Sapien wrote: » Right. So long as you can find one or two examples of places that are worse for gay people than historically Christian societies, then historically Christian societies are good for gay people. Nonsense, PDN. And it isn't even the case. Try Jamaica and Poland on for size. Uganda is 85% Christian, and it is currently in the early stages of a gay pogrom. And, of course, there are degrees of homophobia, ranging from outright violence to moral condemnation and deprivation of equal rights. In the context of a non-homophobic society, Christianity almost invariably represents a pull to the latter.
PDN wrote: » However, no-one accuses them of being fornicatorphobes or idolatorphobes.
PDN wrote: » Which of the following would you prefer in order to protect you from harm? a) The train is in the stridently non-Christian regime of China and the 49 other passengers are off-duty soldiers in the Red Army? b) The train is ferrying football supporters home from a football match? c) The other 49 occupants of the train carriage are solicitors, accountants etc. all on their way home from a stag party? d) The other 49 passengers are devout Christians on their way home from a Bible Study?[/B]
PDN wrote: » I wonder where you get the 85% Christian figure for Uganda?
PDN wrote: » Is this that game where, when we want to stress a country's bad points, we lump everyone that has ever darkened the door of the Church or been baptised as 'Christian', but, if we want to stress a country's good points, then we define Christian much more narrowly?
PDN wrote: » Actually, Uganda is one of the few countries where the Church is homophobic (in the word's literal sense). This is because one of the seminal events in the history of Ugandan Christianity involves early converts who were martyred because they refused to allow themselves to be sodomised by a king. That is no excuse in my book, for Christians should forgive those who persecute them and not to be afraid, but it does set their attitudes in a historical context.
PDN wrote: » Your reference to Jamaica is interesting. Jamaica also has one of the highest rates of marijuana usage in the world. Is this the fault of Christianity too?
PDN wrote: » If I remember correctly, Sapien, you once mentioned on another thread that you are a part of Dublin's gay scene. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). Put yourself in the following scenario:You are in a train carriage with fifty other males. One of these guys is an enemy who wishes you harm. The other 49 are strangers you have never met before. Suddenly your enemy, hoping to provoke a hate crime, points to you and loudly outs you as a homosexual. The key to what happens next, of course, will depend on how homophobic the other 49 guys in that railway carriage prove to be. Which of the following would you prefer in order to protect you from harm? a) The train is in the stridently non-Christian regime of China and the 49 other passengers are off-duty soldiers in the Red Army? b) The train is ferrying football supporters home from a football match? c) The other 49 occupants of the train carriage are solicitors, accountants etc. all on their way home from a stag party? d) The other 49 passengers are devout Christians on their way home from a Bible Study?
PDN wrote: » People like Ratzinger et al also say that heterosexual relationships, the worship of idols and other things contrary to Christian morality are intrinsic moral disorder. However, no-one accuses them of being fornicatorphobes or idolatorphobes. Jews see eating bacon as being wrong but no-one accuses them of being pigeaterphobes.
PDN wrote: » Yet, because a Christian sees homosexual acts as immoral and therefore incompatible with practising Christianity, they are labelled 'homophobe' - even when they make no attempt to restrict the rights of non-Christians to practice said behaviour.
iUseVi wrote: » Nice word game. Nothing else. Replace d) with: d) The other 49 passengers are atheists on their way home from a debate. Feel threatened?
PDN wrote: » Of course not, because I am not fat-headed or bigoted enough to accuse atheists of being homophobic per se.
PDN wrote: » Of course not, because I am not fat-headed or bigoted enough to accuse atheists of being homophobic per se. Therefore I agree with you that Sapien would be as safe on the atheist train as he would on the Christian train, and vice versa.
Sapien wrote: » No, a Christian's a Christian. You didn't define it any more rigorously when claiming that Christian societies are better for gay people than non-Christian ones, so that's what I'm working with.
How convenient. So the homophobia-diminishing property of Christianity is counteracted by this folk tale. It must be negligible to begin with.
Try Poland then. Overwhelmingly Christian, deeply and institutionally homophobic. No sodomising pagan kings, as far as I remember from my history. I don't have to try very hard, you see, because your method of demonstrating that Christian societies were less homophobic was to point to two non-Christian, homophobic societies. Poland is hugely Christian, and worse than either of your examples.
