TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Go To

Discussion of religion in the context of LGBTQ+ rights is only allowed in this thread.

Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBTQ+ rights..." threads.

Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.

Edited by Mrph1 on Dec 1st 2023 at 6:52:14 PM

pagad Sneering Imperialist from perfidious Albion Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
Sneering Imperialist
#3451: Aug 20th 2012 at 6:45:03 AM

Reminds me of the Church of England saying that the legalisation of gay marriage would raise the spectre of disestablishment. One commentator likened it to a hostage-taker threatening to blow his own head off.

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.
Jhimmibhob Since: Dec, 2010
#3452: Aug 20th 2012 at 8:41:33 AM

O'Brien's responsibilities include upholding his Church's teachings and interests. This would certainly be relevant to public issues within his episcopate that seem likely to undermine them. Even if I disagreed with the man, I don't see how one could really fault him for doing his job.

TamH70 Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
#3453: Aug 29th 2012 at 2:47:46 AM

I could possibly say how wrong you are in just about everything you said there but I don't think the requisite mathematical notation exists. Oh heck, let's have a wee shottie anyways. See how things go.

O'Brien is an apparatchik (wow, correct spelling and everything without using Google. Not bad for this time in the morning), pure and simple. He gives the square root of sod all for the wishes of "his" ordinary parishioners and absolutely everything for and in the pursuit of political power in a Catholic Church hierarchy that gave Stalin lessons in ruthlessness and stupidity. That is why he is a cardinal archbishop. Any semblance of religious vocation, of tolerance, of the things that the Catholic Church as an institution is supposed to be about is lost in this man.

Why do you think Ratzinger (who was, by the way, the head of the Inquisition - the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - see his wiki page and theirs. And weep)sent him to my country? Because he is relevant to the needs of people who live here, the ordinary parishioners? No. He was sent because he is willing to try to hold onto(by his fingernails if necessary)the last vestiges of the power of a church that is dying on its arse in Scotland because of men like him and his immediate predecessors. He shares the same views of a man who has the same first name as me and is the first guy whose balls I am going to kick when I go to hell who went on record as saying that all gays deserve to burn in hell. Regardless of anything else they may or may not have done, who we choose to sleep with (or not, as the case may be) is enough for condemnation.

Where exactly is the teachings of Rebbe Yeshua bin Yusuf in that?

edited 29th Aug '12 2:48:53 AM by TamH70

Jhimmibhob Since: Dec, 2010
#3454: Aug 29th 2012 at 7:41:44 AM

Congratulations! You found the requisite mathematical notation after all. Mind you, I didn't realize that the formula read "GORMLESS ASSERTION AND QUESTION-BEGGING."

You're free to dislike the Catholic Church. You're free to dislike the fact that a man is carrying out the requirements of his job description within said Church. You're free to dislike that a member of a top-down hierarchy—notoriously heavy on teaching—is acting consistently with that hierarchical structure, and is instructing his parishioners rather than taking orders from them. Others are free to find such umbrage a trifle silly.

You might as well censure a V.P. at the World Bank for acting on nakedly economic grounds.

P.S.: I can't speak for any bishops, but believe that the teaching they'd refer you to is "Tu es Petrus ...," etc., etc.

edited 29th Aug '12 7:43:28 AM by Jhimmibhob

TamH70 Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
#3455: Aug 29th 2012 at 8:30:50 AM

Gormless assertions? Bet you think I am a Protestant. Well, nope. Catholic. At least I was born, baptized and confirmed one. And I will take no lessons in morality whatsoever from a man like O'Brien. Or his master Ratzinger. You might. That is up to you.

It is time the church stopped living in the past. Particularly when the past includes the Albigensian Crusades, the exile of the Jews from Sepharad and the Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición.

Jhimmibhob Since: Dec, 2010
#3456: Aug 29th 2012 at 11:41:30 AM

Funny: I gather that you, in turn, believe me a Catholic. Maybe one day. For the time being, however, I'm simply a Protestant with a rudimentary level of interest in the Catholic Church, who's done an equally rudimentary amount of homework on the subject. Sadly, that usually suffices to put one well ahead of the average cradle Catholic these days.

