Why all the hate towards religion?

[Brian_Expat]

Lots of people say nasty things against every religion -- "Christianity," (including Mormonism), Islam, etc.

However, I can think of gay-affirming Christian (including Mormon), Islamic, and other religious groups. Not everyone in the religious world hates us, in fact some of our biggest boosters from the earliest days of the gay rights movement were religious people like the Quakers and American Baptists.

Lots of us have been hurt by abusive religious groups -- of this there is no doubt. But could we try to focus our anger only on those individuals or groups who are haters, and not post things about how "Mormon = moron" or "take that, Christians?" Tarring with a broad brush is exactly the sort of thing the Falwells and Robertsons of the world do to us -- let's not stoop to their level.

[Dookus]

1. And there are Republicans that are not anti-gay

too. Should we be nice to all republicans, or qualify every attack on republicans as "not including those who may be sympathetic to gay rights"?

Religion has been used to oppress ethnic minorities, women and gay people for centuries. The sooner we stop living by ancient superstitions, the sooner we'll actually make some serious progress.

[Brian_Expat]

2. You sound just like a religious rightist

The same blind disregard for the realities in various groups, the same "they all should burn" attitude, even the same contempt for them and their intelligence as humans ("ancient superstitions" etc.)

Nobody's forcing you to believe anything. But to claim that "Christians hate gays" is just an outrageous lie. It's like claiming "Americans support the war in Iraq" or "Americans support George W. Bush." Are you willing to be tarred with those brushes?

If not, why do it to others?

[Dookus]

11. as usual

you read more into my post than is there, and entirely ignore the point I made.

[Brian_Expat]

24. Your "point" is that all religious people are "superstitious"

Which is frankly as offensive as any old religious rightist claiming that gays "are hedonists."

[Dookus]

34. from dictionary.com

superstition:

1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

2.
a) A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
b) A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
c) Idolatry.

I stand by my use of the word.

[Brian_Expat]

36. You're illustrating the dismissive bigotry of which I'm talking about

Someone could just as easily say that there's no such thing as gay sexual orientation because it cannot be empirically proven that you feel romantic affection towards men -- it's just "a superstitious phase."

As for "irrationality" and such, that also reminds me of arguments from right-wing homophobes about gays!

[Dookus]

37. I have no control

over what you're reminded of.

Again, I stand by my use of the word.

[Brian_Expat]

39. lol

Again, I stand by my use of the word.

Just like a Freeper who quotes "deviant" from dictionary.com and then says it applies to you since you're gay and he "cannot control the fact that a neutral word like deviant makes you angry because definitionally you are deviant."

It's just as lovely and accepting and open-minded. Congratulations!

[Dookus]

40. I posted the definition above

and I've seen nothing to indicate that the supernatural beliefs of an ancient race of people don't meet the definition.

[Brian_Expat]

And equally a Freeper argues that he's posted the definition. . .

. . . of "deviant" and that he's seen nothing to indicate that deviant sexual behaviour by a small minority of the population that he believes wants special rights doesn't meet the definition.

When Doctor Laura did that, the shit hit the fan, though, didn't it?

Why?

Because it was the intent behind the words.

In the prior case, Freepers and their ilk like Schlessinger used "deviant" to suggest that gays don't deserve respect and full inclusion in the broader community (they're DEVIANTS, not normal, after all!), and hiding behind dictionary definitions to weasel out of confronting that base bigotry.

In YOUR case, you're using "superstitious" to suggest that spiritual gays and lesbians don't deserve full respect and inclusion in the gay community (after all, they're superstitious and irrational!), and hiding behind dictionary definitions to weasel out of confronting that base bigotry.

In other words, you're being just as exclusionary (and dishonest about it) as Dr. Laura -- just to a different subset of the gay community. Again, congratulations!

[Dookus]

44. You can consider me a freeper

you might've noticed that your opinion of me does not weigh heavily upon my mind.

I believe the word was used properly. You believe differently. But I think the horse just twitched - beat him some more.

[Brian_Expat]

46. Of course you're not going to acknowledge the point. . .

. . . simply because it hits so close to home, and it's accurate.

While there's no requirement for you to be tolerant of others, if you're going to go out and demand tolerance from larger society, you're setting a poor example for those of us who are tolerant.

Demanding tolerance and a place at the table while proudly embracing intolerance and attempting to deprive others of a place at the table, as you do, is hypocrisy personified!

[Dookus]

53. I don't acknowledge your point

because I don't believe you've made one beyond insults.

How much respect much I show for right-wing PNACers? Their beliefs are JUST as chosen as your religious beliefs. If you choose to believe things I disagree with, you should not expect to never encounter my opposition when you make them public.

But this sub-thread was about the use of the word "superstitious". I believe I used the word correctly.

ooh! Look... I think the horse twitched again!

[Brian_Expat]

73. You're the insulting one, but you don't care. . .

. . . because you're insulting we "stupid superstitious people."

Apparently, it's OK to be insulting and bigoted to us, and get behind the Dr. Laura "it's in the dictionary" excuse, just because.

Oh yes, and "standing behind" the hate speech too. You must be very proud. :)

[Dookus]

125. I didn't use the word stupid

and I don't think calling religious beliefs "superstitious" is hate speech, no matter how often you keep making the same silly claim.

I don't advocate denying rights to the religious. I don't advocate hurting them. I don't advocate putting them into camps, deporting them, killing them - all of which are advocated against gay people by some so-called christians in this country.

Despite post after post, you have yet to explain why the word "superstitious" is incorrect.

Instead, you have concocted a litany of veiled insults and hate-speech from the use of one particular word - it's a very odd style of argument.

[Liberal Veteran]

126. I'm not sure why either.

It seems self-evident to me that a person who is an atheist sees religion as mythological and superstition.

I don't think that people who ask you to suppress your opinion on religion understand they are asking you pay tribute and basically lie about how you view religion.

An atheist saying they believe religion is superstition is inherently no different from a Christian saying they believe in Jehovah and that Christ was the son of God.

[Liberal Veteran]

41. Why should that be offensive?

Is it anymore rational to believe that if you don't follow the words of Jesus Christ and accept him as your personal savior who died for your sins you will be cast into hell for eternity, than it is to believe that if you don't sacrifice a toad at the rising of the moon before sowing the fields that you will have a bad harvest because you angered Ceridwen?

From the context of one who is totally atheistic (which I am not, I am agnostic), people who believe in religion are no more or less superstitious than people who avoid walking under ladders or think breaking a mirror brings bad luck.

Finding offense in an atheist expressing exactly what he believes would be an indication that a person is not secure enough in their own belief to accept that others do not share or enshrine someone else's beliefs.

[Brian_Expat]

43. "Rationality"

Finding offense in an atheist expressing exactly what he believes would be an indication that a person is not secure enough in their own belief to accept that others do not share or enshrine someone else's beliefs.

Except that the atheist is not willing to allow an open forum for other viewpoints -- spiritual viewpoints that constitute a majority of the gay community.

Further, individuals in the heterosexual community who cannot believe that a man would want another man can be just as dismissive of gay men and women as you are being of people who have had a differing experience from yours. Of course, in those sorts of cases, the same people in the gay community who bash others for their own personal spiritual beliefs as stupid, ignorant and superstitious are among the loudest to slam the right wing -- for forcing their personal views on others!

The irony (and arrogance) is breathtaking.

The saddest part is, once again, you're suggesting (like far-right wing Freepers) that since you cannot force your beliefs on ALL of us, you're being "censored" and being forced to "enshrine someone else's beliefs." For you, it's absolute -- there can be no tolerance of others' viewpoints, it becomes your mission to browbeat others into believing you, providing you with the bully pulpit -- or excluding them from the process altogether.

[Liberal Veteran]

50. My beliefs?

I am an agnostic, friend. I have no truck with either side because I believe there is no proof either way.

However, I can see both sides of the issue.


1) A religious person should be secure enough in their faith to accept that not everyone shares it.

2) An athiestic person shouldn't have to "pay tribute", if you will, to notions he doesn't believe in.

Is it really any more offensive for an atheist to say "I believe religion is a bunch of superstitious nonsense" than it is for a Christian to say to a Buddhist "I believe that anyone who doesn't accept Christ as their savior will burn in hell"?

I don't understand the sense of entitlement some people of faith feel to express their belief without respecting the right of those who do not share their faith to express how they see the issue.

[Old Mouse]

68. I must say I am surprised

of the vehemence of the attack upon your statements.

Your opinion is well stated, clear; but the responses are wild, incalculated and ultimately, pointless.

An agenda has retarded this forum's efficacy.

[readmoreoften]

138. But you're not even making sense

You say:

"Except that the atheist is not willing to allow an open forum for other viewpoints-- spiritual viewpoints"

Well, you're not willing to allowan open forum for persons who have no 'spiritual' viewpoints. Just as you say 'I believe that there is a god and I believe atheists are incorrect" Atheists have the right to say, "I believe that there is no god and I believe theists are incorrect."

So what's your problem here?

[Old Mouse]

7. Religion has been a tool to oppress

the oppression would have occurred nonetheless. Oppression also occurs in the name of democracy, freedom, science... would you lose those as well?

Pol Pot is a greater per capita mass murderer than Hitler, and he did it to further social equality.

[cliss]

18. Dookus, I love your post!

The key word here is 'ancient'. It's a new Day. A New Age.

Mankind has hopefully taken its first baby steps to a new way of living, cherishing and honoring each other. Without the crushing framework of an outdated way of living.

We need to move forward, without the stultifying rigidity of a system that belongs in antiquity. Thank goodness.

Time to move on.

[Old Mouse]

3. I agree.

Faith is integral to human life. Even atheism is a belief system. That fundamentalist Christianity wholeheartedly supports the Bush doctrine is simply untrue, and the intolerant intellectual condemnation of this faith is hypocritical.

Both good and bad works have come from all of the world's major religions.

[beam me up scottie]

4. I am an atheist and I have no "belief system"

nt

[Old Mouse]

6. ANYTHING that claims to know an answer

is a belief system. To say with positive faith that there is no God is the same as saying with positive faith there is one.

As an atheist, you should know it IS a religion.

[beam me up scottie]

8. Are you kidding me???

Atheism is a religion?

[Liberal Veteran]

9. Atheism is NOT a religion any more than health is an illness.

Health is a LACK of illness.
Atheism is a LACK of religion.

Framing atheism as a religion is a right-wing attempt to say that the absence of God-affirmations in public life and public institutions is promoting a religion of atheism.

It's a cheap tactic that is allowing the righties to crack the wall between church and state.

[Old Mouse]

13. You claim to know what cannot be known

when philosophy becomes fact in the mind of the individual, it is an act of faith. Anything that claims to answer the unanswerable fulfills the core question of religion. Atheism is your FAITH. You don't know it is true, yet you believe it. You play semantics.

[beam me up scottie]

16. Really? How about human children?

We are all born atheists. We no more "claim to know" anything anymore than they do.

[Old Mouse]

27. It seems you don't have children

or you would know there is INDEED a devil. Especially at two years of age. ;)

[Brian_Expat]

28. We're not "all born atheists."

That's just silly. Atheism is a philosophy developed over time with its own tenets -- many of which must be accepted on faith alone.

