Well, this has been the official position of Orthodox Judaism for quite some time now, like, three millennia. In addition to the forbiddance (is that a word?) of homosexuality in Lev. 18:22, the Talmud argues that homosexuality is one of only a handful of behaviors forbidden of gentiles as well as Jews.
Liberal Jews, of course, do all they can to ignore those passages or at least reinterpret them out of existence.
Opus1 said:
Precisely. Orthodox Judaism. That was my point. Meanwhile, the council of Reform Jewish rabbis (or whatever they’re called) recently agreed to allow homosexual unions.
Well…I find it not so much offensive as utterly simplistic! One could probably make a stronger argument for “laziness” being associated with the “Thou shalt not…” simplistic rules of some Western religiousity than with the more “easy-going” Eastern religions (or those of us who are agnostic/atheist). We actually have to come up with our own rules to live by…a daunting task in and of itself…in addition to then living by them.
I see it a lot more relevant in my life to make rules restricting the amount that I use a socially- and environmentally-destructive form of transportation (namely, my car) than to follow some age-old rules telling me what foods as “kosher” for me to eat (from my own religious background of Judaism).
And, although I think it may be true that some bad apples give fundamentalists Christians, Jews, etc. bad names…I think this general level of intolerance that often gets voiced by these bad apples (which, although perhaps a minority, do seem to have undo influence) is something that drives lots of folks away from these religions.
Also, anyone who thinks that “Eastern” religions are “easy-going” and “do as you feel” has never read, for example, any Hindu dharmashastra texts. There are rules enough in there to make fifty Books of Deuteronomy! But what most Westerners encounter instead, as has been pointed out, is the arcane religious philosophy that’s more interested in discussing Big Issues like the self, the nature of reality, the ubiquity of suffering, transcendence, and enlightenment than in laying down specific guidelines for everyday transactions.
It’s sort of as if a Hindu knew nothing of Christianity besides the Sermon on the Mount and the life of St. Francis—Christianity might seem to him much more deeply spiritual and sacred than the endless rules of his own religion about what donations to charity you have to give in honor of which religious festivals and the prayers you have to repeat and the rituals you have to perform. In reality, of course, every religion has its own explorations of contemplative philosophy as well as its own sets of rules for living an ethical life in society.
Another thing Westerners tend to be removed from is the awareness of fundamentalist bigots in non-Western religions (that’s another thing all religions have some of, sadly). Some extremists in the Bharatiya Janata Party are textbook examples of a sort of sectarian hostility that we’d find quite as revolting as the homegrown Fred Phelps variety. Read Khaki Shorts and Saffron Flags for a discussion of some of them.
(As for Hinduism and homosexuality, btw, the “mildly anti” evaluation stems, I think, from the fact that marriage and procreation is in dharmashastra an obligation for every Hindu male, with some exceptions made in the case of those who embrace the celibate-contemplation stage of life early. Yes, the Kamasutra mentions pushandilas or homosexual partners with acceptance, but of course the Kamasutra is not an official sacred text of the Hindu scripture, though if it were I bet we’d be seeing even more enthusiasm for Eastern religion. :))
(And furthermore, Kyber, where’d you get the four aims of life according to Hinduism? I know of three: dharma or righteous behavior, artha or wealth/self-sustenance, and kama or love/pleasure/joy.)
Nobody around here uses search engines, do they?
Typing in “four aims hinduism” gave the following sites:
http://www.multifaithnet.org/mfnopenaccess/resource/hinduism/descr-hi.htm
http://origin.org/ucs/sbcr/hinduism.cfm
http://www.silcom.com/~origin/sbcr/hinduism.htm
http://www.hinduism-today.com/1995/10/
http://www.usao.edu/~usao-ids3313/ids/html/hinduism.html
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/academic/cult_sci/anthro/angkor/hinduism.html
There were a lot more, but reading through those to find mention of the four areas/goals of life should be quite sufficient. 
Granted you could always try CTRL-F or option-F or ALT-F in your browser, it’s sorta like a search engine for a single page. 
Granted Hinduism has fundies, what religion doesn’t? The reason I mentioned the Kama Sutra, however, is that it is an ancient text, drawing on the Hindu faith which was accepting of homosexuality, showing that current acceptance is not part of some recent reforms.
