LGBT and Islam

Andy Flaky Snowstorm wrote: »

Yet his followers will continue to gleefully follow and attend his teachings regardless, with no media exposure and no complaints from anyone.

When a priest in Kilkenny wrongly suggested something similar, people walked out of church. A Bishop has publically called it inappropriate language. Now the Capuchin Order has expressed their deep regret and outlined clearly their views for the inclusion of all

The same goes for westboro baptist church, where's your outrage there? A bishop? Who was the priest? Link tonthe story and the bishops comment please.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Which of course is only a good thing up to a point! We certainly as a society should not be giving complete free reign to parents in choosing what is best for their own children. And thankfully we as a society actually are not doing that. Their ability to make that determination is curtailed and limited in all kinds of ways in fact.

I wasn’t suggesting that parents be given completely free reign in choosing what is best for their own children. It’s only my personal belief that parents do know what is best for their own children. I don’t think other adults who are not the children's parents are in any position to know what is best for someone else’s children in terms of the religious, moral, intellectual, social and physical education of their own children. The State too is limited by numerous laws in terms of it’s reach into the private affairs of the family as the fundamental unit of society.

That’s not something that society as such really has any control over, and that’s a good thing as far as I’m concerned because it has been demonstrated throughout history that it is better for children to remain with their parents where this is possible as opposed to separating children from their parents and raising them in the care of the State.

Those would really be extreme examples though as opposed to what we’re talking about here which is a conflict of cultural values.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And for the 17th time on this site, I'll give the following statements.

Catholic church's problem: Clergy.
Islam's problem: Congregation.

Muslims in Ireland: Like Americans visiting Ireland.
Muslims in their own countries: Alabama on steroids.


I've been to Sharia areas and it's quite different to the craic you'd have with Mohammad in IT. I don't personally have an issue with individual Muslims. They're sound. But once there's enough in an area that their religion compels them to act according to their religion, it comes up against everything the West stands for.

Is that a bad thing to say? No. I believe the vast majority of Muslims are sound and have no problem with homosexuality for example. The problems crop up when there's enough of a community that those personal beliefs need be forgotten because the religion is so harsh that people need to conform.

It's barely arguable to be honest. It's peer pressure religious worship that causes the issues. The West have largely moved past that and we're happy to tell someone to fak off. The same can't be said for "ghettos" where like it or not, they have to follow the religion closely.

Do you really think it’s an issue of peer pressure due to religious worship, or is it an issue of peer pressure due to culture, and religion is used as a convenient excuse?

Andy Flaky Snowstorm wrote: »

It made headline news today/yesterday incase you missed it:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/
Needless to say Tom Forde will either need to resign, or clarify his comments.

Do the Baptists call for jail or death to the gay folks?
Doubt it somehow.

I did miss it, so one priest said that, does he speak for all christians?

Maybe look up the westboro baptist church and see hiw vile they are for yourself.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Religion imo.

I used to be friends with a few rich Afghani tea traders here in Vietnam. Alone, few beers nay bother. Together, it's tea and cokes. They act based on who's watching.

Reminds me of a woman i know live in Kells, mid 40's and still wint touch a drink or ciggy when the mammy is around.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So I wonder when we say "evenly split" are we being a little vague there as to what exactly the split entails and in what proportions? I have no idea - I have not actually looked at the stats for Africa. And in fact I would wonder if they even made that kind of distinction when compiling them?

In their defense though - I would also suspect people conducting that research are prone to asking different questions of the two groups. Given the rep Muslims have - I would not at all be surprised to find studies of their attitudes to homosexuals specifically asked what should be done with / to homosexuals while studies of Christians simply did not think to / care to ask.

I would have to read the studies in question I guess. To which African statistics do you refer specifically?

I’m not referring to any studies specifically when I mentioned the African population of both Muslims and Christians, but rather I was making the point that the poster I was replying to seemed to ignore the fact that there are many more Christians globally than just those in Europe or the US.

