake

Fallen Seraph wrote:

If practicing religion were suddenly outlawed they'd sure be pissed, but it's okay for them to pass laws against ways other people choose to live their lives? It makes me sick. Have they got no concept of tolerance....

To be fair though, it's hardly religion's fault.

Yeah, it's the fault of people who have nothing better to do than sit around thinking of how much they hate everyone

UU

Beruthiel wrote:

Bring back the celtic, pagan times when women were warriors!

Well, that's the best post so far!!! At least in Pagan belief-systems (or whatever word you use!!! I'm calling them Paganisms), the issue of sexuality was held as a private issue. Also, as Paganisms were non-dogmatic, there exists virtually no rules governing what to eat and who you choose to fück, sleep with, spend the rest of your life with.

Sexuality is a private and personal issue. I don't go around telling people who they should be allowed to marry, kiss, whatever! It is none of my business. I think it is wrong that some religious groups should try to enforce their beliefs on everybody. They don't have to accept gays, but they can't go around discriminating against them. I can't go around discriminating against them. Personally, though, why on earth would I or any other gay person even want to join a group that hates us and thinks we are filth???!!! It's like a Coloured person seeking admission into the Klu-Klux-Clan.........

Yeah women make better warriors than men, come Xena the Warrior Princess had style! Lol!

Twinkle-star15

UU wrote:

Personally, though, why on earth would I or any other gay person even want to join a group that hates us and thinks we are filth???!!! It's like a Coloured person seeking admission into the Klu-Klux-Clan.........

Because of their beliefs maybe? It's hardly fair for someone to be banned from their church simply because they're gay! Religion and sexuality are different things! And you can't *really* *choose* what you believe in- if you could, do you really think we'd still hear about Christians being fed to the lions?

Disclaimer: I am NOT comparing the Church, or any religion worth its salt for that matter, to the KKK. KKK= bad. Organisation that doesn't revolve around rascism, sexism, ageism, or any other -ism= good.

Goodshape

Twinkle-star15 wrote:

And you can't *really* *choose* what you believe in

Why not?

Dades

And you can't *really* *choose* what you believe in

Goodshape wrote:

Why not?

Perhaps that reads better as: You can't choose what you *really* believe in...

Goodshape

No, it doesn't really read any better that way.

As new facts are presented, or even new ideas or theories, I think one should be able to adapt their beliefs to reflect them.

Having blind and unmovable belief is an unfortunate thing, in my opinion. Particularly with regards the 'big issues' (life, the universe and everything).

I do think that you can believe something today, and realise you were (or may have been) mistaken tomorrow. Of course pride, ego and fear sometimes get in the way of that.

Dades

Goodshape wrote:

No, it doesn't really read any better that way.

As new facts are presented, or even new ideas or theories, I think one should be able to adapt their beliefs to reflect them.

Having blind and unmovable belief is an unfortunate thing, in my opinion. Particularly with regards the 'big issues' (life, the universe and everything).

I do think that you can believe something today, and realise you were (or may have been) mistaken tomorrow. Of course pride, ego and fear sometimes get in the way of that.

You must be reading something into the last few posts that I'm not. Where did someone suggest anything about immovable beliefs? That has nothing to do with the original comment that you disagreed with, as far as I can see.

Goodshape

em?

And you can't *really* *choose* what you believe in

inability to 'choose' your beliefs == immovable belief, no?

Scofflaw

Goodshape wrote:

No, it doesn't really read any better that way.

As new facts are presented, or even new ideas or theories, I think one should be able to adapt their beliefs to reflect them.

Having blind and unmovable belief is an unfortunate thing, in my opinion. Particularly with regards the 'big issues' (life, the universe and everything).

I do think that you can believe something today, and realise you were (or may have been) mistaken tomorrow. Of course pride, ego and fear sometimes get in the way of that.

1. A belief that x is, or does, something.

2. A belief in something.

Belief 1 is a "practical belief" - say that "democracy makes better societies" or "religion makes you a better person", or "god intervenes in the world" or "the Bible is literally true".

These beliefs can and should be modified by evidence.

Belief 2 is not a practical belief - it means that you find something emotionally satisfying, you feel "connected" to it, it "works for you". As in "I believe in democracy", or "I believe in God" - although either may boil down to a set of practical beliefs.

None of the above require evidentiary support, nor is there any reason why they should, unless they are really practical beliefs masquerading as emotional beliefs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

Twinkle-star15 wrote:

It's hardly fair for someone to be banned from their church simply because they're gay! Religion and sexuality are different things! And you can't *really* *choose* what you believe in- if you could, do you really think we'd still hear about Christians being fed to the lions?

I find this post confusing. Perhaps you could help me out a little?

Some people are gay, they don't choose that.
Some people hold beliefs about the way that the world is. They see these beliefs as very important, enough so to hate the way gay people are (or at least as an excuse to do so).

Are you saying that we don't choose our beliefs? That we just inherit them? I don't agree with this. People cherry pick their beliefs all the time. Moral ideals evolve all the time into new social norms and taboos. Notions of religion and belief are no different.

Dades

Goodshape wrote:

inability to 'choose' your beliefs == immovable belief, no?

No...

Many people *choose* to believe in God because it's a comforting belief. I can't *choose* to believe in God because I know that it's not what I *actually* believe. That doesn't mean my beliefs are immovable - it just means I'm not going to believe something because I want to. Choice suggests options. There are other beliefs - but an individual only has one belief - hence it's not (or shouldn't be IMO) a choice.