LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

No, however, the wiki page on Protestantism says that Anglicanism isn't Protestantism which makes sense because the Pilgrim Fathers were Protestant and they hated the Church of England

Dutch Lesbian

Eastern Orthodox churches are not Protestant. They rose up parallel to the Roman Catholic Church, thus they never broke away from it. Orthodox churches also claim apostolic succession, like the Roman Catholic Church, but there is no single Orthodox Pope.

And speaking of the Pope, you may have heard that he declared same-sex marriage to be a "threat" to humanity's future back in January. That would seem to be a pretty strong "with us or against us" statement. Wouldn't that mean that Catholics now have a duty to do whatever they can to prevent it?

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

@Lawyer

I don't think it will affect what happens in the US very much. We have an ingrained fear of the Roman Catholic Church, to the point that up until JKF we had never had a Catholic President for fear that "The Pope would rule the US"

Woops, my mistake. I mixed up my Presidential Acronyms

edited 9th Apr '12 12:02:07 PM by LMage

"You are never taller then when standing up for yourself"

You probably meant to say JFK. FDR wasn't Catholic.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

That would be the case if they happened to agree with the Pope in that specific case. I should probably read what the Pope exactly said before making any claim: but if that's what he truly said, it goes without saying that I (and, I presume, a sizable number of other Catholics) do not agree with him.

The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church. But that does not mean that what he says is binding for Catholics, not except in some very specific circumstances and within certain very specific limits.

edited 9th Apr '12 12:17:05 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

For those who haven't read it lately, Here is a transcript of JFK's speech on his religion, the one that Santorum said made him want to hurl.

A great sentiment, one that I wish more people would share.

@Carc: That's something that I just can't wrap my head around. How can Catholics, on the one hand, say that the Pope is the head of the church, the representative of Jesus on Earth, successor to St. Peter, etc. but on the other hand disagree with anything that he says? Either he speaks for your God or he's just giving his own opinions. I don't see how you can have it both ways. I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I simply can't comprehend it.

edited 9th Apr '12 12:24:56 PM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

The Pope does not speak for God.

He is, I think, the rightful successor of the Apostle Peter and the rightful head of the Church on Earth. Peter got things wrong, and often. The Pope can do just the same; and historically, many Popes were less than reputable individuals. That did not make them any less the rightful heads of the Church; but still, "head of the Church" is not, and has never been, the same as "whatever the Pope says, Catholics are obligated to do."

He has an authority; but all authorities, except One, have limits. If the Pope told me to kill myself, I would refuse; and if the Pope told me to vote against the legalization of civil marriage, I would equally refuse.

edited 9th Apr '12 12:32:08 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

[

Civil Marriages aren't allowed in your country?

Dutch Lesbian

I meant civil gay marriage, right, sorry

EDIT: To mention something about which, instead, I think that the Pope does have authority: the rules for religious marriage are up to him. I may think that religious gay marriage should be allowed; but if he disagrees, he has a right to, and the opinion that goes is his, not mine.

I may have sympathy for the Catholic priests who performed blessings for gay couples and got themselves suspended for that; but nonetheless, I think that they overstepped their authorities and deserved to be suspended. Even if — as I think — they were in the right about the legitimacy of the act itself, they had no right to go over the Pope's decisions in that way.

edited 9th Apr '12 12:39:41 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Really? If that's the case, then I'm surprised. I tried doing research on that very question, but never found anything as clear or succinct as what you just said. I've asked people about it, but never got a straightforward satisfactory answer.

So if what you're saying about Catholic doctrine is true, then thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

You are welcome! Now, to attempt to clarify things a bit more, there are times in which the Pope does speak with infallible authority. But they are far and few between — if I remember correctly, that happened only a few recognized times in the whole history of the papacy.

The vast majority of Papal proclamations, such as this one, are definitely fallible.

This Wikipedia article has a decent summary of the doctrine of infallibility. Of special importance is its beginning, where it says that

edited 9th Apr '12 12:51:18 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I get the infallibility thing. (I don't agree with it, being an atheist, but whatever.) But that was what gave me headaches when trying to puzzle out why Catholics could disagree with the Pope on anything at all. I was under the impression that Catholics somehow simultaneously believed that he was God's "mouthpiece" but also that he was capable of making mistakes.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Ah, got it. I never heard the idea of the Pope "speaking for God" before, and I cannot say that it makes much sense in my (very limited) understanding of Catholic Theology.

The Pope is the Head of the Church; but that does not justify thinking that whatever the Pope says is what God would say in the same circumstances, or that whatever the Pope says carries the same authority of a direct divine command. No Catholic I know of thinks that — it would be a very bizarre doctrine, I think, not to mention a blatantly false one.

EDIT: As for "Catholics disagreeing with the Pope", look no further than Hans Kung. He goes a bit farther than he should do, IMO; but he is an insightful theologian who has often been explicitly at odds with both the current Pope and the previous one, and who is still a Catholic priest in good standing.

And by the way, he spoke explicitly in favor of religious gay marriage.

edited 9th Apr '12 1:08:35 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

As the head of a church, the Pope can set whatever rules he likes regarding his own followers. In those cases, outsiders don't have any business interfering. But when any religious leader uses their church as a pedestal to campaign for civil laws, then they have made their religious beliefs into a political matter. While anybody should have the right to speak their mind without fear of reprisal, when a church speaks out on matters of politics, they make their religious doctrines a public matter.

