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
Simplification — big-time. AIDS hasn't helped, but...
It ignores the popular influx of missionaries from the States throughout the 50s onwards to "save" the lost black man...
They had a fad for spending a few months training up new preachers and heading back, to polish their creds back home. To try again a few years later...
edited 9th Sep '12 1:48:53 PM by Euodiachloris
The one before Rowan Williams? I remember a similar statement made by a group of retired United Methodist Bishops. All I could think was, "Retired". Too bad they chose not to do anything when they were in a position of authority and their words mattered.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
edited 9th Sep '12 3:10:58 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
![]()
No I mean Williams, I read the BBC articule as saying that he stood down in December, not that he is standing down in December. I will fix my post now.
edited 9th Sep '12 3:20:08 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranDidn't he just say that he regretted there being such division over the issue? I don't know. If you're in a position of power like that, you shouldn't have any regrets about "not doing enough". If you want it done, do it.
And that's another thing that I keep reading about certain "mainstream" Christian denominations. This ever-present fear of schism. They're afraid that if they take a principled stand to welcome and affirm LGBT people and rights, that their church is going to split up. If somebody is that concerned about unity over doing what's right, and are so afraid that they will continue to silenly empower the hatemongers, then is there really any hope at all? In politics, that's called "appeasement".
Hell, there was a split in American Baptist churches over slavery. The Southern Baptist Convention exists specifically because their denomination's founders wanted to continue slavery. Every single member of the SBC is standing right square in a legacy of slaveowning that the denomination only apologized for in 1995.
But back to homosexuality. If the pro-LGBT people had any principles whatsoever they wouldn't mind a split occurring if it meant doing the right thing. Let the bigots leave. If anything, you're better off without them. It won't fix everything, but at least they'll clear out the Phelpsian stench they're wallowing in.
edited 9th Sep '12 4:06:20 PM by Lawyerdude
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.Euo makes a good point; what most of us call "Christianity" is really "non-denominational commercialized American Bible Belt Christianity", which is vastly different. Mormons aren't too gay friendly last time I checked in either, but...
- Episcopalians have already legitimized gay marriage.
- The Presbyterians (sp?) are getting close according to a friend of mine; it came to a vote but narrowly did not pass and the proponents are going to keep trying.
- Methodist churches (at least the ones in my area) Have repeatedly and publicly condemned homophobia...I missed it, but a member of one of their congregations spoke at our local Pride parade and the basic speech was "God is with you and so are we."
So even in America there's some variance. What most of you are so up in arms about (legitimately so) is a certain kind of church in a part of the United States. Sadly, they are so noisy that they drown out a lot of other voices.
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
The Methodist church I attend has also spoken against homophobia at times although the general church leadership still voted to not endorse same sex unions. This seems to be a weird case where they don't consider homosexuality a sin yet they still see marriages of homosexuals as wrong and against God's will.
Unfortunately even if these churches changed their view that doesn't mean the general public has to. Just because civil rights were granted to minorities doesn't mean people aren't racist so these problems will likely persist for decades to come.
edited 9th Sep '12 4:51:03 PM by Kostya
![]()
![]()
The Archbishop of Canterbury has no power over the other Archbishops...
Now I personally agree with you, the right thing for the Archbishop of Canterbury to do would have been to shout "Screw you guys I'm placing the Anglican Church fairly behind LGBT rights and you can suck it up". But I can also understand why he hasn’t done that, simply allowing women bishops caused a big enough schism that the Catholic Church made a whole new denomination for the people who left the Anglican Church. Backing LGBT rights would likely cause all the Archbishops in Africa to break away, probably with many American ones, and on top of that a large part of the UK based Anglican Church would go Catholic. With that kind of schism due if he tries to have the Anglican Church back LGBT rights I can see why he may well think it's best to just keep the Church together long enough for the homophobes to die of and the more progressive members to work their way up the hierarchy.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran@L Mage, likewise, the only possible downside is that he loses any influence he might have over the bigots, influence he could use to steer them (or at least their churches) away from hating LGBT people. Also I can understand why he would rather not destroy a church that has existed for over 400 years, over one issue. I think it would be worth it, but I can see how someone who has devoted their life to such an institution may view things differently.
