LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

We're kinda like HYDRA.

Your both run by an evil guy with a red face? :P

Tbh, I thought that 'Love thy neighbor' thing that Christians go on about would take priority over the 'LGBT are evil sinners' thing. After all, wasn't the bible supposed to teach that you should tolerate and respect everyone, no matter their lifestyle choices (and that God likes smiting :P )?

Just wondering, what is Christianity's view on groups that use christian teachings to persecute and discriminate (WBC comes to mind)? I'm guessing God won't be too happy with those people when they meet Him in person.

Avatar by Pastel Mistress: http://pastelmistress.deviantart.com/

"Christianity" doesn't really have a view on anything beyond God ("he exists and he's a pretty cool guy"), Jesus ("he came back to earth after dying, son of God, also a pretty cool guy"), and bears ("they shit in woods"). "Christianity's view" is a somewhat meaningless term. To adapt an old joke; put four Christians in a room, you'll get six opinions.

Which denominations in particular do you mean?

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Not really sure. I'm a bit out of date when it comes to religion (Atheist and haven't learned RE for many years now). The only exposure I really get to Christianity is from hearing about all of the horrible things they keep doing (particularly towards LGBT people) in things like the news or internet. I know they aren't all like that, but surely there is something in the bible that tells them all that stuff is a big no?

Avatar by Pastel Mistress: http://pastelmistress.deviantart.com/

Well, the funny thing about a 2000-year old ancient text is you can interpret it in a number of ways. I mean, you can find plenty of well-argued theology about the issue, but it isn't clear. "The Lord moves in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform" etc etc ad nauseam.

edited 6th Jan '14 4:46:52 PM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Depends how you interprets the bible.

You can justify any treatment of the LGBT community (or anything else for that matter) thanks to the bible.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Can't speak for all denominations usually ... but in this case, the nearly universal Christian reaction is some variant of a facepalm. I'm sure that with only a little legwork, we could dig up some nutjob sect that wants to legally proscribe homosexuality, but it would be a mighty huge stretch to call such a platform characteristic of any major Christian bloc, de facto or de jure.

However, these days one sees a disturbing amount of people who hyperbolically consider "disapprove of and file under the category of 'sin'" the functional equivalent of "persecute and discriminate." For such folks, one supposes there are an awful lot of crypto-WBCers in the world, and always will be. I hate it for them, and must make a note to send flowers sometime.

edited 8th Jan '14 11:36:31 AM by Jhimmibhob

Nevermind.

edited 6th Jan '14 11:00:25 PM by Morgikit

We have a strong presence on the West coast. The Spanish moved along the southern border and crawled up the coastline. They wound up meeting Lutherans (who mostly moved along the northern border) there, and it's kind of split. You'll usually see a Lutheran church right across the street from the Catholic one.

Reference.◊

edited 7th Jan '14 2:17:01 AM by Pykrete

@Jhimmi: I know I draw a line between those who might privately religiously disapprove of something, and those who disapprove but also think it's their place to stop others from doing whatever they disapprove of (including those of religious beliefs which don't have a problem with whatever it is).

We live in a religiously pluralistic society. Trying to foist one's own religious beliefs on others is... frowned upon. Some religions don't allow eating of bacon, we don't outlaw the selling of it. Just don't eat it if you disapprove. Some religious beliefs don't allow intermarriage with those of others sects, we don't outlaw that. Just don't get an interfaith marriage if you disapprove. You don't even have to have a religious marriage, all you need is the government paperwork. So why ban same sex marriage? Just don't get one if you disapprove.

She of Short Stature & Impeccable Logic My Skating Liveblog

I think we're on the same page, far as that goes. I understand many of the religious arguments against SSM, and probably agree with some of them ... but I'm not okay with using those arguments as a justification for U.S. legislation or court decisions. (My own objections to the concept are 100% secular, and fall outside the scope of this thread.)

And by "foisting," I assume that you mean legal proscriptions. Often, of course, one man's "foisting" may be another man's "making a principled argument in the public square." No one has any business outlawing interfaith marriages on sectarian grounds, much less the holy substance of bacon, but I'm fine if public religious figures want to try vocally persuading us of their respective evils. Unwelcome or annoying that might be, but "foisting" it ain't.