I wouldn't take issue with the Pope speaking out against racism or sexism or poverty or anything like that. But he has elected to enter the realm of public policy discourse. Therefore, neither he nor anybody else should be surprised when people publicly respond to those political declarations.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Oh, I certainly agree on this. I would go even further, and say that outsiders have also a right to criticize the religious rules of a community if they think them unjust or incorrect; but in any case, it is certainly legitimate to criticize the Pope's opinions about public policies — and this, both for non-believers and for believers.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

If their beliefs aren't causing or seeking to harm innocents or the general public, then I say live and let live. But if they seek to campaign against civil rights, and declare legal equality a "threat", then they are enemies of those who value equal rights and should be opposed.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Of course.

The 5 geek social fallacies. Know them well.

Depends on what you mean with "live and let live". If you mean "don't pelt them with molotovs", obviously — but of course, one cannot do so about opponents on matters of civil rights either.

But if you mean "whatever they believe is fine, as long as they don't try to impose that on other people", I have to disagree. Beliefs can be wrong and harmful; and if one thinks that a belief is that, they certainly can (and, perhaps, they must) oppose it with words.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

But you see, that's exactly how these problems started. It wasn't the LGBT community that declared war on religion; it was religion that declared war on them. When it comes down to it, all LGBT people want is to have the same rights and freedoms as everybody else, and to be free of bullying and harassment.

But religious leaders don't see it that way. They see homosexuals as "sinful", "abominations", "incompatible" or "gravely disordered". Based on that belief, churches engage in campaigns intended to oppress them and deprive their fellow human beings of equal rights.

Sure, some may say that they don't support bullying and harassment, but their actions show differently. When you label a group of people as "unworthy" of equality, you give people the go-ahead to engage in any number of terrible things against them. If you can strip one people of one set of rights, what is to stop you from going even farther?

The current Pope grew up in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. His predecessor grew up in Poland during the same time period. It's tragic that they didn't learn anything from that.

edited 11th Apr '12 7:36:08 AM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Wait a moment. What the Pope and, generally, conservative Christians say is not that gay people are unworthy of equality, but that a specific category of actions is sinful and should not be condoned by the state*

— and this for all people.

Now, gay people are defined as people who have a strong, innate inclination towards such actions; and the "conservative Christian" answer to these people is along the lines of "It's not your fault; but still, you should not do that, sorry." (Of course, there are nutjobs whose positions are more along the lines of "burn the deviants", but I am talking about mainstream views.)

As I said, I do not agree with this position, because

1. I know of no motive why homosexual marriage should be considered a threat to society, and
2. I think that theologically speaking, the reasons why homosexuality is considered a sin are very unconvincing.

But that's not a hateful position, in itself; and comparisons with Nazi Germany and so on are, I think, rather improper.

edited 11th Apr '12 8:12:06 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

The post above yours wasn't actually comparing the Catholic church to the Nazi party, though; it was saying that people who have seen with their own eyes a society based on segregation and oppression and discrimination of the worst kind should know better than to encourage discrimination when they get into power.

Fair point, if you ask me, though if the implication was that the Catholic church is as evil as Hitler, then it would be over the top and beyond silly.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

I got that. I was just pointing out that the official doctrine of the Catholic Church, or of any non WBC-equivalent confession I can think of, is not "gay people are subhuman and do not deserve equal rights", but more along the lines "All people have equal rights. Unfortunately, some people can be strongly attracted towards some actions that should not be condoned for anybody. That does not make them bad people; but still, they still should not do these actions, and society should not condone them."

The problem with this, as far as I am concerned, is not that it is discriminatory, but that there is no reasonable motive to say that these specific actions should be discouraged by society. Should there be a motive, as there is for other possible classes of people (I'd make examples, but that could be a bit inflammatory and in any case my point is that these cases would be different), then the argument would be perfectly valid.

edited 11th Apr '12 8:38:29 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

@Best Of: Yes, I wasn't suggesting that Benedict is the same as Hitler. I've done some reading on his history, and it appears that his experiences growing up in Nazi Germany led him to believe that the best remedy for political totalitarianism is "ecclesiastical totalitarianism", wherein the Church somehow "serves the cause of human freedom by restricting freedom in its internal life". Source.

@Carc: But I think what these churches are doing is even worse than outright saying, "Burn the gays". Instead they claim that their discriminatory practices and attitudes stem from a desire to save others from sin. Which in turn leads to two questions: First, who are they to judge? Second, what gives them the right?

Also, religious condemnation against homosexuals is very different from opposition to things like murder. Sure, a person can have an inclination to be a murderer. But you are only a murderer if you actually murder somebody. In contrast, homosexuals are condemned, not for what they do, but rather for who they are and who they love.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

And here is where the misunderstanding lies, I think. Even according to the strictest conceivable understanding of Christian doctrine, homosexuals (as in "people who have an attraction towards the same sex") are not condemned at all. At the very most, they can be said to have a "disordered attraction" towards people of the same gender. But that's a different thing, and carries no guilt whatsoever in itself — actually, if resisted, it carries merit.

What is considered a sin is a specific set of actions that homosexual people feel an attraction towards. If an heterosexual person were to do the same actions, say out of curiosity or of money or whatever, it would be precisely the same sin — actually, a worse one, because that person would not have the excuse of a genuine attraction.

edited 11th Apr '12 9:37:56 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Sounds to me like condemnation, calling it a "disordered attraction". But what is their basis for calling it "disordered" in the first place, other than "The Bible Tells Me So" (which it doesn't)?

I wouldn't be able to honestly say that I could believe homosexual orientation to be "disordered" in any meaningful sense. As I've pointed out before, the medical, psychiatric and psychological communities in the developed world have agreed for over 30 years that homosexuality is not a mental illness or disorder. I happen to find them more credible on that issue.

Are Christians then forced to choose between scientific consensus and religious doctrine?

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.