On "I'm Christian, unless you're gay" and Christian "tolerance"

[xenophon41]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

"Close to half" is a shitty ratio.

Really? Seems to be about average for the US according to the Pew Research Center. In fact, attitudes about homosexuality seem to be just as strongly correlated (if not more so) with political ideology and education. But as a few posters have asserted in this thread, Christian homophobic bias seems to be mainly concentrated among conservative protestant evangelicals in the US.

Globally, the US seems to be worse than Canada, Western Europe and much of Latin America, but much more accepting than Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East. I don't know if one could draw inferences from those statistics about Christianity as compared to other religions, but I'd say "close to half" being fully accepting isn't exactly "a shitty ratio."

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Steophan, you're reaching. It seems to me that you want to be hated. The glurge in the OP is about somebody changing their viewpoint. That's a good thing right? It shows growth. "Gee, maybe homosexuality isn't evil".

Now, I learned that a long time ago, but you, Condescending Robot, and especially Der Trihs seem stuck in stage 4 of Kohleberg's stages of moral development. Every thing seems black and white to you three. You view the world as either for you and you morality or against you. People are a touch more complicated than that.

When confronted with evidence that members of a group that you hate aren't following your personal expectations, you panic and assume that they must be lying. We don't want actual people to break your opinion of them, do we? You might have to change your viewpoint!

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Here is an article where a former Archbishop of Canterbury claims Christians are being discriminated against because they are not legally allowed to discriminate against gays.

Anyone still want to claim that these are minority, not mainstream views?

Pardon me, but if I were the sole person who could singlehancdcly shoot down a compromise resolution iby using my chairmanly authority to recognize only one side in the dispute, essentially setting the stage for the destruction of the Anglican Communion that has been in the process of happening these last 14 years, I would consider myself as desearving any condemnation people chose to heap on me.

You will therefore not be surprised to learn that my principles prmit me to despise George Carey passionately.

Originally Posted by MrDibble

"Close to half" is a shitty ratio.

Agreed. The only thing we can offer is that it's a better figure than what it would have been 20 or 30 years ago.

Originally Posted by Steophan

'm sure your imaginary friend will keep telling you you're a good boy for it.

"Your imaginary friend" is on a level with "a perverse fascination with other men's dicks." I'm quite well aware how insulting it is to reduce the romantic and sexual attraction that leads two people to a loving lifelong commitment to share their lives for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health.... down to "likes to play with other people's weewees." Could we get the same level of respect for other people's )like mine) spiritual and religious aspects pf tjeor ;oves?

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Umm... whoops. That link went to a LA Times article about North Korea's failed missile launch. I meant to link here in regards to moral development.

[Condescending Robot]

"Nothing is a sin, judge nothing, accept everything" as a moral throwing up of the hands isn't advanced morality, it's no morality.

With God, everything is permitted.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

"Nothing is a sin, judge nothing, accept everything" as a moral throwing up of the hands isn't advanced morality, it's no morality.

With God, everything is permitted.

Miller was far too generous in his evaluiation.

Over in MPSIMS, the parents of schoolchildren have been discussing what are good remedial reading for comprehension programs. You may want to check that thread out.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Steophan

As for the stuff linked to in the OP, and "love the sinner, hate the sin" stuff in general, anything that claims that homosexuality is wrong in any way is fundamentally discriminatory, and unacceptable, and I take offence at that as well.

The stuff linked to in the OP doesn't say anything at all about homosexuality being wrong. In fact, it says exactly the opposite of that. Two hundred and fifty posts later, you still haven't figured that out, despite half a dozen different people pointing it out to you. I find that tremendously amusing.

Wait, no "amusing" isn't the word I was looking for, here. What was it again? Oh, right: pathetic. I find that tremendously pathetic.

[grude]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

"a perverse fascination with other men's dicks."

