Should Religions be Allowed a Voice on Gay Issues?

[LeCharivari]

There has been some discussion here recently on whether religions should be allowed a voice on gay issues in secular democratic countries.

I'm not talking about theocracies, where religious mores and laws are applied to everyone regardless of their own religious beliefs and affiliations, but secular democratic countries where the only laws are those made by a secular, democratically elected government.

Personally I am all for one man (or woman or PC person) one vote, with the elected government being left to do what they are elected to do (govern) without interference, but being realistic that isn't going to happen and any government is going to be subjected to lobbying, activists, pressure groups, etc, of various kinds: ethnic, racial, social, financial, business, gender, sexual preference, professional, blue collar, white collar, animal rights, human rights, etc, etc.

Some of that "lobbying" will be done by individuals, some by groups - some large, some small. Some will be done by those groups' leaders, and some of those will be elected, some appointed, and some self-appointed.

Why, as long as all those lobbying are doing so from a level playing field, should any religion be excluded from lobbying about gay issues?

[I Like Thai]

Should Gay people be allowed a voice on Religions ?

[LeCharivari]

Should Gay people be allowed a voice on Religions ?

They already are allowed a voice - look at the thread on http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/658114-a-rainbow-over-catholic-colleges/ or anything Bishop Gene Robinson has said, or any of the countless LGBT Christian, Jewish, Buddhist and Islamic groups.

Some have a louder voice than others, but the same could be said for any lobby group.

[isanbirder]

Of course they should, LeC, as I think you said on another thread. Any group or individual may lobby to serve its interests, its influence being the greater if it is a large and powerful lobby.

Much of our morality, and therefore our legal systems, in the West is Christian-based, just as the morality in Muslim countries is Islam-based.

[JDGRUEN]

Within a Religion - within a Religious sect ... the majority of the members and their opinions have say so ... as to any aspect of belief that they adhere to ... No one is forcing any person to join or stay within a religion if the practiced beliefs do not suit that person ... For society to have rule over private religious practices is anarchy.

I say this while not being a Religious Practitioner.. .I am not a religious person as far as church going or preaching the doctrine...

What puzzles me is why those involved in gay issues wish to push their situation in life on other people - especially religion ...

I recommend - go about your business in life ... If certain religions and their private practices and beliefs are different from yours - Why do you chose to enter their domain ? Live and Let Live - in my opinion ...

People in a Free Country have a right to choose their beliefs and a right to choose their associations ... society and government cannot command that ... otherwise it is not a Free Country

I know of nothing about Christian Religion that keeps any gay person from living life as they may choose.. In this modern day - religion can be ignored .. try that ...

[Scott]

<Snipped>

I recommend - go about your business in life ... If certain religions and their private practices and beliefs are different from yours - Why do you chose to enter their domain ? Live and Let Live - in my opinion ...

Some people did not chose to enter the domain. They were put in the domain by virtue of birth, baptism and catechism.

[Jingthing]

No matter what any of us would prefer, religious organizations and leaders WILL influence secular government policies as they always have. Nothing stops them even if you try. So that situation basically must be accepted and if you feel they are pushing for unfortunate things like repression of gay rights and making all abortion illegal you've just go to MAN UP and fight fire with fire. Politics is war!

As far as policies WITHIN religions, I think that is best for insiders only. That is unless the religion is doing something illegal. There will always be people WITHIN religions with dissenting feelings -- let them work stuff out themselves.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Jingthing

[orchis]

freedom of speech goes for everyone, including religions/their reps.

[Jingthing]

freedom of speech goes for everyone, including religions/their reps.

Yes, but there are limits.

For example in the USA when a right wing church is operating on a tax exempt basis which carries specific restrictions against political campaigning and then the preacher openly promotes a certain candidate based on the dogma of their sect. That's bloody wrong!

[isanbirder]

freedom of speech goes for everyone, including religions/their reps.

Yes, but there are limits.

For example in the USA when a right wing church is operating on a tax exempt basis which carries specific restrictions against political campaigning and then the preacher openly promotes a certain candidate based on the dogma of their sect. That's bloody wrong!

What is wrong is tying restrictions against political campaigning to tax exemption.

[WitawatWatawit]

What is wrong is using emotional blackmail to force the more susceptible among us to agree to a morally abhorrent stance on an issue such as gay rights. And then taking it into the political arena as a fait accompli. Agree with us or we will destroy you. Ughh.

[Jingthing]

freedom of speech goes for everyone, including religions/their reps.

Yes, but there are limits.

For example in the USA when a right wing church is operating on a tax exempt basis which carries specific restrictions against political campaigning and then the preacher openly promotes a certain candidate based on the dogma of their sect. That's bloody wrong!

What is wrong is tying restrictions against political campaigning to tax exemption.

Huh? My point was the restrictions exist and these religious anti-gay bigots IGNORE them and get away with it!

