LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Depends on the specific authority there is quite a few that dont, agian the cleanliness is the big part and even the most of the more dogmatic authorities reconize that it's not "unclean"

But overall that is a correct summation.

IIRC, unclean in Shinto is usually referring to like, spilled blood or death or decay, right? Like, it's pretty well defined.

Correct, and for sexual acts you have bestiality and incest in the unclean pile, not homosexuality.

I assume pedophilia also counts as unclean.

Sadly I am actualy unsure on that one.

But I dont exactly agree with basing an entire moral world veiw on religion any way, and most people are going to find that immoral beyond the religion they follow.

Yeah, I was kind of hoping your not including that in your previous post was just an oversight.

As for not basing one's morality on religion...seeing as how I'm an atheist I kind of have to base my morality on something other than religion.

"Unclean" means, again, something very specific in Shinto; it's better described as a technical judgment than a moral one. It's why you purify yourself before entering a shrine.

The bottom line is that it's not really a religion that focuses on teaching moral behavior. Shinto practice is specifically focused on maintaining harmonious relationships with the kami, and the Shinto associations that are getting involved in the LGBT debate are, A, acting way the hell outside their area of expertise, and B, acting that way because they've soaked up foreign concepts of what it means to practice a religion (as with many things, Imperial Japan is at fault here).

Given how pedastery was pretty normalized in Ancient Japan my guess would be that Shinto may not give an "unclean" definition to it. But that's just my guess, and as was previously stated just because something isn't specifically called unclean doesn't mean it's morally right to do.

The Vatican announces that trans folk can now be godparents and can be baptised

There are some caveats in the small print, which I'm sure some clergy will try to use to exclude people. But still progress.

By the way, I know some people in an online community I'm part ofwho genuinely believe all non-atheists are homophobic, and that religion should be banned worldwide. What do you guys think of people like them? Needless to say, I'm afraid of them finding out I believe in God.

Edited by CosmosAndChaos on Nov 9th 2023 at 3:16:03 PM

I think that carries an assumption that all non-atheists are straight. Or at least closeted and self-hating.

I've met too many LGBTQ+ believers - and a few out clergy - to go for that.

It also carries an assumption that all world faiths have the same view on sexuality, which really isn't true.

Sorry, can we take more than a moment to appreciate what incredibly good news the Vatican announcement is before we start talking about raging bigots again?

Can I second that?

thirded

I know a lot of Quakers who would be horrified at the idea that people think they're queerphobic.

Fourthed.

Speaking of it, good to see the Vatican doing that. That's one of the many reasons Pope Francis earned my respect.

Hey, guys and gals and those beyond and between, if you ever wanted a way to become depressed and slightly sick to your stomach in the morning, try Googling "lgbt+ and islam". (For that extra heated "shame of others that count as part of your group", also be a Muslim like yours truly.)

It's not wholly depressing, let me assure you, there are easy-to-find sources that repuidate the idea that homosexuality is not approved by Islam and provide support for LGBT+ people. I even found an interesting book that tackles such a claim from the religious perspective: Homosexuality in Islam by Scott Siraj Al-Haqq Kugle. It's readily available on Scribd.

But it's disturbing to find articles that make the claim that those who don't give "full-throated support" are "cancelled" (such a plague, that word), talking about fighting "the political and cultural elites", or even a headline that says "Muslims who don't want LGBTQ curicuulum for their children aren't bigots". (Thanks, Al-Jazeera.)

Well, Al Jazeera is run by the Qatari state

Yeah, I really don't get why it is held in such high regard in certain circles.

Al-Jazeera is generally pretty reliable for global news, especially places they don’t have much of a stake in.

Like, if Al-Jazeera is reporting on an American controversy, they probably have the clearest image of it.

NVM

I wrote a post about why al Jazeera is respected and loved by Arabs, but it was too long, and I felt it was off-topic, so I remove it.

Edited by jawal on Nov 14th 2023 at 11:20:46 AM

Al-Jazeera looks like the Washington Post or the New York Times, great at reporting, but willing to lend their ear to the far-right elements and letting those same voices post their opinions in the opinion section.

That, and they're a qatari government institution so they'll never criticize qatar and will oppose criticism of qatar. For example the whole world cup thing.

@fredhot16 To answer your question about Al Jazeera

................

As for LGTBQ+, yes, Islam is not friendly to their cause, as is the majority of societies in the Middle East and North Africa (though in some places it is worse than others)

Nor was Christianity, for that matter, (including Christians that live in the Middle East, like in Egypt)

Maybe this can be changed with time, but I think  you will need first an overthrowing of the corrupt dictatorial regimes and to solve the region's external threats , and even then it may take five decades or more to shift public opinion and attitude.

So it is less of a religious issue and more of a social one.

Human rights discussions simply don't prosper under dictatorships, illiteracy, and existential wars.

Edited by jawal on Nov 15th 2023 at 11:54:44 AM