Elton John says organized religion encourages hatred of gays

[oberliner]

LONDON - Organized religion fuels anti-gay discrimination and other forms of bias, pop star Elton John said in an interview published Saturday.

“I think religion has always tried to turn hatred toward gay people,” John said in the Observer newspaper’s Music Monthly Magazine. “Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays.”

“But there are so many people I know who are gay and love their religion,” he said. “From my point of view, I would ban religion completely. Organized religion doesn’t seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it’s not really compassionate.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15675821/

[Ken Burch]

1. Sadly, it's hard to refute what he says...

The Western religions have a lot of repenting to do on this score.

[daleo]

2. I agree

If you take away the religious argument against homosexuality, what is left? The bias against gays would collapse in a generation or two if religion didn't provide the (irrational) foundation for it.

[Ishoutandscream2]

3. Yes, gays and so much more

Sad.

[silverojo]

4. He ought to become a Wiccan, then

But then again, Wicca isn't exactly an organized religion...thank the Goddess!

[laheina]

67. Exactly what I was thinking! nt

[donsu]

409. why does he have to become anything?

can't he just be himself?

[valerief]

5. Religion is a wedge tool to hammer wedge issues. nt

[Bluestar]

6. What?? Just because organized religion is about controlling the people-n/t

[JackBeck]

7. Religion is not compassionate. Especially when it comes to marriage.

Religion can be so hateful and inclusive only when it seems fit.

[bobbolink]

8. Elton John is ignorant. Elton John is smearing with BROAD generalities.

Why can't non-religious people understand there is a difference between conservative fundamentalist (of every stripe!) and liberal religious people??? Why is that so hard to grasp?

It's so exhasperating to see otherwise intelligent people not only make asses of themselves, but add to the cacophony of hatred and division.

BASTA!

[Nikki Stone1]

9. Liberal Christians need to get out in the public square and let people know their views

The fundamentalist Christofacist nutbags have had the floor for far too long.

[bobbolink]

11. Thanks for proving my point.

The fact that you can keep saying this, when there has been statement after statement from the mainline clergy on behalf of gays says to me that it's something they really don't WANT to see and acknowledge.

As a person in poverty, I'd LOVE to have the support that gays enjoy from clergy!!!

[Bluebear]

Can you cite the "statement after statement" from the mainline clergy?

The ones on behalf of gays? It would be so illustrative and inspirational.

[bobbolink]

16. Well, then here's a bit of "inspirational and illustration" for you

ONly, I'll say it without the sneer that you felt like you needed to include.

Before the election, there was a group of clergy who PROTESTED IN FRONT OF OUR STATE CAPITOL, about the ban on gay marriage that was to be on our ballot.

It was reported in the Denver Post.

That's ONE EXAMPLE.

I can tell you, that as a person in poverty, I'd LOVE to have that same group of clergy speaking up for me!! Now that I think about it, I'll look up that article, and write to all the ones listed, and tell them that.

And, I'd certainly LOVE to have gay folks speak up for me, also, when cuts are being made that make my survival questionable, but, then.... that wouldn't be too likely, would it?

OK, a little sneer crept in.

Mostly because it really hurts to be invisible, and hear others, who get support, turn up their nose at that support.

[Bluebear]

23. Gays don't speak up for you as a person in poverty? How DARE you.

"And, I'd certainly LOVE to have gay folks speak up for me, also, when cuts are being made that make my survival questionable, but, then.... that wouldn't be too likely, would it?"

This doesn't even deserve an answer. That's how offensive it is.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[Bluebear]

38. We don't all wear pink triangles. Are you really that simplistic?

You know, you might learn that being gay is not the one thing that defines us as people. Ugggh.

[bobbolink]

44. If it's not what "defines" you, then why is it necessary for your to

come to DU and offend the Christian liberals here?

This kind of divisiveness and infighting is UGLY, and if you were concerned about not being defined that way, then you should have mentioned that you didn't agree with Elton John speaking for you in this kind of ugly way.

Do you see what he brought up with this kind of shit?

Look at the result, right here.

[Bluebear]

47. .

.

[bobbolink]

54. Now *that's* simplistic.

:rofl:

[Zhade]

177. I think EJ should have said "many organized religions and sects".

Which is, of course, true.

[bobbolink]

432. Absolutely!! Very simple concept, eh? But, he'd rather make enemies, I guess.

As, apparently, would many DUers.

[Zhade]

466. Honestly, I think he didn't think it through.

I sincerely doubt ELTON JOHN of all people wants to make enemies, he has enough for his fashion sense! :D

[NMMNG]

469. Boy can you lay it on thick

It is a FACT that many religious sects/denominations/groups villify gays even to the point of calling for their deaths.

But God forbid someone fail to specify that not every religious group does that or s/he's f*cking evil.

[beam me up scottie]

208. Oh. My. Fucking. God.

then why is it necessary for your to come to DU and offend the Christian liberals here?

Well, how else are they supposed to force their gay agenda on you?

Jesus fucking Christ on a trailer hitch, thought I'd seen everything here...

[Jamastiene]

495. .

:rofl:

[NMMNG]

360. You seem to have misread

Bluebear said it is not the ONE thing that defines us. There are many things that define us as people and our orientation is but one of them.

And I'm sorry if Christian Liberals are offended but just stop for a moment and imagine if you were the brunt of what we are. Imagine if, because of what an ancient book says, and how certain people interpret it, you face hatred, psychological abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse, murder, denial of the rights that other taxpaying Americans are afforded, potential loss of your job/home/children, and more.

It is a fact that religion, when misused/misinterpreted/abused, leads to maltreatment of gays. If that offends you it's not our fault but the fault of those who are committing the wrongs in the name of the religion.

[Sapphire Blue]

406. Yes, "... religion, when misused/misinterpreted/abused, leads to maltreatment of gays."

The problem is the misuse/misinterpretation/abuse of religion... and it is so readily & easily misused/misinterpreted/abused to justify one's personal bigotry. I can fully understand why Sir Elton made his comments.

[Leopolds Ghost]

417. And other forms of bigotry as well, such as class bigotry

Which are present and religion is just an excuse. Secular people often find some other excuse to practise various forms of bigotry, such as the cruel way DLC mayors in all our major cities treat homeless and people on welfare.

[donco6]

60. I wrote to my congresscritters.

And I lobbyied Dumbass Beauprez to increase support for student free lunch programs (my particular niche here).

Are you saying gay people don't support the poor? Where are you getting that?

:shrug:

[bobbolink]

63. I thank you for your efforts.

Sounds like we're in the same state.

So, you probably saw the article in the Post.

What I was getting at, is that I don't see NEARLY the support for poor folk as I see for gays, a lot of that support comes from churches, and I really resent Elton John for this kind of bashing that creates a war like this between people who ought to be supporting each other, and caring about each other.

What he said was not only ugly, but untrue.

He needs to apologize, and gay folks should tell him that.

He's not helping you any with that kind of warmongering between liberals.

[mondo joe]

102. You say that as if gays don't count among the poor.

There is a rather specific issue or two at hand for gays, and a multitude for the poor. Small surprise that the attention for one is more focused.

[Leopolds Ghost]

418. We should also focus on laws that discriminate against poor people.

BTW, I prefer to use the term "persecute" not discriminate -- more accurate in most instances.

Religion brought up many people to understand that wealth is potentially fleeting and people should not be expected to have certain comforts in order to be a full participant in society. The natural tendency is to enact such restrictions on the theory that "people like us" know how to cope and everyone else should learn.

[Kerrytravelers]

463. Gay people are all yuppies from New York City,

They are upwardly mobil with expendable incomes. That's because they are all college educated, have no children or family obligations and help each other gets jobs.

Listen, you're just going to have to keep informed. I don't have all day to follow you around DU and keep you informed.

:eyes: :sarcasm:

[Dorian Gray]

209. To be fair...

most churches that I know of have outreach programs for the poor in their communities. They have soup kitchens, clothing programs, fund raisers and food drives. They have collections to feed the poor, to send students to school on scholarships, and to provide counselling or medical services to the needy.

There are a lot more activities out there to help the poor than there are to aid homosexuals. So, a group of ministers lobbying in DC doesn't touch upon the work that churches and religious organizations have done for the poverty stricken.

[JNelson6563]

408. True that

Back in the day when I was a believer I was always active in my local parish with efforts like the food banks and such. There are a lot of decent people who are Christians (and no doubt other faiths) that do as much as they can for those less fortunate.

Julie

[Bouncy Ball]

341. You do realize it's possible to be gay and poor, right?

The two are not mutually exclusive, you know.

[dsc]

62. That is blatently wrong

I did one, count it one, search on poverty. The very first thread which came up which would clearly be about poverty contained a post with a rainbow flag. Here is the url for that tread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2688987#2689011


On edit, I checked and you hadn't posted in that thread.

On final edit, you owe and abject apology to every gay who works his or her ass off on poverty issues, and there are quite a few.

[bobbolink]

69. Thank you. The response said "Class warfare"...right?

That was about it, so I'm not sure what the point was, but I'm glad there was a reply.

What I said in my post was that there was thread after thread last year, BEGGING people to please call and write about the budget, and the proposed cuts to poor folk. It really hurt to see how unimportant that was. Since you have now responded to my words, I invite you to take up the cause of those cuts. How 'bout working to turn back the cuts to Medicaid, when the new congress convenes? Your support and help would be appreciated!

I see you have a cross in your rainbow flag. Do you agree with this broad-brushed bashing of ALL Christians?

[dsc]

78. No I don't

but telling false tales about gays isn't the proper response to that problem. The post had a sarcasm tag so it was pretty clear what it meant. It also was the first thread I found. I wasn't looking for the best counterexample just a counterexample.

[bobbolink]

85. My initial response was about Elton John's hateful words.

As usual on DU, that's what got lost.

My later response was that I'd be very happy to get the kind of support from the churches that gays get.

That also met with fury.

The agenda is to paint all Christians as enemies. So, you can do that with me, if you'd like, but that wasn't my point.

Whatever. Prove away.

[dsc]

148. you can blame Elton John until the cows come home and give birth to aliens

but he didn't type the post where you claimed, falsely, that there was never a gay poster in threads about poverty. Whatever your initial point was, just like whatever Elton's was, gets lost when you dishonestly state that all of certain people have done certain things.

[mondo joe]

153. "The agenda"? Any more right wing talking points you'd like to throw in?

[Zhade]

180. WHOSE agenda?

Certainly you're not saying there's a "gay agenda", right?

[Goblinmonger]

387. "Elton John's hateful words"?

Holy shit. So you are of the opinion that if I were to punch someone in the face five times, and they then punched me back, I would be perfectly OK to talk about their "hateful" actions in punching me.

I also hate the distinction between fundamentalist and "not fundamentalist" Christianity. There is no justification in the bible for Christianity to take anything but a hardline stance on homosexuality. The fact that progressive Christians do is just them giving in to secular advancements. The bible, both testaments, say that homosexuality is a sin of very high degree. Where does Jesus take that back? Where does the bible say it is OK? And, where does your bible tell you that it is OK to disregard that particular statement of sin? It doesn't.

[we can do it]

393. So Why Is There No Ban On Eating Shrimp? or Other Ridiculous BS In Leviticus?

Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are an abomination before the Lord, just as gays are an abomination. Why stop at protesting gay marriage? Bring all of God's law unto the heathens and the sodomites. We call upon all Christians to join the crusade against Long John Silver's and Red Lobster. Yea, even Popeye's shall be cleansed. The name of Bubba shall be anathema. We must stop the unbelievers from destroying the sanctity of our restaurants.

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

Spare me the santimonious BullShit

[Goblinmonger]

397. I don't know, why isn't there?

There is NO BIBLICAL justification for not having that ban. Well, maybe a little from Jesus about not having to follow the food rules. But he clearly says nothing about lifting the abomination on gays now does he.

Any advanced in Christianity have been from outside the bible not within it.