[ToddWeston]

I'm selfish, I've chosen parts I like from many religions that make me a believer in many things. I believe faith plays an integral part of ones being and I've noticed as we age many look for comfort in religion even if they've strayed during life.

I have no issue with mainstream faiths being involved in the dialogue, what concerns me are some of the right wing fringes that would be afforded equal time to spread their hate. The third largest Protestant Church (The United Church) is run from the bottom up and they have been leading the charge for change with equality for the last 20 years. Their influence has carried over to other Protestant denominations and faiths. The change happened quickly without turmoil.

The only issue that comes to mind is inequality in some faiths, The Catholic Church which I greatly respect along with their new Pope, Ibelieve can have a strong and powerful impact on equality, however what the Church preaches in Canada vs the Philippines or Ireland it alsmost seems like two churches. I also accept they may be considered secular governments.

Finally perhaps this is another topic but it seems the majority of the country's that have passed equality laws have a Parliamemtay system, Canada's change happened with a minority government, meaning the government could have had a no confidence vote and fallen if bill had failed its motion. Perhaps the religious orders didnt/ don't want to influence/lobby and be the cause for bringing the house down ?

[LeCharivari]

<Snipped>

I recommend - go about your business in life ... If certain religions and their private practices and beliefs are different from yours - Why do you chose to enter their domain ? Live and Let Live - in my opinion ...

Some people did not chose to enter the domain. They were put in the domain by virtue of birth, baptism and catechism.

Unless they are in a theocracy (which is not what this thread is about) they can always leave - at least as adults.

[Jingthing]

Muslims quite usually can't leave, theocracy or no theocracy.

Would you call Malaysia a theocracy?

The truth is perhaps a majority of nations have at least SOME theocratic aspects to them.

Thailand for example.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

freedom of speech goes for everyone, including religions/their reps.

Yes, but there are limits.

For example in the USA when a right wing church is operating on a tax exempt basis which carries specific restrictions against political campaigning and then the preacher openly promotes a certain candidate based on the dogma of their sect. That's bloody wrong!

Any specific examples? ... and why only "right wing" churches - are the left wing exempt?

The Christian Echoes National Ministry endorsed barry Goldwater in 1964 - their status was revoked.

Jimmy Swaggart was investigated in 1991, but he got nothing more than a slapped wrist.

Jerry Falwell was investigated in 1993 - they were fined and their status revoked and taxes re-claimed, for a time.

Pastor Daniel little's church in Binghamton, New York, had its status revoked after a media campaign against Bill Clinton in 1993.

[LeCharivari]

Muslims quite usually can't leave, theocracy or no theocracy.

Would you call Malaysia a theocracy?

The truth is perhaps a majority of nations have at least SOME theocratic aspects to them.

Thailand for example.

Malaysia's status is offficially unclear, but as its then Prime Minister declared it an Islamic State (negara Islam) in 2001) and that status has never been revoked by Parliament it seems pretty clear to me.

Let's not drift too far off-topic, please.

[LeCharivari]

I'm selfish, I've chosen parts I like from many religions that make me a believer in many things. I believe faith plays an integral part of ones being and I've noticed as we age many look for comfort in religion even if they've strayed during life.

I have no issue with mainstream faiths being involved in the dialogue, what concerns me are some of the right wing fringes that would be afforded equal time to spread their hate. The third largest Protestant Church (The United Church) is run from the bottom up and they have been leading the charge for change with equality for the last 20 years. Their influence has carried over to other Protestant denominations and faiths. The change happened quickly without turmoil.

The only issue that comes to mind is inequality in some faiths, The Catholic Church which I greatly respect along with their new Pope, Ibelieve can have a strong and powerful impact on equality, however what the Church preaches in Canada vs the Philippines or Ireland it alsmost seems like two churches. I also accept they may be considered secular governments.

Finally perhaps this is another topic but it seems the majority of the country's that have passed equality laws have a Parliamemtay system, Canada's change happened with a minority government, meaning the government could have had a no confidence vote and fallen if bill had failed its motion. Perhaps the religious orders didnt/ don't want to influence/lobby and be the cause for bringing the house down ?

"The Catholic Church which I greatly respect along with their new Pope, Ibelieve can have a strong and powerful impact on equality, however what the Church preaches in Canada vs the Philippines or Ireland it alsmost seems like two churches."

I think you'd be surprised at how liberal the Catholic Church is in Ireland - there was virtually no opposition to Civil Partnership, after all, and extending marriage to same-sex couples is very much on the cards; Sean Brady (the Archbishop of Armagh)'s request to oppose Civil Unions was largely ignored.

[Jingthing]

Any specific examples? ...

Why, yes, yes I do:

[Jingthing]

Muslims quite usually can't leave, theocracy or no theocracy.

Would you call Malaysia a theocracy?

The truth is perhaps a majority of nations have at least SOME theocratic aspects to them.

Thailand for example.

