Should Religions be Allowed a Voice on Gay Issues?

[sustento]

Everybody should be allowed a voice on gay (and all other) issues. If they aren't permitted to say what they think how can we decide how foolish they are? After all without freedom of speech we've never have learned just how much Lord Tebbit yearns to marry his son

Edited August 5, 2013 by sustento

[Thaddeus]

Again, came to this topic late.

Should religions be allowed a voice on gay issues?

There is a fairly large body of evidence (and history) that would say no.

Contrary,

Should gay people be allowed a voice on religion, especially intolerance, yes they bloody well should.

[LeCharivari]

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.

You're forgiven. I've crossed the line into Eire a few times!

As far as LGBT issues are concerned they are surprisingly tolerant given their deeply held religious beliefs, so this is understandable - they tend to export their religious bigots!

[LeCharivari]

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.

With the AC it depends very much on the region - Bishop Gene Robinson is another example from the AC (in his case the Episcopal Church in the USA). An incredibly witty and (not surprisingly) well informed debater on his Christian views on gays.

At the same time, though, another member of the AC (and the second largest behind the Church of England) is the Church of Nigeria which is fiercely anti-gay, so don't get your hopes up.

[I Like Thai]

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.

It isn't because the Catholiv church is liberal in Ireland. It's basically because the power of the Catholic church in Ireland has completely gone. not because of the church or because of politicians. It's because the people of Ireland don't like or want the Catholic church to have any power or influence.

[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!

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

If I read you correctly, you're entirely right, IB.

If any organisation accepts what is essentially a bribe not to make any political statements then they should abide by that agreement - whether those bribes should be accepted or offered in the first place is an entirely different topic for discussion.

This isn't really anything to do with allowing religions a voice on gay or any other issues and I shouldn't have allowed myself to get drawn into any off-topic discussion about tax exemptions, whatever the religion's perceived political bias.

[LeCharivari]

"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.

It isn't because the Catholiv church is liberal in Ireland. It's basically because the power of the Catholic church in Ireland has completely gone. not because of the church or because of politicians. It's because the people of Ireland don't like or want the Catholic church to have any power or influence.

In hindsight I agree with you - I should have said "Catholics" rather than "the Catholic Church" - the two are no longer synonomous.

[sustento]

I really don't see why any church (of any denomination) should be given tax exemptions. Why should a set of people who believe a particular thing be subsidised by people who don't?

[AyG]

Should religions be allowed a voice on gay issues?

Should religions be allowed a voice at all? Shouldn't mankind have moved past believing in an invisible magician in the sky pulling strings? Shouldn't the nonsense about walking on water, flying horses and oil lamps staying lit for rather longer than expected be consigned to the history books? Shouldn't we stop thinking of an ineffectual rebel who got killed for his crimes as a son of a non-existent god? Or of a violent warlord with a very questionable attitude towards women as the perfect man? And shouldn't we finally stop paying any attention to the ludicrous religious leaders who are so keen to rule what we can and can't do in the bedroom?

[LeCharivari]

Should religions be allowed a voice on gay issues?

Should religions be allowed a voice at all? Shouldn't mankind have moved past believing in an invisible magician in the sky pulling strings? Shouldn't the nonsense about walking on water, flying horses and oil lamps staying lit for rather longer than expected be consigned to the history books? Shouldn't we stop thinking of an ineffectual rebel who got killed for his crimes as a son of a non-existent god? Or of a violent warlord with a very questionable attitude towards women as the perfect man? And shouldn't we finally stop paying any attention to the ludicrous religious leaders who are so keen to rule what we can and can't do in the bedroom?

Believing or not and paying attention is your choice - but surely "moving on" includes tolerance and rights, including the right to free speech?

... and if religions were not to be allowed a voice, how would you define a "religion"? Far from all "religions" believe in a supreme being or a creator.

[AyG]

Believing or not and paying attention is your choice - but surely "moving on" includes tolerance and rights, including the right to free speech?

... and if religions were not to be allowed a voice, how would you define a "religion"? Far from all "religions" believe in a supreme being or a creator.

Believe is for many not a choice. Children of Christians are often taken to church at a young, impressionable age and systematically indoctrinated. It can be a difficult and painful process to come to realise what has been taught is largely superstitious nonsense - particularly realising that there is no such thing as god, and that there's no external power going to help us at a time of need, and realising that this life is all that we have.

Some religions make it particularly hard to quit. Leave Scientology and your family members will cut you off completely. Some Orthodox Jews have a similar attitude. Leave Islam and you can face death. So no, believing a religion is not always a free choice.