And "santimonious"? What the hell is that? But as to the sanctimonious nature of posts on here, I think I am far from that. I am just asking why Christians get to pick and choose what they want from the bible. If they get to pick and choose and still claim that what they choose is someone the word of god, then the entire bible is meaningless (which I think it is anyway, but I'm just asking for some consistency within the religion--a lot to ask for, I know).

[Goblinmonger]

398. I forgot to quote the new testament ban on homosexuality.

It ain't just that asshole of a god in the old testament. Our man Paul says it pretty clearly, too:

1 Corinthians 6: 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous <1> will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, <2> 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Timothy 1: 8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, <2> liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound <3> doctrine, 11 in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Lotta love for the gays in the bible.

[Sapphire Blue]

405. Dr. David M. Carr's interpretation of I Corinithians 6:9-1

Dr. David M. Carr
This list illustrates just how far Paul's world was from ours. None of its terms refer to the sort of "homosexual identity" under debate now. The term translated "male prostitutes" in the above NIV translation more likely refers to the passive partner of a male-male sexual relationship. The word translated "homosexual offenders," is an obscure expression made of the Greek words for "male" and "bed." If it refers to "offenders," it would be males who sexually abuse boys, but it may well refer to another form of male-male sexual relations. However interpreted, this list of vices agrees with the Old Testament in ignoring female-female sex.

People cite vice lists of this sort from Paul while ignoring his broader ambivalence toward all sexuality. As is clear in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul does not just want his congregation to avoid sex between males. He would be happiest if they avoided sex and marriage altogether. To be sure, he tells married men and women to stay married and to have sex as needed to prevent other sorts of sexual immorality, but this he says "as a concession, not as a command" (1 Corinthians 7: 1-6). He wishes others were celibate like him, and he encourages the unmarried to stay unmarried (1 Corinthians 7: 7-27). Marriage is a distraction from "affairs of the LORD" (1 Cor 7: 32-33). Like many contemporaries, Paul was ambivalent about sex, certainly male-male and female-female sex, but also sex between husband and wife. Those finding a pro-family agenda in Paul must ignore his broader attitude about sex and marriage.

http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2003/familyfundamentals/special_chapter_6.html

What Jesus said...

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

- Matthew 22: 36-40

'Love your neighbor as yourself.' He didn't say "except for _________ ." Lots of bigots like to add the "except for ___________ ", though... in biblical times, as well as in current times.

[mondo joe]

426. Because Paul of Tarsus claimed Jesus came to him and told him

that everything good to eat was good to eat, thus rescinding dietary law.

[NMMNG]

473. 1. Elton John was talking about religion in general, not Christianity specifically

It seems though, that people with guilt (or perhaps persecution complexes) are taking this very personally.

2. You're so worried about Elton John's "hateful words" against religion. What about all of the hateful words religion has uttered over the centuries against gay PEOPLE?!?. People are far more important than a belief system/ideology, and hateful words to them do much more damage. People have been killed because of the hateful words religion has said against them.


3. Your claim that poor people don't get support from churches is bull and nothing but a red herring.

[TankLV]

486. What EJ said is TRUE. We are just quibbling about the scope.

We still haven't heard your "countless" times the "liberal left leaning religions" have spoken out against the wacko fundies and evangelicals...

and we won't hold our breaths, either...

[Sapphocrat]

83. You really don't want a dialogue, do you?

You just want to be pissed off, and take it out on the nearest person handy, don't you?

If you would fucking ASK what anyone has done for YOU -- instead of making all these bitter, nasty assumptions -- you MIGHT just learn something.

I wasn't raised to toot my own horn about things like this, but you're so hell-bent on believing gay people don't give a fuck about you, I will: I do food drops, and I donated TWO CARS to the underprivileged -- when I HAD two cars to donate. When I HAD money, you wouldn't believe how much of it went to CHRISTIAN organizations all over the country -- BEFORE I wised up and realized it was these very same organizations that were ACTIVELY working AGAINST my best interests.

Which is another thing: How DARE you assume you're the only poor person around here? I am gay AND poor. At least YOU have some sort of subsidy to worry about losing; I have NOTHING to lose. NO regular income, no health insurance, no NOTHING.

And guess what? I STILL give my last five bucks to panhandlers, when I don't HAVE it to give. Not because I'm trying to win brownie points in the afterlife -- I don't believe in "Heaven" -- but because it's the right thing to do.

And you complain that no "pink triangles" replied in some thread I never saw? What, am I supposed to comb all of DU every day looking for ppoverty threads? Lot of good that will do, as there's not a hell of a lot I can do about my OWN situation, let alone yours. I AM the face of poverty.

Your assumptions really piss me off -- and you're not doing a whole hell of a lot of good for the very people you're trying to defend.

[Bluebear]

99. It's a shame this post is so far upthread.

I don't think the most ticked off salmon here will swim upstream to see it.

[Sapphocrat]

101. That's OK...

...as I expect it won't do any good anyway. But I had to try.

[Dorian Gray]

211. You made some really good points, Sapphocrat.

And I think that poster made some very wrong and broad brushed assumptions. And I say that while disagreeing with Elton John's statement.

[Sapphocrat]

217. Thanks, DG, I appreciate that. :) n/t

[bobbolink]

111. Just like Elton John "asked" if Christians support gays?

Biting the hand....

[Sapphocrat]

125. Thanks for proving my point.

You just refuse to hear.

[mondo joe]

126. So are you blaming Elton John for your behavior?

Just checking.

[bobbolink]

150. sure!

cuz it's just what you want..

:crazy:

[mondo joe]

151. Since there are so many more Christians than Gays in the United States,

perhaps you should blame them for poverty, or not caring about it, instead of gays.

[Sapphocrat]

174. Stop being so logical! LOL n/t

[NMMNG]

472. Oh come now

The fundies are too busy trying to stamp out homosexuals, to whom the Bible refers to six times, to have any time to worry about the poor, whom the Bible directs people to assist in no fewer than 100 verses. :sarcasm:

[Karenina]

173. Those who forget history...

Until she spoke, no Christian nation had abolished Negro slavery.

Until she spoke, no Christian nation had given to the world an organized effort to abolish slavery.

Until she spoke, the slave ship, followed by hungry sharks, greedy to devour the dead and dying slaves flung overboard to feed them, ploughed in peace the South Atlantic, painting the sea with the Negro's blood.

Until she spoke, the slave trade was sanctioned by all the Christian nations of the world, and our land of liberty and light included. Men made fortunes by this infernal traffic, and were esteemed as good Christians, and the standing types and representations of the Savior of the World.

Until Haiti spoke, the church was silent, and the pulpit was dumb. Slave-traders lived and slave-traders died. Funeral sermons were preached over them, and of them it was said that they died in the triumphs of the Christian faith and went to heaven among the just.

This segment was extracted from Lecture on Haiti and edited in its present form by Guy S. Antoine ( http://windowsonhaiti.com ) in July 1998. The speech was delivered at the World's Fair, in Jackson Park, Chicago by the Hon. Frederick Douglass, ex-Minister to Haiti on January 2, 1893 and can be read online at:

http://haitiforever.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=678

[NMMNG]

471. Elton John doesn't need to ask if Christians support gays

Not that he specified Christians in his statement (your guilt is showing up again).

He just needs to have access to any of the rantings of Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Fred Phelps, GWB, Pat Robertson, the SBC or any of their contemporaries to know how "supportive" certain factions of Christianity are of gays.




“When lawlessness is abroad in the land, the same thing will happen here that happened in Nazi Germany. Many of those people involved in Adolph Hitler were Satanists. Many of them were homosexuals. The two things seem to go together.” - 700 Club, 1-21-93 (source: People for the American Way Foundation) Pat Robertson


"want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers." Pat Robertson, 700 Club, 1/18/95 - People for the American Way Web site


"god hates homosexuality" - Jerry Falwell on TV


"Basically, homosexuality is a neurosis. It's healable, it's treatable. We are ministering to 6,000 former homosexuals in the Exodus network. Basically, homosexuality is a stunting of psychosexual growth. They are children inside, and any parents out there -- you know, when your kid is spoiled, he'll keep coming at you and keep coming at you and keep coming at you until you give him a whack on the bottom and say, 'Enough!' and then the child will stop." - Anthony Falzarano



"Practicing homosexuals individually may come up against anti-gay societal sentiment in the form of denied jobs or housing. This is OK." - "The Gay Agenda", published by Paul Volle, Chairman, Christian Coalition of Maine, October 1998




"Homosexuality precludes commitment and monogamy" - - "The Gay Agenda", published by Paul Volle, Chairman, Christian Coalition of Maine, October 1998


"Not only is homosexuality a sin, but anyone who supports fags is just as guilty as they are. You are both worthy of death (Romans 1:32)," Phelps quoted by State Press (Arizona State University), March 11, 1998.


"One might have that lifestyle, but if one promotes it as acceptable behavior… I don’t think they should be a representative of this country." - Sen. Nickles, quoted in Jun 15, 98 Americans for Truth About Homosexuality press release.





And on and on the hate spews: http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/robertson.html

[NMMNG]

470. Why are you bothering?

I replied as to how wrong he was, indicating just what I've done for the needy and linking to a journal entry I'd made earlier this year on wage slavery. Of course I got no reply to that because it didn't fit his agenda of how gays don't do anything for poor people and we just want to bash religious people for no good reason.

You're right. He doesn't want dialogue, he wants to stand on his soapbox and spew unfounded accusations.

[Sapphocrat]

479. I bothered two days ago. LOL

Notice I'm not getting any replies from him either. If I had, I might have shown him my recent post about crime -- the point being that poverty and hopelessness are at the root of all evil.

Ya think I'd get a reply to that?

Nah, me neither.

[Jamastiene]

156. The pink triangles were used mainly for male gay people.

Besides, not everyone who is gay wears or uses on as a pik triangle avatar. I only added my pink triangles recently and I'd rather have black triangles to more accurately reflect who I am.

When it comes to poor, many gay people know what poor is. I live in one of the most impoverished areas of the country and I myself live in poverty. When I get full time work after college, that degree will only afford me slightly above minimum wages here. There are virtually no unions in my area, so no workers' rights. The few unions that do exist here are gutted and powerless, so I'm right there with you when it comes to the bleak future.

[Zhade]

175. I know THAT'S bullshit, because I myself did kick and respond.

Though I don't sport a pink triangle, despite being bi.

[ScreamingMeemie]

224. It sure doesn't sound as if you care...or count correctly...

So many times the GLBT community has stood up for us...has written...has called. Don't you think it's about time we stop bashing them? Stop accusing them of dividing us? Has it crossed your mind for a second that one can be poor and gay all at the same time. Are you sickened yet by what you have written here? I hope you are.

I am.

[noiretextatique]

345. then why are you fostering it?

with your irrational and bigoted comments?

[NMMNG]

357. No "pink triangles" care about poverty?

Read this and think again.

Then get off your high horse.




edit to add link

[readmoreoften]

367. Sickening post. I'm gay and I was on strike for 6 months last year fighting for labor rights

for ALL laborers, not just "pink triangles". Comments like this fucking makes me sick. I lost my job fighting for labor rights but I'm still some kind of BOURGEOIS HOMO to you aren't I? Let me tell you what, buddy. There was more homos on that picket line per capita than straights.

Fucking goddamn stereotyping, right-wing talking point BULLSHIT. I'm sick of it.

[Duncan Grant]

373. The Elton John Foundation responds to poverty and AIDS.

http://www.ejaf.org/

Seriously, you're looking for enemies where none exist. Peace be with you.

[theHandpuppet]

386. I post about poverty and class warfare all the time

Some of those many posts can be found in my journal, bobbolink. Here are links to just some of them:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/theHandpuppet/6
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/theHandpuppet/24
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/theHandpuppet/57
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/theHandpuppet/51
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/theHandpuppet/50
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/theHandpuppet/49
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/theHandpuppet/47
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/theHandpuppet/18
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/theHandpuppet/19
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/theHandpuppet/11
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/theHandpuppet/8
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/theHandpuppet/9
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/theHandpuppet/7
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/theHandpuppet/22

Now I am also a lesbian, but because I don't have a pink triangle or rainbow flag by my moniker you auotmatically discount that these posts might have been made by a gay person? I'm disappointed, bobbolink.