I don't dispute atheism (since I believe every person should have his own beliefs), but it's only one legitimate belief choice that's found in our community.

[beam me up scottie]

54. Right and if we were to grow up without being told about

god, santa claus, the easter bunny etc, we would be what?
ATHEISTS.
Because it is simply the lack of theism.

[Liberal Veteran]

17. No. I play to win. Framing atheism as religion is playing into the hands

...of the right wing who would like nothing better than demand equal time in public institutions on the basis that atheism is being given preferential treatment in said institutions.

And you are letting them getting away with by allowing them to frame the debate in such a way that we cannot win.

[Old Mouse]

21. To claim atheism is not a religion

because of the potential political fallout or where it is to practiced has nothing to do with it.

You claim to have an answer to a question that cannot be answered. That is faith. That is religion.

You should learn more about the nature of faith and its philosophical consequences before dismissing the complexity it offers.

[Brian_Expat]

25. Atheism is definitely a "faith"

It's an article of faith that there is utterly no spirituality whatsoever, and that life has no significance other than as a biological phenomenon.

[Liberal Veteran]

45. If we want to play fast and loose then democracy and communism...

...are also "articles of faith".

The only "proof" that exists to call either a success or a better system is based upon a non-objective opinion.

[Brian_Expat]

47. Nope

Atheism is a set of spiritual beliefs, not political ones, and include articles of faith that cannot be proven. Thus, it's just as religious in nature as any other spiritual or religious belief, from Quakerism to Mormonism to Wicca.

[beam me up scottie]

51. You have GOT to be kidding me.

Find a dictionary. Look it up.

[Brian_Expat]

78. Atheism is a belief that there is no spirituality

And cannot be proven any more conclusively than any other religious belief. One must have faith in the complete absence of any spiritual connections in order to believe it -- making it a form of faith, ironically enough.

[readmoreoften]

141. Wait which is it?

In 47 you said "atheism is a set of spiritual beliefs" now it's a belief that there is no spirituality. "One must have faith in the complete absence of any spiritual connections"

Make up your mind.

[Dookus]

146. LOL

good catch.

[arwalden]

147. Heh.

:o)

[readmoreoften]

140. That is incorrect

Atheism is the believe that there is no god. A (without) Theism (god). Taoism is an atheistic practice. Not all atheists are radical empiricists. They just don't believe in a 'god'.

[beam me up scottie]

49. YOU believe you know the answers. THAT is faith.

WE don't believe you. THAT is a lack of faith. We do not claim to have any answers and we don't need to.
Atheism is a belief like bald is a hair color.
Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy? If not, is that a belief or a religion?
Right. The same can be said of atheism.
It is a lack of belief.
Look it up.
You believe in Santa Claus.
I don't.
My lack of belief is a religion?
"You should learn more about the nature of faith and its philosophical consequences before dismissing the complexity it offers."
I suggest you take your own advice.

[Old Mouse]

61. I have offered no answers

only universally accepted definitions. You "believe" there is no God. You do not know this for a fact. You cannot prove it. No one can. So for you to believe this is an act of faith. The fact that you cannot accept your belief is a faith shows your level of dedication to the dogma of your religion.

Your endless analogies serve only your own belief. From the outside, there is no difference in your conviction and that of Pat Roberson. Especially the attempts at evangelism. Both are possible, both are right, and both are wrong.

For a better discussion of the tenets of Atheism I suggest the religion forum here at DU, it has some amazing scholars that can help you probe the intricacies of your complicated faith better than I.

[beam me up scottie]

63. You're a fucking riot dude! Did you even read the "endless analogies"?

Get this, a theist is preaching to an atheist about my acceptance of my LACK of belief ?!?

Okay. One. more. time. slowly...

I don't wait for santa.
I'm pretty sure I wasn't abducted by aliens.
The boogey-man isn't hiding under my bed.
I didn't drink the koolaid.

Does that sound like "faith"?


"For a better discussion of the tenets of Atheism I suggest the religion forum here at DU, it has some amazing scholars that can help you probe the intricacies of your complicated faith better than I."

LOL! You even capitalize the A in atheism!
Must be awful to feel so threatened by the lack of something you have to create your own little delusional definition of it.
You have my deepest sympathy.

Actually I frequently visit the forums you mentioned but I'll bet you haven't 'cuz they're just gonna LOVE your "special" definitions.
Dana Carvey look out!

[Old Mouse]

66. Have I stated MY belief?

I think not. Nor have I resorted to vulgarities.

I do believe, however, that you are blind with desire for the opportunity to evangelize your faith, which I will no longer afford you.

[beam me up scottie]

69. Woo Hoo! EVANGELIZE my lack of faith - I'm going to save

that one! I can't wait to get back to my "Evil Atheists Who Want To Brainwash The Minds Of All Theists Everywhere In The Universe" 12-step program!
Ever actually meet an atheist?
Obviously you haven't or you might have learned the difference between so called "positive" atheism and "negative" atheism. Or were you even aware that such definitions existed? The term "positive" atheism is used by theists who wish to villainize non-believers. Kind of like a militant non-theist.
snip
"That able defender of theism,(get that-DEFENDER OF THEISM-he's on your side) Robert Flint, had no doubt about the proper definition of atheism. Flint declared:
"The atheist is not necessarily a man who says, There is no God. What is called POSITIVE or dogmatic atheism, so far from being the only kind of atheism, is the rarest of all kinds.... very man is an atheist who does not believe that there is a God, although his want of belief may not be rested on any allegation of positive knowledge that there is no God, but simply on one of want of knowledge that there is a God.""
snip
"In a thoughtful discussion of atheism contained in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards proposes a definition of atheism that falls midway between the NEGATIVE definition (the absence of theistic belief) and the POSITIVE definition (the outright denial of theism). An atheist, according to Edwards, is a person "who rejects belief in God" for whatever reason.<16> This definition allows Edwards to include as atheists those who maintain that the concept of God is incoherent or that the proposition "God exists" is meaningless and hence neither true nor false"

excerpts taken from "Defining Atheism"by George H. Smith from his 1990 book Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies

But I'm sure you will just dismiss these as "endless analogies" because that sounds better than just saying you don't understand atheism but you have all these wonderful preconceived biased opinions about atheists. And I believe that makes you a bigot. I never told you their is no god. You imagined that. I never said theists were wrong. You imagined that as well. I don't believe any atheist ever told you that (although I could be wrong-ignorance can bring out the snarkiness in many of us) you just prefer to believe that because it excuses you from having to actually think about the issue. Sort of like the beliefs that all fags are commies or all christians are bigots.
So much for your tolerance.

[beam me up scottie]

52. Egad. A theism, (focus on the "A") means lack of belief.

J.M. Robertson, the great historian of freethought, remarked on the negative atheism of Charles Southwell, who, in 1842, founded the Oracle of Reason, England's first avowedly atheistic periodical:

he Oracle pursued a logical course of confuting theism, and leaving "a-theism" the negative result. It did not, in the absurd terms of common religious propaganda, "deny the existence of God." It affirmed that God was a term for an existence imagined by man in terms of his own personality and irreducible to any tenable definition. It did not even affirm that "there are no Gods"; it insisted that the onus of proof as to any God lay with the theist, who could give none compatible with his definitions.


from J.M. Robertson, A History of Freethought in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1929).

[RC]

12. Atheism is a religion?

Where are the churches? What do atheist worship? Where do they worship?

"To say with positive faith that there is no God is the same as saying with positive faith there is one."

Not quite. A much stronger case can be made for there being no god for no other reason there seems to be so many of them - all different. All claiming to be the only true god. No one can agree on much of anything.

So much misery with the Christian god claiming to be a merciful god.

Atheists on the other hand pretty much agree with each other about this god thing.

[Old Mouse]

19. You mistake orthodox Judo-Christianity for all religion

and discount all philosophical discussion of what you dismiss except the most simplistic. I'm sorry if that seems dismissive, I truly do, but you have plucked a simplistic view of western religion to characterize. "Bad thing happen to good people" is a anthropocentric basis for a philosophical discussion of the nature of the universe.

I don't want to convert you, or prove your religion "wrong".. such actions are that of a fanatic evangelist. But you should recognize your faith for what it is. It is simply an inarguable fact: It cannot be proven one way or the other. Believing there is no God is as much an act of faith as believing there is one.

[Liberal Veteran]

5. Or we could be intelligent and just understand...

...that 99.9999999% of the time when people are railing against "religion" they are talking about the people who use religion as a tool of hatred, bigotry, and oppressive and not expect everyone to have to qualify every statement and couch everything in PC terms so as not to offend some thin skinned people that internalize every statement when it should be abundantly clear that no one is talking about their brand of faith in particular.

I'd bet up to 90% of the flame wars over religion would go away if people would just take it as a given that no one is talking about liberal "live and let live" people of faith when they rant.

All this need for pussyfooting around with qualifiers is just annoying.

[Maat]

10. Exactly.

Just refer to "the Radical Religious Right" or something like that.

My church has a welcoming special outreach to the GLBT community (Church of Religious Science), as well as Unity, Unitarian-Universalist, United Church of Christ, and Metropolitan Community Churches. The Episcopal Church just put Gene Robinson in a position of power. The prior head of my church was gay, I believe.

[youthere]

14. Well put!

I like to refer to them as Christo-nazi's.

[Brian_Expat]

20. So what's the difference between you saying this. . .

that 99.9999999% of the time when people are railing against "religion" they are talking about the people who use religion as a tool of hatred, bigotry, and oppressive and not expect everyone to have to qualify every statement and couch everything in PC terms so as not to offend some thin skinned people

. . . and a Freeper saying that "99.9999999% of the time when people are railing against 'homosexuality' they are talking about the people who sleep around and spread STDs, march naked in pride parades, and throw blood at St. Patrick's Cathedral and not expect everyone to have to qualify every statement and couch everything in PC terms so as not to offend some thin skinned people?"

First and foremost we are a diverse people. And as a Quaker myself, I don't feel like having to explain that I'm "one of the good people" all the time (or "stupid" as some would have it) simply because I have a belief in the universality of life.

Last time I checked, this wasn't the "gay and lesbian atheist/agnostic" movement, but the GLBT movement. That includes everyone.

[Old Mouse]

26. ouch. Well said as well n/t

[Liberal Veteran]

31. Obviously you DO feel like you have to explain....

I don't think you need to explain yourself or frame yourself as one of the good guys. I take it as a given.

Perhaps you should examine why you feel that gays always have to be so damned "PC" all the time when it is should be obvious to the even the most casual of readers that no one is talking about your particular brand of faith.

Context, whether implied or stated outright, should be the key.

In other words, if you jump into a thread about the how some idiot is using religion as a weapon and an excuse for bigotry and 20 follow-ups later, someone doesn't use the "proper disclaimers" when they say something negative about the original topic's brand of faith, someone comes along and gets all offended because they are taking the statement out of context and internalizing it.

It gets to the point where it just becomes silly and we spend more time tip-toeing around trying desperately not to offend someone who should be intelligent enough to understand the statement in context without having to sound like a legal document.

[Brian_Expat]

33. I only have to explain because of bigotry common in the gay community. . .

. . . such as the reception that some provided me with here.

