Are we OK with religions as long as people don't publically express the beliefs of those religions?

[x-ray_vision]

@Ibn_Warraq

Dude, the “religion in question” “openly expresses” and even “commands” that people hate those who keep their hair unkempt.

Cite?

[dougie_monty]

@Bryan_Ekers

Give us some search terms, then. A few specific phrases you used in a statement that prompted a “you should be arrested” or “you should be beaten” response.
I admit I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened - I’m just mildly curious.

The best I can do until my computer is back is to refer you to the specific thread in The BBQ Pit: “Witness haters–are you happy now?”

[Bryan_Ekers]

I’ve skimmed the “Witness haters” thread to the end of page four, and will continue, but so far I’m seeing mostly scorn and ridicule directed against you (and a few well-thought and -written comments about why witnessing gets a negative reaction), but no effort to silence you with threats of arrest or assault. What happened to Uber_the_Goober is a little different, but I’ll delve into that another time.

[furt]

@Polerius

It seems a bit strange to me. We either give them a pass due to the “religion exemption” or we don’t. Whether they explicitly express their unpopular opinion publicly or not should be irrelevant.

IME, it’s not that different from someone who has a stereotype of any “other” group, and then meets someone from that other group who does not meet the preconception. There’s a cognitive dissonance that some people have to resolve when they, for example realize that their new [ethnic group] neighbor actually isn’t [ethnic group stereotype] (and of course, those stereotypes get reinforced when you meet someone that does meet them…). But whereas ethnicity is more clear-cut, it’s easy to think that the [christians/muslims/whatever] you know don’t really believe [idea you abhor]. Hence you have things like the GLAAD statement insisting that they know better than Robertson what “true Christians” think. While it could be just deliberate spin, I think it’s likely that the person who wrote that probably genuinely has a hard time grasping that while more and more people support legal rights for homosexuals, huge swathes of those same people agree with Robertson as a moral issue.

[andros]

@Weeping_Wyvern

On the contrary, a Christian who OBEYED all of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy would be hypocritical. The Jewish ceremonial Law was explicitly given to the Jews and no other nation, and the New Testament explicitly declares that, since the time of Christ, said Law has been superseded even for Jews.

The Christian is obliged to believe that the Jewish ceremonial Law was instituted by God as a foreshadowing of Christ, and that if he had been a Jew living 2,000 years ago he would have had to follow it, but it would be gravely sinful for him to attempt to follow it today.

(emphasis added)

Easy there, Chief. You had me until that last clause. I’m not aware of any Christian denomination that considers adhering to Talmudic law sinful. Even relying on it for salvation, as many Christians perceive Jews do, is not itself sinful. Won’t get you into Heaven, but not sinful.
.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Taber

you may have been right (JohnT). I’m not sure anymore.

@x-ray_vision

Cite?

Leviticus.

[x-ray_vision]

Leviticus commands people to hate those who keep their hair unkempt? Where in Leviticus?

[Taber]

@Ibn_Warraq

Leviticus.

Oh, I was still referring to the conversation I was having with JohnT about which one of you had made the assertion that Communist ideology included homophobic beliefs. I thought you had claimed that in your initial post about Communism, and Der trihs agreed with you, and JohnT thought Der trihs made the initial assertion. The post where you quoted Bryan Ekers seemed to indicate JohnT was right.

[Weeping_Wyvern]

@andros

(emphasis added)

Easy there, Chief. You had me until that last clause. I’m not aware of any Christian denomination that considers adhering to Talmudic law sinful. Even relying on it for salvation, as many Christians perceive Jews do, is not itself sinful. Won’t get you into Heaven, but not sinful.
.

St. Thomas Aquinas devotes a whole section in the Summa Theologica to this, concluding:

“The ceremonies of the Old Law betokened Christ as having yet to be born and to suffer: whereas our sacraments signify Him as already born and having suffered. Consequently, just as it would be a mortal sin now for anyone, in making a profession of faith, to say that Christ is yet to be born, which the fathers of old said devoutly and truthfully; so too it would be a mortal sin now to observe those ceremonies which the fathers of old fulfilled with devotion and fidelity.”

[Bryan_Ekers]

@dougie_monty

The best I can do until my computer is back is to refer you to the specific thread in The BBQ Pit: “Witness haters–are you happy now?”

I’ve read it completely now (well, skimmed, anyway) and you get no sympathy from me.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@x-ray_vision

Leviticus commands people to hate those who keep their hair unkempt? Where in Leviticus?

Leviticus 10:6

Do not let your hair become unkempt

Robertson apparently believes some biblical commands can be ignored.

[x-ray_vision]

@Ibn_Warraq

Leviticus 10:6

Robertson apparently believes some biblical commands can be ignored.

I asked you to show me where Leviticus commands people to hate those who keep their hair unkempt. It doesn’t say that. I’m not even sure that’s relevant for everyone for all occasions.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@x-ray_vision

I asked you to show me where Leviticus commands people to hate those who keep their hair unkempt. It doesn’t say that. I’m not even sure that’s relevant for everyone for all occasions.

Thanks for giving me a good laugh. Much appreciated.

[dougie_monty]

@Bryan_Ekers

I’ve read it completely now (well, skimmed, anyway) and you get no sympathy from me.

Whoopee. :rolleyes: No, and I never asked for any. I never asked for civility, either, and if you even just “skimmed” through the thread you’ll be hard put to find THAT in the answers I got.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@dougie_monty

Whoopee. :rolleyes: No, and I never asked for any. I never asked for civility, either, and if you even just “skimmed” through the thread you’ll be hard put to find THAT in the answers I got.