Considering how worked up some people can get over religious issues, I wouldn’t rule that out.
edited 9th Sep '12 5:56:13 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThat's either wishful thinking or outright denial if that's what he thinks. Bigots, especially religious bigots, don't change their beliefs lightly. And if he thinks he could change their minds, the strongest thing he could do is to speak the frack up.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.![]()
![]()
There is a reason I added the bit in brackets. While it may well be impossible for him to teach the current leadership, within the rest of the Anglican community, away from hating LGBT people, he might actually have a shot at educating the generation that comes after them. If he causes a schism then he's not smut giving up on the bigoted leadership of those parts of the Anglican community, he's giving up on trying to convince those who are bellow the bigots, in the hierarchy, and might actually be redeemable.
If he thinks his church is too weak to survive a strong statement in support of LGBT people, then maybe it's time for it to die.
But here's what I'm seeing and hearing. On the one hand you have a few pro-LGBT people inside anti-LGBT churches who don't speak up and don't leave, thereby empowering their own bigoted leadership and co-members. But on the other hand, the few pro-LGBT leaders in these churches are afraid of speaking up and adopting a firmly pro-equality and pro-acceptance stance because they're afraid that the bigots will up and leave. What, so only the loving, accepting Christians are loyal to their bigoted churches? Are only the bigots strong enough in their convictions to actually do something if the leadership doesn't pander to them?
Maybe the reason young people are leaving the churches in droves is because there's no strong leadership that actually preaches love, tolerance and acceptance. Have they ever thought of that? You know, the values that young people actually will embrace, and the values that Christianity supposedly stands for?
I mean, bloody screaming hell. I just want to say to these people, "Fred Phelps, Franklin Graham, James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell all stand for something, and they make me want to eat my own face. Why can't the good people stand for something? I may not subscribe to your supernatural claims, but if the assholes can take a principled stand, then why can't you!"
edited 9th Sep '12 7:16:55 PM by Lawyerdude
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.It's a more complex issue than that, in large part because despite what one might gather from this forum, gay rights isn't the only issue churches take a stand on. Like, if you want to dismantle an entire institution because of one issue, congrats, you just killed a large-scale humanitarian aid force that rivals entire countries and isn't hamstrung by by international politics (among others).
edited 9th Sep '12 7:51:49 PM by Pykrete
EDITED NOTE: I will add, in the interests of preventing a derail, that the effectiveness of religions as distributors for charity is not the topic. My point is that charitable works are not a justification for preventing schism over social issues in and of themselves, because there are alternative options for charity both religious and secular, and you may very well get more bang for your buck going with them.
"Oh we give to the poor, you can't risk that by not letting us discriminate against gays in our hospitals!" is not a sound or fair argument. Not saying anyone has made it, don't believe anyone has. Just nipping it in the bud before it's made.
edited 9th Sep '12 8:14:50 PM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.I'm aware. I'm also aware that Doctors Without Borders, while an incredibly laudable organization and example to follow, is not only relatively small, but has the distinct advantage of being formed for the exclusive function of foreign aid. There's a reason I compared church aid to that of other countries.
29% of the Methodist Church's funds, regardless of how much you want to debate running costs of internal affairs, is an immense amount of resources that you lose by breaking it up.
And again, that's just the first thing that came to mind because it's a concrete result that even the non-faithful could appreciate. Suffice to say someone who's actually a part of one is probably attached to several other parts of it. A church is more than the sum of two of its positions after all.
Personally, I'm wary of a schism because it just means a large chunk of people who are the problem are just going to keep doing their thing on their own, and then it festers without internal opposition. Look at what happened when the Lutherans broke off — the Catholics said "hope the door hits you in the ass on the way out", and proceeded to be even more spectacularly corrupt for a long time.
edited 9th Sep '12 8:29:58 PM by Pykrete
It's satire. The point was not the Christians actually do that, just that right now we're glazing over the questionable beliefs and negative effects religion has on society because it is charitable, much like the video did. As Taoist pointed out, we already have charities whose donations go towards those in need at a greater percentage than any church. Of course, this is perfectly understandable, considering that a church has many reasons for being beyond charity. I get that.
But I also think it's highly disingenuous to imply that it is only a church's position on homosexuality that makes people wary of religion. There are many other reasons, albeit they are not on-topic so I shouldn't really bring them up. But still, the reasons against religion are as diverse an complicated as the faith and the church's reason for being. The opposition some people feel towards the church is over things more significant than a single social issue.

I thought that most of the homophobia in South Africa (as well as the rest of Africa) stemmed from the AIDS epidemic.
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016