Perhaps you should examine why you feel that gays always have to be so damned "PC" all the time when it is should be obvious to the even the most casual of readers that no one is talking about your particular brand of faith.

I don't believe an absence of bigotry towards gay people who have spiritual or religious beliefs is any more "PC" than an absence of bigotry towards gays is PC. I believe in treating each person with dignity and respect and not directing hatred towards them either because of their sexual orientation OR their spiritual beliefs.

I certainly don't believe that individuals who describe spiritual individuals as "superstitious" or "stupid" are doing the gay community any favours!

someone doesn't use the "proper disclaimers" when they say something negative about the original topic's brand of faith, someone comes along and gets all offended because they are taking the statement out of context and internalizing it

That sounds EXACTLY like what right wing media personalities say when they're called on anti-gay rhetoric. They make it gays' fault that they're "oversensitive" and get "all offended" because they're taking a statement "out of context" and "internalizing it."

Dr. Laura used very similar rationales on her radio show, in fact.

It gets to the point where it just becomes silly and we spend more time tip-toeing around trying desperately not to offend someone who should be intelligent enough to understand the statement in context without having to sound like a legal document.

Again, that sounds exactly like justifications for homophobia -- that "normal" people shouldn't have to avoid offending homosexuals. Homosexuals should understand that when homophobes say disparaging things about gays, they're talking about "the bad gays," not all gays, right? I mean, why waste time clarifying, that's such a waste of time and energy, right? :eyes:

[Maat]

60. Wow. I love reading about the Quaker faith.

I forgot to include in my list of progressive faiths (sorry).

Please go to either Liberal Christians DU Group or the Seekers on Unique Paths Group, and enlighten us about your experience with the Quaker faith. I would really enjoy it!

[readmoreoften]

144. Horrible analogy

NOT well put.

1) A freeper would never say that. They don't just dislike a few of us and they don't care about putting anything in PC terms.
2) Your analogy is poor. Just because you MAKE an analogy doesn't mean you just MADE SENSE. If I said, "Yeah, well that's like me saying that 99.9% of the time when people say chocolate they mean fudge, so all chocolate is fudge? Is that what you're sayin' huh? huh?" Look. I can make illogical analogies too. Your analogy is poor because it is incorrect: 99% of the time freepers talk about us, they hate us all. And furthermore, it says that uproarious antics (naked people, people throwing blood) are as dangerous to freepers as freepers are to homosexuals (they want to take away our children and imprison us). It also equates the LIE that homosexuals spread disease more than heteros with the TRUTH that we need to protect ourselves from the religious fanatics who want to harm us.

At the Museum of Creation there is going to be an exhibit that shows how homosexuals are responsible for AIDS and how science/evolution is responsible for Colombine. Many fundies want to take away our children, and our jobs, they want to make abuse against us acceptable (see www.theocracywatch.org and documents on the Texas Republican Party platform), destroy gay-straight alliances in high schools and colleges, and the most aggressive ones want to institute homosexuality as a capital offense.

Those are all good reasons to be afraid. All good reasons to react against fanaticism.

Meanwhile, I have never heard any atheist at DU claim that the government should take away Christian's children, or make abuse against fundies acceptable, or destroy the Rotarians or the Kiwanas, or call for the murder of christians.

3) As a QUAKER-- of all faiths-- why are you so combative and evangelic? Of course no one here is talking about QUAKERS. QUAKERS aren't right wing nut jobs. Why do you take the reaction against fanatic rightwing fruitcakes as a personal attack?

[Old Mouse]

22. Well said. n/t

[DIKB]

15. I do hate the negative effects religion has had on mankind.

Though there are some positive, history is rife w/ examples of heresy, hypocrisy, hatred, elitism, atrocities, you name it, all as a result of religious belief.

I personally am agnostic, I do not know if there is a God, what's more I don't care. Religion in my view is nothing more than ego-centrism/self-love at it's worst. People who love themselves have convinced themselves that they are so important that some Omnipotent God-being needs THEIR Love/Adulation/Worship, to such a degree that if they don't give it this god-being will smite them.

It's a VERY Sadistic view of life in general, quite barbaric. Though for some, religion can be a good thing. For most I think that like fairy tales and childhood stories, we should take the good lessons from them and leave the rest in the garbage.

I'm sorry if you feel personally offended by these views, though they target no one. I have been told I am pitied/will be prayed for, most my life. Do so if you wish, my life and time is my own as is yours, you are free to do with it what you will. THAT is the difference between IRFs (Intolerant Relgious Fucks) and people like me. I won't force my views on you, though I WILL clarify them FOR YOU.

[Brian_Expat]

23. So then none of you care that lots of GLBT people feel alienated. . .

. . . by some of the more hateful comments about religion -- such as "all religious people are superstitious homophobes?"

I guess those of us who are people of faith in action just don't deserve a place at the table?

Or we're supposed to apologise for believing in spirituality based on our own life experiences?

Great. I'm REAL enthused to sign up now.

[DIKB]

30. Sign up for what ? O.o

I admire real christians. I don't agree w/ them, but I do admire them. There are good lessons there and a good code to live life by. Not only that it's not an easy life. The people you need to fight against are those giving you a bad-name.

GET LOUD. Let people know. Christ said that they would know his followers by their actions. The IRFs are NOT living the love of Jesus that they claim.

Seize the acronym, make T-shirts. Let people know. "Straight but Not Narrow."

"What you do to the least of my brothers you do to me ~Jesus" (with a photo of the Abu Ghraib scandal above the quote)

Let people know that christianity has been hijacked and YOU WANT IT BACK. Give it a good name, don't get frustrated at us b/c the IRFs have made you all look bad.

[Brian_Expat]

35. I don't think Quakers could be any "louder"

Yet the GLBT group declaration of the shared agenda of the gay movement didn't include a SINGLE interfaith group in its signature. NOT ONE.

And there are several.

[DIKB]

48. well. . .

not being gay, I can't speak for them. As it is I judge christians on a personal basis. I've met people of almost all faiths AND of almost all political views who hold prejudices.

Adherence to a group view rather than a view of individuality can create tension. "Does he view my group a certain way ?"

[Brian_Expat]

74. Who says that people with spiritual or religious beliefs. . .

. . . "adhere to a group view?" Quakers are usually fiercely independent thinkers, with far less groupthink than you'd find amongst a group of average political activists, for instance.

[Old Mouse]

29. So that all understand what religion HAS given us

Society. Art. Modern cognitive thought. Creating the example of a civilization greater than our own, as the Greeks did, is the only impetus that forced early civilization to modernize, create advanced morality, and foster the humanities.

All of our arts and culture are based on the belief that there was something finer and more pure than ourselves, and with effort we too could become gods.

[DIKB]

32. Look at the eastern philosophies.

Those that espouse seeking the God within, rather than the god without. Perfection that is inherent but hidden INSIDE of us. Becoming all that you have the potential to be.

As opposed to the christian - "I am not good, it is only god inside of me that is good." Thereby implying that those without your god are wretched.

[Brian_Expat]

38. Quakers are Christians and believe in the God Within as well

Yet we constantly get lumped in with the Jerry Falwells of the world. Lots of traditional Christians who stand up for equality also get slammed, over and over, by people who want to make atheism the "official religion" of gays and lesbians -- rather than allow each person to believe or not believe as he/she sees fit.

It hurts us and our ability to explain our lives in terms that others can understand, and it's also hateful.

[Old Mouse]

42. But they too

based their arts and humanities on achieving the grace and state of the gods.

[Liberal Veteran]

55. The most amusing and insane thing about this thread...

...is that ultimately it accomplishes nothing.

NOT. ONE. DAMNED. THING.

It is basically yet another "oh, woe is me....the evil gay people are offending me because some people don't qualify every statement when using the word 'religion'."

You know. Take a look around and tell me who the injured party is in this society? It ain't the people of faith!

I don't know what I find worse. People who use religion as justification to deprive others of equality or those who are so self-centered they want to climb up on a pedestal and complain about how they got their feelings hurt because someone who is being legally shunted to second-class citizenship and treated generally as dirt up didn't take a moment to qualify a statement with a disclaimer.

Yeah, maybe some gay people should frame their statements a bit more carefully, but you know it seems really petty to complain about hurt-feelings from unintended offense from this side of the equation while the nation seems to be on the verge of herding us into ovens.

[DIKB]

56. DAMN WELL SAID !!! n/t

[beam me up scottie]

57. So true. I was waiting for further arguement but all I heard were

crickets...
The image of the ovens did it.
I am not gay but I will be there when they come for you.

[Brian_Expat]

75. As a gay person of faith myself. . .

. . . I encounter bigotry wherever I go.

Pat Robertson will say I'm evil and immoral and Dr. Laura will say I am "deviant" and accuse me of "getting offended over nothing because some people don't qualify every statement when using the word 'gay.'"

Then anti-religious bigots in my OWN community will be just as insensitive and hateful as Robertson and Dr. Laura about individuals of faith, and will even use the same arguments, with a straight face (pardon the pun).

There's absolutely no concern whatsoever from either group about the impact they have on society or the hostile climate they're creating for us. It's just "push a button and maybe they'll all go away."

So as a gay man, gay men can go march in a parade and receive "recognition" for being a member of the "leather fetish community" or the "watersports community," but if they're people with spiritual or religious beliefs, they get nothing but scorn -- no recognition at all, but plenty of bigotry and declaration that they should just "accept" bigotry and "not be so sensitive" -- the same arguments used by right-wing homophobes. Something is very wrong with that.

[Liberal Veteran]

86. Personally, I have never experienced any of that.

I've hung out around gays of faith and gays who didn't want anything to do with church, but I don't recall seeing any overt internecine warfare involved between the two.

But I think it shows an appalling lack of understanding of human nature to not understand the psychology behind why so many gay people have thrown up their hands in disgust over religion in general.

People just aren't inclined to be sympathetic to a system of faith that has abused them. It's just that simple.

You are correct that it's not ALL faiths. But faiths that are accepting of homosexuality are the vast minority. That's a fact whether or not you like to acknowledge it.

And then to make matters worse, it is not just a matter of "we don't approve" from the vast majority of those who speak in the name of religion in the US. It's a matter of them actively using their majority status and their faith as a tool to abuse and oppress people, legally relegating them to less than equal.

These are facts that must be reckoned into the equation. To expect that people who have found themselves constantly being shoved back into the closet and being to told to accept being treated like shit by a society to not feel some antipathy towards that force in general is just naive in the extreme.

Ultimately people are too involved in their own lives to split hairs and analyze the issue. From the viewpoint of the average gay person, MOST people who claim to be "enlightened by the love of God" are wielding that as a weapon to oppress another sect of society or as a justification for bigotry.

Under those societal circumstances it is not reasonable to expect many gay people to go around qualifying statements all the time.

An analogy could be made with African-Americans. How many times have you heard someone talking about "the white man" or "whitey" keeping blacks down? Obviously there were whites who were sympathetic and doing their damnest to undo the damage being caused by the overwhelming racism in society.

At the same time, I don't recall those more enlightened white people running around complaining because African-Americans weren't being completely specific when standing against the racism they were facing and pointing their fingers at the majority.

