Respecting religion???
Discussion
Being derogatory (abberation, really?) about homosexuals can be classed as discriminatory and consequently evil.
It is not about homosexuality being good, it is about whether you think it is somehow 'bad' and you decide to therefore treat them as 2nd class citizens.
This is what the church - inc CofE - does. And this is what makes it - it could be argued - discriminatory and therefore evil.
Far from being a weak angle it is the exact opposite. The weak are those who fail to see what is so caustic and wrong about treating other humans with such contempt. It is a fundamental disgrace that fully exposes what a hypocritical outfit the church is. How could any real God possibly encourage the treatment of some humans this way? He never would. Ergo he is only a man made myth. That must include the CofE one. QED.
Evil happens when good men do nothing.
PS it is all bathwater. there is no baby to throw out.
It is not about homosexuality being good, it is about whether you think it is somehow 'bad' and you decide to therefore treat them as 2nd class citizens.
This is what the church - inc CofE - does. And this is what makes it - it could be argued - discriminatory and therefore evil.
Far from being a weak angle it is the exact opposite. The weak are those who fail to see what is so caustic and wrong about treating other humans with such contempt. It is a fundamental disgrace that fully exposes what a hypocritical outfit the church is. How could any real God possibly encourage the treatment of some humans this way? He never would. Ergo he is only a man made myth. That must include the CofE one. QED.
Evil happens when good men do nothing.
PS it is all bathwater. there is no baby to throw out.
Edited by ///ajd on Wednesday 4th February 16:17
Edited by ///ajd on Wednesday 4th February 16:25
Claudia Skies said:
IainT said:
Of course being homophobic isn't limited to the religious, there are plenty of non-religious bigots out there and not all religious people are homophobic.
Precisely my point - it is a very weak direction from which to make a specific attack on religion.As mentioned earlier in this thread, just because some of religion(s) is utter nonsense doesn't mean it is all nonsense. One needs to avoid the risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Hence it is entirely sensible to have a generally shared set of human "morals" which reflect the views of the community as a whole.
What I find odd about UK 2015 is the "everything at the same time" approach. Some men getting married to each other while some women aren't allowed out of the house unless they have a blanket over their head. Are both of these simultaneously "good"? Or both bad? Or one of each? Or something else? And if dressing in religious garb is no different from dressing like a goth or punk, why are these people allowed to have special dispensation which allows animals to be killed without stunning? And to mutilate their male children? How does that fit the shared morality?
If I started a public business and refused point blank to have a woman in any position of authority, then I would be punished. If I suggested that, as a family firm, I did not want practising homosexuals in it, I would, quite rightly be fined. If I suggested that my company's products were much better than everyone else's and only we could give guarantees beyond the grave, then the Committee for Advertising Practice would, at the very least, demand some rigorous trials conducted on people with testimonials alone not being sufficient to substantiate such claims. They do for slimming aids so why should everlasting life be exempt?
I except that only the feeble minded really believes in living forever, but that's not the point. It seems that religions can do what they want with impunity.
They can certainly publish a book which says that homosexuals should be stoned.
I think, therefore, that whilst homophobia, misogyny and all the rest is not limited to the church, there are few other companies that use it as a business model.
MC Bodge said:
Claudia Skies said:
As mentioned earlier in this thread, just because some of religion(s) is utter nonsense doesn't mean it is all nonsense.
Please point out the religious bits that are not nonsense, as opposed the human/ethical/community bits that would exist without the supernatural bits.Oh wait, the religious bits are all nonsence.
The morality in all religions can (and does) exist without a man in the sky being the reason for it.
w
Id be interested in these particular points too.
Oh wait, the religious bits are all nonsence.
The morality in all religions can (and does) exist without a man in the sky being the reason for it.Of course, they only hijack the morals to make it sound like they are doing humanity an important service and that they are needed to protect morals.
Its nonsense, morality is a human issue, not religious. They only hijack them as without them they are useless. So infact they are useless. QED.
The great irony is that in persecuting homosexuals they prove that their moral compass is totally screwed anyway. So they are actually damaging human morals! Ugly behaviour.
vescaegg said:
MC Bodge said:
Claudia Skies said:
As mentioned earlier in this thread, just because some of religion(s) is utter nonsense doesn't mean it is all nonsense.
Please point out the religious bits that are not nonsense, as opposed the human/ethical/community bits that would exist without the supernatural bits.Oh wait, the religious bits are all nonsence.
The morality in all religions can (and does) exist without a man in the sky being the reason for it.
Its nonsense, morality is a human issue, not religious. They only hijack them as without them they are useless. So infact they are useless. QED.
The great irony is that in persecuting homosexuals they prove that their moral compass is totally screwed anyway. So they are actually damaging human morals! Ugly behaviour.