The point I’m getting at is that I don’t think condemnation of homosexuality really a product of any specific religion, but rather one of culture, and religions tapped into that and formed their ideas around it, rather than the other way around. I think the correlation between the majority of people who have issues with homosexuality and are also either Christian or Muslim is simply a question of numbers as opposed to the idea that they condemn homosexuality or homosexuals because an old book tells them to. I think that’s a rather simplistic correlation that ignores many cultural factors which influence their condemnation of anything which is outside of their cultural norms within their own culture.

Andy Flaky Snowstorm wrote: »

Twice (Three times now) you mention 'wesboro' in 'whaboutery', which on the last count has a gongregation of 40 (four. zero.) essentially it's just a small family (the Phelps) based cult organisation.

It is also rejected and rightly condemned by all mainstream Christians and is denounced by the Southern Baptist Conventiion.

Someone quoted one imam, even if hebhas a congregation of 10,000 its miniscual compared to the Billion muslims across the world.

The point is you get nutjobs/extremists in ALL religions yet heres you lads banging the anti islam drum loud and proud.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So what? He's preaching shìte, there are christians preaching the same shìte.

Should we tar all with the same brush?

It would be hard to find Imams that would disagree.

jmreire wrote: »

Could not agree more !!! I have lived and worked abroad in Islamic Country's and have many Muslim friends. Sound does nor even begin to describe them, they will invite you into their homes, and you will be treated the same as Family. Any of these guy's are more than welcome to come and visit me anytime. Their most pressing problems are same as anyone's here in Ireland....keeping the bill's paid, mortage's, car, educating the children etc. And on a scale of say 1 to 10, with 1 being the hard core isis group, to 10, being the group that on a given day, would give a fair shot at drinking an Irishman under the table. Basically the only ones you have to worry about are the Nr.1's. The rest are just doing their best to get on with life. But like you said, when they accumulate in large Nrs, then the Religious element kicks in, then it become's "herd" mentality, and it's usually started by elements of Group Nr 1..

But surely it’s the same thing from their perspective? You’re sound out on your own, but when you’re in a group of like minded individuals, you demonstrate a completely different attitude towards them?

Perhaps if either of you were honest with each other, neither of you would think the other is at all as sound as you think they are :pac:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But surely it’s the same thing from their perspective? You’re sound out on your own, but when you’re in a group of like minded individuals, you demonstrate a completely different attitude towards them?

Perhaps if either of you were honest with each other, neither of you would think the other is at all as sound as you think they are :pac:

Not quite Jack, for a practicing Muslim, everything, and I mean everything,he does is dictated to him by Islam. In the non-Islamic world we don't have anything like that. So People here will form groupings etc. but nothing to compare with Islam. When a Muslim is out and about, and in company of other Muslims his behavior will be impeccably Islamic. He / she will not want to appear to be "less" Islamic than the other's. But in the privacy of his own home, he may be a different man,,,,put his feet up, light up a shiska pipe, and have glass of wine ( or something stronger ) But his grouping while he remains a Muslim,will always be Islamic. At the other end of the Muslim scale, you will have the isis / taliban type.And these guys will always be critical of other Muslims behavior...as not being "Islamic" enough.
Grouping's here in Ireland , Eu etc. will be shifting and changing....nearest " stable" one's I can think of would be the GAA, FAI etc. or similar Name your favorites here, if you like. So it's not a case of comparing like with like. I have met Muslims, who I am very happy to call my friends, but I have met the other kind too. It's not a clear cut one size fits all situation.

This topic shows that as much as we preach equality as a society we allow exemptions in how we apply this and if your apart of a minority you dont always have to play by the rules.

The problem with having exemptions when it comes to stuff like this is that if you give it to one group, you keep the inequality alive and eventually it shifts to other groups.

To clarify most Muslims i have worked with and chatted with (and its been allot) are just everyday people like most Irish folk just trying to keep their head above water (only met one bad apple but same for Irish). However in the west we seem to have a bigotry of low expectations and we allow minority groups discriminate against others.

