Off the top of my head, I’m pretty sure that the largest Muslim country on Earth – Indonesia – does not criminalize homosexuality. But I haven’t defended, in any way whatsoever, Muslim governments.
39 minutes ago, Milo Yiannopoulos posted;
POLL: I’d rather my child had
O Islam
O Cancer
Alas, I am not a member of twitter, so I cannot see the results of what his followers voted.
Yeah, most Christian-majority countries are first and foremost led by enlightenment thinking, and are by and large secular states where the religion has had an increasingly small role in governance, corresponding directly with the rights granted to homosexuals. Let’s not pretend it’s “because they’re Christians”. It’s not. It’s because they’re secular.
Oh, and for the record, the regressive left seems to be on full display here. Yeah, Islam drives homophobic violence. How is that even a question? Islam as an ideology is explicitly clear about how to deal with homosexuals: it’s not just a sin, it’s a crime. Being gay in the islamic world is like being a pedophile in places that are sane (interestingly, the reverse isn’t always untrue either).
Yeah, Christianity is also bad. So what? This thread is about Islam and the way it drives homophobic violence. It’d be like butting into a thread about the racist violence of the KKK and pointing out what a problem neo-nazis are: yes, they’re both an issue, but that’s not what we’re talking about right now. What’s more, Christianity, while still influential, is actually making strides to improve. Because we held the church’s feet to the fire and made it no longer okay to be this guy. Why hasn’t this happened with Islam? Why is it that when it turns out that an imam is violently homophobic, he not only doesn’t get drummed out, he gets a visit from the president of the united states?
A 2013 Youtube video shows Shaikh, who previously served as imam at a mosque in Plano, Tex., decrying homosexuality a psychological disorder. He also said that homosexuality has no place in Islam or society and that politicians have allowed gay rights groups to “hijack” political discourse.
“This whole subject of homosexuality in the public sphere…is no longer a religious issue, unfortunately, as much as we want to use the religious card and try to defeat this, now it’s become a politicized issue,” Shaikh said in the video.
“Politicians are highly influenced by people who back them, and we find that these politicians who are calling for gay rights and marriage and supporting gay rights are lobbied and campaigned by gay activists, by gay groups. And they are throwing money at it left and right to gain some acceptance in society, to be considered normal people, to be treated normally.”
There’s just no comparison. People like this don’t get shit for their blatant bigotry. Why not? If it had been a Christian pastor saying that shit, chances are decent that their own congregation would have complained. Certainly if a Christian pastor had demanded that the girls and boys be completely separated and given a separate (and clearly unequal) education, role, and participation in church activities.
…Maybe the issue is that their congregation doesn’t care? Or agrees? Maybe Islam really is just a few hundred years behind Christianity when it comes to not being incredibly bigoted? And, as an added bonus, maybe it’s time to consider that this is actually an intractable problem innate to Islam, based on the way the Qur’an is presented and written?
Cancer is winning.
Yes, but SO DO REPUBLICANS. And since such strong religious ties were cultivated by The Bush family 2 administrations ago, we’ve had nothing but trouble.
Perhaps if we could target ALL zealots equally and with as much gusto, we might solve ALL the world’s problems.
Zealot Fertilizer: Better for you dead than they were for you alive.
You’re so far from being able to refute such anti-Islamophobic arguments that you yourself just accidentally used them to refute your own OP.
The fact that not 100% of Germans agreed with Nazism was one of the reasons to reject Nazism, not German identity and culture as a whole. The fact that not 100% of Christians agreed with the Inquisition was one of the reasons to reject the Inquisition, not Christianity as a whole.
Similarly, the fact that not 100% of Muslims agree with violent radical Islamist extremism is one of the reasons to reject violent radical Islamist extremism, not Islam as a whole.
You aren’t including yourself as a zealot with such views on Muslims and Republicans wanting to KILL EVERYONE ELSE ON THE LIST? That seems zealot-esque.
If Republicans had a prophet, such as Saint Ronaldus, and a silly prayer and maybe a dietary restriction would they be insulated from critique by hate speech laws?
Between 2003 and 2007 the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate and the Presidency. Maybe it’s just me, but I didn’t notice any pogroms against women, gays, atheists, jews or unions during that time. There was an illegal and stupid war against Iraq, but both Democrats and Republicans voted their support for it.