[theHandpuppet]

384. Thank you!

That statement (about gays not supporting people in poverty) was so offensive I really couldn't bring myself to reply.

[Leopolds Ghost]

416. "How DARE you poor people"

Assert that my liberalism stops at the mailbox at the end of my driveway in some posh neighborhood invariably listed in the "Top Progressive Communities"!! It may not be true for you (although you're ALWAYS going on about how Dems should stick to cultural warfare) but it is true for many secular Dems (gay and straight). Y'see... poor people don't have TIME to obsess over "lifestyle" issues. "Lifestyle" wasn't even a WORD until the yuppies invented it. IT is DEFINITELY true for the yuppies in my left-leaning neighborhood and guess what? I have yet to meet a "grassroots" volunteer in person who wants to change the perception that poor folks got thrown overboard with welfare reform. Just ask Gavin Newsom.

[Sapphocrat]

32. I don't think you want to start comparing...

...the number of times any clergy has spoken up on our behalf, as opposed to the number of times they've demonized us. (Hint: The "demonizers" win.)

As for your implication that gay people don't speak up for the poor, Bluebear is right: That's so offensive, it doesn't deserve a response -- but i'll give you one anyway: As a group, we speak up for ALL disenfranchised minorities, even when THEY refuse to support US, because we get it.

If you're not aware of that, then you haven't been listening.

[GirlinContempt]

35. I think the point trying to be made is

that religion is, in and of itself, not hateful or negative. People that use it are, but religion is not, and to claim that organized religion should be banned is ludicrous

[bobbolink]

46. You would have thought we would have learned that by hearing Muslims

all branded as terrorists, wouldn't you?

Where's Jung when you need him?

[Sapphocrat]

56. Oh, I understand the point.

I just don't like anyone promoting the falsehood that all Christians are necessarily "Christian."

Specifically, I was making the point that when any organized religious group stands up for LGBT equality, it's a relatively isolated incident compared to the countless times organized religious groups attack us.

P.S. For the record, I don't want to ban organized religion. I just want it out of my life.

[donco6]

68. I would push back on that.

OK, so you say religion is, in and of itself, not hateful or negative. I just don't see how people can say that. From what I can see, Christianity is about the most negative religion I can think of. A religion that teaches that if you don't believe in Christ, you're going to spend eternity in hell. That's pretty negative.

At least, that's what the Bible says. Unless you're saying the Bible doesn't mean what it says. That it's not to be taken literally.

OK, so we don't take the Bible literally. That would mean we have to take it figuratively. Which requires interpretation - i.e., you can't just read it and know what it means. And if you can't trust the Bible to deliver an accurate message without someone interpreting it for you - what the hell is the point? I should put my mind in the care of someone else to pump it full of whatever HE thinks the Bible says? No thanks.

Banning organized religion sounds like a plan to me.

[GirlinContempt]

81. Actually

Er, I think Jesus said something about how you live your life being more important than believing in god. I'd have to look it up. Not being a christian, I'm not all hip on all the passages off the top of my head.

Though, I'd think oppressed minority groups deprived of rights would be the last to call for the deprivation of others rights. Seems a little bizarre to me, sort of like racist minorities. Never could figure that one out.

[donco6]

84. I was a Christian fundie for 15 years.

So I know my Bible pretty well, and I don't recall Jesus saying anything like that.

I guess the "banning" thing is too strong, maybe just wishful thinking on my part. Kinda like John Lennon's "Imagine".

[GirlinContempt]

113. All I've found so far

is Jesus stressing that living the life of god is more important than praying etc.
Still lookin' though.

[Dorian Gray]

214. "Banning organized religion sounds like a plan to me. "

Donco, you should get right on that!

:sarcasm:

[donco6]

238. Yeah, when they make me king of the world.

However, you can rest easy on that.

[Gelliebeans]

434. Damnit donco

I already had my bumper sticker made ;)

You got my vote.

[donco6]

436. 2 votes down, 5 billion to go.

Sigh. Why can't people just see that I would be a totally benevolent dictator?? Really, I promise.

[beam me up scottie]

445. Make it 3.

But I want to be Empress Nympho like Madeline Kahn in History of the World Part I.

[donco6]

475. Dontcha just MISS her??

Damn. :(

[Zhade]

184. Read the bible and tell me that again.

Pro-slavery, for one.

"Not hateful" - it's in the 'holy book' itself!

Now, that said, many people ignore the evil supported in the bible. I don't know why they think they can pick and choose what's 'true' and what's not (IMHO, none of it is worth much) any better than rightwing Christians, but at least they try to not hate.

But to claim that religion is not, in some cases, hateful, is just inaccurate.

[Sapphocrat]

204. Gee, Zhade, you mean, like...

Happy are those who seize your infants and dash them against the rocks. -- Psalm 137 : 9

[donco6]

237. Oh, and there's SO many more instances of that stuff.

Like the guy who made a vow to God that the first thing he saw upon returning home from war he would offer up as a sacrifice to God for bringing him home safely.

And the first thing he saw was his daughter.

So he killed her. Yay God!

[treestar]

407. Exactly, he could have made the point without saying he'd ban it

For one thing, he can't. There's freedom of speech/religion. For another thing, he makes it look like he'd force his views on other people, just as bad from the left as from the right. He has to convince people. It may be hard. But it has to be done without "banning" anything.

[Bluebear]

36. Indeed.

My first "Hike for the Hungry" was when I was 12. 20 damn miles, my feet will never forget it :)

"As a group, we speak up for ALL disenfranchised minorities, even when THEY refuse to support US, because we get it."

You said it, my sister.

[bobbolink]

48. Glad to hear it. Thank you.

I welcome you to speak up on our behalf right here on DU.

[Sapphocrat]

122. If we go back THAT far... LOL ...

I was donating part of my allowance every month to orphans in Ethiopia... when it was still called Ethiopia. I was six.

Then there was the big push for the Truck of Love to Arizona's Native Americans a few times every year... I can't count how many times I've helped fill Second Harvest Food Bank bins... And then, up until my last company folded, there was this deal at Christmas where you'd pick a local family (or more than one, if you wanted) that couldn't afford Christmas presents, and you'd go out and buy brand-new toys and clothes and stuff for all the kids, whatever was on their wish lists, so they'd have something under the tree...

Yeah, we selfish gays don't think of anyone but ourselves, do we, BB? :)

[Dorian Gray]

215. What's it called now?

Ethiopia, that is? ;)

(Edited to include that I am teasing, not picking on you!)

[Sapphocrat]

219. Oops!

Sorry, I meant Biafra! Which, if I'm not mistaken, was re-conquered by Nigeria around 1970-ish.

*rubbing temples* It's been a long day. LOL

[bobbolink]

40. Fine, then show it by joining in on the rare poverty posts that show up on DU

Your name hasn't been among those few responses.

How's that for "getting it"

But if you don't want the support from the liberal mainline churches, and prefer to lump them in with the RW fundies, then let them know so they can transfer their energy to poverty.

That would be fine with me.

[Bluebear]

42. 'That would be fine with me.' Obviously. nt

[donco6]

74. So if we don't reply to a post, that means we don't support . . .

. . . the poor?

What kind of dumbass litmus test is that? There are THOUSANDS of posts that fly by that I don't even get the chance to READ, let alone reply to. It's just not possible.

[BlooInBloo]

124. It is certainly indicative of religionist's priorities in terms of dealing with...

... criticism are weighted towards the "stifle criticism" tactic, rather than "improve religion" tactic.

For example it was, and remains an option for every religionist in this thread to have responded with something like "Yah, you're right - religion IS systemically bigoted against gay folks. That's wrong and we should work to change it."

I think such a response is "what Jesus would have done".

Instead, the religionists in this thread have, WITHOUT EXCEPTION (unless I've missed one somewhere), taken the "wah! You're all bigoted against religion" tactic-whine.

The religionists freely chose, and continue to choose their tactics. The rest of us are merely reporting the legacy of their jackass choices.

[mondo joe]

80. I don't need to have my credentials approved by you. I vote for candidates

who address issues of poverty, I vote for every damn levy that addresses poverty, and my career is in non profits addressing poverty.

I don't need your seal of approval, and neither does anyone else.

[readmoreoften]

368. Do gay DUers with pro-labor icons count?

I'd go toe-to-toe with you any day of the week for "who's done the most to combat poverty"

[donco6]

58. I voted to increase the minimum wage here in Colo.

And I make more than that now, so it's not self-serving. And I'm gay. Is that support?

[Jamastiene]

154. Well, I am gay and poor, so I need it twice.

Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they aren't poor too. I don't know why people think gays and poverty are virtually tangent to each other. Often they are not.

[mondo joe]

157. And if you're gay, poor AND Christian you will be able to shatter the weird little

worldview of some. :-)

[Jamastiene]

164. I'm 2 of the three and my aunt, who is gay and poor too, is all three

so yeah, she at least can shatter that little myth that all gays are rich and don't care about the poor and are not Christian as well. :D

I wonder if the person has stopped to think about all the poor people who do not have access to the internet. I know a lot of people who do not see the internet as worth budgeting into the bills. If my mother didn't give me a year paid in full as a present every year, I wouldn't be able to afford it.

[Bouncy Ball]

344. What about bi, middle class and Christian?

Close?

LOL.

[Jamastiene]

496. That's good enough.

Considering that the Repugs have had the middle class in their sights for years now. They've been trying to stomp the middle class into oblivion since the 80's that I know of in my lifetime. I know. I used to be a middle class girl growing up. That sure ended. That's what right wingers do to people.

[NMMNG]

351. What on Earth are you talking about?

Are you trying to claim that the religious ignore the poor while standing up for gays? :rofl:


There are thousands of religious charities out there for poor people, and millions of religious people who donate to causes that aid the poor. There are even fundies who aid the poor.


And the claim that gays don't speak up for the poor is BS. If you've spent any time reading my posts here you'd see I spend a great deal of time ranting about the needs of the poor. I also recently made two large donations to charities that benefit the poor.

Not that I expect that to make any difference to you.

[Nikki Stone1]

25. bobbolink, The Anglican church has almost split over gay rights, gay clergy

And this church (especially its American Epicopalian branch) is one of the most liberal. The Catholic church under John Paul II seemed to be on the road to tolerance (it was ok to be gay but don't act on it), but now, under Ratzinger (whom some have suggested is a closet case himself) there has been a rollback, especially in the area of Catholic gay clergy.

I would love for you to show me the kinds of tolerant statements you are talking about. In my experience, it is a rare church that comes right out and supports gay church members or clergy. (I attend one of those.) But for the most part, large Christian institutions are not supportive (to say the least) of gay rights. gay marriage and gay clergy.

[GirlinContempt]

29. .....

http://www.gaypei.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/08/14/uc_gay_marriage030814.html
http://lesbianlife.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.sovo.com/2005/2%2D4/news/localnews/clergy.cfm
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/spirituality/a/UCC.htm
http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2003/04/24/3
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/29/AR2006102900863.html
http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2006/10/wwjd_support_ga.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4651803.stm

[TankLV]

489. in reality MOST LARGE CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS ARE OUTRIGHT HOSTILE TO GAY PERSONS.

That's just a fact we have to live with...

And that's a FACT that cannot be denied, in any form...

[Jamastiene]

149. Where are these statements by any mainline clergy on

behalf of gays. The only example of mainline clergy I can think of is Jessie Jackson.

I do wish you wouldn't get so upset. If a liberal Christian doesn't hate gay people and treats GLBT people equally, then I don't think anyone here would say ALL Christians are to blame, but in truth, the majority of Christians out there, unfortunately, do have some rather skewed views about gay people. With all due respect, please try to see than any views that are against Christianity here are really against repressive, oppressive right wing Christians, not liberal Christians with true compassion and support for gay people. Try to take the criticisms are not against you, but the right wing Christians. You'll see a world of difference if you sit back and look at it that way. I promise. It sometimes slips people's minds to differentiate between the two. No harm intended.