Oh yeah, moksha, I always forget it. 
Thanks, Kyber.
Exactly my point, and thank you for making it for me. Judaism, is no more “anti-gay” CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE, than is Christianity. The more conservative branches of both faiths tend to be less tolerant of Homosexuality. I was hoping someone would point out my little “boo-boo”. Actually, in most faiths- western, eastern, whatever, the conservative branches/sects are less tolerant, and the liberal more tolerant- what a surprize.
Whew, when I responded to the OP, I was showing one reason why some people bash Christianity; because Christianity has bashed on them. I was using homosexuality as an example.
**DITWD wrote:
Would you like to list the Churches that have officially denounced homosexuality, that is as far as saying thay are “anti-Christian & unable to be Christian”? They are very few- but very vocal, I will admit.**
This list, so far:
The Eastern Orthodox Churches. See here.
The Roman Catholic Church. I don’t think I need an URL for this, the record speaks for itself.
The Anglican Churches. See here.
The Southern Baptists. Again, the record speaks for itself.
The Methodist Church. See here.
The Mormon Church. Again, the record speaks for itself.
DITWD, while there are many congregations that are tolerant of homosexuality, those voices are drowned out, especially at the OFFICIAL level. The governing body, which sets policy and doctine, of each of those churches have set into their policy the idea that homosexuality is wrong an incompatible with Christian life. These churches, by their official policy condemn me, therefore I have no hesitation about bashing back.
I don’t go out of my way to be rude to Christians, most I have met are truly good people. What I’m railing against is the OFFICIAL bigotted, intolerant policy that the various churches who identify themselves as Christian have set up. It’s not you I find offensive, it’s the policy of the collective body.
Do Eastern religions proselytize?
That is a reason that I “bash” certain practices of certain Christians… They fucking annoy me!
And don’t Hare Krishnas also get a lot of abuse for that same reason and they’re an Eastern religion?
Yer pal,
Satan
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, two weeks, 16 hours, 38 minutes and 35 seconds.
7907 cigarettes not smoked, saving $988.47.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 6 days, 10 hours, 55 minutes.
I slept with a REPUBLICAN moderator!*
since christianity was spread around the world via hypocritical tactics, it deserves all the bashing it can get.
Dal Timgar
**dal_timgar wrote:
since christianity was spread around the world via hypocritical tactics, it deserves all the bashing it can get.**
Uh, no. Not just no, but Niflheim NO!
I’m not disagreeing with your assessment of history, but rather your own reaction to it.
Just because someone’s Great-g’g’g’g’g’-grandfather ran your Great-g’g’g’g’g’-grandfather thru with a sword doesn’t give you the right to run them thru with a sword to avenge your long dead relatives.
If we follow that path, we’ll be bringing up slights and wrongs from both sides that go back into pre-history. That way lies madness.
FREYR says:
First, the link you provided for Methodism – the one of interest to me since I am a Methodist – does not bear out this conclusion. Far from indicating that “those voices are drowned out,” that article indicates that “those voices” belong to people that stormed the stage, walked out, and were arrested in the wake of the governing body refusing to relax the “party line” on homosexuality. Indeed, the article indicates that this issue has become so contentious and important that it may well cause a true schism in the church.
Second, though you may disagree and I may disagree with the conclusion that homosexual activity is immoral, you must concede that there are people who legitimately believe that it is immoral – that it is, in fact, incompatible with Christianity (or Islam or Judaism or Hinduism, depending on how “fundie” the person you’re talking to is). A person who holds this moral belief is not “bashing” you merely by holding it.
None of this is intended to take issue with your irritation over churches that choose to exclude you based on your sexual orientation – I can well understand why that would aggravate and hurt you. But it is not “bashing” to define Christianity in a way that excludes certain people. (Mind you, that’s not how I define it, but I know – and you know – that some people do.) As a woman, I would face significant limitations in my ability to worship freely or participate freely in any but the most liberal type of Islam, but I don’t conclude that this means all Islam “bashes” women.
So I think your example is a poor one, unless you want to talk about the “God Hates Fags” school of so-called “Chritianity,” and then I can hardly argue with you.
