The thread is about Islam, not “Christians do it too!”
There are gay friendly churches in every state. Go here and have a look at your area of the woods.
You’re not going to find anything like that when you google up “gay friendly mosques.” Times are slowly changing though. Maybe in 100 years it will be easier.
But part of the argument against Islam is that it is exceptional. It’s all very well to say that Islamic beliefs drive homophobia (as they often do) but if Christian beliefs do the same to a similar degree (and Jewish, Hindu, etc) it’s unreasonable to treat Islam as if it is an outlier if, in the grand scheme of things, it isn’t. Saying “Christians do it too!” doesn’t excuse bad behavior on the part of Muslims, but it does contextualize it.
And the proliferation of “gay-friendly churches” is a relatively new phenomenon, cropping up in the last generation at most. I doubt you’ll have to wait 100 years for gay-friendly mosques to appear in every state. Maybe 50 at most, and I’d bet the pace of change will be slowed more by Christian resistance than Muslim resistance.
The OP makes the comparison and asks questions about it. The thread would seem to be about both. Among other things.
Fair enough. OTOH, Muslims have lived in the center of civilization since there has been civilization, and they can understand and adapt to things like cars, jet airplanes, modern weaponry, computers and smartphones and Facebook and Twitter but when it comes to not throwing gays off buildings suddenly we’re all “hey, slow down. They’re like an uncontacted tribe just now being introduced to civilization!” Isn’t that a bit insulting?
A nitpick, but this is a separate point.
Given that the extent to which people are responding to you with something along the lines of “It’ll happen eventually and sooner than you seem to think” (which I think is what you’re exaggerating here?) it’s when you’ve been talking about the proliferance of gay-friendly mosques, not “not throwing gays off buildings”, yes, I would say that what you said there was a bit insulting. And inaccurate.
No, they (those Muslims still hostile to modern values) should get with the program. I have no problem whatsoever with pointed criticism of specific people (or specifically described people, such as “Muslims hostile to gay rights”) who are behaving poorly, or advocating bad things. I just have a problem with sweeping judgments, or sweeping actions, that affect a huge, diverse group, many of whom deserve no condemnation and no restriction on their rights.
Yeah, I don’t want anyone persecuted who is minding their own business. That’s what I think America is supposed to be all about. I don’t cut Christians any slack when they try to force their values on me, and it’s tricky with Islam because I don’t want to cut them any slack either, but if you aren’t careful you’ll be labeled an “islamophobe.” Well, I kind of am an islamophobe. I’m also kind of a Christianophobe too. Get your religion off me. I’m a religionophobe. With good reason.
Having to be merely somewhat careful, in order to avoid sweeping judgements or sweeping actions that would be unjust to many innocent members of a huge diverse group, doesn’t sound like a particularly unreasonable or unfair burden.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Well, I kind of am an islamophobe. I’m also kind of a Christianophobe too. […] I’m a religionophobe.
[/QUOTE]
Hey, if you or anybody else would rather openly embrace a bigotry label than make the minimal effort of carefulness to ensure that your criticisms are specific and accurate enough to avoid bigotry, that’s your choice.
Ah super, the usual self-congratulatory prejudiced discussion by the Westerners about the Others, hypocritically ahistorical and essentializing, ignoring the recency of their own changes, enternalizing (without any actual history) the Others…
It is sourly amusing that it is from the 19c to within the living memory (1950s/60s) that the supposed secular Westerns would write about the degeneracy of the Islamic world (and others) for the tolerance of gay behavior - even if the concept of the identity itself remained foreign. So the “third sex” (gay) like in the Oman was a mark of the degenercy of the arab muslims, so the tolerance of the same in the Maghreb also a mark of the ‘oriental degeneracy’… (and then the Chérifien kingdom enclaves becomes with the end of the Colonial rule the haven of the American homosexual writers… (only the BBC remembers, not the Americans…) due to the real operational tolerance… Of course that the Ottoman decriminalised a century before the Westerners ever did (and this was considered by the “secular” westerners of the time as a sign of their degeneracy and their immorality) is skipped or excuses are made…
But let the American standards and tolerances flip around - inside the actual lifespan of people alive now - and then suddenly the excuses of the prejudice is inverted…
Very nice, it is the Essentialism that the Others (the muslims, etc) are evil - the reasoning can be flipped like Mirror image but the same hypocritical self congratulation for its own bigotry continues… Their preferences of the moment, eternally the correct, the Others, eternally immoral…
This is not true. The FDA bans gay men who were sexually active in the past year (not all gay men) from making blood donations. The FDA is not a Christian organization. It’s part of the executive branch of the federal government, answerable to President Obama. The stated reason for the ban is the likelihood of AIDS being transmitted. If you think this reason is stupid, well, you’d be right, but any feelings generated as a result should be aimed at the federal government, not at Christians.
That and the point that Grumman made earlier.
This particular point doesn’t work; something need not be a Christian organization to be motivated by Christian homophobia (or Christian charity, for balance’s sake, or for that matter any kind of philosophy).
The only way it would not be reasonable in theory to not point fingers at some philosophical viewpoint because it is the federal government taking that action, not an official group of that viewpoint, would be if there is no possibility that that viewpoint could motivate that government. IOW, let’s say that President Dastardly Atheist is elected into power, and decides to outlaw all religion. The federal government is not an atheist organisation, but it would be perfectly reasonable to say that President D.A.'s particular strain of Atheist fuckwittery should take some blame for his actions. If a sizeable contingent in the Senate and Congress are Orbital Teapotists, passing laws that force everyone to buy a teapot due to their own philosophy, then again, their philosophy takes some finger-pointing.