Even from my outsider's perspective, what you're taking for "living in the past" looks more to me like a simple refusal to be slave to the contemporary. And even if you don't find that as admirable as I do, it's still entirely their prerogative.

So for the third time, the Church is acting perfectly reasonably in light of its particular outlooks, doctrines, hierarchical structure, and commitments. Whether or not you approve of those teachings and priorities might all be very interesting to yourself, but isn't remotely germane to how a Catholic bishop ought to act and speak on the matter at hand. Neither you nor I are qualified to tell the Catholic Church what it "as an institution is supposed to be about," much less how to achieve it.

Morgikit Mikon :3 from War Drobe, Spare Oom Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: What's love got to do with it?
Mikon :3
#3457: Aug 29th 2012 at 11:56:29 AM

I really don't care what religious people do as long as they keep it to themselves. But when they try to push their morals on me, they lose that "get out of criticism free" card.

TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#3458: Aug 29th 2012 at 12:30:09 PM

And so long as secular people keep their snide comments and "Those silly believers and their myths" to themselves and not try to force Churches and Church leaders to accept their newer, hipper religious outlook, likewise, I'll hold my criticism.

It was an honor
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#3459: Aug 29th 2012 at 12:32:50 PM

Meh. I'm perfectly fine criticizing everybody, all the time.

Aondeug Oh My from Our Dreams Since: Jun, 2009
Oh My
#3460: Aug 29th 2012 at 12:34:26 PM

I will criticize and defend everyone all the time. Depending on the situation.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah
Morgikit Mikon :3 from War Drobe, Spare Oom Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: What's love got to do with it?
Mikon :3
#3461: Aug 29th 2012 at 12:56:32 PM

@Maxima If you thought that was snide, you don't want to see me get really offended. Why not be thankful I showed enough class to avoid the obvious response to "he's just doing his job"?

TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#3462: Aug 29th 2012 at 1:04:54 PM

My dear Morg, if I thought you were being snide, I would've addressed you; seeing as to how I don't fear you being either snide or offended.

I said what I said overall. There are religious uptights that think it their duty to clobber everyone into submission. There are liberal uptights that think it their duty to clobbler the religious guys into submission.

My answer to both is and has been "Why don't you both mind your fucking business??"

It was an honor
Elfive (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#3463: Aug 29th 2012 at 1:16:34 PM

Why don't you just mind your [own] fucking buisness?
...Said the gay couple to the Catholic Church.

edited 29th Aug '12 1:19:11 PM by Elfive

Enzeru icon by implodingoracle from Orlando, FL ¬ôχಠ♥¯ Since: Mar, 2011
icon by implodingoracle
#3464: Aug 29th 2012 at 1:18:25 PM

I smell heating-up-ness in here...

Please keep it calm, posters, or I'm gonna have to alert a mod (for once).

TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#3465: Aug 29th 2012 at 2:02:08 PM

...Said the gay couple to the Catholic Church.

Hm, but where did they say it? I have no problem with a gay couple telling the Catholic Church to go stuff itself.

A gay couple throwing a hissy fit in the middle of Mass is a bit different.

It was an honor
Morgikit Mikon :3 from War Drobe, Spare Oom Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: What's love got to do with it?
Mikon :3
#3466: Aug 29th 2012 at 2:14:55 PM

If that happened, it's unfortunate. Most LGBT people are a bit smarter than that though.

Elfive (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#3467: Aug 29th 2012 at 2:16:52 PM

[up][up]I'd like to think that no-one would actually do that, but I'd probably be wrong.

edited 29th Aug '12 2:17:00 PM by Elfive

TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#3468: Aug 29th 2012 at 2:19:25 PM

Most LGBTQ people, I'd say 93%, are way smarter than that, yes.

It was an honor
Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#3469: Aug 29th 2012 at 3:36:40 PM

The fact is, western society has mostly advanced past the idea of the Church dictating the rules to the State. It's churches that still refuse to understand that they benefit from separation as much as nonbelievers. Instead, people like the Pope and Pat Robertson and others believe that the state tolerating the very existence of nonbelievers is an affront to the very freedoms that they enjoy. Giving legal recognition to same-sex relationships is, to them, incompatible with their worldview.