[readmoreoften]

365. What does your poverty have to do with anything?

You know how many lesbians I know who live in poverty? I have two homeless friends right now. My girlfriend not counting, who is homeless working $100 for 12-to-16 hour shifts when she can get it generally earning under $500 a month.

Half of America is poor under this administration, gays and straights.

[Sapphire Blue]

415. How about this kind of support? On the steps of the Cannon House Office Bldg?

(Edited to add photos)

Civil Disobedience for a Moral Budget



115 religious leaders were arrested in front of the Cannon House Office Building while kneeling in prayer to protest the immoral budget and tax agenda which slashes spending on the poor to finance tax breaks for the rich. Led by Jim Wallis of Call to Renewal, national faith leaders, clergy and faith-based providers of services to the poor held a press conference.

Following the press conference the leaders kneeled in prayer blocking the entrance to the Cannon House Office Building on the corner of Independence and New Jersey Avenues. The Capitol Police began arresting the participants after warning them three times to move from the entrance. The participants were escorted one at a time into one of two Metro buses transported to a Capitol Police warehouse facility at 67 K St., SW (South Capitol and K Street) where they were processed and released after paying a fine.

More (including video, photos, and testimonies) @ http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.display_c&item=051214_arrests

I haven't seen this kind of support for gays from clergy.

[DemBones DemBones]

10. I agree. He's using a broad brush when he would surely complain about

a broad brush being used to characterize all homosexuals.

[bobbolink]

12. Thank you! YES!!

I'm very disappointed in him for using his pulpit to speak like this.

I gave him too much credit for intelligence before, I guess.

He needs to make one BIG apology!

[noiretextatique]

he's not talking about YOU

necessarily...
given the power of the religious right in this country, it's baffling that people take offense to critcism of that brand of organized religion, which certainly has and does demonize gay people.
i belong to a church, and i don't find his words offensive at all.

[DemBones DemBones]

194. Elton would BAN religion completely, your church, my church,

everybody's church, synagogue, temple, mosque, not just "the religious right." So, ultimately, he is talking about me, and you, and billions of other people, when his complaint is with only a segment of all the religious people in the world. There are gay people in the church I belong to, and I've never heard an anti-gay sermon in my life, in any church I've attended.


Elton even admits "But there are so many people I know who are gay and love their religion." Yet he'd ban religion and take it away from all of us, including gay people?


From the OP:

“I think religion has always tried to turn hatred toward gay people,” John said in the Observer newspaper’s Music Monthly Magazine. “Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays.”

“But there are so many people I know who are gay and love their religion,” he said. “From my point of view, I would ban religion completely. Organized religion doesn’t seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it’s not really compassionate.”

[noiretextatique]

196. wow...elton must be a god

who knew he had the power to BAN ALL RELIGIONS!!!!!!! :shrug:
my church isn't technically a church and the philosophy we study isn't technically religious, and we aren't really organized so i don't think sir elton would ban us.
:hi: nice to see you

[Bluebear]

199. And he is after all the Head Gay.

:crazy:

[noiretextatique]

202. let's see: he's not a politician like santorum (was)

nor is he the head of a major teevee church/political machine, like pat robertson. :scared: that 'gay agenda' sure is powerful...

[noiretextatique]

197. on another note

karenina informed me about what got sir elton all riled up. it's in one of her posts, so you should check it out.

[donco6]

275. And there's some poor bloke . . .

. . . in South Critterhollow who would force Brittney Spears to marry him and fix him grits and peas.

Both are equally likely.

[LeftCoast]

19. Well, look at Jerusalem

The one thing that could unite Jews, Christians and Muslims was their condemnation of the evil homosexuals who dared to want a parade. Even the Pope chimed in.

Sure seems to me like the main branches of all three of the judeo-christian religions are pretty damned anti-gay.

[bobbolink]

24. Yes, you can find examples everywhere to prove your point.

Just like the RW can find all kinds of examples to prove that us leftists are evil and immoral.

[LeftCoast]

28. So you admit I proved my point?

and that there are 'examples everywhere to prove (my) point'? I'd say you just conceded the argument. :)

[Bluebear]

30. Also remember, Elton John is The Head Gay.

He is responsible for the legions of gays who have never spoke up about poverty in the world. :eyes:

[bobbolink]

51. Sure. All Christians are out to get you.

Proved.

Feel better now?

Let me know how you like it when we all pull back from support for you.

[Bluebear]

53. 'Let me know how you like it when we all pull back from support for you.'

booblink, with all due respect. Gays were blamed...RIGHT HERE ON DU..for losing the Presidential election in 2004. So do warn us when "all" of you pull back your support, just so we can brace ourselves.

[bobbolink]

59. "with all due respect"???????

That's what all this was about!!

Common courtesy, common decency, and a bit of respect.

Oh wait... are you saying you can now get back at Christians, and blame them the way you felt blamed?

Is that it?

How's that working for ya?

[Bluebear]

70. You consider your a post like this one "respectful"?

[bobbolink]

91. This whole thread was extremely disrespectful, but that seems to

be just fine with all of you.

Elton John is doing you NO favors with this kind of hateful attack.

When I said that, I got baraged with shit. (Which is typical for DU, but nevertheless...)

Someone could have responded with hearing my point.

But, no, it was more important to escalate a war against Christians.

Kinda like the Middle East, eh?

Throw bombs and expect peace and respect.

[Bluebear]

97. Which is typical for DU. Which is typical for DU. Which is typical for DU.

Brawwwk!

[beam me up scottie]

220. War against christians. War against christians. War against christians.

Oh, wait, that was Christmas, wasn't it?

Better alert O'Reilly and Coulter, this could be even bigger.

[Bluebear]

221. DRUDGE! Bring up that flashing police light!

Alert! :eyes:

[beam me up scottie]

236. I see we're starting the '08 swiftboating campaign early.

They're just preemptively blaming gays and atheists for any losses that will be incurred by the obviously anti-christian liberals.

[TankLV]

490. Yes - YOU - YOU are the disrespectful one here... YOU

Respect is EARNED, and so far you have failed - miserably.

At least WE know what you think of US, and will take that into consideration of ALL your posts...

[bobbolink]

61. So, let's see... you've noticed gays getting shit on DU, but you don't notice poor

folk getting shit???

Trolls abound on DU!!! Surely you've noticed that.

I've had Very ugly things said to me here.

It's the nature of DU.

I also remember, when there were ugly things said about gays, how many straight people spoke up, and many changed their avatar to pink triangles.

I'd *LOVE* to see that kind of support for poverty!!

[Bluebear]

66. You seem to be an extremely troubled person.

I hope things go better for you.

[bobbolink]

79. OK, Dr. Laura.

[Bluebear]

86. I'm no Dr. Laura, but you seem to have a problem with anger management

Have you ever considered that?

[bobbolink]

92. But you play her on TV, right?

[Bluebear]

93. No, I am male. Unless you think gays have gender problems too.

[bobbolink]

98. I'm not the one who's labeling people sight unseen.

Dr. Frist, anyone?

[mondo joe]

104. You already labeled gays as not caring about poverty.

:eyes:

[bobbolink]

107. Good try.

Actually, what I said, if you'd care to READ THE WORDS, is that I'd LOVE to receive the public support from churches that gays enjoy.

But, twist it however you wish.

At least I wouldn't turn around and spit on that support.

[mondo joe]

114. Here's your quote:

"All those posts here on DU last year, during the budget voting, BEGGING for people to call and write--there wasn't ONE 'pink triangle' who responded."

[bobbolink]

119. Yes, that was a later reply, after much attack.

And, true.

I welcome you to reply in suppport to the next issue facing poor folk.

Like, for instance, speaking up to have the cuts to Medicaid restored.

People are DYING from that.

[mondo joe]

123. So did you say it or not?

And I already support issues facing poor people - with my votes, with my financial contributions and with my career.

I welcome you to get more rational.

[Bluebear]

286. chirp chirp chirp chirp

[readmoreoften]

369. He said it. How can you not admit to a hateful thing you've said when it's documented ONLINE.

amazing.

[TankLV]

491. Here's a clue for you - we don't all go around defining our whole fucking lives as just GAY.

But your prejudices and bigotry are well noted...

You have NO fucking clue what "we" have done outside of our keyboards - NONE!

you are so disgusting it makes my blood boil...

[TankLV]

492. public support from churches that gays enjoy?

NAME ONE!

That is the most ignorant thing that ANYBODY has EVER said on this board.

EVER!

Get a clue honey...

[donco6]

77. And we'll notice that . . . how exactly? eom

[Bluebear]

90. ehehehehehehehe

[Sapphocrat]

130. Ah, grasshopper...

You are asking to hear the sound of one hand clapping.

[beam me up scottie]

210. Aw, you just couldn't see them from your vantage point.

You know, when you were stuck behind the bus pushing it to victory ...

[donco6]

212. After picking myself out of the treads, right?

:)

[beam me up scottie]

216. You're just whining because it rained the last three days.

And look how much the bus riders appreciate your contribution. :mad:

[Jamastiene]

195. Sure. All gays are out to get you too.

Is that what you want someone to say? Just curious. You don't seem to be reasonable at all in your views here. Try coming off that high horse and conversing with us lowly people for a minute, would ya?

[Goblinmonger]

388. Nice threat

Who the hell is "we all"? You just said that the liberal Christians are pouring ALL their time and effort into gays and NONE into your cause so "we all" means you? Make sure you keep track of your outrageous claims when arguing or you begin to sound like Rush.

I can't speak for gays, though I'm pretty sure I know what they think based on many conversations and posts in here, but as an atheist, you can take all the support you have given us and spin on it.

[noiretextatique]

201. really, please cite some of those examples, please?

what's evil and immoral is pretending you are a pillar of "family values" while frequenting prostitutes, molesting children, and soliciting sex from undercover police officers. just a few examples of the behavior of some the rw religionists who routinely demonize gay people

[Hatalles]

21. I agree as well...

Yes, let's ban religion. What a stupid comment. :eyes:

This certainly lowers my opinion of Elton John a considerable deal.

[donco6]

55. Presbyterians as a denom don't accept gays.

And they're hardly conservative fundamentalist.

Missouri Synod Lutherans don't accept gays.

Almost no mainstream churches accept openly gay clergy (save Episcopalians, and that's leading to a schism as we speak.) If it's unacceptable to be clergy and be gay, why would it be OK to be just a regular member and be gay?

I'd say Elton has the more accurate position.

[meow2u3]

207. Damn straight!

Anti-religious bigotry must be stopped, too.

[springhill]

362. He is not saying all religious people are hateful............

however, he is saying, and I totally agree with him, that most organized religions are very judgemental, and they foster that in many people, not all. And by the way, you can be religious without attending an organized gathering. Just you, the bible and God.

[DrunkenMaster]

424. Stop Smearing Mussolini With Broad Generalities!

How DARE you claim Fascism is entirely bad? Many Italian fascists were good people who never hurt another! Mussolini brought many positive changes to Italy: the trains ran on time, after all!

[stepnw1f]

442. That's Because Many Churches Preach Bigotry

Sorry if that pisses you off, but after reading your posts, I can tell your church has done a "Bang-Up job" with you! You prove Elton John's point over-and-over-again-and-again on this thread.

Spare us all with the victim bullshit....

[Arugula Latte]

13. Organized religion also encourages lack of rational thought.

There are so many reasons to eschew cults, superstitions, and worship of supernatural beings.

[BlooInBloo]

15. Nah. There's only one reason: It's stupid.

EDIT: Clarified subject line.

[bobbolink]

18. You're so right.

Why, I have't had a rational thought in.... just ages.

:eyes: :sarcasm: :eyes:

Go ahead, see how many friends here you can transform into enemies.

Got peacemaking?

[Bill McBlueState]

118. that's not what he said

Religious people have rational thoughts all the time.

But they do so in spite of their religion, not because of it.

Religion makes it okay to believe things without having any evidence. And when religious people are in control of much of the world's heavy weaponry, that's a problem.