Interesting how now, after committing one yourself, you now have become aware of the dangers of cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies. Where, now, is your contention that homophobia is less of a problem in Christian societies? Do you still feel like pursuing that? And will you attempt to argue that Christianity is the cause of this tolerance? As opposed to low levels of marijuana usage.
You and your Christian pals may be lovely, super-non-violent people, but the religion that merely convinces you that in having sex with my partner I damn myself to hell, convinces the footballers to beat up queers late at night, the solicitors and politicians to resist equality law reform, the accountant to drive his son to suicide. We're not arguing about the effects of your precious, refined and nuanced take on Christianity. We're arguing about the effects of Christianity as it exists in the big, bad world.
You argue that a society that is Christian will be less homophobic. That is rubbish. I assume you mean to imply that Christianity causes these societies to be less homophobic. That is not only wrong, it is quite the wrong way around.
The difference is the existence of homosexuals, PDN.
You don't get to define what homophobia is. We will not accept from you such faux-naif as would require you to argue that fear, qua phobia is necessarily a part of homophobia, or indeed hate, per se. Put simply - yours is a club. Your club says that if you're a practising homosexual, you can't join. That's homophobic. The damage your club does to the lives of gay people in the world at large - this you can disavow all you like - it's quite beside the point.
Sapien wrote: » Well, that would just be stupid.
Sapien wrote: » Indeed. The important thing about PDN's d) group is not that they are Christians. If it were, he would just have said that: "The other 49 passengers are devout Christians". But, of course, they're not just devout Christians. They're devout Christians who attend a study group. In fact, they're more than that - they're PDN and his friends. Firstly, a train full of devout Christians could very well be a terrifying prospect, and could certainly place my life in danger in this scenario. Secondly, any group of people coming back from a study group, of whatever kind, would be unlikely to turn suddenly murderous. A physics seminar, a history lecture, a poetry reading. Anything, really, but a public reading of Mein Kampf or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Christianity plus meek intellectual equals PDN - no danger to gays anywhere (except in the ways he is). Christianity plus anyone with a violent temperament equals someone with a violent temperament and a slightly increased tendency to be violent towards queers.
PDN wrote: » because a Christian sees homosexual acts as immoral and therefore incompatible with practising Christianity, they are labelled 'homophobe' - even when they make no attempt to restrict the rights of non-Christians to practice said behaviour.
robindch wrote: » "they make no attempt to restrict the rights"? :eek: It's one thing to interpret the bible to make it into the book you wish it was. It's quite another to airbrush two millennia of what is politely termed institutionalized prejudice. Like wolfsbane's recent comments on the EU invading Russia, I really have no idea how to respond to such a bizarre posting.
Wicknight wrote: » I think you find they do. I've long put forward the idea that something like the Christian preoccupation with forbidding sexual relations outside of the strict framework of the religion is down to a mixtures of emotions, such as fear, towards of sex. And I seem to remember that not going down to well
PDN wrote: » Fair enough. However, I still think that you will find that tolerance towards homosexuals is, on average, much better in countries with a long exposure to Christian values than in those without such exposure. Of course there are exceptions - but the overall pattern is clear.
PDN wrote: » Meanwhile, would you like to point out one officially atheist regime that has not been homophobic?
PDN wrote: » So, history that doesn't fit in with your worldview becomes a folk-tale? This feels like the time I foolishly tried to have a conversation with some Turks about the Armenian genocide. If you want you can read the names of those who were mutilated, castrated and executed in this 'folk tale' http://www.buganda.com/martyrs.htm I was actually naive enough to think that a little historical context might help us to mutual understanding instead of demonising each other. Evidently I was wrong.
PDN wrote: » Yes, Poland, a deeply Catholic country. You could also have pointed to Russia, or Romania, or Bulgaria, or Ukraine, or Lithuania, or Latvia, or Belorussia - countries with a strong Orthodox or Catholic tradition. Now, I wonder what those countries have in common? (Hint: Try thinking about a generation of officially atheist and homophobic rule under the Soviet Union).