This suggests that they want nothing less than ultimate power of life and death over all people, because their own religious views are incompatible with toleration of others.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
KnightofLsama Since: Sep, 2010
#3470: Aug 29th 2012 at 3:47:20 PM

And so long as secular people keep their snide comments and "Those silly believers and their myths" to themselves and not try to force Churches and Church leaders to accept their newer, hipper religious outlook, likewise, I'll hold my criticism.

Well, given that most branches of Christianity see is as part of their mission (to a greater or lesser extent depending on denomination) to convert the non-believers (here defined as anyone not of the would be converter's particular denomination) to their religion they by definition but their beliefs out into the public marketplace of ideas. And from where I'm sitting any and every idea in the public sphere is open to criticism and if I ridiculous, an appropriate ridicule.

You are of course free to counter-criticise and pick apart my criticism but do not ask me to remain silent.

Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#3471: Aug 29th 2012 at 3:51:59 PM

Quite right. Nobody has a right to stifle freedom of expression, whether in the name of religion or not. Religious leaders have this belief that they should be afforded some sort of privilege in the marketplace of ideas, that religion should be immune to criticism. That is why they claim they are being oppressed when others dare to speak out against them.

Religion deserves no privileges.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
Matues Since: Sep, 2011
#3472: Aug 29th 2012 at 4:09:19 PM

I do think that most major religions have grown used to being free from criticism.

You object to something, you got excommunicated back in the day. Or at least ostracized by the congregation. Or even thrown in jail.

I have no problems with religions I can keep my mouth shut as long as other people keep theirs. It's when people start telling me how my life should be when I tell them what I think.

Jhimmibhob Since: Dec, 2010
#3473: Aug 30th 2012 at 8:34:19 AM

All devil's advocacy aside, I'm a bit torn about the issue. On the one hand, I don't much cotton even to traditional "blue laws," much less wide-ranging morals legislation with a sectarian basis. Rick Santorum's idea of a livable, civilized society isn't mine, to say the least. On the other hand ...

It's hard to say that religion can be wholly a private matter. Every single citizen has ideas—and ideals—about what one's civilization ought to be like. In practice, damned few people—religious or secular—hew to pure moral libertarianism. It's all very fine to say that you have no right to impose your morality on the public square, and maybe it is fine. At the same time, though, that kind of amounts to proscribing our human desires to live in a particular kind of society, and to do anything as a civilization to establish or encourage such a society.

My problem with libertarianism, in both its leftist and rightist "flavors," is that its model of human society only has two modes: the atomized individual, and the government. It totally leaves out the idea of a civilization—something that's more than the sum of the individual citizens (though citizens necessarily comprise it), but also something that doesn't totally inhere in the governmental machinery (though government has some legitimate role in ensuring it). In other words, libertarianism (moral or fiscal) offers up a zero-sum game between citizen and rulers, in which concepts like "society" and "civilization" are inadmissible, or moot. It's what a sociologist would call an extraordinarily thin model of society, one that doesn't really address human beings as they are.

The older I get, the more I suspect that any livable society or civilization that wants to make claims on our loyalty needs to be more than a meager contract. And being more than that seems to need mediating institutions (emphatically including religious bodies) that can make some limited claims on us—both de facto and (occasionally) de jure. That doesn't mean that any of those institutions ought to be immune from criticism—hell, from outright calumny. But I don't know if requiring them to "mind their own business" outside the individual household is a sustainable recipe for civil society.

Hope you'll pardon the rambling, but it's the best way I have of working out my intuition that maybe the sentiment of "keeping religion out of government" is overly glib, and less practical in the long run than we imagine.

Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#3474: Aug 30th 2012 at 8:44:38 AM

[up]The problem is that there are different religions. If everybody in the world accepted me as their one and true God, there would be no problem with mixing religion and government.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#3475: Aug 30th 2012 at 8:45:03 AM

It was a bit difficult to follow, but I think I get the gist of it. And I'd agree. We can all say "You stay over there and mind your own business", but this is pretty much hypocritical. No sooner than the words are out, you're going to set out to live out your life according to your "business", thus affecting other people.

This is why we have laws set down so that leave certain things up to the private person, and make others beyond choice.

It was an honor

Total posts: 16,956
Top