[GirlinContempt]

27. Oh me, oh my

not this complete horseshit again.

[Arugula Latte]

33. That's what I say when references to Jesus and God are

tossed about in the media, in public, in speeches, in ceremonies, at sporting events, etc. as if everyone believes in sky fairies and invisible deities.

"Not this complete horseshit again."

[GirlinContempt]

37. Except that your statements are provably false.

And intentionally inflammatory.

[Arugula Latte]

43. People have been telling the non-religious to shut up and play along for a long time.

We're a little tired of it.

[GirlinContempt]

49. So, you feel offended and are tired of it

so you turn around and engage in the same behavior you dislike? That doesn't sound very 'rational'.
That the non-religious are treated badly isn't right or fair, but that doesn't provide carte-blanche to treat the religious like shit.

[Arugula Latte]

57. I have the right to say I think religion encourages and depends upon

non-rational thought and a suspension of reason and common sense. Others have the right to state otherwise.

I'm not treating anyone like shit. I'm just expressing an opinion.

[GirlinContempt]

64. Of course you have the right to say it.

And I have the right to say I think you're wrong, and being intentionally inflammitory and rude.

Robert Grosseteste (c.1175–1253)
Bishop of Lincoln, he was the central character of the English intellectual movement in the first half of the 13th century and is considered the founder of scientific thought in Oxford. He had a great interest in the natural world and wrote texts on the mathematical sciences of optics, astronomy and geometry. He affirmed that experiments should be used in order to verify a theory, testing its consequences.

Roger Bacon (c.1214–1294)
He was an English philosopher who emphasized empiricism and has been presented as one of the earliest advocates of the modern scientific method. He joined the Franciscan Order around 1240, where he was influenced by Grosseteste. Bacon was responsible for making the concept of "laws of nature" widespread, and contributed in such areas as mechanics, geography and, most of all, optics.

Ignazio Danti (1536–1586)
He was a bishop of Alatri who convoked a diocesan synod to deal with abuses. He was also a mathematician who wrote on Euclid, an astronomer, and a designer of mechanical devices.

Rene Descartes (1596–1650)
Descartes was one of the key thinkers of the Scientific Revolution in the Western World. He is also honoured by having the Cartesian coordinate system used in plane geometry and algebra named after him. He did important work on invariants and geometry. His Meditations on First Philosophy partially concerns theology and he was devoted to reconciling his ideas with the dogmas of Catholic Faith to which he was loyal. This attempt was, and is, considered unsuccessful by the Roman Catholic Church so his philosophy is still considered erroneous in it.

John Wallis (1616-1703)
As a mathematician he wrote Arithmetica Infinitorumis, introduced the term Continued fraction, worked on cryptography, helped develop calculus, and is further known for the Wallis product. He also devised a system for teaching the non-speaking deaf. He was also a Calvinist inclined chaplain who was active in theological debate.

Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864)
Geologist, paleontologist, and Congregationalist pastor. He worked on Natural theology and wrote on fossilized tracks, hence a fossilized track is pictured.(Born in 1793, but the work by him was done in the nineteenth century.

Orson Pratt (1811–1881)
He was a mathematician who wrote New and Easy Method of Solution of the Cubic and Biquadratic Equations and Key to the Universe. He also wrote missionary tracts for the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to which he belonged.

Lord Kelvin (1824–1907)
He gave a famous address to the Christian Evidence Society. In science he won the Copley Medal, the Royal Medal, and was important in Thermodynamics.

Dmitri Egorov (1869–1931)
Russian mathematician who made significant contributions to the broader areas of differential geometry. He was an Imiaslavie who defended religion during the Soviet era. In 1930 the Soviets arrested and imprisoned him as a "religious sectarian." He died of a hunger strike in protest.

Henry Eyring (1901-1981)
American chemist known for developing the Eyring equation. Also a Latter-Day Saint whose interactions with LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith on science and faith are a part of LDS history.

Sir Robert Boyd (1922-2004)
A pioneer in British space science who was Vice President of the Royal Astronomical Society. He lectured on faith being a founder of the "Research Scientists' Christian Fellowship" and an important member of its predecessor Christians in Science. He was connected to the University College London which is shown here in an old drawing.

[Leopolds Ghost]

421. Not to mention the Muslims and the Irish monastic orders

Who saved civilization after barbarians took over Europe, appointed feudal warlords to elect bishops, etc. And the Roman church became the province of wealthy Italian businessmen for centuries.

[BlooInBloo]

65. If someone is allowed to say that religion does NOT conflict with rationality....

... I fail to see why it's IMpermissible for someone else to say that is DOES.

Ooops - I forgot:

The First Rule Of The Intellectual Subsidization Of Religion: Thou Shalt Not Point Out The Elephant In The Room.


EDIT: It should be noted that there have been plenty of intellectually HONEST (religious) people who freely and openly acknowledged, right from the get-go that religion is irrational. Kant is possibly the best example of this honesty, which contrasts with the currently-en-vogue craven hypocrisy of simply stifling the negation of an prima faciae absurd claim.

Kant, and other honest religious folks at least acknowledged that genuine *work* has to be done to "justify" religion. Current day dissent stifling hypocrisy, by contrast, "has all the virtues of theft over honest toil".

[GirlinContempt]

73. Who said it was impermissible?

It's pretty hard to back up, but, of course someone can say it. I forgot that disagreeing with someone means I think they don't have a right to say what they want :eyes: The rights go both ways.

[BlooInBloo]

76. ROFLMAO!!!! Good one! You should take that show on the road! lolol!

[GirlinContempt]

82. Yeah, I need a sideshow clown

You in?

[BlooInBloo]

89. Aw shit. You're just a one-hit wonder who just does covers afterward? Damn.

[GirlinContempt]

116. Yeah, well, tried to keep it fresh

but too many backwards idiots like it stagnant

[Leopolds Ghost]

422. No, Kant argued that reason itself was limited!

As subsequently demonstrated by the postmodernists. (who I disagree with rather profoundly, but a blanket anti-religious statement certainly cannot be made by anyone who understands postmodernism, "the cultural logic" of the late capitalist era.)

[bobbolink]

75. Not *all* people, OK? That's the problem with Elton John!

So, are you saying that because you're tired of it, you're going to tell others to shut up?

[Goblinmonger]

390. OK, I'll bite.

Prove that religion is not based on irrational thought. What is it about the concept of faith that is rational.

Go ahead.

[GirlinContempt]

400. No one said anything about

what it was based on, only that it encourages irrational thought, and I touched on it here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2692542&mesg_id=2697778

[Goblinmonger]

402. But yours is a non-answer.

Religion encourages irrational thought. In order to have "faith" and believe the supernatural tenets of a religion, you have to abandon rationality. The fact that there are religious people who have been outstanding rational individuals does not answer the charge that RELIGION encourages, nay depends on, irrational thought.

[GirlinContempt]

404. I think it does answer that charge.

If you want to argue that religion in and of itself is irrational, fine. But I don't believe it encourages irrational thought. Those people are just drops in the bucket, and everyone I know who is of faith is a normally rational individual.

[Leopolds Ghost]

423. According to Adam Smith, the founder of Paleo-Liberalism, rationality = selfishness.

He saw both as good things, BTW.

I am not a paleo-liberal. Hell, "liberalism" (as opposed to Progressivism or Populism, two alternate viewpoints) as a phrase is mostly associated with those on the left who are obsessed with cultural issues, largely because Reagan successfully preached disdain for the culture of the metropolis in the general public; and liberals responded poorly (with the invention of PC and a general, irrational contempt for
dialogue with conservatives in the late 1980s, when conservatives were in the ascendancy.)

Leftists (cf. Postmodernism, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism)
came to understand that the so-called "postmodern" or neo-liberals
were, in fact, abandoning the fight.

They were embracing the "frame" created by Reagan, focusing on culture issues and making issues of discrimination into a dialogue of victimology instead of dialoguing with those that hold discriminatory viewpoints and challenging the root causes of discrimination.

On the conservative side, Bush does this with terrorism.

As also discussed by writer Thomas Frank.

[Leopolds Ghost]

420. What about references to the flag?

Secular religion -- worship of the State -- was traditionally frowned upon by Protestants. Its one of the reason they broke up the Catholic Church which was parctically an organ of the state.

[BlooInBloo]

14. Yeah, and that fact is news to whom, exactly?

[ulysses]

17. Elton John, theologian.

:wtf:

[bobbolink]

22. Elton John, Department of Divide and Conquer

Good way to bite the hand that's feeding....

[Goblinmonger]

391. I think you have that quotation wrong

"good way to bit the hand that has a strangle hold on your neck"

If not for religion, the attacks on gays and their rights would be at a minimum. There is no justification for it other than "god hates you."

[SoCalDem]

20. "Organized' religion promotes hatred of LOTS of groups

I mean, if YOUR religion is the one true way, why NOT hate everyone who is not like you?

Organized religion has killed more people on earth than anything else..

[Bluebear]

26. I love your righteous evolution! nt

[Disturbed]

39. Don't the major religions condemn Homosexuals?

Isn't that the case?

[bobbolink]

52. You are so very wrong.

But, I suppose it makes you happy.

[donco6]

109. Bobbolink, yes, most mainline religions condemn gays.

The degrees vary, of course. But the only denomination I know that actually allows gays to lead congregations is the Episcopal church, and *they're* splitting over it.

So I don't get where you're saying religion *doesn't* condemn gays. :shrug:

[bobbolink]

115. No, you're wrong.

Of course it's causing dissent.

But the bulk of the mainline Christians are in support of gays.

Try reading some of the statements coming out of the leaders (some are called Bishops, some not...) of the various denominations. Those are some strong words that I've seen, all in support.

Thanks for the civility of your reply. Appreciated.

[donco6]

129. I see, when you express it that way . . .

. . . I was referring to the official church stand. It sounds like you're talking about the view from the pew itself. And yes, there is a difference there. I think most people sitting in the pew would rather just leave gays alone. But the church leaders who determine official policy have to wrestle with some longstanding theological debate on the issue, and most denoms still haven't determined they can support gays - certainly not in leadership positions anyway. There are movements in every denom (like "More Light Presyberians"), but they are in violation of official church doctrine. In fact, I think there was just a church in TX (I think) that had to give up it's property because of their support for gays.

[bobbolink]

147. yes, differences...^_^

I only have about 5 minutes left to make a cogent reply, but since yours is one of the very few trying to civility, I'll take a stab. Pleeeez excuse typos, eh? :)

Yes, there are a lot of differences in the stances you mention. That was the point of my very first post about Elton John's inflammatory statement! :hi: Which is why I hope gays at large will take issue with him--he's not helping "the cause"

As for gays in leadership--yes, that will continue to be debated for some while, which i"m sure doesn't surprise you. There is a denomination with a gay bishop, but I can't remember now which one.

What I was referring to is the statements coming out of national offices in support of gays and gay marriage, etc. If you want to hear some supportive words, try reading some of those! If I remember rightly, there was a recent one from the Methodist bishop. (I could be wrong on exactly which one, but... don't have time to check right now)

If you'd like, I can look up that article I mentioned before, and type it to you in PM. I really don't care to post it here, becasue it's beautiful, and I don't want it getting shit all over.

Thanks for your words... 10 seconds to spare. :) :hi:

edited to clarify.. OPENLY GAY BISHOP....

[ThomCat]

385. One openly gay bishop

who nearly split the demonimation does not equal widespread support for equality.

Come back and tell us that mainstream religion doesn't hate homosexuals when it's actually true.

Right now you have only small sects, small denominations, and small exceptional groups that allow GLBT people to openly serve in the clergy, that welcome GLBT people into their churches, and that advocate supporting GLBT people as a matter of policy.

You have the Catholic Church that is fighting us tooth and nail. You have the Baptists who are about to pass a policy resolution banning all Baptist churches from supporting us or allowing us as members. You have a vast number of fundamentalist, evangelical and independent churches that are rabidly against us at every opportunity. Where is this supposed mainstream support you keep talking about?