Hmm. Ok, well I’m not among them.
When considering life for a gay man (I think?) such as the OP, I think a degree of “check your privilege” is warranted, much as I’m loathe to use that patronizing expression. When a significant portion of the world pays at least lip service to an ideology that explicitly advocates murdering you for your very nature, it is cold comfort that most of them probably don’t really believe that they should practice what their avowed holy book tells them to do; even though a minority of them are indeed doing just that kind of murder in some countries, sometimes with legal sanction. Nor does the nuance that the Christians would also probably try to murder you too if it weren’t for fairly recent social progress provide much comfort.
Your knowledge, as usual, is seriously defective. Many ultra-orthodox right-wing Israeli Jews want homosexuality to be not only recriminalized but culturally suppressed as against Jewish law. (Sadly, for some of the most extreme that extends to actual murder of gay people.)
Recall also that homosexual acts have been decriminalized in Israel for less than 30 years. The tolerance and equality that western liberal democracies are (rightly) proud of espousing and (rightly) think other cultures should emulate represent a very recent evolution when it comes to gay rights.
If you’re a gay Muslim and you need to join a support group then your religion is homophobic, and pointing out that a few gay Muslim support groups and/or mosques exist doesn’t somehow mean Islam isn’t homophobic. It says the opposite.
What point are you trying to make? No, the existence of a few Muslim gay groups in no way changes my mind about Islamic homophobia. Why would you think it would? The fact that you can’t really even talk about gay mosques in Muslim-majority nations is supposed to enlighten me in what way?
I rhetorically asked “ever heard of a gay mosque?” The answer was “found a few on google, they do exist!” I didn’t ask if they exist. I asked if you’d heard of one, implying they are very rare. Turns out they are very rare, and if you don’t want to get gay Muslims killed, don’t mention any you might find in Muslim-majority countries.
Well, okay - if we accept your premise Valteron, what do you feel are potentially workable solutions to the problem(s) as you see them?
Ummm. I’m going to probably get burned for this. But isn’t pedophilia between men and boys an accepted practice in many Muslim countries?
Absolutely. And I’ll be delighted to embrace as a friend and ally every adherent of any form of self-identified “Islamic” ideology that incorporates these principles:
(a) To my branch of Islam, the Koran is not sacred, and certainly not to be taken as the literal word of God, since many parts of it are evil and morally wrong.
(b) To my branch of Islam, free speech is a virtue, and apostates are to be welcomed in society as part of the free exchange of ideas.
(c) My branch of Islam welcomes LGBT diversity.
Islamic ideology can be wrong and morally bankrupt whether or not individual people are actually violent.
You linked to Obama visiting a Mosque which required males and females pray separately.
Yes, that is the way it is at most Mosques.
Obviously, I wish that wasn’t true, but you do realize that Orthodox Synagogues also refuse to allow men and women to pray together don’t you?
I’m sorry, I’m still not following the point you’re disagreeing with me on. Could you quote the part you’re arguing against?
No, that doesn’t work, unfortunately. You wondered in that same post about that one Muslim guy in France who you cited (from 2012, who you’d missed had gone on to create it) and how long his creation would last and what security they’d have to have. If you’d believed that his mosque, or such mosques, existed, you would have simply gone to answer your wonderings. The only reason not to seek an answer for your wondering, considering you had already searched on at least one example, would be if you didn’t think there was an answer. That or perhaps “I wonder” means for you “I have no idea and I feel no need to find out”, but that seems stretching the word to breaking point.
I would think that the possibility of progress eventually erasing homophobia, even in Islamic countries, should provide a fair degree of comfort.
No one has said that Islam is “insultated from critique,” and hate speech laws do not have that effect.
You’re using terms improperly, and this does not do you or your arguments any credit.
Homosexuality in general has a long history in Muslim societies, just as it has a long history in all other Abrahamic societies, indeed societies everywhere. It has been repressed, reviled, tolerated and fetishized in various measures, sometimes all at the same time and place. The very fact that medieval Christian and Muslim authorities felt that had to rail against such “practices” pretty much proves their existence through time. It has always been a fact of human behavior.
But ideologies aren’t necessarily logical and the inevitability of human nature doesn’t consistently sway their POV. An imam or priest might argue that murder is human nature as well, but it still needs to be criticized as evil ( this has its own illogic of course, but see the preceding sentence ).