As opposed to women's dicks?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

"Your imaginary friend" is on a level with "a perverse fascination with other men's dicks." I'm quite well aware how insulting it is to reduce the romantic and sexual attraction that leads two people to a loving lifelong commitment to share their lives for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health.... down to "likes to play with other people's weewees." Could we get the same level of respect for other people's )like mine) spiritual and religious aspects pf tjeor ;oves?

No. Belief in gods is as ridiculous as an adult believing in Santa Claus, and deserves as little respect as such a person would receive. Or less, considering the harm such belief causes. Nor does treating such beliefs with respect accomplish anything besides validate such nonsense in the eyes of the believers, and give their hatred and contempt of unbelievers encouragement. Or it helps enable them to pretend that unbelievers don't even exist.

Sucking up to such nonsense is humiliating and just helps it go on and on for century after century, and it doesn't even placate them.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by xenophon41

Really? Seems to be about average for the US according to the Pew Research Center. In fact, attitudes about homosexuality seem to be just as strongly correlated (if not more so) with political ideology and education. But as a few posters have asserted in this thread, Christian homophobic bias seems to be mainly concentrated among conservative protestant evangelicals in the US.

Globally, the US seems to be worse than Canada, Western Europe and much of Latin America, but much more accepting than Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East. I don't know if one could draw inferences from those statistics about Christianity as compared to other religions, but I'd say "close to half" being fully accepting isn't exactly "a shitty ratio."

"Everyone is doing it" is no excuse for shitty behaviour.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

Agreed. The only thing we can offer is that it's a better figure than what it would have been 20 or 30 years ago.

That's nice and all, but it's nowhere near good enough.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

No. Belief in gods is as ridiculous as an adult believing in Santa Claus, and deserves as little respect as such a person would receive. Or less, considering the harm such belief causes. Nor does treating such beliefs with respect accomplish anything besides validate such nonsense in the eyes of the believers, and give their hatred and contempt of unbelievers encouragement. Or it helps enable them to pretend that unbelievers don't even exist.

Sucking up to such nonsense is humiliating and just helps it go on and on for century after century, and it doesn't even placate them.

You have an unquestoned right to hold such views as you choose on the underlying issues. You have no more right to sit in judgment over me than I do over you -- akways subject to the caveat that one's views work no injury to another. Indeed, it appears that you have inadvertently become what you most decry in others.

[coffeecat]

Pissing off Polycarp means you could probably get rejected by your own imaginary friend.

[coffeecat]

I''ve got to stop following this train wreck.

[xenophon41]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

"Everyone is doing it" is no excuse for shitty behaviour.

Did someone say differently? I certainly didn't.

But I did want to point out that the charge that homophobia is an inherent condition of Christianity is bogus given that more than half of self identified Christians find homosexuality morally acceptable or irrelevant to morality. Official doctrine of each church varies, but it's important to note that it isn't remotely the single determinant for attitudes regarding sexual behavior.

So if you want to say Christians are no less intolerant than non Christians, I don't think any rational person's going to argue against you. But if you're blaming the existence of bias on any particular religion, the data does not seem to support the claim.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

Indeed, it appears that you have inadvertently become what you most decry in others.

And once again we see the double standard; an atheist argues his position on the Internet, that's just the same as passing laws to force religion on others or attacking people or waging wars in the name of religion.

[Polycarp]

If I thought that Der Trihs would bother reading what I actually wrote, as opposed to what he wants to accuse me of having said, I'd refute the post above. The rest of you, please reference my posts #253 aqnd #262 -- especially the caveat in the latter.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by xenophon41

Did someone say differently? I certainly didn't.

Then what was the point of bringing up other religions and countries at all?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

If I thought that Der Trihs would bother reading what I actually wrote, as opposed to what he wants to accuse me of having said, I'd refute the post above. The rest of you, please reference my posts #253 aqnd #262 -- especially the caveat in the latter.

Evidently your "caveat" doesn't apply to me, since you equated me to what i "most decry in others", in other words people causing harm in the name of religion. What harm have *I* done? I haven't so much as punched someone since I was a child.