In Ireland its the traveller's who have some fairly misogynistic and toxic masculine culture, in the UK Muslims seem to be exempt from living by the same equal standards that the rest of society live by. We can see examples of this in the rejection of LGBT teachings in schools or the rise of antisemitism.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s a case of comparing like with like alright, but you’re only comparing Christians in Ireland with Muslims in countries in the ME.

The reason I make the point is that Christians in Uganda for example wouldn’t be anything like Christians in Ireland either, nor would Christians in the US be anything like Christians in Ireland. I know what you’re describing and it would be commonly referred to as virtue signalling -


Virtue signalling is the conspicuous expression of moral values. Academically, the phrase relates to signalling theory and describes a subset of social behaviors that could be used to signal virtue—especially piety among the religious. In recent years, the term has been more commonly used within groups to criticize those who are seen to value the expression of virtue over action.


Among their own groups they express a particular set of beliefs and behaviours, in private they hold a very different set of beliefs and behaviours. Very much like here many people would condemn prostitution for example, but it still goes on, much as it does in predominantly Muslim countries too.

It’s true it’s not a case of one size fits all, and I’m not so naive that I’d imagine all Muslims are benign, pacifist types, any more than I’d be trying to argue all Christians are benign, pacifist types. We know there are extremists in both groups, and I wouldn’t immediately say that their condemnation of practices or beliefs which they find objectionable are as a result of religion, but rather as a result of their culture, or rather their peer groups which they want to be seen to fit in with. That’s why you’ll often see a conflict if you know of any gay Muslims or gay Christians between their identities as either being gay or being Christian or Muslim - they’ll often hide that part of themselves because they want to fit in with their peers.

This is one of the reasons why frankly I detest what has evolved into the gay rights movement in Western society. I disagree with their politics. Their politics are exclusionary - they aren’t based upon sexual orientation or gender any more, but rather they are based upon a person’s agreement and acceptance of their politics. Conservatives and religious gay men and women need not apply. They are scorned by the current political movers and shakers in the LGBT movement who claim to represent their interests, but really they don’t. They’re signalling that they are all about acceptance, but they don’t practice what they preach. If one wants to be accepted in the LGBT “community” nowadays, they have to hide the fact that they are religious, for fear of being ostracised.

It’s an odd sort of a turnaround, and I think the first I experienced of it was working for the Red Ribbon Project back in the mid-90’s, when all the scandals about the Catholic Church in Ireland were being exposed and I was kinda keeping my head down in work because I feared if people knew I was Catholic, I’d be hounded out of it :pac:

From my experience working in Islamic Country's ( and as I mentioned in an earlier post ) Muslim's are governed completely by the Koran, and it's not just a reference book for them, it's the Law, and there is no other. For every situation they find themselves in, they will go to the local Imam, who will consult the relevant section in the Koran to find the answer. There can be no discussion or changes made to the Koran. If the Koran says this is the Law, then that's it. There are two main branch's of Islam, Shia and Sunni, and there are variations between them as how the Koran is interpreted, but that's about it. A wahabbi I once worked with told that everything a man could or would want, he would find it in the Koran. Peace? Certainly. War? Certainly.
This has absolutely nothing to do with culture, except that maybe the culture formed around the Islamic Religion?
Catholics, on the other hand, have one central authority, The Pope. He is the final arbitrator of Christian doctrine world wide, so a Christian in Ireland, and a Christian in Spain, for example will all have the same "Hymn Book" to use a figure of speech. But we also have the Law of the Land, which is as you know, a completely different thing. This is the law that all citizens of the state are required to obey. So of course different Christian Country's will have different cultures, but the Catholic Church remains the same world wide.
What I post here are my own opinion's, based on my experience's of working abroad, and Life in general. Do you consider that Virtue signalling ?.
Sure we have all blended into the wood work when we had to.....wearing any outward sign of Christianity ( or even other religions ) Crucifix , Tattoo's etc would be inviting trouble, depending on which Country I was in at the time, and was best avoided. But amongst my Colleagues, I never hid or tried to hide my religion, because of what was happening in the Church itself.
Are you really surprised that the LGBT is morphing into something else? Seems to follow a pattern...movement starts, with large following, then as time passes, changes occur. Maybe just a normal progression??
The Red Ribbon Project was a very worthwhile endeavor, Kudos to you for that. How long were you with them?