That’s not to say I agree that the blood donation standards in the US (and here, for that matter) are motivated by Christian homophobia. But your point there doesn’t work to negate the idea.
Bolding Mine
You seem comfortable in using sweeping generalisations yourself. Indeed “Westerners” is an even wider and more sweeping term than “muslim”
Do you acknowledge the hypocrisy in the words you write?
Are you happy to use such prejudicial language?
This poll may be useful to this discussion. Don’t know if it has been posted here yet.
It examines attitudes towards issues - including acceptance of homosexuality - by religion, for Americans.
The important findings for our purposes: Muslims in America are not notably different in attitudes towards homosexuality from other mainstream religious groups.
One of the questions was whether homosexuality should be accepted by society. The answer for Muslims was: 38% said “yes” in 2007; while 45% said “yes” in 2012. The answer for Protestants as a whole: 38% said “yes” in 2007; 48% said “yes” in 2012.
[The groups that polled the worst were Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Evangelical Christians. Witnesses polled only 12% “yes” in 2007, and 16% “yes” in 2012].
This poll demonstrates some valuable points, based on some facts rather than rhetoric:
(1) In America itself, Muslim attitudes towards homosexuality are reasonably mainstream, on average. They are no worse than American Protestants (again, on average).
(2) Muslim attitudes, like that of anyone else, can change: they have, fairly significantly, in the short time between 2007 and 2014.
(3) These attitudes are found in a population that is itself majority immigrant. It is interesting to note that the majority (61%) of American Muslims are themselves immigrants.
(4) Therefore, there is nothing essential in being Muslim, or being a Muslim immigrant, that requires or imposes homophobic attitudes. It is perfectly possible to be both Muslim, an immigrant, and not homophobic - at least, the American polling data appears to demonstrate that Muslims in America, including Muslim immigrants, tend to either already have, or to assimilate, much the same attitudes as their fellow-countrypersons.
[As an aside, the most liberal attitudes are on average displayed by Jews, Atheists/Agnostics, and Buddhists, in order of increasing liberalism; the group with the greatest level of increased liberalism is Hindus].
I am perfectly happy holding up the mirror to the hypocrisies of those who use sweeping ahistorical and very badly informed essentialist arguments.
There is of course no thing prejudicial about the word Westerners and as the participants iin the assertions are indeed some Westerners and not even limited to a single country there is no “prejudice”
et voila here is the non-essentialist facts.
Malthus makes a post worthy of this board pretensioins to its slogan.
I keep hearing this recency thing. Oh, you just recently became less homophobic. Morocco was gay, gay, gay, but now it’s homophobic, homophobic, homophobic. How dare you Westerners have a recent thought but you must accept Morocco’s most recent thought, even though it used to be gay, gay, gay. 
By that logic, using the words “muslim” or “islam” would be fine as well when used as a sweeping term criticising actions, words or beliefs seeing as some people involved in problematic issues are indeed muslim and those terms are not limited to a single country.
Morocco was never really gay, gay, gay and has always been homophobic, homophobic, homophobic. The oddball exception was colonial Tangier post-WW II - mid-1950’s and apparently to a more limited extent ( if you’re very discreet and a foreigner ) Marrakesh today. However there is homophobic and there is homophobic, if you get my meaning. The Muslim parts of the Mediterranean basin arguably* had a slightly more relaxed cultural attitude towards ( discreet, more or less loosely closeted ) homosexuality up through maybe the 1950’s than much of Europe/the West, loosely defined.
I think Ramira’s point is that the Muslim world got sneered at for that attitude then and gets sneered at now for what has relatively suddenly become a much more retrograde attitude vis-a-vis the West - i.e. they can’t win and it all smacks of smug parochialism.
I don’t entirely agree - it might be condescending I guess, but wrong is wrong. The Moroccan ( especially official Moroccan ) stance on LGBT rights shouldn’t have been sneered at then, but think they can be now, because, y’know, homophobia sucks. And the world does advance.
But I think Malthus argument is rather more on point. What Muslim majority countries have the most liberal official take on gay rights today? Probably Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina, maybe followed by Turkey. What do they share in common? Hey, lookit that - they are all in ( or partly in ) Europe and have had greater exposure to modern, liberal attitudes towards gay rights.
It’s Islam in the sense that the Islamic world taken as a whole is indeed lagging, as is pretty much what we used to call the Third World generally. But it isn’t Islam in the sense that Islam is incapable of liberalizing and therefore we must shun and exclude this evil other. Want more Muslim tolerance towards gays? Invite more Muslim immigration into the west, treat them with tolerance and respect and watch a majority of them liberalize over time and begin further influencing intra-faith debate. Not all will liberalize - some will even radicalize, sure. You’ll always have radicals. Especially if they are treated like second-class citizens. But most are gonna go in the “right” direction, because people are people and cultural values always adapt to their surroundings.
Okay. I will make a deal with you. I will email you my full address and you agree that you will give it out only to good, non-homophobic Muslims. Keep in mind that I have started a large number of threads critical of Islam over the past few years. I would ask you to be very careful in your screening, because, judging by the 13 or so Muslim countries that kill homosexuals. . . . . . well, you get the picture. I agree that I will stop being paranoid and you will assure me that nobody like Omar the Gay-killer ever gets my address.
Oh, I am glad that you posted that! I vaguely recall reading about the lax attitude compared to the West ages ago. It was good to get my memory refreshed! Fascinating stuff…