What I see here is you and other enthusiastically comparing me to the worst religion has to offer...because I say mean things about religion on a message board. And you won't "refute" what I said because it's true, so you retreat to accusing me of not reading what you say. And you "nobly" declare that you "have no more right to sit in judgment over me than I do over you", then you judge me in your very next post.

[xenophon41]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Then what was the point of bringing up other religions and countries at all?

Perhaps if you read past the first paragraph in the post you just quoted, you'd be able to see my answer to that question. Or you could pretend I said what I didn't say and didn't say what I said. Seems to be a popular argumentative mode lately.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

And once again we see the double standard; an atheist argues his position on the Internet, that's just the same as passing laws to force religion on others or attacking people or waging wars in the name of religion.

Do you get off on feeling persecuted or something like that?

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

You have an unquestoned right to hold such views as you choose on the underlying issues. You have no more right to sit in judgment over me than I do over you -- akways subject to the caveat that one's views work no injury to another. Indeed, it appears that you have inadvertently become what you most decry in others.

To me, that's the key: So long as "one's views work no injury to another."

Once that is given, I don't mind a bit if someone believes in...well...pretty near anything. If someone belongs to a religion that forbids the eating of pork, well, their loss. Me, I love a good dish of bacon. If they get so aggressive in their religion that they forbid others from eating pork, then we've got a problem.

Different religious views can (and by rights ought to) be as respected as different philosophical views. I'm a liberal, the next guy might be a conservative. These viewpoints are personal and subjective, and might easily be as irrational as any religious viewpoint.

Freedom must necessarily include the freedom to hold religious beliefs.

It also must necessarily include the freedom of others to hold other religious beliefs.

[sisu]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

And once again we see the double standard; an atheist argues his position on the Internet, that's just the same as passing laws to force religion on others or attacking people or waging wars in the name of religion.

Dickhead I am not saying you can't hold those views, if you bother to read anything you will see that people have said time and time again you are wrong but hey that's your bag you carry it. Deal with it mate, WTF we are not comparing you to anything of the sort.

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

OK. Empty the jails, erect a monument to Hitler, give away your possessions to the next person who asks for them, let strange men from the Internet come to visit your children.

Oh, wait, SOME things we can and should judge, and the only question is which? There you go.

God judges your intentions and humans judge the actions that is what I have said. Humans will always make calls to protect society.

Originally Posted by Trinopus

To me, that's the key: So long as "one's views work no injury to another."

Once that is given, I don't mind a bit if someone believes in...well...pretty near anything. If someone belongs to a religion that forbids the eating of pork, well, their loss. Me, I love a good dish of bacon. If they get so aggressive in their religion that they forbid others from eating pork, then we've got a problem.
Different religious views can (and by rights ought to) be as respected as different philosophical views. I'm a liberal, the next guy might be a conservative. These viewpoints are personal and subjective, and might easily be as irrational as any religious viewpoint.
Freedom must necessarily include the freedom to hold religious beliefs.
It also must necessarily include the freedom of others to hold other religious beliefs.

I don't think that you will get any argument from the majority of religious people on any of your points.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by xenophon41

Well, that was my point, poorly outlined as it was: The bishops' failure to affect healthcare reform for that thirty year period is no worse than, say, Ted Kennedy's or Hilary Clinton's or any number of actual working politicians' failures during the same period. I wouldn't say that was because Kennedy or Clinton weren't committed to reform with sufficient vehemence or vigor, so it's not really relevant IMO whether the needle moved. I think it would be extraordinarily difficult to guess how much existing influence mainline Christians failed to exploit when no one was able to move that needle until the right political stars aligned.