Religions aren't people - only individuals should have a right to free speech. It's perfectly fine for an individual to avow to believe in a god - but only as a personal opinion. And people should be protected from such speech in the same way as in the west people are protected from racial hate speech. Certainly children (who are inherently impressionable) should no more be exposed to any form of religious teaching than to any other form of hate doctrine (e.g. hatred based on colour of skin, ethnic background, social class) or lunatic views (e.g. cult worship of state leaders and others of "high status").

The crux of it for me is that one should be free to believe whatever one wants even if the belief is totally irrational. I can pity or ridicule such believers. I might to dissuade them of their belief. But at the end of the day it's their free choice. However, once such a believer bands with others to promote that irrational belief, then society is threatened. Just to give a hypothetical example. Someone may believe that some the earth is flat. That person converts others to the same belief. They demand that their belief be taught in schools. That happens and schoolchildren are exposed to something for which there is absolutely no evidence as "fact". Some will go on to believe and promote this "fact" to others. Sounds ludicrous? Yes. But this is exactly what's happened with the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in parts of America.

[StefanBBK]

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

I second that in principle.

I do believe any religion can condone or condemned anything they want. What business of mine is it to get upset about a religion that says something like "people wearing green shirts are not gods children" (just an example, not to upset any real group). Up to them. However, this freedom of speech, freedom of opinion etc. Has some moral boundaries. I do not care for hate, inciting violence, or any of this sort. I am not religious, but try to be a fair and decent person.

One of my friends is gay and catholic. I think its a bit hypocritical, but hey, why would I care. I think we should all look at religions a little like private clubs. If one is not happy with the statutes of one, open your own....

Oh what mood am I in this morning....

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited August 7, 2013 by Scott

[StefanBBK]

Sorry for some typos above, my smartphone outsmarts me AGAIN.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Jingthing]

This is interesting, talking about the differences between the church/state divide (or lack thereof) between Europe and the USA. In my view, the more TOTAL the divide between church and state the BETTER. As I've said I do think it's rare or perhaps nonexistent for a country to have NO theocratic elements.

Americans technically have a stronger wall between church and state, but in practice, we have a huge contingent of religious fundamentalists who control much of the government and use it to impose their strict religious dogma as often as they can get away with it. Many European countries, including England, Finland, Denmark, and Sweden, either have a formal state church or church that is nationally recognized as the dominant church, and yet in daily practice, far fewer people in these nations are really religious, much less fundamentalist. Religion is often seen simply as a cultural/historical expression of national or ethnic character, but not necessarily a guiding force in everyday life.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/08/06/abortion_in_europe_and_america_to_understand_the_difference_you_can_t_ignore.html

Edited August 7, 2013 by Jingthing

[Scott]

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

People have free speech, a religion does not. By whatever method a church wishes to formulate an opinion, it can do so and it can express it, but you as a member are free to disagree. It cannot speak for you without your consent.

[LeCharivari]

Believing or not and paying attention is your choice - but surely "moving on" includes tolerance and rights, including the right to free speech?

... and if religions were not to be allowed a voice, how would you define a "religion"? Far from all "religions" believe in a supreme being or a creator.

Believe is for many not a choice. Children of Christians are often taken to church at a young, impressionable age and systematically indoctrinated. It can be a difficult and painful process to come to realise what has been taught is largely superstitious nonsense - particularly realising that there is no such thing as god, and that there's no external power going to help us at a time of need, and realising that this life is all that we have.

Some religions make it particularly hard to quit. Leave Scientology and your family members will cut you off completely. Some Orthodox Jews have a similar attitude. Leave Islam and you can face death. So no, believing a religion is not always a free choice.

Religions aren't people - only individuals should have a right to free speech. It's perfectly fine for an individual to avow to believe in a god - but only as a personal opinion. And people should be protected from such speech in the same way as in the west people are protected from racial hate speech. Certainly children (who are inherently impressionable) should no more be exposed to any form of religious teaching than to any other form of hate doctrine (e.g. hatred based on colour of skin, ethnic background, social class) or lunatic views (e.g. cult worship of state leaders and others of "high status").

The crux of it for me is that one should be free to believe whatever one wants even if the belief is totally irrational. I can pity or ridicule such believers. I might to dissuade them of their belief. But at the end of the day it's their free choice. However, once such a believer bands with others to promote that irrational belief, then society is threatened. Just to give a hypothetical example. Someone may believe that some the earth is flat. That person converts others to the same belief. They demand that their belief be taught in schools. That happens and schoolchildren are exposed to something for which there is absolutely no evidence as "fact". Some will go on to believe and promote this "fact" to others. Sounds ludicrous? Yes. But this is exactly what's happened with the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in parts of America.