Thanks for the info! That changes things a bit ... but in areas like my native South, Catholicism has always been, and still is, about as well represented as Judaism. As I was telling some of our overseas posters, these uneven distributions make it tough to get a handle on "American" religious dynamics as such.

edited 7th Jan '14 5:04:35 AM by Jhimmibhob

Mostly I mean legal proscriptions, yes. As for public-forum arguments? Well, fine, we have freedom of speech, but remember that we don't all share the same religious axioms, so if you try to persuade someone like me on a religious argument don't be frustrated when I don't agree. Same goes for private persuasion: don't get angry that someone else doesn't share your religious beliefs and won't see things the way you do, just accept it.

edited 7th Jan '14 5:38:58 AM by TheGirlWithPointyEars

She of Short Stature & Impeccable Logic My Skating Liveblog

That's pretty much the definition of foisting: pushing something on people that's unwelcome, such as an opinion. Some people seem to define free speech as "I can say whatever I want to whoever I want as often as I want and you have to listen". If someone tells me something I don't feel like listening to, I'm not going to listen just because they have "principles" and we're in the "public square". I have as much right not to be harassed in public as he has to speak in public. And it's not like (in this country at least) religious figures aren't allowed to create their own establishments (tax-free, I might add) where they can express their opinions uncensored, and which those of us who disagree can avoid like the plague.

Actually, a 501c3 tax-exempt religious organizations (AKA Most Churches.) For a 501c3 church to openly speak out, or organize in opposition to, anything that the government declares "legal," even if it is immoral (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, etc.), that church will jeopardize its tax exempt status.

I find it extremely difficult (bordering on impossible) to believe it is illegal for churches to oppose that thing we're not supposed to discuss anyway. I skimmed through that PDF, and it mostly seems to be about religious organizations not being allowed to get directly involved in election campaigns, which I'm okay with.

edited 7th Jan '14 6:39:21 AM by Morgikit

NO! YOU GOTS TO!

[getting a grip] Certainly; posing an argument based on axioms that your audience doesn't share is Bad Forensics 101, and no one should expect it to be very successful. I don't want anyone barred from giving it a go, but agree that it's not likely to bear much fruit.

Of course you needn't listen to anything you'd rather not listen to. But it doesn't follow that you get to dictate what's said or not said. If, as you put it, someone tells you something you don't feel like listening to, it's your privilege not to listen. But that someone's under no compunction not to say it openly; calling such a thing "harassment" in itself has radically illiberal implications. I trust that wasn't what you meant?

edited 7th Jan '14 6:41:25 AM by Jhimmibhob

To harass can mean "to annoy persistently" or "to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct". When someone gets in my face and says things like "you're a godless sodomite", "you want to molest little boys," "you're going to hell", "you need Jesus to save you from yourself", etc...that's harassment, and I'm not going to put up with it. I shouldn't have to. As for them having no compulsion to stop...how about kindness? Compassion? Mercy? That's not incompatible with liberalism. What one person may call "political correctness", another person may call "not being an overgrown playground bully".

Oh, and before anyone starts, people have told me those things. It's not an exaggeration.

edited 7th Jan '14 7:08:24 AM by Morgikit

How good a life coach would Jesus be, really? He got nailed to a cross! Clearly something went wrong, and I don't buy the "totally meant to do that" excuse.

It's especially egregious when the same people who hide their dickish behaviour behind free speech, scream percecution when others do the same. The whole "homosexual agenda" stick is basically nothing more than psychological projection.

You're reading it wrong. They can talk about it. What they can't do is campaign on behalf of a candidate or ballot issue. Which is what pissed off so many people about Prop 8; the LDS leadership got around that by funnelling millions of dollars through a Super PAC. And as Colbert proved, you can get a Super PAC approved for literally anything and take as much money as you want from any source.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

That really says more about the problems inherent in allowing Bribing Your Way to Victory to become standard government procedure.

Well, yes. There's nothing in the law^* Unless it changed since I read it two or three years ago that prevents a preacher from giving a sermon about the evils of teh ghay buttsexz, just as it doesn't stop them from preaching against the opening of a new casino or urging people to donate money to the local food pantry. What it does stop them from doing is using their tax-free donations to affect the local elections.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Sorry to hear that. I don't blame you for not putting up with it ... whether that takes the form of walking away, making some pointed observations about your interlocutor's own morals, or even launching an old-fashioned barfight. But you don't get to march to the police station and have them get your interlocutor to clam up, no matter how irritating his religious sentiments. In most places, the legal criteria of "harassment" are a lot more exacting than your workaday definition, and rightly so.

These things certainly ought to take the edge off their tongues, and in a perfect world such traits would be abundant enough that they would. However, we don't get to make anyone behave as his religion ideally ought to make him behave.

I look at it this way: assuming an afterlife exists, either those sort of people are going to heaven, in which case you'll never have to talk to them again, or they're going to hell with you, in which case you get to see the looks on their faces. Either way it's totally worth it.

Unless they end up in hell but you go to heaven.