PDN wrote: » Yes, I think it is perfectly valid to see a general pattern in societies worldwide. If marijuana use can be shown to be generally more prevalent in Christian societies than non-Christian societies then, yes, I think it would be valid to assert a connection. To do so on the basis of one or two exceptions would, of course, be silly. For every Jamaica there is also a Cuba (hardly a bastion of Christianity).
PDN wrote: » And if there were no Christian churches then football supporters or drunken stag-nighters would no longer be homophobic and would gladly affirm your lifestyle? In your dreams!
PDN wrote: » What I am arguing is that societies with a long exposure to Christian values tend to be more tolerant in general. This is reflected by the increased tolerance of minorities - be they homosexuals, atheists or Jehovah's Witnesses, and by the earlier dates for abolition of slavery etc. when compared to other societies. Such tolerance is generally more pronounced in those countries where a plurality of churches have developed (Scandinavia, UK, USA etc) rather than where theological monopolies were enforced (Orthodox Serbia or Russia, Catholic Poland etc).
PDN wrote: » Even if you think the world revolves around you, surely you are aware that all the other people I mentioned also exist. People who commit heterosexual sin exist. Idolators exist. People who eat bacon sandwiches exist.
PDN wrote: » And you don't get to define what homophobia is either.
PDN wrote: » There are lots of people who can't join my club. You can't join my club if you believe Mohammed is God's only prophet. You can't join my club if you drink to excess. You can't join my club if you are a racist. You can't join my club if you are sleeping with your girlfriend outside of marriage. You can't join my club if you like praying to statues of Krishna. You can't join my club if you are a Freemason or a member of the Orange Order. I guess that means I'm full of hatred and fear towards those who do all that stuff as well? How mean of me!
PDN wrote: » Yes, as stupid as accusing Christians of being homophobic per se.
PDN wrote: » No, I never said they were me and my friends.
PDN wrote: » It could be our youth coming home from a U2 concert, or a bunch of Baptists who have been 10-pin bowling together, or even a Church-based rugby team who have been playing in an iner-church league. The only danger you would be in is that they might try to convert you by telling you how much God loves you, which might be extremely annoying but hardly qualifies as persecution.
PDN wrote: » So, Robin, convince me why I should accept the term 'homophobe' being applied to me just because I am a Christian and see certain behaviours as incompatible with biblical Christianity.
PDN wrote: » iUsevi used to belong to a Christian church, I believe. Maybe he could think back to his pre-atheist and enlighten us as to how many of his fellow-congregants used to go out queer-bashing on the nights that nothing was happening at church? He's got no pro-Christian agenda to push - so I'm sure we can trust him to answer honestly.
Sapien wrote: » Are you trying to be funny, or have you forgotten your own point about attributing Jamaican homophobia to marijuana?
PDN wrote: » What? Where did I attribute Jamaican homophobia to marijuana?
Sapien wrote: » Or Jamaican marijuana use to Christianity. It's the same point.
PDN wrote: » If you think it's the same point then I don't think we're going to get very far with this discussion. Your sexual preferences are not mine, but I'm a tolerant chap and wouldn't dream of insulting you or calling you names. My moral beliefs are not yours, and if you were a tolerant chap you wouldn't feel the need to call me names.
PDN wrote: » For example, I would staunchly defend Sapien's right to sleep with whatever consenting adult he chooses. I don't have to agree with his actions in order to defend his rights. Equally, even though Sapien may disagree with my religion, I hope he would defend my right to practice my religion. So, Robin, convince me why I should accept the term 'homophobe' being applied to me just because I am a Christian and see certain behaviours as incompatible with biblical Christianity.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » I've no wish to stoke the fires. But this is a good point
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Eh, the part I quoted
Sqaull20 wrote: » Billions of galaxies with trillions of planets. Why does the Bible only talk about this pathetic little planet?
PDN wrote: » Perhaps for the same reason that our phone book only contains phone numbers from our pathetic little country. The Bible was written for the people who live on planet earth, so it deals primarily with the things that concern us.
Sqaull20 wrote: » Other life/ planets dont concern us?
PDN wrote: » Er, what exactly is the connection between idolatry and sexual relations?