Nit-picking I'll note that Clinton, Nixon and Truman proposed health care reform packages, saw them go down in flames, and lost support accordingly. Nobody likes a loser: from the point of view of political self interest, pursing HCR is risky at best. So kudos to Obama and Pelosi and Clinton and Nixon and Truman. I agree though that this is a matter of acting when the political stars aligned. I don't blame the Catholic Bishops for not pushing hard enough for HCR during the lull days. I blame them for opposing HCR when the chips were down-- while simultaneously not raising concerns about private insurance policies that had identical language. http://motherjones.com/politics/2010...th-care-reform What happened to the seamless garment? That said, I should concede that the Catholic nuns and hospitals didn't make the same bizarre argument and indeed supported HCR.

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

After so many centuries of Christianity tormenting the world, yes I think I have a right to condemn it.

Christianity played a big part in abolishing slavery during the 1800s and advancing Civil Rights in the 1900s. I'll opine the support that Southern Baptists lent to conservative views of the time didn't really match up.

Furthermore, at the Federal level, the direct effects of Fundamentalist Christians have been relatively small-bore. When a Republican is elected President, he withdraws funding from contraception services from Planned Parenthood International. Stem cell research was blunted and there was a media storm regarding Terri Schiavo. The extension of human rights for homosexuals is slowed down -- though frankly let's not pretend that opposition to gay marriage is solely or even mostly centered on self-identified Evangelicals. Poll data shows that. Compare all that to the Iraq War, the Savings and Loan Crisis, the Financial Crisis of 2007 caused by relaxed regulation and the hollowing out of American industry as a result of attacks on national savings (i.e. tax cuts - google twin deficits for the macroeconomic argument). I'm not belittling the importance of welcoming open homosexuals into the American Endeavor. I'm saying that opposition to that goal is driven more by polling and polling trends and that the remaining direct effects of conservative Christian pressures are marginal. Indirect effects are another matter -- that's where you can locate the litany.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by sisu

. . . I don't think that you will get any argument from the majority of religious people on any of your points.

Alas, it's the tiny minority of rotters that make life difficult. There are still an awful lot of people who do not agree with the concept of the separation of church and state, and my beef (or pork) is with these guys.

(Even worse, in some cases, I don't think they are in the minority, but in the majority. The issue of hilltop crosses, the slogan on our coinage, the late-added term in the pledge of allegiance, even the idea of forbidding gays to marry, seem to have majority support among U.S. Christians.)

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

(Even worse, in some cases, I don't think they are in the minority, but in the majority. The issue of hilltop crosses, the slogan on our coinage, the late-added term in the pledge of allegiance, even the idea of forbidding gays to marry, seem to have majority support among U.S. Christians.)

I think it's actually a matter of the vast majority just not giving a crap if there are hilltop crosses, "In God We Trust", or "Under God". The problem is that because the vast majority don't give a crap about those things, when people do try to get rid of them THOSE PEOPLE look like the mean-spirited ones, if only because "It's always been this way and who is it hurting, anyway?"

And even though I'm a thorough-going atheist myself, I'm within the boundaries of the "Who cares?" camp on a lot of these "hot-button" issues...yeah, they have symbolic significance and may, on a strict reading by the SCOTUS, be unconstitutional, but I prefer to save up my public goodwill to use on things that actually have significant effects on society and ME, like teaching Creationism or ID in schools alongside evolution or fighting the push to ban marriage equality or pushing back on the Republican War on Women, rather than things that do irritate me but don't really harm me, like hilltop crosses, "IGWT", "Under God" etc...

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by xenophon41

Perhaps if you read past the first paragraph in the post you just quoted, you'd be able to see my answer to that question.

My quote was your first paragraph. Or are you referring to an earlier post?

Or you could pretend I said what I didn't say and didn't say what I said.

I didn't say you said anything, I asked you to explain why you said what you did.

Seems to be a popular argumentative mode lately.

How meta

[Skammer]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

And once again we see the double standard; an atheist argues his position on the Internet, that's just the same as passing laws to force religion on others or attacking people or waging wars in the name of religion.

