That’s a compelling rebuttal.
I wasn’t commenting on that, I was commenting on Scumpup trotting out the pompous trope:
This thread isn’t about the “utter end of religion”. It’s about privileging religion, holding its tenets immune from examination of their merits. To claim that religion is not the ultimate source of anti-LGBT bigotry is casuistry: of course it’s not, since religion is man made. But in the modern world, religion is the proximate source. Religion is the principal vector for the transmission and maintenance of anti-LGBT principles in our increasingly civilized world. When bigotry is clothed in religious piety, it is far more difficult to eradicate. The portrayal of homophobic bigotry as a virtue lies only in religious privilege. It is far more difficult to justify such hatred on its merits when it is examined rationally and exposed as hatred that originates in the minds of men, not gods.
Btw if you’re all ok with pretending Zeke doesn’t exist I’m cool with that too ^^
ETA: To add: this, of course, is why it’s appropriate to mock all aspects of a religion when it makes bogus claims of moral authority. If a core figure in your religion is a talking snake, and your redemption myth is the idea that an all-powerful god decided that the only way to save mankind was that he should sacrifice his son to himself? Well, perhaps pointing this out might make you scrutinize claims of moral authority that originate in any incarnation of such a religion.
They were just jealous because they could never achieve The Slack.
This is what it should be about. Freedom to believe or not believe, and freedom to live life without undue interference.
Keep calm, and burn the heretic! 
But look at what BigT is actually saying.
Agreeing with “no privilege” for religious ideas in one sentence. In the very next sentence (my bold), special pleading for holding his own religious beliefs free from “attack”.
This is just the same old tone policing and false equivalency trope. That those who challenge the comfortable privilege of religion are just too strident. That if they were just nicer about it, people might listen. That those who have the temerity to challenge entrenched religious bigotry are themselves intolerant bigots violating religious freedoms.
ETA: No doubt BigT’s own religious views are progressive and tolerant. But that’s the whole point. How did they get that way? Because, in most Western countries, the privilege of religious dogma has been effectively challenged, and decent people have examined and modified their religious beliefs to accord with civilized secular values, deciding sensibly (for example) to ignore much of the distasteful content of the bible.
That’s why Islamic belief is a more serious social problem than Christianity at this point in history. Not because it’s inherently any worse, but because in many societies devout believers are doing a better job than modern Christians at holding their bad ideas in a privileged position, free from examination on their merits, characterizing their bigotry as piety rather than hatred that originates in the minds of men.
Golly Andros, if I’d had any inclination to provide a lengthy and detailed dissection of the flaws in both writing and thinking I might have done so.
So here Andros, let me kiss your ass. It is a poorly written think piece that exhibits weak reassoning based on false equivalencies and strawmen. Does that make diddums feel a bit better?
Okay, great, let me rephrase and simplify. If there wax a complete end to religious privelege (which you seem to be defining differently than the OP) what actual effect do you believe it would have?
Do you think that an end to privelege, as you define it, would result in hordes of virulent anti-gay folk donning rainbow garb and sashaying down the street with RuPaul?
Or do you, as I do, expect that there would be pretty much no change in the amount or level of anti-gay sentiment - merely a change in the trappings and rationalizations.
And, just to be clear, I couldn’t give a tinker’s fuck if all religious privelege were to dissaparate tomorrow. But if it did, I doubt you’d see any discernible change.
I think most social change occurs with generational change - in other words, not so much through people changing their entrenched beliefs, but by older people just dying off and being replaced by younger people with more tolerant ideas.
Since religion is now the predominant vector for the transmission and maintenance of homophobic bigotry in an otherwise increasingly civilized world, the more that the privilege of religion can be challenged, the more likely kids are to examine the bigotry of their parents’ generation and see it for what it is - not as god-given virtue but as man-made evil.
Actually Riemann, here is a concrete example I would like you to explain in the context of “religious privilege.”
During Russian and eventually Soviet communism homosexuality was, in the begininng, varioulsy accepted and sactionned or prohibitted and sactioned - gotta love contranyms. In 1933 Stalin made it illegal across the Soviet Union. It would be hard to find an environment with less religious privelege. This blanket criminalization lasted 60 years.