Or another analogy would be those in Iraq who speak about the Americans who invaded their country and destroyed their homes and killed members of their families. Should I be offended because I am American and I fully oppose our actions in Iraq and the Iraqi quoted didn't take the time to qualify his statement?

I don't know how much more blunt I can be than to say it just seems thin-skinned and petty to get offended because some people didn't go out of their way to be specific enough to say "except of course for the quakers and the liberal episcopalians and unitarians" when venting against a behemoth that is trying to crush them, literally.

Which brings us back to context and intended offense. We can CHOOSE to find offense where none was intended, or we can try to be intelligent beings and understand the meaning and context of what people are saying.

[Chelsea Patriot]

93. You say members of the Leather/Watersports Community can't be Christians?

MCC Founder Troy Perry frequently delivers sermons on the Spirituality and Leather.

MCC always has a booth at The Flotsam (sic) East Street Fair here in Manhattan.

Have you ever been to the NYC Pride Parade? Contingents of Quakers and Leathermen march side by side. No one scorns anyone else.

Atheism and Alternative sexuality seem to really intimidate you.

Why are you so threatened?

What is this 'recognition' that you so crave?

[arwalden]

115. You're Right... It's A Ego Trip Down Martyrdom Lane.

[readmoreoften]

145. PERFECTLY said n/t

[Meldread]

58. My views....

I didn't read all the posts in this thread, although I read enough to get the general idea of where it was heading. I'm not going to make the attempt to speak for anyone else, only myself.

I grew up in an extremely conservative small town. You can't throw a rock in the town without it hitting a Church. Just about every last one of them are anti-gay, and should you be openly gay while attending you would most likely either be asked to leave, or be extremely disliked within the Church. (I could easily see parents telling the Pastor, "Either he goes, or I go, because I don't want my children around him.")

Needless to say this has resulted in me having a very negative outlook on Christianity as a whole. It's been used as a weapon against me since my early childhood just as it has been used against us all. It created an atmosphere of fear, intolerance and isolation. I went through a rather long period in my life where I simply reviled the religion entirely. The very thought of a Christian... well let's just say Hitler's actions would have been mild compared to what I wanted to see the Christians suffer through. Abu Grab would have been made to look like Disney Land. Both Falwell's Church and Robertson's TV Studio are just located hours away from where I live.

I became angry and disgruntled. I loathed them for all that they had done, all the pain, suffering, and torment they put me through as a child. I wanted to see them suffer as I suffered. I wanted revenge. I was blind to the fact that not everyone was like them, it was hard for me to even conceive such a notion... but in time I realized that those who were bigots did not speak for all Christians.

It took me some time to realize all of this, and realize that my anger and hatred were only hurting me even though it was directed at them. I've been able to let much of it go, but even to this day I refuse to call myself a 'Christian'. The words when they come out of my mouth sound wrong and make me feel filthy and dirty. In truth I no longer even hate them -- I pity them. They make me angry at times, but I pity them because of the hatred that they must carry in their hearts. It is a burden to carry it around all the time. It weights you down and eats away at you. They live lives of ignorance and hate and they reject good people.

I know many of my friends are extremely anti-Christian as I once was (and will freely and happily admit it). I struggle still to this day to not paint them all with a broad brush. It is inevitable that the people that they wish to oppress and condemn will dislike and hate them. It shouldn't be shocking, and they most certainly bring it on themselves. Although I believe everyone could always benefit from a re-assessment of their beliefs and how they treat other people.

When ever I think about this I am always reminded of a quote by Frederick Nietzsche, the German philosopher: "Whomever goes to fight monsters should take care not to become a monster himself. And when you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you."

I have little doubt that many of these people such as Phelps, Robertson, and Falwell could easily classify as monsters. The quote above is entirely true, at least in my case. I became no better than they were, perhaps even worse than Phelps, all the while thinking that I was just and right. I was too blinded by anger, hatred, and pain to see that my actions were hurting those who did not deserve to be hurt. I may not agree with what many of them believe, but I do not have the right to wish the things on them that I wished on them. It is an obligation, however, that I must stand and fight against them because I do believe that they are wrong. I have lived through the pain and torment that they cause, and to be just and right I must strive to do my best to prevent it and help those who have been inflicted by it. This makes me a better person than them, and it is my hope that others who have not been totally consumed by their doctrine of hate will see this and be free from it.

[beam me up scottie]

59. You had every right to wish suffering on them.

But you are better than them because you rose above your hate and are drawing upon your horrible childhood experiences to prevent the spread of this disease. I view their "doctrine of hate" as a disease.(IMHO)
You have much to teach all of us.

[Meldread]

62. I am ashamed...

I am ashamed that I let the hatred that they spread consume me. I was simply reflecting what was reflected onto me. I viewed it as just and perhaps in a perverted way it was. The difference was the fact that *I* knew better. The sad part was I was handing over control of my emotions to them. I gave them what they wanted: A chance to be a martyr. I gave them the chance to point their finger at me and say, "See? This is what I'm talking about."

They are villainous monsters without a doubt, but they are controlled by their hatred and fear. Their hatred is a disease, but thankfully it is a curable one. It is also a disease that can strike any of us at any time. It is something that we must constantly guard ourselves against.

Hatred is an odd emotion. It is cloaked in a lie, because as you experience it and feel it you draw a sense of strength from it. It allows you to put up a wall to protect yourself and it gives you a sense of control. To an extent it can even fool you into thinking that you are harming those that you hate. However, if you think about it you can never control hatred it will either diminish with time or grow unchecked eventually consuming you entirely. In the end you've only inflicted more pain upon yourself.

It is without a doubt that they are deserving of our hatred and most certainly our anger. I don't look down on anyone who feels that way -- I have to constantly guard myself against it. We should always struggle not to give into hate, if for no other reason than they are unworthy of having that much control over us.

[beam me up scottie]

64. Yes. I call it Karma. I believe that when a person hates

like that it consumes them. They obsess about it until it is all that is left of them.
It's a pity really.
Excellent point about the control they have over us if we become infected with their hate.
Too bad the self-righteous wouldn't comprehend what you're saying. Have you ever been able to reach any of them?

[Meldread]

67. Reaching out....

Reaching out to people who don't want to hear is pointless. Hatred blinds them and any words that could be spoken would only flow through that filter. I can only hope to live by example and reach out to those whom I think can be saved. It's impossible to save everyone, but if you can save just a few then any effort made on your part or mine would be worth it.

I have come to the realization that treating your enemy with the decency and respect that they refuse to give to you will not only infuriate them more, but at the same time cause them to reveal their true nature to those who are not as deeply lost as them. If they are lucky in time they will realize the folly of their ignorance and begin to change their ways, though this is too much to hope for.

That is another odd thing about hatred. After it begins to consume you if you are treated positively by the people that you hate, it infuriates you to no end. You hate them with such passion and intensity that your mind has trouble fathoming anything different from them, so you begin to bait and attack them trying to make them hate you as much as you hate them. It is odd. It is almost like a drowning person who is struggling to stay a float. You rush out to save them, and their first instinct is to pull you down with them.

[beam me up scottie]

71. Yes, I've seen this, if you don't join them or

reciprocate with hatred of your own, they seem to get, I don't know, what's the word (is paranoid a good description)? It's like they think you are "up" to something.
Your way is better. If anyone has doubts about why they hate they will be more likely to listen to you. There's always hope for the future generations if enlightened people can indeed rise above such vile ignorance.

uh oh. falling asleep at computer, not good, got to get some z's before work tomorrow.
I enjoyed talking with you.
see you round the underground
Peace out.

[Old Mouse]

65. I'm sorry...

You had started this thread with a very valid point. One important to removing the republican hold over the court of public opinion. But elements here have determined professing their own belief systems more important than paying even a courteous glance at the message of your text.

[Brian_Expat]

76. Unfortunately, I feared that would happen

Some people here seem as willing to force their own belief systems on "stupid immoral superstitious religious people" as freepers are to force their own belief systems on "stupid immoral deviant homosexuals." :(

[Old Mouse]

88. And certainly no one would benefit

from stopping any positive association between gay issues and Christianity at this political point in time.

This has been a recurring theme.

[beam me up scottie]

70. "Element" here.

Didn't plan to post because I don't fall into either category, christian or gay, but I thought you had an interesting point. I wanted to read what I hoped would be a lively discussion. That is until I read a misconception being perpetrated about my own minority. Thought I could stop more intolerance before it got any further.
My bad.

[Brian_Expat]

77. It's a big problem. . .

. . . lots of elite white liberal atheists in the gay community have been "setting the pace" and being, frankly, rather bigoted themselves. It's difficult to demand tolerance for gays and lesbians when someone who claims to be an "equality activist" is proudly posting comments on members of their own community that are as hateful as anything that Dr. Laura would say about gays. :(

[beam me up scottie]

82. Interestingly enough, I can't really recall having any discussions with

with my gay friends regarding their religion or lack of it. I do remember having an arguement with a straight christian who claimed that his god was the only god and that gays were worshipping the wrong one. As an atheist I have usually been treated like a second class citizen so I would NEVER disrespect what anyone else believes. It just seems to be such a personal issue and I could never understand those who wear their religion on their sleeves. I always welcome questions from those who are curious about my non-belief, just as I'm sure you would be regarding your beliefs. To insist that one knows what another believes or doesn't is the epitome of arrogance. Tolerance is a two-way street.

[Behind the Aegis]

72. Human nature

It is 'natural' for us to show disdain for that which we do not like or admire. However, it can lead to bigotry if allow those feelings to encompass all in that group. I may not be the smartest person, but I can hold my own in most intellectual discussions and never rely on my faith in gods to back up my claims. If that is all I have, faith, then I will not discuss the situation further because it is not rational to use my faith as a pillar for an argument.

I have seen some hateful remarks from atheists about religious/spiritual people...almost as many as I see coming from the other direction. I look at this way...atheists are no more or less moral than those of us with faith (in a higher being(s)), and spiritual people are no more or less intelligent than those who are atheists. To be moral does not mean you must have a "faith." To be intelligent doesn't mean you must be devoid of "faith."

Personally, I could give a rat's ass if people agree with my spiritual beliefs! There disbelief doesn't affect my belief! I am who I am. I do not force my beliefs on ANYONE! I also do not want anyone to force their beliefs or lack thereof on me!

[Brian_Expat]

79. I agree

But it gets disgusting to listen to the hate speech that gets commonly tossed about by "leaders" in the community -- that anyone who believes in any spirituality is "stupid and superstitious."

[Stepup2]

80. It will take time to counter the hate

I too grew up in a very small very conservative city and have had violence done to my person, justified in the name of god. I still consider the laws that place me as a second class citizen violence to my person.

Laws in this country that are put in place and held up as righteous, such as the legal protection physicians have in denying medical treatment as a conscientious objector. This is legalized imposition of their religious beliefs. I think this is the sort of reality that many glbt live with.

It is tough for many to transcend this sort of of very real hatred with very real consequences. Some people who are in a lower SES class have difficultly affording some measure of legal protections, or can not afford to move to a different community to lessen the bigotry. For some, who are surrounded by daily messages trumpting their second class citizenship, it may be impossible to transcend the roiling sea of subtle hate messages; few in this tight spot will realize that not every Christan is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

This is a very interesting discussion; and a topic that deserves more open discussion.