As far as the OP is concerned, I think Western religions come under criticism more than Eastern ones do, at least in the States, because Western religions are more prevalent and because people tend to know more about Western religions, both pros and cons. I also think it’s in vogue currently to be critical of the overtly religious – of any stripe – and to buy into the idea that agnostic/atheist = smart while religious = unthinking or stupid. Ironically, it’s people who haven’t given a lot of thought to the issue, including – forgive me – college students fresh from their first religion or philosophy class, who tend to reach this conclusion. Thinking people of all religions – and no religion – know it’s not that simple. It’s never that simple. Just my O, anyway.
your identity is too wrapped up in CHRISTIANITY. christianity can be bashed ad infinitum without harming anyone.
Dat Timgar
Daniel said:
Except that the Orthodox branch of Judaism is heavily outweighed by the non-Orthodox (except in specific pockets). So, “CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE,” I would say that’s still incorrect.
Uh, yeah, sure. Whatever you say.
This thread calls for a variety of comments.
First, addressing the OP: The late teens and early twenties is the time when most people establish a worldview of their own. (Peace to the bright younger teens who post here and are already doing so – the phrasing was “most people.”) In consequence, there is generally a tendency to rebel against authority and adopt a stance antithetical to that which they were taught as children. This is refined over the next few years into a coalescence of the new views they have espoused and the historical framework into which they were born to produce a new worldview that suits them as adults. (I realize this sounds very much like “it’s just a phase” – nothing could be farther from the truth. Conceive of it, if you will, as a Hegelian thesis/antithesis/synthesis process undertaken only partially intentionally as regards the viewpoints of the individuals involved.)
Since Christianity is the dominant religion in America and the one most youth are brought up in, at least nominally, it is usually what is strongly reacted against.
It is worth noting also that many people do not go into this sort of analytical process for themselves but gravitate to the attitudes of the social group in which they find themselves – and therefore are strongly influenced by those who do undergo the process.
Therefore, in general traditional Christianity is looked on with a supercilious attitude by collegians. If we were a predominantly Buddhist nation, you would probably see a tendency to rebel and become Christians among college folk, for much the same reasons.
Now, to quickly address the comments of Freyr regarding Christianity and homosexuality:
It would be disingenuous to pretend that Christianity has not taken an anti-homosexual stance over the years. But that attitude has been changing in large portions of the churches. Jodi has, I believe, adequately addressed the problems Methodism faces. The United Church of Christ as a national body is very much pro-gay, although some individual congregations and groups are anti-gay. (Saturday’s Raleigh paper included an article about a local congregation expelled from the local “synod” (I’m not sure what the proper term is for the UCC) for its pro-gay stance, the local group of churches disagreeing with the national church on the subject.)
As regards the Episcopal Church, let me note that the Lambeth Conference is a meeting of bishops from a bunch of independent churches belonging to the Anglican Communion, and has all the authority over any individual church that the National Governors Conference has over a given state government, to wit, “moral influence” only. For the stance of the Episcopal Church, I submit the following three resolutions adopted by our just-completed General Convention:
Note that this final resolution makes no reference to gays in particular, though it was composed largely with reference to them, but accounts for all unmarried persons related to the church, without reference to sexual orientation. Couples like Satan and Drain Bead in committed unmarried relationships and widows who lose financial resources when they remarry (apparently a significant problem, judging from the press about it) are included here as well as committed same-sex couples.
I trust that will put an end to any considerations of the Episcopal Church gay-bashing.
One final note: Dal_timgar, you have a very jaundiced view of Christianity, both historically and at present. May I respectfully request that you condition your remarks? To be sure, there have been hypocrites among Christian leaders. And among almost any other group taking a public stance on any issue. And there have been sincere people who have faced death rather than deny what they firmly believed in, both in orthodox Christianity, in splinter groups holding Arian, Pelagian, reincarnationist, and other views, and in many other faiths as well. May I presume you were simply condemning hypocrisy in general, not Christians in general?