Now that Easter's over I have a cross I can get you cheap, slightly used.

[xenophon41]

MrDibble, are you having real difficulty parsing my posts, or is it easier to pretend only the selected parts you decide to quote exist? If you're just stupid, I'll be patient, but if you're deliberately dishonest, I'll disengage now. Because when someone responds to "read past the first paragraph" with "My quote was your first paragraph", it's one or the other.

[Yeticus Rex]

Originally Posted by Skammer

Now that Easter's over I have a cross I can get you cheap, slightly used.

What? Climb your nearest hill and put it there!

[Yeticus Rex]

BTW.....Der Trihs.....could you just go hug Phred and get it over with already?

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by xenophon41

MrDibble, are you having real difficulty parsing my posts, or is it easier to pretend only the selected parts you decide to quote exist? If you're just stupid, I'll be patient, but if you're deliberately dishonest, I'll disengage now. Because when someone responds to "read past the first paragraph" with "My quote was your first paragraph", it's one or the other.

Whoops - "just stupid" covers it, I read that as "read the first paragraph", no "past", which explains my confusion.

So to answer, I never said Christians were less tolerant than most other groups or that homophobia was inherent in Christianity. Just that "we're only half of us intolerant" is not much of a defence of the whole.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

Miller was far too generous in his evaluiation.

Over in MPSIMS, the parents of schoolchildren have been discussing what are good remedial reading for comprehension programs. You may want to check that thread out.

I like how the entire body of "liberal Christian" theology amounts to a few contradictory platitudes, plus immediately resorting to yelling "you're stupid!" or "don't point out that I believe in something ridiculous because it hurts my precious feelings" whenever someone takes the necessary ten seconds to derive the contradictions. I honestly prefer the fundamentalists (that's what we call "evangelicals" when we're not trying to apologize for them, btw). At least they are honest about their beliefs and able to use the more entertaining condemnations to hellfire when cornered.

[xenophon41]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

So to answer, I never said Christians were less tolerant than most other groups or that homophobia was inherent in Christianity. Just that "we're only half of us intolerant" is not much of a defence of the whole.

Thanks for the response that was much more polite than my last.

I unreservedly agree that 50% intolerance is a horrible ratio. But the point was directed to the OP and several like-minded respondents who consider a declaration in favor of love and fellowship to be hypocritical or "probably" false because it comes from a Christian.

I apologize sincerely for conflating your objection to existing levels of bias with some sort of general agreement with the OP.

[Algher]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

I like how the entire body of "liberal Christian" theology amounts to a few contradictory platitudes, plus immediately resorting to yelling "you're stupid!" or "don't point out that I believe in something ridiculous because it hurts my precious feelings" whenever someone takes the necessary ten seconds to derive the contradictions. I honestly prefer the fundamentalists (that's what we call "evangelicals" when we're not trying to apologize for them, btw). At least they are honest about their beliefs and able to use the more entertaining condemnations to hellfire when cornered.

I sincerely doubt, based on your posting in this thread, that you know shit about liberal Christian theology. I would be surprised if you have spent more than 2 minutes perusing either of these sites, for example:

Sojourners (mentioned in an earlier post):
http://sojo.net/

Or, if you want something denomination specific and pertinent to this thread:
http://covnetpres.org/

By the way, Not all Evangelicals are Fundamentalist, and not all Fundamentalists are Evangelical. While there is a large amount of overlap, they two are not the same and describe two different things.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

I like how the entire body of "liberal Christian" theology amounts to a few contradictory platitudes, plus immediately resorting to yelling "you're stupid!"

Calling you stupid isn't theology - that's a purely secular determination.

[digs]

Originally Posted by Miller

Calling you stupid isn't theology - that's a purely secular determination.

But it might just be divinely inspired.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

So to answer, I never said Christians were less tolerant than most other groups or that homophobia was inherent in Christianity. Just that "we're only half of us intolerant" is not much of a defense of the whole.