I still become immediately suspicious when someone identifies as Christian, not because I think they are superstitious, but because my personal history has taught me that the pronouncement often follows with a line of reasoning that is brilliantly crafted, but bigoted just the same.

I think it is safe for me to speak for many of my friends who welcome the support of those who live by their faith and reject hatred. What is tough at times however, is that underneath the support, is an underlying air of superiority that emanates despite the words.

This issue has much pain and much misunderstanding surrounding it.

This issue will take time. The leaders of those faith institutions need to keep working to build bridges and begin the healing process. So far in my area they haven't.

While I agree that it isn't fair and is damaging to paint with broad brushes, a bit of understanding for why some do will get you a bit farther in advancing your ideas. imo.

[beam me up scottie]

83. You make so many excellent points. You must have given

this alot of thought. I now live in a red state and have firsthand knowledge regarding the constant bombardment of religious dogma. I bristle anytime I hear someone defend proselytizing-which by it's own definition implies superiority.
Your suspicion in based on many years of abuse at the hands of those who claim they just want to "help" you. I've also been on the receiving end of such "compassion" and I'd like to tell them where to put their so-called concern for my soul. At least you try to understand each individual's motivation before passing judgment.

[booley]

81. hate breeds hate

when you got people like Dobson, Robertson, falwell representing "Christianity' while liberal Christians seem to be a mythical species when you take a look at how much they are given media time...

naturally some will start lumping all Christians together becuase it's only the bigots that they ever see. Bigots who claim they represent Christian teachings.

I am afraid we are also becoming victims of the polarization of the country and the culture. Sometimes we seem to lose the ability to distingish between a position that is wrong and merely a different position.

Naturally a member of one faith (or an atheist) thinks that His'er beleifs are the best. At least for them. And t=that other beleifs are not as good. who would be a member of a religion that they considered inferior?
but that's a far cry from the harm that comes with institutionalized homophobia and the masquerading of hyppocrasy and hate as MORALITY.

[beam me up scottie]

87. Exactly.

Morality without religion does indeed exist and IMHO, someone who does the right thing because it's the right thing has an ethical edge over someone who only does a good deed because of some mythical reward and punishment system.
This country has returned to the hatred and fear promoted by the government in the 1950's. In less than 4 years, decades of civil rights successes and tolerance have been reduced to what they are now calling "liberal political correctness".
Buckle up folks, it's going to be a rough 4 years.

[Misunderestimator]

84. It's not hate, it's recognizing the hypocrisy of the fundamentalists

and informing others who are ignorant of those members of their religion who hate us. I have many Christian friends, but they understand my problem with the way that MOST Christian denominations have treated gays.

I reserve my hate for those individuals who willfully hurt others, not entire groups of people. I'll leave that sort of ignorant hate to them.

[Old Mouse]

89. It's good to separate the religion from the church

but I continue to say fundamentalists are given a bad reputation by the more radical, vocal, politicized elements. There are many decent ones out there who still worship the first coming rather than the second.

[terrya]

85. Speaking solely as someone who was raised Catholic...

my anger isn't misplaced....as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. I wish the good people of Dignity well. I really do. But they've got their work cut out for them, to put it mildly. I'm only responding to the ceaseless, unrelenting hostility...and yes, hate...the Vatican displays towards gay people. You'd have to have the patience of a saint not to respond in kind.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

90. Why all the religious hatred toward us?

When Catholics, Baptists, Muslims and every other group stands up to the leadership in their religions and demand that they stop using the alter as a bully pulpit against gay people politically then I might reconsider...until that time, I really have no sympathy for apparatchiks.

Some will claim that the same could be said of me being an American and Bush's policies but that is not a valid comparison. I speak out regularly against Bush's policies and use my voting power, activism and purchasing power to protest his policies.

I don't claim that while I "personally" disagree, that is the dogma of my country and I must accept it. Religious people DO DO that...they claim they disagree but their DOGMA justifies the policy.

[Liberal Veteran]

92. Exactly...worrying that people aren't being "kind enough" to religion...

...seems somehow to be petty and missing the enormous worrying that it's raining when the boat has gaping hole in it, so to speak.

The gay community and ALL members of the gay community are under real attack from the majority religions in this country. We aren't talking about scorn and intolerance. We are talking about being legally relegated to second-class citizens and being stripped of human rights.

Meanwhile, someone is saying their feeling are being hurt because the gay community isn't giving sympathetic relegions their due.

It's like worrying that someone says your clothes look funny while you are being assaulted and raped.

[Meldread]

97. Without a doubt...

Without a doubt we cannot deny that we are under attack, that there are real enemies out there, that there are real people out there who would see us real physical and social harm. However, on the same token we cannot deny that there are some of those same people who are on our side, who if given the chance would stand up against those who seek to destroy us.

We are a minority group, unfortunately. As a result we need every single ally that we can get. We can't push someone to the side because of a handful of issues that we disagree with, we have to focus on the bigger picture. We can't afford to alienate people who would be our friends.

[Liberal Veteran]

98. We also cannot afford internecine warfare.

And all this hand-wringing over a very, very small minority that prefers to stretch statements out of proportion and context and have a little pity-party because someone didn't go out of their way to state what should be obvious to anyone with half a brain (ie, that people are ranting against BIGOTTED relgions, not the live and let live liberal religions) is a waste of time and energy.

As I said, do you get offended when someone in Iraq complains that the Americans came and destroyed his home and killed his family just because he didn't qualify that he was not referring to those of us who oppose this war?

It's silly to dwell on that kind of thing.

[Brian_Expat]

94. Why are Quakers and Unitarians and Wiccans responsible for other religions

and what they do?

Nobody is saying "smash the Baptists and Muslims and Catholics." What they're saying is there's no place at the table for ANYONE of ANY faith. That's wrong.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

99. WHO IS SAYING THAT??? WHO IS THEY????

Please don't make things up to self serve a flame war. WHO SAID THAT?

[Brian_Expat]

111. When someone denounces "the religious" as "superstitious"

he includes Quakers, Wiccans, UUers, Jews, UCCers, etc. in that statement. Period.

When someone blames "religion" he's not talking about conservative fundies, he's talking about ALL religion.

[Liberal Veteran]

117. From the viewpoint of someone who is atheist

Religion IS superstition. I don't why that sticks in your craw so badly.

Why do feel you are entitled to prounounce YOU believe in such and such, but you do not extend the same respect to others?

When you rail against an atheist saying he believes relgion is superstition, you are engaging in exactly the same kind of behavior you are railing against.

It's hypocritical to say you are entitled to speak up and proclaim your belief as as Christian, but an atheist is not equally entitled to speak up and say he believes religion is the product of superstition.

If you are secure in your belief system, it should be no skin off your teeth that someone doesn't share your belief and feels free to state why and how they view religion.

[Touchdown]

127. Who is this "Someone"?

Who are "this community"?

What are the names of these "hostile towards religious gays" gays?

NSMA asked you a question. I have read every word in this thread, and you speak in the same generalities of "anti-christian bigotry" you are castigating others in here of doing to your faith, yet, you have failed to come up with any names, anecdotes, links, or statistics to prove your rather loopy view that ALL GAY PEOPLE (and you even said that earlier about post 65) are anti-religious bigots. Pot-meet-kettle.

Enough with the strawman. Provide anything. Who are you talking about? Urvashi Vaid? Harvey Fierstein? Boyzone? Dykes on Bikes? Me? I've been gay and Methodist for 40 years and have no experience with other gay people being this hyperbolically hostile to any religious sect. My ex is a Pagan, we argued about Disney being fascist and why Amadeus had so many Jewish actors in it, our religious differences just never came up.

[Dark]

91. Because liberal christians are one of the least vocal groups out there.

Conservative christians, on the other hand, are VERY vocal.

[arwalden]

109. Their Silence = Approval. Their Inaction = Permission.

[Liberal Veteran]

110. And Silence still = Death.

After all this time.

[Brian_Expat]

112. Horseshit

In case you haven't noticed, plenty of liberal religious groups have stood up for equality -- most recently the UCC, whose commercials for tolerance got turned down by major networks.

[arwalden]

114. What A Peculiar Response, Brian_Expat

Exactly WHAT PART of my criticism and scorn for those who remain silent do you perceive as being unfair? Please... explain that one to me. I'm always interested in getting a better understanding the mindset of folks like you.

What causes you believe that I haven't noticed the paltry few who speak out? Are you telling me that *you* haven't noticed all the ones who DO remain silent.

From your unique perspective, please enlighten me on how it is that by my criticizing someone's SILENCE and INACTION, you manage to interpret that as ALSO criticizing someone who speaks out against the faith-based bigotry and hatred?

In other words... if I'm scorning those who *ARE* silent, how can any REASONABLE person interpret that as an indictment of those who *are not* silent? :shrug:

Help me to understand why you are so overwrought. --- Do you feel that because there are few "true" progressive Christians who timidly speak out, then the silence of the rest of them should be excused? And if so, why?

Frankly, it looks to me like you don't bother reading posts nor does context matter. I doubt I'll ever understand what motivates someone to to pluck a single response out of a sub-thread, ignoring the context of what came before it, and treat is as though it were a thread-starter.

Maybe you just like the sound of the word "HORSESHIT" because you use it at the most inappropriate and illogical times. Unless you live in some altered state of being, or unless you reside in a some parallel universe, your hostile and antagonistic response is not consistent with REALITY.

It is often claimed that the conservative hate-mongering Christians are nothing more than a "loud minority," and that liberal Christians exist in *greater* numbers than conservative Christians. If we are to believe those claims, then this means that there are MORE silent liberal Christians than vocal conservative ones. --- Wow! It's worse than we had first imagined. What a pity that you're wasting all that energy and effort fighting imagined insults.

Perhaps it's just the bloodsport that you enjoy. Facts and logic and context be damned, eh? --- "Horseshit" right back at ya, Buddy.

[arwalden]

131. (( crickets chirping )) Hellooo? Brian?

I see you're active in this forum again Brian. I would be very interested in hearing your answers or feelings with regard to the questions that I (and others) have asked.

[arwalden]

132. (( crickets chirping )) Brian? Does This Topic Interest You Any More?

Can you answer any of these questions?

[arwalden]

133. Ohhh Bri-i-i-ian??!! -- Why Are You Avoiding Me?

:hi: Come on and answer my questions like an adult.

[arwalden]

134. Hello?

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arwalden]

159. Brian,

Of course you don't spend all your time here... but it's worth nothing that each reminder I added to this sub-thread was done whenever I spotted you starting a new thread, or whenever I saw you responding elsewhere in this forum. Your presence elsewhere indicate that you were intentionally avoiding having to answer my question.

I wasn't just making random call in the dark... you were actually prowling around the forum.

[Brian_Expat]

151. Heh

Exactly WHAT PART of my criticism and scorn for those who remain silent do you perceive as being unfair?

The fact that you lump in Quakers, Buddhists, Wiccans and liberal Christians into the same group as radical Muslims or Christian fundamentalists. When you blast "the religious" you're not just blasting the latter, you're blasting all of them.