It may make you feel all warm and fuzzy to claim that the support is there. It supports this myth that mainstream religion is such a good thing. But there's not much there to back you up.

[bobbolink]

430. Thanks for your words.

"Right now you have only small sects, small denominations, and small exceptional groups that allow GLBT people to openly serve in the clergy,"

So, right there you have proved Elton John WRONG.

Not all "organized religion" is out to get you, by your own words.

Instead of bashing, and fighting me, how bout stepping back from the war words, and admitting that John's broad-brushed condemnation of all "organized religion" was wrong, silly, and self-defeating?

As for "backing me up", I said earlier that there are articles in mainstream press about clergy who are loudly and publicly supporting gays in their fight against these hateful marriage bans.

YOu can choose to spit on those clergy, or you can thank them.

YOur call. What you do, remember, reflects on who you are.

[ThomCat]

438. I'm not going to condemn Elton John for being mostly right

while you congratulate religion for being mostly wrong. Get a grip.

You're spitting on all the people who have been beaten down by religion. Get your house in order and then maybe some of us will start to have some respect for organized religion. Until then, we have no obligation to pat you on the back for being a good little exception. We know you're there, but you should be able to stand up for what's right without us patting you on the back.

We have our fight to fight. You have yours. Both are thankless. Deal with it.

[beam me up scottie]

451. NEW POTD !!!

"You're spitting on all the people who have been beaten down by religion. Get your house in order and then maybe some of us will start to have some respect for organized religion."

I can feel the christian love just oozing out of her posts.

Oh, wait, that's raw sewage.

My bad.

[bobbolink]

460. THanks for shitting on my olive branch.

I no longer give a flying fuck.

Thanks to y'all, *THAT'S HOW I'M DEALING WITH IT*

FUCK IT ALL. HAVE YOUR SHIT, AND WALLOW IN IT

GOODBYE

[sniffa]

484. ...

:rofl:

omg, you've so entertained me in this thread.

[Goblinmonger]

389. I call bullshit

I want links. What are you defining as "mainline"? I want mainline church leaders telling me that they support gays. My definition of mainline would be catholic, lutheran (all varieties), protestant, episcopal (which does somewhat support gays but is splitting as mentioned above), baptist. Maybe I'm forgetting others. UCC certainly ain't mainline.

[Sapphocrat]

435. Since you won't get an answer, GM, I'll try to help her out here...

Let's see, what was the question again? Which mainline religions support LGBTs?

- Metropolitan Community Church-- Oops, sorry, that's the big association of gay churches. Not exactly mainline, is it? Never mind.

- Religious Society of Friends/Quakers: Does a membership of 350,000 -- worldwide -- count? Oh, wait, I'm wrong anyway; American Quakers are as split on homosexuality as Anglicans. Scratch them off.

- Unitarian Universalists: Bingo! There's one! Does it matter that Unitarians number even fewer than Quakers?

Well, that about covers Christianity.

How about-- Oops, forget Judaism, unless we want to see Orthodox and Reformed as two separate religions, which they're not.

I don't think we need to discuss Islam...

Oh, I know! Surely, those two peaceful, live-and-let-live Eastern religions, Hinduism and Buddhism, must be accepting of... Oh, yeah, I forgot. There's only one sect of Hinduism that comes even close to tolerating anyone within the LGBT spectrum -- a small group of eunuchs, viewed as more of a curiosity than anything else (and who are all of the untouchables caste). And I remember my disappointment in the Dalai Lama when he took a dim view of homosexuality...

Well, certainly, there's...

There's...

Hmm.

[beam me up scottie]

452. She posted one measly article in the thread in R/T.

I was thoroughly impressed.

[TankLV]

493. "But the bulk of the mainline Christians are in support of gays"

In what fucking ways?!?!

NAME AN EXAMPLE. ANY EXAMPLE.

Remember - love the sinner but not the sin won't do - being gay isn't a sin - it's YOUR bigotry!

Jeebus fucking christ on a half shell...

I've never heard such crap.

Next you'll be telling me that the Nazi's were in support of jews because they put them all to work and locked them up to save them from the mobs...

[SoCalDem]

71. Most "organized " religions are against ANYTHING that is not

specifically in their control..

[BlooInBloo]

103. E.g., sound and free thinking.

[jonnyblitz]

72. the bible says we should be put to death. NICE BOOK!!

:puke: :puke:

[Bluebear]

87. STOP!

Don't bash! :eyes:

[BlooInBloo]

106. Wonderful. Truth = bashing. Sigh.

Never, never, point out the elephant in the room.

I promise to work on that aspect of American mores. Really. Promise.

[kiahzero]

94. No. It isn't the case. (n/t)

[donco6]

110. Yes it is. eom

[kiahzero]

120. Perhaps you should support your claim? (n/t)

[donco6]

132. I supported it as much as you did.

But OK.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chur2.htm

[kiahzero]

140. I didn't realize that Christianity was the only "major religion."

I also didn't realize that a split on the question implied that the entire religion sided on way on the question.
I also didn't realize that someone making a claim without evidence, such as "All major religions condemn homosexuality" could simply make the claim and then expect others to provide evidence to rebut it.

I guess there's a lot I don't realize. :shrug:

[donco6]

143. Guess so. eom

[beam me up scottie]

218. Oh, you haven't seen anything.

Check http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x95691#95759">this out.

Apparently religion has nothing to do with homophobia.

[kiahzero]

260. Yes, religion is neutral on homophobia.

But arguing that is apparently a strawman. :shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

267. Sure it is.

You keep telling yourself that, because most of the rest of us don't buy it.

[kiahzero]

281. Good for you.

So, did the religious DUers here just get over their religion's homophobia? How does that work?

[beam me up scottie]

290. Ask Southpawkicker, he'll be more than happy to explain it.

Or any of the ex-fundies who post here.

You seem to think that religious liberals are no different than their bigoted fundamentalist fellow christians.

Tsk. Not a very liberal position, IMO.

[kiahzero]

300. How did you come to that conclusion?

They're both religious, yes, but that's not saying that they're "no different."

[beam me up scottie]

301. Hey, you're the one questioning whether liberal believers rejected religious intolerance.

"did the religious DUers here just get over their religion's homophobia"

[kiahzero]

316. Because you seem to be arguing that religion is inherently homophobic.

I argued that it was neutral, and you attacked me for that. So I accepted your apparent premise, that religion as a class is not neutral on the question (and I was pretty certain you weren't arguing it was pro-gay), and asked a question based on that premise. It was making out to be an argumentum ad absurdum.

I don't think that religion is inherently homophobic; as I said, I think it's neutral on the topic. Therefore, I don't think that liberal religious people had to get over homophobia. However, if one were to hold that religion is inherently heteronormative, religious people would have to overcome that heteronormativity in order not to be homophobic (in other words, not being homophobic in spite of religion's inherent heteronormativity).

[beam me up scottie]

Not ALL religion is inherently homophobic and I never said it was.

But the big three definitely are.

They're behind almost all of the opposition to gay marriage.

[BlooInBloo]

323. But in the ACTUAL world that we ACTUALLY live in it ACTUALLY is....

Does it HAVE to be, as a matter of metaphysical necessity? Of course not.

But the only thing that matters for Sir John's assertion is the actuality of it.

[beam me up scottie]

330. Yeah, he did piss in some cornflakes, didn't he?

I can't wait to go to work tomorrow so that I can listen to christians spewing their hate speech about homos, libruls, feminazis and other assorted traitors who are ruining this country.

It's called "talk radio" and I have fantasies about what I'd like to do to the people who think there's nothing wrong with forcing me to listen to it.

[TankLV]

494. plus all the homo jokes and inuendos and snickers that are sanctioned...

yeah, the christian bigots are sooooo persecuted...

[kiahzero]

329. Then why attack me for saying that religion as a category is neutral on the question?

That seems to be what you're saying here: religion isn't inherently homophobic.

It's funny, because I said at 10:30 this evening that I thought we were agreeing that religion isn't inherently homophobic. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=95691&mesg_id=95794

[beam me up scottie]

332. You just don't get it, do you?

The big three aren't the only religions in the world.

But they ARE the ones most responsible for persecuting homosexuals since it's PART OF THEIR FUCKING DOGMA.

[kiahzero]

335. Do you really think absent religion they wouldn't be?

My point is that heteronormativity exists in religion because it exists in society at large. We're still stuck with the kind of gender normative thinking that leads to persecuting homosexuals. Similarly, support for slavery was read into religion because that support existed in society at large. The Bible didn't magically change when support for slavery evaporated.

[BlooInBloo]

338. The idea that religion didn't aid, abet, amplify, and exacerbate such evils...

... and many others, is just a bald-faced lie.

[beam me up scottie]

339. I don't deal in what if's.

I deal with reality.

And the reality is the three Abrahamic religions have ALWAYS persecuted homosexuals, it's an inherent PART of the religions.

Just because liberal believers reject the intolerance doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[BlooInBloo]

337. I'm convinced he gets it. He just thinks like a religionist - if you say something...

... over and over again, it'll be believed - no matter how stupid it is.

Of course such jedi mind tricks only work on the feeble-minded, but one wouldn't expect a religionist to even be aware of the difference.

[beam me up scottie]

340. He claims he's a pagan.

They're not usually so defensive when it comes to criticizing the people who would love to see them rounded up and stoned too.

[kiahzero]

343. I believe in religious tolerance

That would naturally preclude banning religion.

You know, this is getting a tad personal. What's the deal?

[BlooInBloo]

346. (shrug) Talking is inherently personal. I don't have any good ideas how to get around that.

[kiahzero]

350. Well, here are some suggestions

* Don't assume that the person you are talking to is acting in bad faith. For instance, stating that they're merely repeating something over and over again in the hopes that it will stick.
* Don't insinuate that they're lying about who they are.
* Don't call them "naive."

[BlooInBloo]

352. I appreciate your effort - here's my problem...

... There's actually no other possibility other than some-hypothetical-person espousing claims such as are in this branch is either lying or an idiot (or both, of course). Not an actual person, of course, a hypothetical one.

So while I greatly appreciate your suggestions, they, combined with the actual facts of the matter, leave me somewhat tongue-tied. Your suggestions have the same effect as the suggestion "Don't say what is true.".

[kiahzero]

355. Would you care to point at the claims that are lies or idiotic?

Please, enlighten me.

[BlooInBloo]

356. Of course not. It's purely hypothetical. 100%.

[beam me up scottie]

353. And I don't?

FYI, atheists are the champions of religious tolerance.

We don't think ANY of you are any better or worse than anyone else.

[SPKrazy]

485. Sure, Ask Me Anything!

I'm not an ex-fundie

but I don't come from a religious background that is inherently anti gay.

That's not to say that there aren't individuals that are, but in fact, my particular parish (Episcopal) is very gay affirming.

Religion throughout history has been quite homophobic in general at different times. At other times it hasn't been an issue in the forefront. It would be an interesting sociology study to see what was happening at different times when it was more accepted widely, or at least not persecuted as much vs. times when it was more persecuted.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

483. What PLANET are you from? Haven't you read Leviticus?

OR the Religious Right's enthusiastic defense thereof?

I almost admire the straight-faced boldness of your statement. It's like those wacky "the world will end at day A of month B of the year 200C" preachers that, when the time passes, say the world DID end and only the infidels don't see it.

[ScreamingMeemie]

232. HATRED has killed more people on earth than anything else...

driven by religion or not.

[kiahzero]

269. Not all organized religions believe they have "the one true way." (n/t)

[donsu]

410. organized religion isn't so fond of women either

nt

[beam me up scottie]

453. Yes, and I've been told I should be grateful that religious people

helped us get equal rights.

Well, I would have been just gushing gratitude except for the fact that THEIR FUCKING RELIGION WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR OPPRESSING US TO BEGIN WITH !

If not for the misogyny created by THEM, we wouldn't need help from THEM.

Yeah, I know, I'm an ingrate. :spank:

[SwingVoter2006]

31. No shocker here

Why are we surprised that a star in the entertainment industry is bashing organized religion? Unless it's Kabbala or Scientology, the entertainment industry would happily shovel organized religion into the trashbin; and all the billions of religious people along with it.