"So no, believing a religion is not always a free choice."

I think there's a difference between "following" a religion and "believing" one.

"Religions aren't people - only individuals should have a right to free speech."

In principle I agree with you 100%, but that harks back to my original post, and my question above - if you are going to exclude religions, first, why only religions, and secondly, how do you define a "religion"?

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?

[pxlgirl]

Religions must vanish from public life and science. We know by now, the earth ain't flat no more, we're not made of dirt or some dude's rib, snakes can't talk and Santa Claus doesn't put your presents under the tree...

Edited August 9, 2013 by pxlgirl

[LeCharivari]

Religions must vanish from public life and science. We know by now, the earth ain't flat no more, we're not made of dirt or some dude's rib, snakes can't talk and Santa Claus doesn't put your presents under the tree...

Quite possibly ... but if that happens I hope it happens by education rather than legislation.

[pxlgirl]

Quite possibly ... but if that happens I hope it happens by education rather than legislation.

well, as we now live in the information age, there's not much room for excuses for not to educate oneself. The responsibility is one's hand, as information is now accessible to everyone.

[LeCharivari]

There must be lots of excuses out there.

Apparently the fastest growing religion in the USA is Wicca (witchcraft), with Mormon a close second.

... in British prisons its Buddhism.

... and worldwide the fastest growing is Bahá'í, which I'd never heard of, which puts Islam in second place - bad news all round for gays.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5977093/Buddhism-is-fastest-growing-religion-in-English-jails-over-past-decade.html

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/ARIS/ARIS-PDF-version.pdf?ext=.pdf

[pxlgirl]

well, it's gonna take a few decades I think. But what I meant is, that no one can tell that "they could not know any better", because they surely could. However, they chose ignorance and will have to "suffer" the consequences sooner or later.

[sustento]

There must be lots of excuses out there.

Apparently the fastest growing religion in the USA is Wicca (witchcraft), with Mormon a close second.

... in British prisons its Buddhism.

... and worldwide the fastest growing is Bahá'í, which I'd never heard of, which puts Islam in second place - bad news all round for gays.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5977093/Buddhism-is-fastest-growing-religion-in-English-jails-over-past-decade.html

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/ARIS/ARIS-PDF-version.pdf?ext=.pdf

I know the Ajahn who runs Angulimala in the UK. He used to get lifers on release staying at the temple sometimes. He built the first Buddha Grove at HMP Springhill

http://luangpor.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/spring-hill-buddha-grove-celebration/

[onthemoon]

There must be lots of excuses out there.

Apparently the fastest growing religion in the USA is Wicca (witchcraft), with Mormon a close second.

... in British prisons its Buddhism.

... and worldwide the fastest growing is Bahá'í, which I'd never heard of, which puts Islam in second place - bad news all round for gays.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5977093/Buddhism-is-fastest-growing-religion-in-English-jails-over-past-decade.html

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/ARIS/ARIS-PDF-version.pdf?ext=.pdf

The first link is quite impressive. Being a Buddhist myself, I am happy that many prisoners choose this path.

The second link is a 47-page PDF file. Sorry, I'm not reading it just now - please do give a brief summary, or at least a few words of explanation about Baha'i. Thanks.

[onthemoon]

Religions must vanish from public life and science. We know by now, the earth ain't flat no more, we're not made of dirt or some dude's rib, snakes can't talk and Santa Claus doesn't put your presents under the tree...

The earth being flat has nothing to do with religion, but rather with the Catholic Church somewhere in the Middle Ages. The other examples are also about the Christian belief.

Hm. I am sure you have founded your opinion about religions in general on all of the major religions in the world, and then studied a number of minor religions to come to your conclusion. Kindly do enlighten us about how you arrived at your conclusion that all religions must vanish.I'm game.

[pxlgirl]

well, onthemoon, we don't have to reach too far into the past, so let me present some delightful insights of today:

Many believe (declare it as a matter of fact) that:

- the earth is 6,000 years old

- dinosaurs have lived with men (or haven't existed at all)

- evolution is false, while men are supposed to be made of mud and females of male ribs

- men are superior to women

- men can't control themselves when they see an uncovered woman

- flying planes into buildings or blowing oneself up is a great idea

- that there's a few invisible men... living in the sky, who can see it all, while you sleep, dream, think, crap, jerk off, bang your gf/bf...