Just as offensive as someone else blasting "gay men" for "spreading AIDS."

[arwalden]

160. Well, You Quoted The Correct Question... But You Still Didn't Answer It.

I'm uncertain of what reality you live in... but in my reality... those "religious" folks who remain silent while their hateful brethren use their religion against homosexuals are just as guilty. The religious bigots (supposedly a "minority") are empowered by the silence of their counterparts (supposedly a "majority"?).

-- Allen

By the way... let me know when the Quakers, Buddhists, Wiccans (etc) are actually IN CHARGE of establishing laws and policy for our country.

[Dark]

118. How many do you see on the board complaining about how

their minister or priest launched into 'another homophobic' rant. Many christians on this board DO act like christians, except they don't stand up when their minister or priest or even fellow laymen begin their diatibes against 'faggots' and 'dykes'.

Don't believe me? Run a poll on how many Catholics we have here. . .

[Liberal Veteran]

119. I tend to agree. We are back to Silence=Consent

If a person is a member of a church and the leadership of that church engages in bigotry, it is incumbent on the member to disassociate himself from that. If that means getting up and leaving or standing up and saying outright you are leaving because you don't believe in preaching bigotry from the pulpit, then it should happen.

Instead, what we hear more often than not is complaining to us as though we have any power over the church itself. It is the membership that has to essentially support or not support the message of the church.

[mitchtv]

129. thanks arwalden and dark

they had better speak up, and soon . The episcopalians, to their credit have been pretty cool; but too quiet. they are a tiny minority.Real Christians usually avoid the churches.

[AlexanderBarca]

95. Some points

1. To clarify, I'm agnostic.

2. I'll often use the word "Queer" to stand in for LGBT. I don't like this word, but it works, and I actually think we need an all-inclusive word of our own. Until then "Queer" is really the only thing apropro.

3. This issue has recently come up among the LGBT community at my university (that is, UPENN), and has even prompted the creation of a Queer Christian Fellowship by a friend of mine. Our community has been pretty bad in the past about bashing Christianity and not just in general showing disdain for Christians or Christianity, but making very hateful comments about Christians and (this is the killer) Christ himself, which in my estimation is a good way to offend most any Christian, no matter how liberal.

4. As a result of this issue being raised, our community is becoming more cognizant of the fact that we are excluding an entire group of LGBT people by making such comments and is endevouring to make the community more welcoming.

5. By and large I think that the LGBT community in general has an UNDERSTANBLE disdain for religion and Christianity in particular, considering what most of us have had to go through. However, if we're ever going to get anywhere in this struggle, we have to put our religious people out there and show those in the middle (both political and religious) that it IS possible to be Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Whatever AND Queer. We need people who can throw the Bible (or insert your religious book here) right back at the fundamentalists.

[mitchtv]

96. not everyone in the religious world hates us

you are right. But I get the impression they are sitting in the back of the bus letting the mullahs, falwell etc define their religions.If I belonged to a group like Mormon or RC, I would speak up loudly or quit. Probably both. Christians are suffering from the same problems as Jews Hindus and Muslims, the backward fundies control the pulpit, and reasonable people stand by. There are always exceptions, of course.Last year's election shows that the Christian church(es)(collective) is/are a grave danger to Gays. they say it to the Moslems"moderates get control of your religion" I say the same to so called Christians, cause if the were indeed christians, not pharisees, the would endorse freedom for all.

[madamheidi84]

100. this is a very explosive topic...

My friend Jeremy is the president of the GLBT organization on my college campus, and he is very much a Christian. He also takes offense when people use blanket statements like, "the religious right." As do I. I'm a liberal Christian, and I believe that my liberal beliefs, including my support of gays, grew from that. I'm liberal BECAUSE of my faith, not inspite of it.

Tolerance does need to flow both ways. No one can call all Christians bigots, and then turn around an expect support from those of us who aren't. Yes, there are some religious idiots in this country who make crazy statements about Spongebob, but for every one of them, I truly believe there are 10X as many of us, who believe in Love and don't judge others.

Blanket statements are tools of the media and the right. I don't think they should be used at all.

[Liberal Veteran]

102. Why on earth would anyone take offense at "the religious right"?

That's even more ridiculous than getting offending because someone didn't use qualifiers.

GLBT people ARE under attack by the religious right. It means religious right wingers who use their religion as a tool of oppression and a justification for bigotry.

So how on earth could it be offensive to speak of them in negative terms when they are doing their damnedest to drive us into the closet?

It sure as hell ain't the "religious left" that are driving the anti-gay sentiment in this society.

I am beginning to think to "some" people are trying to say we should not call people out for using religion as a tool of bigotry and oppression. And if that is the case, I will not play that game. The religious right is a threat to me and is my enemy and I refuse to pussyfoot around it.

[mitchtv]

103. "religious left" , I never heard that term

I wonder why.

[Liberal Veteran]

104. Oh, and one other thing....

I think you are living in a dream world if you truly believe that statement that there are 10X as many xstians who believe in love and don't judge others.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the two largest denominations in the United states (which represent almost 45% of all religious people in the country) are the Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists.

Neither of those denominations would be considered "gay friendly" or even "gay neutral".

The only denominations I can think of that are remotely gay friendly are the Episcopalians, Unitarians, and to a much lesser extent the Methodists and Lutherans. All total represent less than 15% of xstian population in America.

I don't say that to be rude, but I think we need to recognize that the majority denominations in the US are hostile toward gays.

Just look at the how overwhelmingly anti-gay ballot initiatives pass when put on the polls if you don't believe me. How do you reconcile your belief that there are 10X as many of your type of christians when upwards of 70% of people who go to polls vote to deny gays equal rights? Those people primarily voting to make gays second class citizens consistently fall back on their religion as the justification for their vote.

[dsc]

105. You actually left out some of the most gay friendly denominations

Congregationalists (UCC), Christian (Disciples of Christ), and of course the MCC (Metropolitian Community Church ie Church for gay folk) But you do have a point.

[Liberal Veteran]

106. I left them out for a reason.

They don't really represent a large percentage (even totalled together), they represent about 1% of the Christian population (UCC being 0.7%) in the US. I was primarily focusing on large denominations. It wasn't meant to discount their importance (and I probably shouldn't have included the Unitarians either in that total).

[dsc]

101. Liberal Christians need to stand up and be counted

The message of Christianity now, thanks to the fact that the right is the high profile Christianity, is one of hate. If we liberal Christians don't take back Christianity then we can't complain when it is associated with hate in the minds of the typical non Christian. It is as simple as that.

[Malikshah]

107. It's not hate..it's called war

It is called defending oneself against attack.

[sundog]

108. well I'm just curious... is there a single religion that is SUPPORTIVE

of us?

I'm sorry, but it appears the one thing that unites the world's religions is the shunning of gays.

Which IS supportive??? Sincerely... I'm not talking about some back-alley sect operating out of a hole in the wall.

The door swings both ways... we get painted in broad stokes, we paint back in broad strokes. Sorry, I don't like to take shit lying down.

[Brian_Expat]

113. See, this is the sort of idiotic statement that is demonstrative. . .

. . . of the bigotry of which I speak.

Which IS supportive??? Sincerely... I'm not talking about some back-alley sect operating out of a hole in the wall.

If you're so obtuse as to not understand that the UUs, Quakers, UCC, Conservative and Reform Jews, Wiccans, MCC and other congregations are fully supportive of gays, you've got no point discussing, let along condemning, "religion."

There's at least one gay-supportive religious group within driving distance of you. If you live in a major city, there are at least two within walking distance.

And I don't think Quakers, Jews, Congregationalists or Unitarians would appreciate being described as "back-alley sects."

[sundog]

116. Of course it was an idiotic statement

made in response to idiotic statements that have been hurled at us since... ummm... gee... since I've been on this planet.

No, I don't live in a major city. I live in a small town in the heart of bigot country, and I feel it every single day of my life.

Every church around me (and I mean EVERY) is a broad stroke church. And no, I don't feel like driving 2 hours to the next city so I can hope to find a church (please, please) that will accept me.

Unfortunately, I learned about the ugliness of major religions at an early age. Because of that, my spirituality doesn't exist inside a building where I go seeking validation.

Anyway, there's a pattern on this thread that I'm seeing, so I won't take it further. I did not single out any religion, though you took offense & implied I was talking about four in particular.

Surely you knew posting something like this in a forum of people who have been oppressed by mainstream religion would create some controversy.

I generally avoid religious conversations, since every person's belief system is a product of their life experience.

I have many reasons for being skeptical of religion, but that's just me. Believe what you wish.

No personal offense.

[Duncan Grant]

120. You can't complain about contempt and then react with contempt.

How can I support you to achieve your goal? Will you allow me to choose if I can comply with your stated objectives?

[madamheidi84]

121. i don't like the "religious right" phrase because...

I don't think those people are real Christians. No one who claims to follow in the footsteps of Christ would carry on the way they do. Christ does not speak about homosexuality AT ALL in the Bible, but I think he talks about wealth distribution 180 times, so anyone who focuses on the former and not the latter is not religious. It's an insult to those of us who are.

ETA: I can totally understand the desire to refer to them as the "religious right", because that's what they call themselves. Of course this title is just a sad attempt to legitimize their hatred. I typically refer to them as fundies, because they are fundamentally disturbed.

[Liberal Veteran]

122. I daresay the religious right would disagree with your interpretation.

It is not worth the effort to try to reframe the vocabulary. You may disagree that they are religious or they justify their positions on religious grounds, but ultimately it's a waste of time.

Each religion is in a position to play cafeteria style dogma using the bible.

For example. Southern Baptists have incredibly high divorce rate, but Jesus isn't real big on divorce or remarriage. Indeed, a person who divorces for any reason other than infidelity on the part of their spouse is disobeying the command of Christ. If they remarry they are comitting adultery.

The bottom line though is that it is not within our power to tell them they can't practice their faith and pick and chose from the bible to worship and follow which scriptures they please.

They are right-wingers and they are religious no matter how much see their form of Christianity a bastardization of what you believe. There is nothing to be gained by ignoring or denying their religious affiliations.

[madamheidi84]

123. I don't want you to think...

I'm arguing with you, because I'm not. I'm just trying to voice my opinions on this topic, which I think is the whole point.

I am a Southern Baptist, and when I say "Southern," I mean Dirty South Baptist. I know that it seems that there are vast groups of "religious" zealots out to get gays, and there are, but there are also a vast amount of religious people who are on their side. People who might not go to gay pride parades (although I do), but who support the gay/lesbian fight for equality none the less. These people don't populate news programs or newspaper stories, but they exist and they exist in great numbers. I'm just saying that maybe it's about time that we all stood together. Religion in the hands of fools is quite a dangerous weapon, but I promise you that religion itself is not the problem.

[Liberal Veteran]

124. I don't think religion in and of itself is the problem.

Religion is a tool. A tool that can be used to build or tear down.

Right now, the leadership of the mainstream churches in America are definitely in the hands of those using it as a tool of oppression.

Quite honestly though, I am not seeing the hoards of free-thinking, live and let live Christians. If they exist in the numbers you think, they need to get off their duffs and do something. Not just about gay rights, but about science and the tearing down of the wall between church and state. Something is terribly, terribly wrong in this nation and it is being played off of religion.