Which is why I tend to ignore the entertainment industry, or at least its self-appointed mouthpieces, on important subjects in our society.

Ban religion completely! Thanks Elton. We'll look into that.

Sounds about as practical as "curing" homosexuality.

:eyes:

[Bluebear]

41. Oh, it's no shocker, you're right.

Oh you meant the news item?

[Sapphocrat]

45. And where did you get THAT talking point?

The Hollywood liberal elite is destroying America! Oh, noooooooo! :eyes:

[Bluebear]

50. All that was missing was a reference to Streisand. nt

[Sapphocrat]

95. You read my mind!

:rofl:

[donco6]

112. Oh yeah, . . .

. . . from Hannity's lips to SV2006's mouth.

[kath]

274. WHY, oh why hasn't this troll been tombstoned yet?

It's *quite* informative to do a search of its posts. (thanks, KerryTraveler, for pointing this out on a thread yesterday)

[donco6]

283. Got me.

His very name seems obvious enough. And then there are the posts. . .

[Bluebear]

317. Because he is a SWING VOTER! We NEED him!

:eyes:

[LostinVA]

382. Preaching to the choir -- but THANK YOU for saying it!

[Kerrytravelers]

462. Funny, I ran across this thread doing a search!

Oh, the irony!

[ruggerson]

96. Maybe if rightwingers were more creative

they would make more movies and television shows that people wanted to see.

It's not like digital images only work if there is a liberal message on them.

To say that Hollywood is monolithic and has an agenda is moronic and betrays real ignorance of how the industry works.

Almost as ignorant as thinking that gays all think alike and have one agenda.

[mondo joe]

108. How did Bill O'Reilly get a DU membership? n/t

[Jamastiene]

190. Spoken directly from the right wing's playbook.

The one that didn't win this last election for them...

[NMMNG]

363. Nice talking points

Did Rush give you those?

[ecstatic]

447. Most Democrats are Christians and would take offense to Elton's comments

Why is that suprising? I don't know if that poster was a troll, but the points made in his/her post were NOT RIGHT WING.

[Sapphire Blue]

450. Christian Democrat here, NOT offended by Sir Elton's comments.

As I said elsewhere in this thread, I fully understand why Sir Elton made his comments.

[NMMNG]

465. Thank you.

Gays/lesbians are fully aware that not all religious people are responsible for the hatred towards them. The problem occurs when some pretend that no religious people incite hatred/abuse of gays, or claim that acknowledging the existence of the phenomena is a form of religious persecution. Both tactics help ensure that the behavior will go unchecked.

[NMMNG]

464. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Elton said "religion"--he didn't specify a specific one. Nonetheless Christians are playing the "Christian Persecution" card as always. Got Guilt?

For centuries Christianity, Islam and similar religions have said and done horrific things to/about gay people. Gay people have been tortured, killed and denied their human and civil rights because of what religion says about them. Yet some get bent out of shape when people point out this fact, wringing their hands and crying about how it is "offensive" to do so.

Pardon me if I don't cry for the offended. No gays have tied religious people to fences and beaten them to death on account of their religion. No gays have bombed churches as religious extremists have bombed gay night clubs. When that happens come back and I'll feel some sympathy for the "persecuted Christians".

[ecstatic]

480. I personally couldn't care less about his comments

I'm not hurt. I'm Christian but I haven't been to church in months and I'm not sure when I'll go again. Not only that but I couldn't care less about what Elton John says as he is WAY before my time and I am not even familiar with his music.

Now to address your specific points:
Gay people have been tortured, killed and denied their human and civil rights because of what religion says about them.

So have blacks in this country. Most of the brutality was allowed by law!! Some of the brutality was justified by religion, some of it through sheer hatred or the belief that blacks are not even human. But it would be wrong for me to say that all whites should be banned or eliminated... wouldn't it? Or that the American government (which allowed slavery for hundreds of years) needs to be destroyed.

No gays have tied religious people to fences and beaten them to death on account of their religion. No gays have bombed churches as religious extremists have bombed gay night clubs. When that happens come back and I'll feel some sympathy for the "persecuted Christians".

That is downright false, as there have always been gay christians (though they might have been in the closet). Yes the ones who silently participated either passively or actively were hypocrites, but "gay" and "christian" are not mutually exclusive.

[NMMNG]

481. .....

Now to address your specific points:
"Gay people have been tortured, killed and denied their human and civil rights because of what religion says about them."


So have blacks in this country. Most of the brutality was allowed by law!! Some of the brutality was justified by religion, some of it through sheer hatred or the belief that blacks are not even human. But it would be wrong for me to say that all whites should be banned or eliminated... wouldn't it? Or that the American government (which allowed slavery for hundreds of years) needs to be destroyed.


Where did I say I agreed with EJ that religion should be banned? I merely stated that I agreed that religion has caused a great deal of harm to gays.


"No gays have tied religious people to fences and beaten them to death on account of their religion. No gays have bombed churches as religious extremists have bombed gay night clubs. When that happens come back and I'll feel some sympathy for the "persecuted Christians"."

That is downright false, as there have always been gay christians (though they might have been in the closet). Yes the ones who silently participated either passively or actively were hypocrites, but "gay" and "christian" are not mutually exclusive.


No it is not false. While some gays are Christians and may have taken part in harassing/harming people for being gay, no gays have tortured people for being religious, nor have they blown up religious buildings because they were religious.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

88. "Really hateful lemmings"

:spray:

Okay, so banning religion entirely is kinda dumb. But hell, I agree with Elton on the "lemming" point.

:spray:

[bobbolink]

100. Right. It was organized atheists who formed the Abolition Movement.

Oh, wait, that was Christians. (Adventists, I believe.. go figure)

It was Organized Atheists who got behind Women's Suffrage and got it off the ground.
Oh wait.. that was Christians.

In the 50's and 60's, it was Organized Atheists who pushed Civil Rights. Oh wait, that was Christians.

Etc, etc., etc.,

Those EVIL Christians!!

Burn 'em!

[Bluebear]

105. Organized Atheists! Organized Atheists! Organized Atheists!

:crazy:

[noiretextatique]

121. the slave trade was also justified and excused by religionists

of various stripes, including christians.

[GirlinContempt]

127. So, can't we take from this

that religion has the potential for both good and bad, same as human beings, and that both should be recognized, not just good or just bad, and people should be free to their religion up unto the point that it infringes on someone else?

[mondo joe]

131. If you were talking about a medication that had no impact one way or the

other, you might think it was a placebo.

[GirlinContempt]

133. I think it has impact both ways.

Just as human beings do. Human beings are the executers of the good and the evil. Religion is the common ground.

[mondo joe]

139. Really? It seems to make no difference one way or the other.

It doesn't result in better or worse people in any identifiable consistent way.

Imagine you're the FDA and Christianity is a pharmaceutical. Can you measure the results?

[GirlinContempt]

141. You know, I really have no idea how one would measure that.

Would someone listen to a gay person who was denounced and ridiculed by some christians and compare it to a poor, sick homeless person who was given food, shelter and medicine by some christians? Or only like for like? Do we measure the impact on an individual personal scale, or a worldwide scale? Where do we draw the lines between acts of the religious/churches and acts of something else?

But, one way or another, if it makes no difference externally, but makes a difference to someones private, personal life, what is wrong with that?

[mondo joe]

146. Doesn't matter to me. But if having a religion is powerful, or even true,

I'd expect to see some measurable outcome.

[GirlinContempt]

160. So come up with a system of measurement.

I don't really know where you're going with this...

[mondo joe]

162. I could offer some suggestions, but no organized religion will have a good

showing.

You could look at how much kindness there is, how much helping others, how much contentment.

But by those indicators, organized religions seem to have no impact on adherents.

[GirlinContempt]

176. Without a system

I don't know how you come to these conclusions.

I look at churches in my neighborhood that do wonderful good, and touch the lives of many people. I know people of faith who're good, kind, honest, helpful and loving.

I also look at history, all the good churches and religion have done. And all the bad. Good and bad don't cancel each other out, they're part of humanity and life, separate. It's like saying that Saddam's persecution and killing are negated by his holding the country together and free of war. Each act, each judgment is separate.

Organized or disorganized religion have the potential to do great good, and great evil, as do governments, nations, and people. If what you seek is some sort of measure of impact, I think a great portion of human history, suffering and joy should be evidence.

[mondo joe]

185. I'll count my own impressions as my system.

If you told me "I have this amazing dietary supplement - it has powerful effects and it's true" I'd want to see what it does.

If I looked at the people who took it over a lifetime and saw that they had no better outcomes than anyone else, I'd take a pass.

And that's the case here. People of various religions show similar propensities for good and for bad, for contentment and bitterness, for kindness and for cruelty.

Why take that up?

[GirlinContempt]

206. I wouldn't ask anyone to take it up.

But I wouldn't dismiss the religion as meaningless, either.

[donco6]

134. ZING! eom

[BlooInBloo]

135. That's asinine. I cite the history of humanity as evidence....

... that nothing remotely like an equivalence between "good religion" and "bad religion" exists.


EDIT: "between" used to be "of", which wasn't good.

[GirlinContempt]

138. Uh, ok?

Elucidate?

[noiretextatique]

144. absolutely...however, recall those folks here in america

called the religious right? i think they deserve john's criticism, but unlike some others, i don't think his words apply to everyone who believes in a religion.

[ulysses]

159. you speak my mind,

as usual. :hi: Where've you been?

[noiretextatique]

166. a lot of life happened

so i've been busying dealing with it. nice to see you :loveya:

[ulysses]

181. good to see you back, at any rate.

:hug:

[GirlinContempt]

165. I don't disagree that there are people who deserve this

criticism. However, his wording sucks, and he made no attempt to differentiate between speaking out against hateful religious types and speaking out against all religion.

[noiretextatique]

172. if anti-gay initiative hadn't just passed in this election

and in the previous one, perhaps i could see your point. perhaps he meant exactly what he said, or perhaps he was talking about the religious right, as i suspect.
ergo, given what has been happening in this country, ir seems self-evident that he just might have been referring to the religious folks who really have been actively working to demonize gay people :shrug: just a hunch.

[GirlinContempt]

182. Except Elton John isn't American

And neither am I. I don't think it is all that obvious, and I wouldn't give a pass to someone that I disagreed with more strongly on making comments of the same nature, he doesn't get one either. If his meaning is a portion of religious leaders/religions that actively deny people rights, fine, but he should probably say that.

[noiretextatique]

187. do you have to be american

to comment on something that's happening here? and on edit: in the rest of the world? i see your point, but i think there is a lot of evidence to support what i think he meant.

[GirlinContempt]

205. No, of course you don't

I'm just saying, as he isn't an American, I don't think American election results are a fair way to interpret his statements, that's all.

I think there is lots of evidence to support what I wish his statements had been.

[noiretextatique]

241. my friend in germany

told me his statement was based on the religious condemnation of a gay rights parade in israel. there are some posts about it in this thread.

[GirlinContempt]

246. Ok, if that's what he said it was about

he should have said that in his statement.

[Karenina]

189. Sir Elton is in England.

The story of the rabbis, mullahs and priests *instantly* shunting aside all their differences to speak together in ONE VOICE against a gay parade in Israel has gotten lots of ink on this side of the pond. It would not surprise me at all if his exasperation at events there informed his remarks. Watching some people getting their knickers in a twist here has been quite entertaining, but now it's bedtime. GOOD TO SEE YA, KX!!! :loveya:

[noiretextatique]

193. thanks for that information

i don't really know what's going on here, let alone in the ROTW.
:hi: great to see you, sweetie :loveya:

[beam me up scottie]

243. PRECISELY !

Where is the outrage from liberal believers over that?

Oh, that's right, they're too busy crucifying Elton John for dissing organized religion.