jmreire wrote: »

From my experience working in Islamic Country's ( and as I mentioned in an earlier post ) Muslim's are governed completely by the Koran, and it's not just a reference book for them, it's the Law, and there is no other. For every situation they find themselves in, they will go to the local Imam, who will consult the relevant section in the Koran to find the answer. There can be no discussion or changes made to the Koran. If the Koran says this is the Law, then that's it. There are two main branch's of Islam, Shia and Sunni, and there are variations between them as how the Koran is interpreted, but that's about it. A wahabbi I once worked with told that everything a man could or would want, he would find it in the Koran. Peace? Certainly. War? Certainly.
This has absolutely nothing to do with culture, except that maybe the culture formed around the Islamic Religion?

Yeah the Koran would be like the Bible in that way for Christians, each denomination of Christianity taking their own interpretation of it in much the same way as the various denominations of Islam would interpret the Koran. Roman Catholicism is only one denomination of Christianity though and while they have the Pope as the head of their Church, other Christian denominations wouldn’t recognise the Pope as the head of their Church at all -

List of Christian denominations

(It’s kinda like when you see people on here quoting Leviticus at Catholics, when Leviticus would only be relevant for Jews, and for Catholics they have Canon Law and the Catechism)

I’d say it was everything to do with culture because the application of Islam in one culture would be different in another culture, same as Christianity in one culture would be different in another culture. In the same way as Muslims could point to something in their religious texts and interpret it to suit themselves, Christians and Jews do the very same with their religious texts (although the Bible has changed much more over time than Islamic or Jewish texts).

jmreire wrote: »

Catholics, on the other hand, have one central authority, The Pope. He is the final arbitrator of Christian doctrine world wide, so a Christian in Ireland, and a Christian in Spain, for example will all have the same "Hymn Book" to use a figure of speech. But we also have the Law of the Land, which is as you know, a completely different thing. This is the law that all citizens of the state are required to obey. So of course different Christian Country's will have different cultures, but the Catholic Church remains the same world wide.

Yeah the Pope would be the central authority for Catholics worldwide alright, but he’s not the central authority for all Christians. That aside though, I think you’d still find Catholicism in Spain would be quite different from Catholicism in Ireland, or Poland, or Brazil - a country of 130 million Catholics, kinda puts Irish Catholics in the ha’penny place

Each of those countries have secular civil laws that are heavily influenced by religions which are part of their culture. That’s why when a poster earlier claimed that Ireland was a secular country, I disagree, we’re really not a secular country at all - we have civil laws alright, but our laws are still heavily influenced by Christianity because it’s part of our culture. It’s not all that different to the influence of Sharia in predominantly Muslim countries which also have civil laws.

jmreire wrote: »

What I post here are my own opinion's, based on my experience's of working abroad, and Life in general. Do you consider that Virtue signalling ?.
Sure we have all blended into the wood work when we had to.....wearing any outward sign of Christianity ( or even other religions ) Crucifix , Tattoo's etc would be inviting trouble, depending on which Country I was in at the time, and was best avoided. But amongst my Colleagues, I never hid or tried to hide my religion, because of what was happening in the Church itself.