Martin Luther King once said: "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people."

That is as true today.

[madamheidi84]

128. I totally agree about Liberal Christians needing to get more active...

After the election there was talk among my friends and I of creating a Liberal Christian organization on my college campus that would serve to prove that the religious left exists. We've just been busy with all our other secular political organizations.

I agree that silently allowing evil things to occur is just as bad as actually doing said evil.

But you really won't see the good work being done, because the news would much rather discuss the Falwell's of the world.

[adryael]

137. UPenn on the move...

Hi, at the University of Pennsylvania we have a coalition of progressive churches who I have been trying to kick in gear to come out in full force in support of the LGBT community.

Currently, through groups such as Soulforce, I hope to bring all of the progressive churches in the Philadelphia area to march in the Philly Pride Parade.

And I do agree, that "the only thing needed for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing" (Edmund Burke)

[Zhade]

130. I don't understand gay Mormons.

I know, I used to be a bisexual one, and I couldn't stay once I realized that (1) it's a cult founded by a proven scammer and (2) the church has an official, if quiet, policy of using porn- and electroshock therapy to "cure" people of the queer persuasion.

[Ian David]

135. So, if I pretended to be gay the Mormons would give me free porn? Cool!

[Brian_Expat]

153. I know a couple of gay Mormons

Including one who posts on this board, and this sort of thing is just patently offensive and patronising. It's the perfect example of what I was talking about earlier.

[adryael]

136. Christian Lesbian courteously agrees

Hi everyone. I really don't want to get flamed or anything, but I just want to say that there are a lot of Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. who not only are "gay-affirming" but believe that there is no conflict between being gay and being religious.

I do understand why many people are upset with members of the Religious Right (the Religious Wrong). I often find myself throwing stuffed animals at the T.V. when Jerry Falwell speaks, and I have known many people who have been deeply hurt by members of their church, synogogue, etc.

However, the Bible does say many many things, among them is "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love." (1 John 4: 7-8)

So, I don't know, maybe I am a naive sap or something but I think that maybe the best weapon we have against people who hate (with or without good reason) is to spread love among all people, 'cause if we spread love, then love will just win out in the end.

I hope this wasn't too preachy and I wish you all a lovely day or night.

M

[Duncan Grant]

139. Welcome to DU, adryael!

Hope you'll enjoy posting here as much as I do! :hi:

[adryael]

143. Thank you

Thank you, I appreciate your welcome very much.

[khashka]

168. Adryael

>I hope this wasn't too preachy

Not at all too preachy. Reminding people to love each other is never a bad message.

Christianity at it's best is about love, about teaching people how to love, about learning how to love the people you don't.

The problem is that Christianity is the majority religion. So many people call themselves Christians without ever figuring out what it demands of them. They use it as an excuse for whatever they wanna do, or as a business opportunity, or to make themselves feel good about themselves.

But Christianity demands a lot of you. It requires a lot of hard work.

I will rant and rave about Christians and say terrible things. One of the reasons I do that is because of people like you. Good, decent, loving people. When people use Christianity as an excuse for their own bigotry and selfishness and greed, it makes people like you look like monsters. And that's not fair, not accurate. And it makes me furious.

Khash.

[adryael]

142. Yes, I agree that the Religious Left must stand up

Hi.

I believe that one very obvious theme of this thread is that it is absolutely essential that the "religious left" such as Liberal Christians should stand up and absolutely stand behind and affirm the lgbt-rights movement.

Now, I hope I can encourage some of you on this message board to join in the effort to get the message out there. Here are some suggestions:

Join Soulforce, a wonderful interfaith organization that directly confronts the Religious Wrong. There are many different branches throughout the country. Their website is http://www.soulforce.org/

If you are looking for something of a more Christian bent, the Metropolitan Community Church is one of the main sources for advocacy for LGBT rights. Their website is http://www.mccchurch.org/
In addition, the United Church of Christ also advocates for LGBT rights. Their website is http://www.ucc.org/index1.html

I also understand that very few of us have enough free time to dedicate ourselves fully to such organizations, but also, asking to speak at your local place of worship may also open peoples minds and hearts.

Finally (and I do apologize for the long post), many in the Religious Left realize the urgency of the need to support the LGBT community and are moving towards greater publicity, and we would welcome any support you can lend us- time, money, expertise, or just well wishes.

[khashka]

148. What's going on

>Lots of people say nasty things against every religion -- >"Christianity," (including Mormonism), Islam, etc.

Yep and I'm one of them. I think I've said probably every bad thing you can imagine. But I have also defended them (well not Mormons, I've never been in a position where defending them was necessary, but Christians, yes, Jews, yes, and way too often Muslims. I'm beginning to think that Muslims are the new Jews, the new Blacks, the new fags.)

>However, I can think of gay-affirming Christian (including Mormon), Islamic, and other religious groups.

I can think of a few. Quakers, obviously, Unitarians. A growing number of Espicopalians (Anglicans). There are some really great cool Presbyterian churches doing great work. Even a few Southern Baptist congregations (will wonders never cease?).

You claim that you know of gay-affirming religious groups. Good. Great. Who are they? I know of a - political action group, civil rights group, religious group, what shall I call them? - basically just a group of gay and lesbian and transgendered Mormons who wish to worship as they were taught and as they believe. And they are not allowed to.


>Not everyone in the religious world hates us, in fact some of our biggest boosters from the earliest days of the gay rights movement were religious people like the Quakers and American Baptists.

Quakers, who have always been a tiny minority. Unitarians. Very very few others. The Catholics? The Southern Baptists? The Methodists? (Ok that's unfair to the Methodists.)

>Lots of us have been hurt by abusive religious groups -- of this there is no doubt. But could we try to focus our anger only on those individuals or groups who are haters, and not post things about how "Mormon = moron" or "take that, Christians?"

I really truly do not understand this. We should focus on the haters, but not the people who taught them to hate us? Are you serious? Are you ill? I mean I will never say I dislike Catholics. I have many friends (and apparently 90% of my lovers) who are Catholic. So how could I discount their feelings and beliefs? And yet I abominate the Catholic church. It is anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-contraception in a world where contraception especially could bring less suffering.

I'm supposed to respect that? Are you fucking crazy? So I should be nice and meek and biddable. Just be a good little boy while those nice Christians, Jews, Muslims wreak untold havoc on the world and never say a goddamn thing about it. Or try to stop it?

>Tarring with a broad brush is exactly the sort of thing the Falwells and Robertsons of the world do to us -- let's not stoop to their level.

I don't think I do. Often, in a bad mood, I think the last Christian died on the cross. But I've been lucky to know people who actually tried to live Christ's message. They are few and far between but they are there. (There are lots of reasons why that is true.) I have friends who are devoted Muslims. I don't hold much of a brief for Islam but I have seen it work in people's lives. In quite remarkable ways. As with Hinduism ( a very complex religion worthy of study whether you are Hindu or not) and Buddhism.

But here's a question? What about my religion? It's just as true to me as a Christian's religion is to her. My religion exalts women. Exalts men. Teaches that our sexuality - gay, straight, bisexual and all the places in between - is a gift. Something to be honoured, cherished.

The problem I have with Christians (and there are many who I have no problem with but consider incredibly good people) is that they won't FUCKING leave me alone! I do not need anybody to tell me who I can fuck, I do not need anybody to tell who I can love. I do not need nor want anyone involved in my personal affairs. And this is not some abstract problem about "love" or "sex". It's very very very real. There are actual laws determing how I can make love to my partner. How I can touch him. In Texas, where I live, how many sex toys I can own before I become a felon. In my own fucking house.

And you know what those are based on - bullshit Christian morality. I don't consider all Christians to be that way. Despite myself, I have met many good people who are Christian. And they see their Christianity as having made them better people. And I agree.

But that is not the Christianity our laws are based on or our media wishes to represent. We see the worst of the worst and are told it is goodness. And many believe it. And many believe that is Christianity (I suppose it is if everyone believes it is...)


I don't feel sorry for raving and ranting against Christianity. And I won't stop. I suspect most Christians, true Christians, would agree with much of what I say . And they shouldn't stop fighting either until they get their religion back.

I try often to use the word Christianity for those who truly believe Christ's words and work hard to make them manifest, and Xtian to describe those who use Christ's name to validate whatever they damn well want.

Brian, Brian, Brian, Your are living in a secular country. Although there are very religious people there they do not dominate the airwaves, the voting booths. You just simply don't have the sort of fundamentalist bullshit that we live with constantly. When it does occur, it's usually considered quaint or strange or foolish. I know that - I lived most of my life in England and occassionally in other parts of Europe or Scandinavia or the Middle East. It's easier for you than it is for us - of course you won't believe that (who would? people are people) but when you come back you will. I'm not saying that living there makes you stupid or anything... but what seems immediate and dire to us seems an hysterical overreaction. I mean it can't be that bad, not nearly that bad! In many ways it actually is that bad.

My advice is stay an expat, but for those of us who aren't anymore or who never were... the only Christianity we have been given - and it has been driven into our heads like a nail- is one of no redemption, no salvation, but just eternal vengeance against us, forever and ever, amen. We've been told "No God does not love you, he hates you. He wants you to suffer eternal torment and he will enjoy watching it." But having gotten that message ( a pretty nasty one) why should we be oh so nice to the people who brought it? Really? We should? Well. I'm not gonna be nice to 'em. I don't believe that came from God in the first place. Looks like someone forged his signature.

I have little to do to with Christians. Because I hate Christ or Christians? No, just because I think somewhere near 90 percent of 'em aren't Christians at all.

I do not interfere in their lives. The true Christians and the pseudo-Christians (and you all know which you are). I do not want them interefing in mine.

So I shall live my life as best I know how and when they try to stop me I will say nasty things. I will fling epithets. I will use four letter words. I will be a total fucking bastard. And I won't feel sorry for it. So, Brian, try defending me. A faggot, a sadomasochist, a pagan. How many laws have me or my people used to restrict them, how many have they used to restrict me, my friends, my lovers, my children. How many times have my people beaten, bashed, killed them? How many times did the do it to us? In the name of their God. And you're surprised some of us have a problem with it?

I have no desire to harm my straight brothers and sisters. Not at all. Some of 'em are just so damn cool. Nor to I have any problem with my religious brothers and sisters - they often have really interesting and enlightening things to say, and I feel enriched by their words and their faith and the understanding they shared with me.

But I will still say terrible things about Christians or religion. I just assume most people are aware enough to know if I'm talking about them or if what I say applies to them. I guess that's trying to make it easy on myself... but anybody can disagree with me any time - publicly or privately.

Khash.

[readmoreoften]

149. Nice post, Khash

Pretty much sums up my experience as well. But then again I just moved to Manhattan from Texas, and I think our experience is a little different there.

In Texas, you see so many types of Xians, but you also see so many abused teenagers who grew up in bizarre Xian cults that keep them scarred for life.

Where are you at in Texas, Khash?

[Maat]

150. The leader of of our church is lesbian.

She may have left office - and another is taking a turn (don't know much about her).

I belong to the Church of Religious Science. Many of our church ministers and leaders are GLBT. We welcome all, and respect all lifestyles and all paths to Spirit (gods/goddesses/spirits) equally.