Claudia Skies said:
Precisely what I was saying. Some folk on here seem so determined to rant that they have lost the ability to read. 
?God is a human construct, thought up by people to explain the world around them in the absence of any alternative explanation. Morals and rules, many of which were practical, were enforced by invoking the fear of the power/influence of an all-powerful god to keep the masses in check.
We've gone around in a circle(s) with this thread
Claudia Skies said:
///ajd said:
What I don't understand is how you reconcile a homophobic entity (CofE) with being a force for good?
What is "good" about homosexuality?The traditional sexual aberrations might be summarised as,
- Sex with other men
- Sex with children
- Sex with animals
There are only two types of sex, one is allowable and the other is not. The first is consensual sex between adult humans. The other is all other types of sex. Going on about homosexuality get us nowhere.
Claudia Skies said:
The traditional sexual aberrations might be summarised as,
Rather ironically - at the start of the last century and right up until the end of World War 1, the middle of those three was perfectly legal as long as you had undergone a religious ceremony first (i.e. marriage).- Sex with other men
- Sex with children
- Sex with animals
It wasn't around 1920 that the married age of consent was increased to bring it in line with the non-married one.
Claudia Skies said:
What is "good" about homosexuality?
The traditional sexual aberrations might be summarised as,
Now there's a view. Equating homosexuality with paedophilia and bestiality. It is tempting to suggest that this is the view of the religious but I'm not that petty. The traditional sexual aberrations might be summarised as,
- Sex with other men
- Sex with children
- Sex with animals
If anything it explains the problem with rules coming out of a book written in the Iron Age.
There are other sexual liaisons that were viewed as illegal. Shame you missed those.
Modern morals have moved on.
I have been told of a half brother and half sister living as husband/wife. The case was complex but after years of keeping apart they decided that they loved each other too much to continue separately. They discussed suicide, deciding it was an option if they were torn apart. Their decision was for her to have her tubes mangled. Someone religious put them away to the police. Investigation over, case binned.
There was some fuss stirred up by the great and the good, the guardians of other people's behaviour, and the OIC, a sergeant, got transfered to training, but the DPP (pre CPS) threw it out as well.
Thank god the authority of religion is waning.
We have some bloke in church management saying that school kids should be brainwashed and that teachers must not be gay.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/06/archb...
and others where he mistakes the word moral for do as I say.
He's demanding, amongst other restrictions, that teachers lead their public and professional lives consistently with church teachings on homosexuality, same-sex marriage, abortion, birth control and other behaviours he describes as evil.
So teachers can't be gay or use birth control, this despite the fact that the vast majority of catholic Americans use birth control.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/06/archb...
and others where he mistakes the word moral for do as I say.
He's demanding, amongst other restrictions, that teachers lead their public and professional lives consistently with church teachings on homosexuality, same-sex marriage, abortion, birth control and other behaviours he describes as evil.
So teachers can't be gay or use birth control, this despite the fact that the vast majority of catholic Americans use birth control.
Derek Smith said:
We have some bloke in church management saying that school kids should be brainwashed and that teachers must not be gay.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/06/archb...
and others where he mistakes the word moral for do as I say.
He's demanding, amongst other restrictions, that teachers lead their public and professional lives consistently with church teachings on homosexuality, same-sex marriage, abortion, birth control and other behaviours he describes as evil.
So teachers can't be gay or use birth control, this despite the fact that the vast majority of catholic Americans use birth control.
The schools have 3600 students. Lets assume around 10% are gay, call it 300.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/06/archb...
and others where he mistakes the word moral for do as I say.
He's demanding, amongst other restrictions, that teachers lead their public and professional lives consistently with church teachings on homosexuality, same-sex marriage, abortion, birth control and other behaviours he describes as evil.
So teachers can't be gay or use birth control, this despite the fact that the vast majority of catholic Americans use birth control.
Headline could read "archbishop condemns 300 school children to be oppressed and discriminated against for who they are for 6 years."
Poor kids, this sort of outdated nonsense should be illegal already.
More of the wonders of religion.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/girls-can-mar...
I don't understand why any women at all are religious with this kind of abuse being promoted.
Seems like a lot of religion is a tool for men to dominate and dictate their chosen way of life to women, religion and gender seem to have an unhealthy and imbalanced link. Without a repressive doctrine such as that of Sharia Islam, a lot of people would be free to live their lives as they pleased in some parts of the world
///ajd said:
More of the wonders of religion.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/girls-can-mar...
I don't understand why any women at all are religious with this kind of abuse being promoted.
Because that's an IS policy?http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/girls-can-mar...
I don't understand why any women at all are religious with this kind of abuse being promoted.
Because all women are subject to IS policy?
Because all religious people act in exactly the same way as ISers?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff