Why does it make a difference if it’s part of church doctrine? It used to be church doctrine that the Jews, as a people, were responsible for the death of Christ. Was that not an anti-Semitic idea, simply because it bore the imprimatur of the church?
magellan01- this is so damn similar to our debate about whether a claim is racist if the claimer truly believes the claim is based on sound science that it’s uncanny. It doesn’t matter why someone believes that homosexual acts are sinful and morally wrong, it’s a bigoted belief regardless of why they believe it. It doesn’t matter what a particular religion says – there are many Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Jews, etc., who don’t believe that homosexuality is sinful and morally wrong, so being a part of that religion does not make one bigoted (or make one’s beliefs bigoted). The substance of a claim is what makes it bigoted or not, not the reasons why the claim is made.
You can note that I’m not calling anyone a bigot in this post – I’m only speaking of whether certain claims are bigoted. The claim that “homosexual behavior is sinful and morally wrong” is always bigoted, no matter why one makes this claim.
I am assuming this means that magellan will never, ever criticize a adherent to a different religion to doing something that is within their religion’s guidelines, or at least that they believe to be so, then?
Hey magellan01. Can you name me any pertinent differences between embezzlement, lying, murder, rape, and homophobia? Any at all? Any slight difference between those acts? Nice pick on adultery, by the way; half of what we consider “adultery”, that is the “cheating on your significant other” part belongs clearly in the list next to lying; the other half, that is the “having sex before being married” belongs next to homophobia. Whoops, gave you a clue right there.
Whoops, that’s supposed to be homosexuality, not homophobia.
Is that a question? I don’t know what you’re thinking.
So it’s ok to hold bigoted views as long as they are only expressed as “adhering to traditional church doctrine?” Am I getting that right? And are you trying to claim that’s what’s happening in Robertson’s situation?
So long as they’re not Muslim.
How many Christians do you think are Christians due to the part of the doctrine that says that homosexual acts are sinful? What percent would you guess? I say it’s close to zero, in that if their church changed their stance on homosexual acts being sinful, that they would continue to associate themselves with that church.
You assume wrongly. I left you a clue as to why.
I really don’t give a shit what people think, but if a particular group finds it an excellent pastime to actually blow up innocent women and children, mutilate young girls, kill their offspring that dishonor them by dating outside of their religion, stone women accused of adultery, etc., those people need to be called out for the murderous, animalistic, atavistic throwbacks that they are. I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree on that.
I agree, it’s probably zero. I don’t understand why you think this matters.
Yes, you’re correct that Christians do all those things, but it’s ridiculous to slur all Christians because of that.
How you feel about people doing that sort of stuff because of their religion is exactly how I, and many others, feel about people who insult, disown, attack and kill gay people because of their religion. Which religion it is doesn’t really matter, it’s the actions that count, not the reason.
Bigotry and hatred are wrong no matter who does it, and no matter for what reason.
It makes him one of the many, many who use claims of religious doctrine as a cover story for maintaining bigotry, or other reprehensible beliefs, so yes. If you’re really not aware of how often and how easily religion is used as a rationalization, well, you need to be.
Why? What is “traditional Christian doctrine” to you? That which has been used as a rationalization (see aforesaid) in recent centuries, or that which comes from Christ’s teachings themselves? If the latter, then please note that Christ said nothing whatever about homosexuality, but quite a bit about loving our neighbors as ourselves, being humble, and helping each other.
That is hardly the sentiment of the post quoted above.
You seem to have no problem doing that when the practices you describe as “church doctrine” are those of the more backward areas of countries where Islam is the dominant faith.
My point is that if one believes that a person is a bigot because he ascribes to a religion which holds the position that homosexual acts are sinful, yet that person would continue to be a member of that religion even if it changed its stance on the acts being sinful, then one cannot fairly say that a person is a homophobe or a bigot due to their adherence to their particular religion.
Oh, you’re talking about non-reality world. Gotcha.
I generally agree. But here’s a question: is mere adherence to a religion that believes that homosexual acts are sinful an “action that counts”?
well, in the case of Christianity, there are churches that condemn gays, and those that welcome. If you ‘vote with your feet’, either choice reflects your beliefs, yes?
Whether or not the person is a bigot, if he/she believes that homosexual behavior is sinful and morally wrong, then he/she holds at least one bigoted belief. It doesn’t matter why they hold this belief – and no religion has monolithic beliefs, despite what many of their leaders say. Many Christians don’t hold this belief, and some do. Those that do hold bigoted beliefs.
Religions don’t believe things, people do. There are many Christians who hold disparate beliefs.