Another example would be China. My understanding (very superficial I admit) is that homosexuality is legal there but the society still condemns it and there are next to no legal protections save for the right to exist. Are there Budhist or Confuscian prescriptions against homosexuality? If not, how do you explain the extant prejudice there?
All prejudice comes ultimately from the mind of man. Of course there has historically been plenty of homophobia without religion too. And religion, being man made, has often incorporated man made homophobia into its dogma.
At this point in history, the world is generally becoming increasingly civilized and tolerant. To the extent that people see bigotry as man made hatred, in the modern world they are increasingly rejecting it as barbaric.
But religion is widely used to justify and protect homophobic ideas, to represent bigotry as piety. Most homophobia in the world today has religious roots. And the privilege that religion demands is “don’t examine my precious beliefs on their merits, or I will be offended that you are challenging my religious freedom”.
To say that religion is not the problem is like saying that mosquitoes are not the problem, it’s P. falciparum. Religion is the vector for the bad ideas. Religion is not a problem provided it reforms. And it only reforms when its privilege is removed, when its ideas are held up to be reexamined on their merits. There are millions of religious people with progressive and tolerant religious ideas, because they have examined historical religious dogma and rejected it, and changed their religion to align with modern social ideals. The problem is the fundamentalists who won’t do this, who insist on holding their religious beliefs up as sacred, privileged, above examination.
I think all you are doing is picking a tissue target and feeling mighty in the fray. You assume that the majority of anti-gay sentiment arises from and is solely predicated on the precepts of religion. Remove religion and it is rainbows and unicorns.
I posit that religion is merely the coothing in which this bigotry cl8thes itself. If I remove my clothing am I fundamentally altered? Does removing one set of clothes preclude me from putting on a different set that are suited to my tastes?
In North America, despite the presence of “religious privelege” homosexuality has gone from open and approved persecution, beatings, rapes, etc. to the point that they enjoy all the same protections as everyone else and are, largely, supported by society. All of this in 50 or so years.
So again I ask, what tangible effect do you believe that the end to religious “privelege” would provide?
Hmm, no response to post #59, but the question gets repeated. For some reason, I’m not surprised. Disappointed, but not surprised. Zeke, it feels like you’ve been away for quite some time… Maybe you should go back where you came from.
If they live in the more secular and liberal coastal cities, sure. Do you really think that LGBT people born into the Bible Belt are “largely supported by society”?
A disproportionate number of homeless youth are LGBT social outcasts.
It’s surely obvious that the progress in LGBT rights has been made despite religious fundamentalists fighting tooth and nail against it. You have to be blind and deaf to see no relationship between religiosity and homophobia in the modern U.S.
Once again, the recognition that all ideas come from the minds of men, and examination of all ideas on their merits.
I think we largely agree on this. There might be some negligible difference in nuance or emphasis.
I do very must question the veracity of the claim that the tenets of faith enjoy a widely unnassailable “privilege.” I can easily show you assaults on Christian orthodoxy dating back 500 years and more both from inside and outside the institution.
All religions or certain ones? When you say “religion” is it a blanket statement or is it camouflage for what you really mean, “Christianity and Islam”
You keep saying this asvthough it is accepted fact. It is not. Can you get malaria from an ostrich? No. Does malaria require the mosquito ad a vector? Yes. Would eliminating mosquitoes eliminate malaria? Yes.
You’ve already said that society is transitioning to a much more “civilized” model (in the presence of this privilege as you’ve defined it.) You’ve said that the bigotry of which religion is the vector is man made and existed prior to religion incorporating it.
You’re tilting at tiny windmills.
So the problem isn’t religion it is a certain group of religious people. Seems legit. These people hold ironclad beliefs that you consider barbaric. Fair enough and I would agree.
Alright, now we are getting somewhere.
Corelation / causation and all of that. The same article also says they are predominantly white and female.
The difference is that you see the relationship as causative. I don’t. If it isn’t done in the name of Christ or Allah then it will be done in the name of tradition, or biology or it being Wednesday. As the exacrable phrase goes, “Haters gonna hate.”
People at the time examined them and were satisfied (mostly) with their merits. Now we’ve examined them and found them desperately wanting for merit.
Who is to say though that 500 years from now they will examine our idea of tolerance and find it equally “barbaric?”