I dunno, if somebody is to vilify Christianity, a reasonable response might be to say that their attitudes aren't markedly different from other groups.

Which leads us to the latest polling data: who supports same-sex marriage?
http://publicreligion.org/research/2...-sex-marriage/

Support is strongest among Jews (76%), the unaffiliated (72%), and non-Christian religiously affiliated Americans (63%), a group that includes Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims. A majority of white Catholics (56%), Hispanic Catholics (53%), and white mainline Protestants (52%) also favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.

On the other side of the debate are black Protestants, Mormons and white evangelical Protestants. Among black Protestants, only one-third support allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, compared to 63% who are opposed. Mormons and white evangelical Protestants have nearly identical profiles on this issue. Only about 1-in 5 of Mormons (23%) and white evangelical Protestants (20%) support same-sex marriage, compared to three-quarters (75% each) who are opposed.

Handy chart at the link.

I find it interesting that support among Jews is stronger than all groups, even the unaffiliated, given that the textual basis for homophobia is most pronounced in Leviticus.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

I find it interesting that support among Jews is stronger than all groups, even the unaffiliated, given that the textual basis for homophobia is most pronounced in Leviticus.

Maybe they'll bring rocks instead of rice to the wedding reception? Or just use the marriage registry as a bounty list?

[Yeticus Rex]

What?

I hope that was a whoosh...

[Miller]

Originally Posted by digs

But it might just be divinely inspired.

Reminds me of that old conundrum: Can God create a person so stupid not even God can explain something to him?

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

I eagerly await, e.g., Condescending Robot's and Der Trihs's tut-tutting about how being black is evil because it encourages you to be homophobic.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Originally Posted by Yeticus Rex

What?

I hope that was a whoosh...

Whoosh, I'm assuming. Leviticus (which is not only a book in the old testament of the Christian Bible, but also the third book in the Jewish Torah) advocates stoning homosexuals. That was the joke. Throw rocks instead of rice. Leviticus also goes in to graphic detail on how, specifically, you are supposed to sacrifice a goat. I have never met anybody in my entire life that takes it seriously.

If you bothered to learn about what you hate so much (I haven't forgotten the pit thread about you advocating all religious people should be killed) you might catch references to Leviticus as a punch line.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

If you bothered to learn about what you hate so much (I haven't forgotten the pit thread about you advocating all religious people should be killed) you might catch references to Leviticus as a punch line.

shit shit shit shit shit!

Yeticus Rex, I was thinking about somebody completely different. You are not that asshole, and you never said something like that. You have my abject apologies. Wow, I fucked up there. I'm sorry.

[Skammer]

Ha! I was thinking, "Really? Yeti? I don't remember him being an anti-religious jerk. He even teamed up with my priest in WoW..."

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

I eagerly await, e.g., Condescending Robot's and Der Trihs's tut-tutting about how being black is evil because it encourages you to be homophobic.

Are black people born with writing on them that tells them to hate homosexuals? You can't rationally compare skin color to a religion.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

n/m

[Yeticus Rex]

Heh....it's all good man, cuz I called Saul Goodman!

My apologies for being the fish that bit on that hook.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

I eagerly await, e.g., Condescending Robot's and Der Trihs's tut-tutting about how being black is evil because it encourages you to be homophobic.

Don't worry, I've forgiven them for being black. You can send me my prize in the mail.

[Yeticus Rex]

Originally Posted by Skammer

Ha! I was thinking, "Really? Yeti? I don't remember him being an anti-religious jerk. He even teamed up with my priest in WoW..."

As a catholic who voted No on 8, I knew I wasn't the only one who had the same viewpoint.....but I am surprised that a majority of catholics have the same viewpoint as I do.....which is heartening....I know some folks want to see 100% support from every religious group in their lifetime, but it will probably take a lifetime for the bigotry to die off.....literally....the main focus should be on the younger generation not becoming as bigoted as their predecessors.