Most college-aged people learn about non-Christian religions by reading it in a textbook in some sort of Religious Studies class. It’s easy to like what the Buddha said; it’s a lot harder to accept Buddhism when you’re struck with Mahayana mythology and all of the… well, frankly, weird and concocted variants. Take it from the opposite perspective. An Easterner reading, oh, maybe the Gospels would have a view of Christianity as a very loving religion. If said Easterner never experiences all of the crap from the outspoken fundamentalist types, they’re going to have a distinctly rose-colored view of Christianity. Works both ways. And, if by some chance, a student happens to have actual exposure to an Eastern religion that isn’t in a book, it’s also going to be distinctly rose-colored. Some examples may be: an introduction to (Insert non-Western Religion here) meeting specifically designed to entice the uninformed; some sort of “experience Indian cooking [tremendous, BTW], dancing [also great], and religion” festival, where it’s hard to separate the fun from the tripe; speaking to an actual Hindu/Buddhist/etc. who probably isn’t going to dish dirt on the religion; etc.
In short, many religions look great on paper. Hell, Christianity doesn’t look bad on paper. But throw in all the actual Religion, and it’s often a turn off. Western Religions get bashed because the actual Religion gets thrown in; Eastern Religions escape unscathed because the extra Religion is often left out.
Q
Read your sites again. Not ONE of those had an “offical policy” of homsexuality being, as you said “anti-Christian & unable to be Christian”. Lets go over them: Orthodox: Yes, Gay sex is a “sin”, but there is a policy of “hate the sin, love the sinner”. Certainly one could be Eastern Orthodox, and be gay- drunkeness is a sin also. The same holds true with the Roman Catholics- altho there are some liberal mavericks that will marry gays. Ok, yes, these are anti-gay, but only as they consider it a sin. You can be an Alchoholic and still be either, even tho the Churches condemn drunkeness.
Anglican: this has already been answered- the Anglican Church, in SF anyway, will marry gay couples, AFAIK. No “official anti-Gay policies”.
Methodist- Condemns homosexuality, as a sin, very mildly, and again will accept gay worshipers.
I don’t know about the LDS or S. Baptist- very conservative I will admit. But let us assume the worst. These 2 have a very small % of the Christian pop here in the USA.
So, very, very, few Christian Churches will not accept gay parishioners, or state that you cannot be gay & Christian at the same time. Some of the larger, more conservative sects condemn homosexuality as a sin, but accept the sinner. For the rest- it is no big deal. Overall, Christian Curches, then, are not all that “anti-Gay”, altho, sadly true, there are pockets of bigotry.
David: I am confused by your comment. I said that as a whole, Judaism is not that anti-gay, as the Orthodox are in the minority. You agree with these statements, but say that is “still incorrect”. What is?
Um, no, that’s not what you said. That’s what I said. You said:
And I pointed out why I disagreed. Go back and reread my message.
Well, I reread your message, David B, but I still think Daniel has a valid point on this one. (Wow, first I agree with Mr. Zambezi, then I agree with Daniel—the Rapture Index continues to skyrocket! :)) Judaism is traditionally about as opposed to homosexuality as Christianity is, in the overall course of its history as a religion: homosexual acts are condemned in sacred scriptures as well as by later interpreters. Only some modern sects (and probably none before the twentieth century) modify their view of the scriptural imperatives to consider homosexual relationships as valid as heterosexual ones.
I think that compared to that course of historical development, the fact that nowadays there’s a much higher proportion of Jews than of Christians in homosexuality-accepting sects doesn’t invalidate the claim that “on the whole,” Judaism and Christianity are comparably anti-gay.
(This is confusing because what Daniel actually said was that Judaism is “no more anti-gay” than Christianity, and you seem to be arguing that it is in fact “less anti-gay”, so you and he are not technically in disagreement.)
And while I sympathize with people’s eagerness to reconcile religious doctrine with personal morality, I don’t think it should really be done at the expense of the historical record. To say that Judaism as a religion is not opposed to homosexuality because some modern sects have altered that doctrine, or to say that Hinduism as a religion accepts homosexuality (which is still criminal in India, btw!) because a kama text doesn’t condemn homosexual prostitutes, seems to me like stretching a point pretty far.
But, but, Kimstu, with all due respect for history, we are living in the present. The stance of sects at this moment should not be totally dismissed as irrelevant! I guess the question of which “on the whole” is more anti-gay comes down to whether you define “on the whole” in some historical long-view…Or, in terms of the current religious/political climate. I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the latter completely.