Oh jaysis no, what I meant when I said about virtue signalling was basically that Muslims, like Christians, like a lot of people really who want to fit in with their peer group whether it’s either religion or politics will try to show how, I suppose “dedicated” or “devout” they are to their peers, while behind closed doors they live an entirely contradictory private life. It’s a more pronounced difference the more value is placed in being seen to be more devout or dedicated to the cause. We do see it on social media the whole time where people who are just normal, everyday types will turn into utter bellends online. I’m kinda reminded of John Cleese’s take on extremism when I think about it -





It’s a relief to have an online exchange where there’s no point scoring or snide shìte and it feels like you’re just shooting the breeze

jmreire wrote: »

Are you really surprised that the LGBT is morphing into something else? Seems to follow a pattern...movement starts, with large following, then as time passes, changes occur. Maybe just a normal progression??
The Red Ribbon Project was a very worthwhile endeavor, Kudos to you for that. How long were you with them?

Ach, to be honest I kinda was :pac: I know what you mean by it just being a normal progression though, kinda like the way all the various religions evolved and all claim to be promoting and representing the way everyone should live their lives, Stone Age virtue signalling as it were, before virtue signalling was cool

But seriously though, ahh I only worked for them in a voluntary capacity for about a year, I wasn’t one of the higher ups or anything and I kinda just fell into the job and wanted to help people out really. It was just when the scandals were exposed and that’s all people were talking about that I became more aware of the politics involved and I just kinda figured this wasn’t the place for me, so I left it.

jmreire wrote: »

That's one of the benefit's of a working democracy, you are free to choose. But to suggest that any one who DOES believe in a the easter bunny, is some how mentally deficient is frankly insulting...

Now read your post again.

If i told you that i truly belived in the easter bunny you would think there was something wrong with me.

That's how i see religion.

Deleted User wrote: »

You can chose to be insulted. Doesn't mean you are right or not mentally deficient

Using that criteria, you could be talking about every single person on the planet who believes in God. You think that is possible? I have never felt the need to make a comment like that about any person's belief's, or lack of them.

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

If people want to buy into that lunacy, that is their choice, if they find comfort in it, good for them, but I have noticed the very same religious people who are quick to defend their rights and beliefs, are not very tolerant when people like me speak my opinion.
If these people's faith is as strong as they would like us to believe, then surely my opinions would not matter.

but it does

Well, don’t take this the wrong way, and I mean this with the greatest of respect, and I’m not directing this at you as a person, but at your opinions. Your opinions give the impression that you’re a mentally unstable arsehole. You may not be a mentally unstable arsehole and that’s all fine and dandy, but in order for me to take your opinion seriously, I’d have to get over that hurdle first.

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

You do know a person can be a good person, have decency, morality, compassion and all the great qualities a human should possess, but not believe in fairies, santa, god, zombies etc

Yep, and I’m sure you too are aware that a person can be all of those things too and believe in fairies, Santa, God, zombies, etc. People can hold all sorts of beliefs and opinions that you don’t agree with or that I don’t agree with, and that still wouldn’t mean they were a bad person. I don’t think you’re a bad person either. I mean, you sound like an intolerable arsehole that I couldn’t bear to listen to for any length of time, but I don’t think you’re a bad person either.

In fact religion has been responsible for more deaths than atheism.
There was no atheist war, atheist suicide bombers, no agnostics begging at my door for money.

I wasn’t aware killing was a competitive sport, but to say religion has been responsible for more deaths than atheism is comparing apples and oranges really. Atheism doesn’t have any beliefs or doesn’t have any sort of a structure built around an ideology, it’s just... the antonym of theism. That’s all. It wouldn’t make any sense to suggest that atheism or non-religious positions would be responsible for anything, let alone deaths.


Anti-theism on the other hand is an ideology, an ideology which motivates people to kill others for their beliefs. That’s people who kill other people and cause death and cause other people to suffer who don’t share their ideology. That’s comparing like with like - competing ideologies.

On that score, if you want to frame killing for ideology as a competitive sport, people of differing ideologies have always been killing each other. I don’t think anyone’s been keeping score, and because I don’t imagine you adding to that tally any time soon, I’m not going to take anything you have to say seriously. If I thought you were an ideologically fundamentalist extremist who I considered could ever possibly present a credible threat, then perhaps I might be more inclined to take the threat at least, seriously.