Regarding the big three monotheistic religions, the ones who preach hate are the true believers whereas the ones who ignore the nasty stuff are the perverters of the “true” faith.
Reading the so called holy books, Bible and Koran, god is a vile, hate filled monster who in no way deserves to be respected much less praised and worshipped.
“When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things.” 1 Corinthians 13
It’s way past time we put away religion and focus our energy and abilities on things that really matter.
Programs like the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades are, IMO, similar to those of today’s radical Islam. My understanding of the Koran is that it is no more hateful than the Bible. The problem, as I see it, is that when people use religion to gain political power they twist it to their own ends. This is true of Christianity, Islam, and atheism, among others.
That’s not hate speech. Is criticizing liars hate speech? (Note to all before you send me hate mail: I am not equating lying and homosexuality. I’m just trying to show that criticism is not the same as hate.)
If the Pope had said that black people having sex was “a destruction of God’s work” would you call it criticism? Or if black people were considered “deviants” by the church?
First, I believe there’s a different between “criticizing” and “condemning”. Second, I believe that most churches see a different between homosexual activity and homosexual feelings; what the church is criticizing is the activity.
Unfortunately there are too many Christians who turn the “criticizing” into “hating” and I’d like to see churches put a little more emphasis on the difference but that doesn’t mean that the Pope is engaging in hate speech.
Perhaps a better example than my liars example is extramarital sex. The church criticizes such acts but I don’t think we’d consider that hate speech.
Yes, they see the feelings as being “deviant”, while the activity is “a destruction of God’s work.” Shit, they’re talking about protecting mankind from homosexual behavior. That’s pretty fucking harsh.
He didn’t come out and say “Kill the fags”, but he was a hell of a lot closer to that side than to “Buggery is bad, m’kay?”.
Again, since you’ll be hard pressed to find more than a handful of people who think that extramarital sex is just peachy behavior, it’s a bad comparison. Also, when the Pope says that we need to protect mankind from extramarital sex, that “destruction of God’s work”, then we’ll talk.
I think most non-Christians have little problem with sex outside of marriage.
I’m not Catholic so I don’t generally follow the Pope’s pronouncements but I’d be very surprised if he didn’t declare other sins the destruction of God’s work. He’s probably said something similar about using birth control.
Yes, there’s a difference between “criticizing” and “condemning,” and the Catholic Church condemns the manner in which my partner and I express our love for each other. This is no different that condemning who and what we are. To love my partner is to love him totally . . . mind, body and spirit. Remove “body” from that equation, and it would be torture.
I’d love to see a cite for this. I’m non-Christian and married. If I were to have extramarital sex, I’d be breaking just as strong of a vow to my wife as any Christian. Hell, it’s probably more important to me to behave properly, as I’m not expecting to be forgiven when I finally bite the dust.
Well, he doesn’t criticize birth control, he condemns it. I’m glad we have that out of the way.
I am not very eloquent but I will try to explain my thoughts. I am glad that you can find happiness in your relationship. I can understand how criticism of the homosexual lifestyle can cut and anger you. However, a church delineating it’s list of sins is not in itself hate speech.
This is a fine line. Churches have a long history of physical oppression of gays. Groups like Phelps’ “church” obviously cross the line deep into hate-speech territory. In that light I’d like to see churches be more sensitive to their language.
Hmmm, perhaps I am using the wrong word. I’m talking about sex outside of marriage, not a married person having sex with someone else (i.e. an extramarital affair).
Again, you are framing the question so that you get the answer you want to get but the question is wrongly framed and the answer is meaningless.
You say a few terrorists use religion as their excuse but you conveniently ignore millions of people of the same religion are peaceful. These do not count for you, only the radicals define Islam for you. That is just not fair nor is it sound reasoning.
And, again, religion is just one aspect of a culture and what matters is not religion but the culture as a whole. The soviets were not religious and yet they were extremely evil.
America today is mostly Christian and it is a country extremely fond of wars and of killing. Maybe they say they do not want to expand their religion but, so what? They want to expand and impose on others their culture and their way of seeing the world which is little different from religion. They call it “democracy” and are willing to kill as much as needed to extend it around the world. In fact, in the name of this “democracy” religion they have started more wars and killed and caused killing than any Islamic radical could have dreamed of doing himself. If today there is a country and a culture which practices and preaces violence it is America.
Yes, it is. Religious speech currently enjoys a level of freedom that other forms of expression would not attain without falling into that category. What makes it even worse is that they justify their position by disingenuous means to scare people into lock-stepping with their program. Because we have made criticizing religion a huge no-no in our society, most people are reluctant to take them to task.
Any speech that advocates that simply existing and wanting to participate in the same normal life events as hetero folks is a sin, is nothing short of hate speech. There is no logical justification for that position. It is a belief fueled purely by dogma, homophobia, and hatred in varying levels from individual to individual. While I don’t believe that associating oneself with such a faith makes a person evil, donating money or time to those institutions implies a level of approval with those doctrines that makes me uncomfortable.
While I understand the sentiment of the OP, the actual question asked is deeply culturally biased. Is Satan worship inherently evil? All but a statistically insignificant few in America would say yes because the very thought of Satan to Americans—not just Christians—is associated with evil.
What this comes down to is bigotry, plain and simple: we are judging the acts of a minority and applying our conclusions to the entire population.
It still happens: a man in Massachusetts fatally shoots his wife, purposely wounds himself, and blames a black man for the assault. The police accept his story immediately because it confirms their beliefs. Only after the entire population of black men in Boston is hounded does the truth emerge.
Since the fall of Communism, Hollywood now needs a replacement “bad guy” and, sadly, all you have to do these days is wrap a towel around a bearded man’s head and everyone buys it.
You know there are a few dozen non-Christian religions/cultures that have sexual taboos don’t you? And most Christians I know have little problem with sex outside of marriage as well.
Im sorry but this is just simply ridiculous. When i read your title i thought this was going to be specifically about the catholic church. They might not be saying “go out and kill gays” but they are most definitely preaching hate, ignorance and prejudice.
So, for the 1900th consecutive year, the Catholic Church condemns birth control and homosexuality.
In other news, the sun is expected to rise tomorrow.
Not to denigrate your relationship, but you act like this is somehow a new thing that the Catholics have decided in the past ten years. In fact, the reality is the opposite. Throughout history, Christian churches condemned these practices, and in the past few years, some have reversed their positions.
I think it is dangerous, and debate-stifling to label a form of speech that you personally disagree with as “hate speech”.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. At no time did I imply that the Church has ever had a policy any better than the current one; I would never let them off that easily. This is not some temporary aberration related to the current pope; it’s a blind irrationality and hatred endemic to the very core of Christianity. And their continuous assault on gay people (and women) is not simply something that I “personally disagree” with. It’s irrational and willfully ignorant and evil.