- and if you reject one of those invisible men, you'll burn forever, after you died (and decomposed... now it starts to get totally illogical)

and the list would go on forever. Since we finally made some technological progress in science and medicine, which was (and still is) suppressed by religion, certain things (and more to come) can be explained based on evidence. However, I don't totally reject the idea of an imaginary friend, it does have some psychological benefit in some cases. Yet one has to draw the line between fantasy and reality. So if someone likes to keep an imaginary friend, fine. But keep it to yourself and don't try to force others to think or act the same way, and even more so, do not intervene in science or education or anything regarding public life and society. The only reason, why one is tied to one particular version of their sky daddy, is determined by the place they were born. In each place, everyone thinks they worship the only true deity. Yeah, right.

P. S. while we're at it, some religious insights on gay issues:

- being gay is abnormal/sin

- gays should be put to death (stoning, burning, etc...)

- lesbians should be brought back to "normal" by rape

- people become gay due to the exposure to "homosexual propaganda" (whatever the f*** that is)

- gays are responsible for all kinds of disasters (Pat Robertson anyone?)

- when gay marriage passes, the world will end (finally?! )

P. P. S. ... and before any come up arguing that "moderates" are not that bad, consider this:

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/The-Problem-With-Religious-Moderates.aspx

Edited August 14, 2013 by pxlgirl

[isanbirder]

Pxigirl, you've obviously mixed with some strange people! There are some odd ones in the Bible belt.

First, you might differentiate between Christians (even the very odd ones) and Muslims.

Most of the rest of your post is quite as intolerant as the people you mention Really, need I say more?

Well, a bit more. Gays generally want tolerance and acceptance on an equal basis with everybody else. If you can't tolerate others, why should they tolerate you?

Of course religions should be allowed a voice on gay issues, so should anyone else who wants to say their piece. You can, and obviously will, disregard them, but that's quite another matter.

Edited August 14, 2013 by isanbirder

[ToddWeston]

Pxigirl, you've obviously mixed with some strange people! There are some odd ones in the Bible belt.

First, you might differentiate between Christians (even the very odd ones) and Muslims.

Most of the rest of your post is quite as intolerant as the people you mention Really, need I say more?

Well, a bit more. Gays generally want tolerance and acceptance on an equal basis with everybody else. If you can't tolerate others, why should they tolerate you?

Of course religions should be allowed a voice on gay issues, so should anyone else who wants to say their piece. You can, and obviously will, disregard them, but that's quite another matter.

If you can't tolerate others, why should they tolerate you?

+10

[isanbirder]

Oh, pxigirl, I forgot to add, there's a lesbian bishop in California, and a gay bishop in New Hampshire. Both Anglicans... but not from the lunatic fringe like most of the Christians you seem to be referring to.

[pxlgirl]

seems like no one has actually read the article I posted earlier. The lesbian bishop, the gay priest and the WBC... all of them picking and choosing bits and pieces of the book, as it suits them, written by some bronze age dudes, who thought it's ok to have slaves and kill babies. Fair enough, they all can have their imaginary friends, but they better not stick their noses in things they don't understand, such as science. Just notice how the catholic church (far more moderate than the bible belt folks) has propagated against stem cell research, just b/c they "think" that 150 cells are considered as "human", with a "soul" which is complete BS. As a result, many people who could potentially get treatment or cure, aren't able to b/c of superstition. It's the 21st century, humanity should slowly get over it. So am I supposed to be tolerant when people's lives are at steak? Oh, and not to mention all those HIV deaths in Africa, where so called moderate believers deny people contraception, allow killing children who are stigmatized as witches... Sounds extreme? No. It's mainstream and it happens here and now, each time too often.

So don't play the "tolerance-card". This has nothing to do with it. Religion is a choice, sexual orientation is not. If someone likes to worship the big brother in the clouds, pray to the fairies in the garden or chase spirits in the backyard, so be it. But stay out of my life, stop telling me how I have to live it and what I'm supposed to believe or not. The american constitution clearly defines the separation of church and state, in other words: freedom for religion and freedom of religion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4syU7MC-1w

Edited August 14, 2013 by pxlgirl

[LeCharivari]

pxl girl, I think we're talking apples and oranges here but we're still singing from the same hymn sheet (sorry about the metaphors!).

You're talking (as I understand it) about whether religions are current and relevant to YOU. Clearly they're not, and you should have the right to decide that for yourself, to make an informed choice about not only what you believe but how you lead your life. I respect that, as I think all others do here. That's your choice and your right and from what you've posted its an informed choice.

Others, like IB, are saying that they, too, have made an informed choice - it just happens to be different to yours.

What you're BOTH saying is that nobody should be "telling" you how to live your life or what you're "supposed to believe" - it should be entirely up to you.

Without freedom of speech and the right for ALL opinions to be expressed, though, whether those opinions are based on science, religion, belief or just the fairies in the garden, how can anyone make that informed choice?