Malaysia's status is offficially unclear, but as its then Prime Minister declared it an Islamic State (negara Islam) in 2001) and that status has never been revoked by Parliament it seems pretty clear to me.

Let's not drift too far off-topic, please.

So Muslims are off topic?

For reals?

Is ISLAM not a religion or did you mean only the Xian religion?

[onthemoon]

Muslims quite usually can't leave, theocracy or no theocracy.

Would you call Malaysia a theocracy?

The truth is perhaps a majority of nations have at least SOME theocratic aspects to them.

Thailand for example.

Religions are in every country. Malaysia (and I mean K.L.) has a very active gay scene.

[Jingthing]

Muslims quite usually can't leave, theocracy or no theocracy.

Would you call Malaysia a theocracy?

The truth is perhaps a majority of nations have at least SOME theocratic aspects to them.

Thailand for example.

Religions are in every country. Malaysia (and I mean K.L.) has a very active gay scene.

Yes, it does. Wink, wink, nod, nod. They love Jews!

[onthemoon]

Back to the OP's question: My answer is, "of course". Every group of people is allowed to have a voice - every individual is. It's called democracy. I don't need to agree with other people, but silencing their voice is so far from everything I stand for.

Now, people tell me that the Christian religion, or the Bible rather, says that being gay is a sin. I don't know whether that is true, and I don't care any more. But if it is indeed true, wouldn't that be reason enough to leave that religion? - I met this old lady in New York in the lobby of a hotel on 43rd Street (it was a cheap hotel, I was a backpacker and this was 25 years ago) and she couldn't help yelling how much of a sin homosexuality is, and she could prove it with quotes from the Bible. I just said, "if your god is full of so much hatred as you display, it is a good thing that he is not in charge."

On the legal side, if the law says homosexuality is OK and then the religious leaders punish the gays, they would be breaking the law. But the answer is easier than suing them: Just leave them.

[LeCharivari]

Muslims quite usually can't leave, theocracy or no theocracy.

Would you call Malaysia a theocracy?

The truth is perhaps a majority of nations have at least SOME theocratic aspects to them.

Thailand for example.

Malaysia's status is offficially unclear, but as its then Prime Minister declared it an Islamic State (negara Islam) in 2001) and that status has never been revoked by Parliament it seems pretty clear to me.

Let's not drift too far off-topic, please.

So Muslims are off topic?

For reals?

Is ISLAM not a religion or did you mean only the Xian religion?

No, your question was "Would you call Malaysia a theocracy?".

As I explained in my original post, this thread is about "secular democratic countries where the only laws are those made by a secular, democratically elected government". That does not apply to Malaysia who have Sharia law in addition to secular law.

Its not a free-for-all opportunity to bash non-secular countries with religious laws - if you want to do that, or to talk about American politics, please do so in another thread.

Any religions are on topic, as are their adherents.

[sustento]

Are churches in the US entitled to free speech via the 1st Amendment?

[LeCharivari]

Now, people tell me that the Christian religion, or the Bible rather, says that being gay is a sin. I don't know whether that is true, and I don't care any more. But if it is indeed true, wouldn't that be reason enough to leave that religion?

"people" are often mis-informed.

.... and where people disagree with some aspects of a religion's teachings their options really depend on the religion: some are rigid, some are "living" and more open to change.

[onthemoon]

Muslims quite usually can't leave, theocracy or no theocracy.

Would you call Malaysia a theocracy?

The truth is perhaps a majority of nations have at least SOME theocratic aspects to them.

Thailand for example.

Religions are in every country. Malaysia (and I mean K.L.) has a very active gay scene.

Yes, it does. Wink, wink, nod, nod. They love Jews!

Very interesting.

[ToddWeston]

Are churches in the US entitled to free speech via the 1st Amendment?

They must be (not that I really know what the first amendment is all about other than movies) look at the loonies on the right who are allowed to bash us and get away with it.

As the OP has requested it's not country specific which is a good thing, I crossed the line not knowing Eire was actually polictically aligned with the future of civil unions.

[ToddWeston]

In terms of the Bible I'll admit I've been taught - I haven't learnt it for myself. I don''t know if that makes me a bad Christian or not -I open to being smacked around over it. I have read more about Buddhism and Islam than my baptised religion and as I said earlier I've picked the parts that satisfy my needs to be spiritual.

This topic intrigued me and I was reading today about the Anglican Communion and the press communicated about Archbishop Tutu with his recent very pro comments so I'm hopeful the AC/C of E will jump on the bus soon.

Edited August 5, 2013 by ToddWeston

[sustento]

Muslims quite usually can't leave, theocracy or no theocracy.

Would you call Malaysia a theocracy?

The truth is perhaps a majority of nations have at least SOME theocratic aspects to them.

Thailand for example.

Religions are in every country. Malaysia (and I mean K.L.) has a very active gay scene.

Yes, it does. Wink, wink, nod, nod. They love Jews!

How would they be able to tell?