Anyway, I'm sorry you have had to go through such experience with religious righties.

I've given up being mad (and I'm a fussbudget middle-aged married hetero mom and PFLAG-er); I'm considered a cultist by some religious-righties in my family. I really belong to a positive meditative congregation who never tells me what to think or with whom to associate. Can they say the same? When they speak up about their faith, I speak up about mine. Usually shuts them up.

[Brian_Expat]

154. Hee hee hee

Brian, Brian, Brian, Your are living in a secular country

Nope, I actually live in the UK.

Although, if I was still living in the USA, I would expect a modicum of respect and acceptance of diversity from liberals who call for acceptance of all. However, far too often I encounter conservatives who call for my exclusion from a place at the table because I'm gay, and from "liberals" who call for my exclusion from a place at the table because I'm not an atheist.

They're two sides of the same coin in my view, demanding total conformity to their view of the "perfect person" and demanding all others be completely shut out.

[Liberal Veteran]

155. Okay. I want you to document how you've be "persecuted" by...

...the gay community and told to leave for not being atheist.

I have heard this claim time and time again, but you don't back it up with anything except vague inferences.

You keep talking about how the mainstream gay community doesn't "allow" you to be religious, and that's not even remotely true:

"The National Religious Leadership Roundtable of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is an interfaith collaboration of more than forty denominations andfaith-related organizations."

Nearly every mainstream gay organization has a place at the table for gay people of faith, including NGLTF, HRC, and PFLAG.

There is Dignity for gay Catholics in nearly every city, MCC in nearly every city, the Unitarians, Affirmation for gay Mormons, Gay Christian Outreach, Gay Christian Internet Radio, and a google search of "gay christian organization" will bring you HUNDREDS of hits.

Where is this persecution in the community in America, a county you don't even live in?

[Brian_Expat]

157. When did I use the word "persecution?"

You're putting words in my mouth because you're not willing to listen to what I have to say -- you just want to shut me up.

It's not the first time it's happened, but the gay community, for a lobby that calls for "inclusion," is pretty darn exclusionary at times. It happens all the time in the American gay community, the whole "shut up, sit down, if you don't like things here and aren't willing to act and think the way we want you to, GO AWAY" dynamic. You're illustrating it beautifully.

There is Dignity for gay Catholics in nearly every city, MCC in nearly every city, the Unitarians, Affirmation for gay Mormons, Gay Christian Outreach, Gay Christian Internet Radio, and a google search of "gay christian organization" will bring you HUNDREDS of hits.

Yes, and how active are those organizations allowed to be in the broader gay community? Not very.

They weren't invited to sign the recent statement of unity amongst gay organizations.

They weren't invited to participate in the recent conference for gay youth.

They weren't asked to participate in the New York Pride Parade (although it DID have a pavilion for watersports and S&M).

There was a group in New York City that tried to undermine the Millenium March on Washington simply because it included some of those groups on its committee and didn't have spots for the "watersports and bloodsports communities."

[readmoreoften]

161. I find it hard to believe that Dignity isn't 'invited'

to do these things.

Why are they waiting to be invited? Why don't they just ask. It's not a private party. I mean, is it really the watersports community that isolates catholics? That's some weird logic.

(and why would the bloodsport community be opposed to catholicism? all that flagellation etc. they are the original bloodsport community... no dis intended)

[khashka]

162. Apparently we know two different communities

The gay community comes together primarily because of shared sexuality and for politics. Religion is generally a private matter. We are a diverse group and so we focus on what we have in common.

That said, I don't know what "gay community" you are talking about. Big organized religions are rarely gay-friendly, but individual congregations who are are very welcome. At least in my experience. Exclusion based on age or race are rampant. Exclusion based on faith I've only seen rarely.

Oh and about the Sm and bloodsports thing - I consider it to be an important part of my spirituality.

Khash.

[Liberal Veteran]

165. The facts don't support your assertions.

On the issue of NYC Pride Parade, it included:

Broadway United Church Of Christ (UCC Coalition For LGBT Concerns-NY Metro Chapter).
Church of St Francis Xavier
Church of the Redeemer
Community Church Of NYC Unitarian Universalist
Congregation Beth Simchat Torah
Dignity New York, Inc.
God's Love We Deliver
Grace Church Brooklyn Heights
Judson Memorial Church
Metropolitan Community Church of New York
Middle Collegiate Church
Presbyterian Welcome/Presbyterian Promise
Quakers - Religious Society of Friends
Reconciling United Methodists of the NY Conference
St. Bartholomew's Church
St. Clement's Episcopal Church
Temple Beth-el of Great Neck Gay & Lesbian Inclusion Committee
The Episcopal Diocese of New York
The Oasis (of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark)
United Church of Christ Coalition for Lesbian & Gay Concerns
Unity Fellowship Church of Manhattan
Unity Fellowship of Christ Church- NYC-Brookly
URJ Greater New York Council of Reform Synagogues Gay & Lesbian Resource Committee

And those are just the ones I could identify by their names as being religious based.

No place at the table for gay people of faith? I'm sorry to inform you, but the facts don't support your assertions.

As far as the other's are concerned, you may be interested to know that many of the religious based gay organization are represented under the umbrella of larger organizations.

Dignity, Unitarians, Lutherans, and a host of other religious organizations are represented in NGLTF. In effect, when the statement of unity was signed by NGLTF, all those religious groups that represented by in the umbrella organization including Dignity, MCC, the Unitarians, etc...were all signatory.

All this "invited" crap is bullshit.

The National Youth Advocacy Coalition is open to all. They don't have to "invite" anyone in particular. In addition to nearly every gay relgious organization being listed at their website, the invitation for people to attend the summit for gay youth was (and I quote):

The Summit is for you if you are:

A young person interested in connecting with LGBTQ youth from around the country

A young person interested or involved in LGBTQ youth organizing

Affiliated with an LGBTQ organization or foundation

An ally to LGBTQ youth, including parents, service providers, researchers, educators, health practitioners, etc.

I am sorry to this, but I call bullshit on your cries of exclusion.

[khashka]

167. I think

you just conclusively ended this debate.

Thanks, LibVet.

Khash.

(But you didn't list any pagan groups! Now I'm being excluded! Ha ha ha.)

[khashka]

156. What exactly is your point here?

That we don't tolerate your religion? But it sounds like you don't actually want tolerance, you want a standing ovation.

>Nope, I actually live in the UK.

Yep. I know. I spent most of my life there. They've got a State Religion. But religion isn't the real issue there. The real issue is class. Even the increasing problem with Muslims is not about Islam vs Christianity but how do religious people live in a secular state and how does a secular state accomodate religious people?

>Although, if I was still living in the USA, I would expect a modicum of respect and acceptance of diversity from liberals who call for acceptance of all.

You don't want a modicum of respect apparently. You want a standing ovation and you've made that very clear.

>"liberals" who call for my exclusion from a place at the table because I'm not an atheist.

I have been involved in liberal politics, gay politics for decades. I have met a handful of athiests and only one who made it an issue. The majority were people of faith who no longer felt welcome in their churches. Did it ever occur to you that they did not kick you out for your religion but kicked you out because you're an asshole?

And you know something, Brian? I can respect your religious beliefs, while not believing them myself. But I'm beginning to think that that's not what's happenning here. You want us to fight both you and each other.

You demand tolerance but have little for anyone else.

Khash.

[Brian_Expat]

158. There's no inclusion, that's my beef

Individuals on here often talk about how stupid religious and spiritual people are, and nobody (well, save me it seems) takes them to task.

Whereas if someone who was a deeply believing member of MCC was to start posting on here, I guarantee he would be driven off and slammed by some of the loudest posters on here, who seem intent on personalizing this issue.

Every time I've brought up the issue, people have tried to make it out to be me and my beef, rather than a larger issue. But look, I've talked with gay people who don't feel welcome here and who have even PMed me over the hatred towards the spiritual they find here. Evidently that doesn't count, their perspective doesn't matter, and that gets reinforced with every single reply made to this thread.

Atheists get free licence to hate religious people on here and mock them as "superstitious" -- even if they're pro-gay, while if a religious person was to slam an atheist as "deluded" (for argument's sake), he'd be excoriated. I guess that's OK for a lot of people on here, but then that means that this forum cannot really consider itself a full representation of the gay liberal community.

[Liberal Veteran]

164. And you get to mock atheists as "non-believers"....

..and make claims about how they exclude you by having the audacity to express their own beliefs about spirituality and religion.

You really need to get over the notion that people of other faiths or no faiths have to keep their opinions about religion to themselves, but think you are entitled to express your religious beliefs ad nauseum.

I don't know why you think you should be able to unilaterally impose a gag-order on an atheist to prevent him from speaking his mind about how he views religion. You have never once answered why you should be able to say "I'm a quaker and I believe blah-blah-blah", but you think atheists aren't allowed to say "I'm an athiest and I think religion is a bunch of boloney!"

And you are wrong. There are quite a few people of faith who happen to be gay and say as much often and they aren't "driven off and slammed".

And hell there are similar discussions with heterosexual people of faith who get all bent out of shape if some atheist has the audicity to openly state he thinks religion and theism is no more compelling than greek mythology and a bunch of stuff they consider made up and superstitious.

Tolerance and respect for you to worship as you see fit is two-way street, but you seem to believe it only goes your way. You have no tolerance for people without faith saying flat out why they don't believe and if they do, you get beside yourself and insulted. The funny thing is, you don't see atheists and agnostics taking it as a personal insult everytime someone says "I'm a Christian (Jew, Muslim, whathaveyou).

What you are wanting is affirmation that your belief is correct from people who don't share it.

[khashka]

166. No inclusion...

I get excluded from the mainstream "gay community" all the time. Because I do Sm, because I'm Wiccan, because I'm a loudmouth who swears like a drunken sailor, because I'm a feminist, because I've been a sex worker, because I'm disabled.

That's life. And you know what I do about it? I make sure I'm included. I don't wait for an invitation to join all the "right" people at the table. I pull up a chair and join in. Of course there will be people who are offended by my presence. That is true for all of us, everywhere. And as long as people are people, that will never change.

So grow up Brian. Be a man! Have the courage of your convictions. You say "tolerance" or "inclusion" but what you really seem to mean is approval. Well, you've got it. You don't need it, but you've got it. So go forward, my son, and live your faith well.

As for how religion and (by extension) you are not made welcome here. Well, I can only wonder if you're taking your meds. I've had vicious arguments with people here and almost always ended up as friends. Even in the middle of just awful arguments I've felt accepted, valued, even respected. That's the great thing about liberalism. It's also one of the great things about being gay.

Look at how many people want to discuss this with you. Because they do take you seriously and your faith seriously. They value the discussion even if your faith is not theirs.


You've talked about tarring people with a wide brush - but that is exactly what you are doing.

Khash.

(I'm really sorry I called you an asshole. In my defence, it was late and I was tired. But that's not much much of an excuse....)

[arwalden]

163. Bingo!

>> But it sounds like you don't actually want tolerance, you want a standing ovation. <<

That pretty much explains it.

[Moderator]

169. Locking.

It appears this thread has run its natural course.