Well, you said “Golly, I wish you’d talk to some Dopers who have reacted negatively to my posts about religion in Great Debates! You’d think I was bellowing at them like a hellfire preacher!” and I’ve reviewed the material, so unless you have another set of examples you’d like me to peruse, nothing in that thread causes me to see you as a victim.

And you opened that thread in the Pit. Were you actually expecting civility? I think you got a fair amount, albeit mingled in with a lot of scorn.

[Riga_Marole]

@Polerius

Regarding the latest brouhaha about one of Duck Dynasty’s stars saying that homosexuality is a sin, I don’t get why people are surprised by him having this opinion. I don’t see why this has made the news at all. If someone is a devout Christian, and especially if they are from the South, odds are that he thinks being gay is a sin. In other news, the Pope is Catholic.

It seems to me that the lesson to take away from this incident is that we let people have religions with beliefs we disagree with, as long they don’t express them publicly.

For example, Catholics believe that everyone who is not Catholic is going to hell. We are OK with having Catholics on TV and in the public sphere, but if any of them is interviewed and says “yes, I believe you are going to hell, as is everyone out there who isn’t Catholic”, we will all throw a collective fit and they will get fired.

It seems a bit strange to me. We either give them a pass due to the “religion exemption” or we don’t. Whether they explicitly express their unpopular opinion publicly or not should be irrelevant.

We don’t like Neo Nazis, and if someone is a self-professed Neo Nazi, we don’t need to wait for them to publicly express what they think of Jews and Blacks to know that we don’t want them on TV or in the public sphere. It’s pretty obvious what they believe in, and society rejects that.

Similarly, it’s pretty obvious what devout Christians believe about homosexuality, and we don’t need to wait for them to express it publicly. We are either OK with them believing this stuff or we are not. Waiting for them to confirm it should be irrelevant.

First of all, you ought to be telling the media not to interview such people publicly in the first place. Do you read the news or watch it on TV? Why do you? It’s 20% bullshit, 70% exagerration, 10% misinformation, an 100% lies. There is little to find interesting and nothing (except the way the news is presented and manipulated) to get you upset.

Secondly, the media labell anyone a Neo Nazi who happened to have had a disagreement with someone of a racial hue other than his own. So I’m not certain it is advisable to assume I am an anti-Semite or a racist just because I am upset about the Arab who squats on the porcelain and leaves a turd upon the rim of the public toilet.

[Hershele_Ostropoler]

@Saintly_Loser

For example, if I were to say that I am a Catholic, and as a result of having been educated in the Catholic school system for thirteen years, and because I take my faith seriously, I believe in single-payer national health insurance and the extension of unemployment benefits and the right of labor to organize, and that the death penalty is always immoral, lots of my non-religious, even atheist, liberal friends would applaud me for putting my faith into practice.

If I were to say that I believe the state should not sanction same-sex relationships, the very same people would tell me to keep my religion to myself, and that my faith has no place in the political realm.

I don’t know your friends, and can’t speak to what they would say or why.

I, however, wouldn’t applaud you for “putting your faith into practice”; I would welcome you as an ally on the issues on which we agree – even if we got there by drastically different routes – while working against you on issues on which we do not agree. All while maintaining that (in an officially secular state professing freedom of religion/conscience) religion has no place in policymaking.

[Voyager]

@Ibn_Warraq

That’s why I pointed out that most communist nations had extremely harsh anti-gay laws and then asked him if he thought this was due to the a Communist ideology or if this was an example of others manipulating communist ideology to declare homosexuality “bourgeoise decadence” rather being inspired by communist ideology to be homophobes.

I genuinely expected him to say the latter and have asked him why he believes that but he’s repeatedly refused to explain his reasoning.

I’ve lost track of who said what, but it isn’t true that Communists nations always had strict anti-gay laws

From here

In 1917, the Russian Revolution saw the overthrow of the Tsarist government, and the subsequent foundation of the Russian SFSR, the world’s first socialist state, followed by the founding of the Soviet Union after the end of the civil war in 1922. The new Communist Party government eradicated the old laws regarding sexual relations, effectively legalising homosexual activity within Russia, although it remained illegal in other former territories of the Russian Empire. Under Lenin’s leadership, openly gay people were allowed to serve in government. In 1933, the Soviet government, under the leadership of Joseph Stalin, recriminalised homosexual activity, most probably to improve the strained relations with the Russian Orthodox Church, who considered homosexuality sinful. Following Stalin’s death, there was a liberalisation of attitudes toward sexual issues in the Soviet Union, but homosexual acts remained illegal. Nonetheless, homosexual culture became increasingly visible, particularly following the glasnost policy of Mikhail Gorbachev’s government in the late 1980s.

So Communist homophobia might be directly a result of religious homophobia. And Stalin was a seminarian - who knows what effect that had.

[dougie_monty]

@Bryan_Ekers

Well, you said “Golly, I wish you’d talk to some Dopers who have reacted negatively to my posts about religion in Great Debates! You’d think I was bellowing at them like a hellfire preacher!” and I’ve reviewed the material, so unless you have another set of examples you’d like me to peruse, nothing in that thread causes me to see you as a victim.

And you opened that thread in the Pit. Were you actually expecting civility? I think you got a fair amount, albeit mingled in with a lot of scorn.

I can tell you that right from the start the comments I have posted on religious topics have elicited many replies surfeited with contempt. I am not very good at fielding such sarcasm and condescension. The “Witness haters” thread I hoped would coax Dopers who had been doing this to abandon their official position in favor of an honest one.

[Der_Trihs]

@dougie_monty

I can tell you that right from the start the comments I have posted on religious topics have elicited many replies surfeited with contempt. I am not very good at fielding such sarcasm and condescension. The “Witness haters” thread I hoped would coax Dopers who had been doing this to abandon their official position in favor of an honest one.

Why do you assume that sarcasm and condescension isn’t their honest position?