[GirlinContempt]

248. Oh crimeny

No one is 'crucifying' elton john, there was a huge outcry against that very situation, and the fact that Elton John makes such outrageous, broad brush statements means liberals should be criticizing him. Just because you agree with someone about some things doesn't mean they can't be wrong, just because one side is wrong doesn't mean the other is always right. As far as I'm concerned, part of wanting justice and equality is seeing injustice in your own circle and not ignoring it because it's 'liberal' or whatever.
This irrational relativism makes my head spin.

[beam me up scottie]

253. Right, this is an Elton John appreciation thread.

The disconnect is stunning.

Religion spends centuries persecuting homosexuals, witches, atheists and other "abominations" and when one of them stands up and bitch slaps them, he's the bad guy.

Cry me a fucking river. :nopity:

[GirlinContempt]

256. You know what,

I'm an atheist, and I think his remarks were nasty. They were insulting, and if they'd been said on DU they'd violate our rules about decency to others.
Just because one person is bad does not mean another can not do or say bad things.
For fuck sake, I think gay people deserve every right and freedom to be had in this world, but I don't believe in ANYONE advocating the removal of anyone elses rights.
I'm not going to cry you a river, but it depresses the shit out of me to think that people really believe in this old bible eye for an eye shit. It's disgusting, grow up already, and frankly if I was Elton John I'd think twice about all the support that would be alienated if his views were more widespread.

[kiahzero]

265. I heartily concur with everything you said

Well, everything but "I'm an atheist," so I don't know how much it counts.

Edit: for clarity.

[beam me up scottie]

268. Yes, that's right, focus on criticizing Elton John instead of the religious bigots.

Very productive, not to mention liberal. :patriot:

[GirlinContempt]

273. It's not either or.

It isn't liberal to say you want to stop people from being able to do what they want, either. You can diss both if you disagree with both. Jesus H Christ. I give up. I get it. If you don't like Elton John, you love homophobes and you aren't a real liberal. I get it, you're right, whatever, all religion is evil and Elton John is the messiah.

[beam me up scottie]

280. Wow.

That was incoherent.

[kiahzero]

288. I have a surprising amount of free time.

I have plenty of time to criticize Elton John AND the religious right. Hell, if I land the internship I want this summer, I'll be getting not-paid to criticize the religious right.

[beam me up scottie]

292. Oh, but the religious right doesn't preach intolerance of homosexuals.

So you have no need to criticize them.

Religion has nothing to do with it, remember?

[kiahzero]

305. RELIGION is neutral on homosexuality.

The religious right is a subset of the set of things considered "religion." My criticism of the religious right is not a criticism of religion in general.

You seem to have a problem keeping people's arguments in the scale that they're making it. By saying that religion is neutral on homosexuality doesn't mean that I'm claiming that there are no people who use religious language to express their homophobia. If you go back to the thread that you linked to on this one to call me out, you'll say that I expressly state that homophobic people couch their homophobia in religious terms and use it as a cover. That doesn't mean that religion, as a category, is homophobic.

[beam me up scottie]

309. Nice attempt to misrepresent my meaning.

When did I claim that "religion as a category is homophobic"?

Again, you can go on believing that religion has nothing at all to do with homophobia, but don't expect the rest of us to buy it.

[kiahzero]

320. When you attacked me for saying that religion was neutral?

If religion isn't neutral on the question, it has to be on one side or another, and you're certainly not saying that it's against homophobia. So if you're attacking me for arguing that religion, as a category, is neutral on homophobia, what can you be arguing other than religion is inherently homophobic?

[beam me up scottie]

325. Oh enough with the hyperbole.

If I attacked you you'd fucking know it.

The reason you're confused is because your opinion about religion is naive and simplistic.

[kiahzero]

331. I guess that's not supposed to be an attack.

:shrug:

Would you care to explain HOW it's naive and simplistic?

[beam me up scottie]

334. See my post #322. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

266. Well, if the christians have to claim the Pope, I guess we're stuck with you.

In the UK his views aren't radical, that's just the take here in the United States Of Jesusland where we're expected to show deference to other people's hateful and murderous deities so that we don't offend the people who think gays and adulterers should be stoned to death.

I have no respect for the religious beliefs of others, I do respect their right to have them, but not the conviction of some that they have the right to force us to involuntarily practice it through legislation.

Too bad you used all of that rage against Sir Elton instead of directing it at the religious people who are right now working to prevent GLBT people from ever having equal rights.

:hi:

[GirlinContempt]

270. I don't live in the US.

And you're really grasping at straws. I don't have "rage" for Elton John, just disappointment, and less with him and more with the reactions I see to this kind of thing.
I have many issues with religious people who try to deny the rights of others, just as I have a lot of gratitude for those who's religious beliefs go against their politics but they believe in a persons freedom. And pass legislation that goes against their religion but with their sense of justice.
And gratitude for those with no religious belief that fight the good fight, and disappointment with those religious or not who try to deny people their rights.

Don't tell me who I do and don't have rage for, especially since I don't have much rage. It's blinding and counterproductive, just as fighting for equality while claiming you wish to deny others their rights.

Being nasty and bigoted won't drive out nasty bigotry.

[beam me up scottie]

279. Nasty and bigoted? You're referring to the homophobic christians, I presume.

Spare me the naive shock at how "nasty" Elton John is for saying he'd like to ban religion.

Save it for someone who doesn't live in the bible belt and has to hear EVERY FUCKING DAY how fags are ruining Amerikkka.

[GirlinContempt]

282. It is nasty.

And I'm not 'saving' it for anyone. Everyone deserves their equal rights and freedoms, and making nasty smears against millions of people and wanting to ban religion isn't right. Neither is the nasty shit they say. Just because one person is wrong doesn't excuse the other.

[beam me up scottie]

285. Yes and it's just ever so icky too!

:rofl:

[noiretextatique]

284. some of us have no more cheeks to turn

so i understand where elton is coming from...a place of anger. i don't see his comments coming from a place of hatred, but from of place of frustration from being the focus of hatred. you can stand in jusgement of him all you like, but i truly understand what he means, and i doubt it is coming from a place of hatred.
magical, honorable folk who are gracious and understanding in the face of all manner of hatred directed at them are RARE, and unless you are among the hated, i think it's impossible for you to understand what being demonized is like. so...i don't expect those demonized to act better than those demonizing, but i can understand why you think they should. and honestly, i'd take elton over pat robertson and jerry falwell any day. aside from this moment of understandable frustration, i don't believe that he has built a career on hating anyone, unlike the people he's talking about.

[GirlinContempt]

289. Hey, trust me

I'd probably rather have Elton John too. And I understand frustration and anger. And I understand being marginalized, treated like shit, walked all over, denied rights. So I think I can empathize with him, and as I said to someone else in this thread, with just a little re-wording I'd agree with most of what he said. I don't think he's worse than Hitler or anything, but I think that all of humanity could do with a little justice and respect, so I won't ignore what I think was unjust or disrespectful just because it comes from someone on my side.
I've been and continue to be among hated, I'm not perfect, I say things in anger. But I try to be just.

[noiretextatique]

297. fair enuf

i understand your position and it is reasonable.

[Bluebear]

272. posted downstream

.

[Sapphocrat]

136. Still is justified and excused by some, too.

And... hiya, nb! :hi:

[noiretextatique]

145. hey, sapphocrat

:hi: got your message...and i will respond soon. count me in :hi:

[bobbolink]

152. completely true.

The point was the broad brush, remember?

I'm sure we could find some gays you wouldn't want used as poster children for your cause, right?

Can you point to a group of atheists who have done as much for civil rights?

See, we can bash all day, and follow John's example, and create more wars.

Is that really helpful?

[mondo joe]

158. A group of atheists? Sure - many of the founding fathers.

Thanks. :-)

[noiretextatique]

161. do you seriously believe there were no atheists who worked to end slavery?

or who fought for civil rights? i don't...i know that those who have worked for humanity all over the world come from all walks of life.
what broad brush are you speaking of? really? i live in america, the home of pat robertson, jerry falwell and other rw religionists who have actively worked to demonize gay people. what i just wrote has nothing to do with you or anyone else who happens to read the same book they claim to find their justifications for their hatred in.
i think you are purposely ignoring the religious right's assualt on gay people, which is what i think john was talking about, to make yourself feel like a victim. carry on...

[bobbolink]

429. What "organized atheists" did so? You don't like bashing of atheists as a group?

Then, I'm sure you will find the same broad-brush bashing of other groups just as odious.

As I said, IT WAS CHRISTIANS WHO WERE THE BACKBONE OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT!! Any cursory review of the history of that time will show you that.

WEre there atheists who supported the idea of civil rights? I'm sure there were.

Was there some "organized atheist" group behind it? I certainly don't know of any, and would be open to hearing it if you choose to do some digging.

Are there religious people who bash others? Absolutely.

Are there religious people who are in total ( and very public!)support of gays? ABSOLUTELY!!!

So, if you want to go around and feel sorry for yourself, that "ALL ORGANIZED RELIGIONS HATE" YOU, and are out to kill you and you're going to eat worms, feel free.

It just ain't true.

[beam me up scottie]

454. Wipe the spittle off your monitor and read what you just posted.

What a

[Sapphocrat]

192. I'll point to just one atheist...

...without whom women would still be second-class citizens: Susan B. Anthony.

As far as a "group of atheists," you really don't know much about atheists, do you? Until the relatively recent past (e.g., American Atheists), atheists hadn't been organized into "groups."

Do you get it? Atheism is nothing like organized religion. Atheism isn't an organized rebellion against religion, either; it's the complete absence of religion. Atheism isn't a disbelief in God; it's a complete absence of belief.

I'm not an atheist, and even I know that. Go hang out in the R/T forum if the concept is still unclear.

Atheists, like gay people, are not some big, monolithic group that takes its cues from the ghost of Madlyn Murray O'hair, any more than gay people share the same brain -- which, of course, is controlled by Elton John :eyes:. Atheists are incomprehensibly diverse -- just like gay people. And, just like gay people, they probably never would have "organized" in the first place if they hadn't been attacked from all sides.

Political organization is borne of necessity. And it has been more than necessary for atheists -- and gay people -- to circle the wagons, when we'd all rather be doing other things... like, oh, living our lives without somebody trying to force their beliefs into law in order to control us.

What's really hilarious to me is that it is groups like American Atheists who are doing a hell of a job fighting for civil rights now -- particularly religious freedom! -- whether you want to recognize their efforts or not.

[bobbolink]

431. And I can point to more than "just one" religious person who has supported you!!

You see, you have proved the point-- broad-brush bashing of ANY group is not only silly, but patently untrue.

And, if you remember, John didn't point to individual religious people, he said "all organized religions", so your task was to find "all organized atheists".

How bout getting off the high horse, recognize that we're all in this together, and coming to DU with this kind of flame-bait hurts not only all liberals, but gays, too?

[beam me up scottie]

225. Atheists who have done as much for civil rights and more:

But you go on believing you've got the market cornered on morality, I realize it's necessary for many christians to justify their bigotry.

[Sapphocrat]

231. See, this is what I love most about politcally-active atheists:

You guys do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. Period. There's no reward if you do, and no retribution if you don't.

Aside from my saintly mother, the best ("best" as in just plain good) person I have ever known is a very close friend (and near-lifelong atheist) who composts everything (I'd get my hand slapped if I tried to throw away so much as an apple core), recycles everything else, doesn't buy anything that can't be recycled or reused, rescues stray animals, picks up other people's trash (I mean, regularly, when she's not "officially" signed up for one of those clean-up-the-beach days), never lends but gives vast amounts of money to anyone who needs it, volunteers her time to more progressive causes than I can count, and is the most racially-, ethnically-, and everything-else colorblind person I know.

Her compassion for everyone and everything far outweighs mine in my best moments, and her politics may even be a shade to the left of mine.

We have had a few conversations over the years about what she gets out of being so good, about trying to save a world she won't always live in, about what motivates her, when the world itself cares little for her well-being.

She always gets this quizzical look on her face and shrugs. "Because it's a good thing to do" is all she can come up with. And this is no dummy -- she's an ultra-smart geek who dazzles me with her brilliance and ability to understand the most abstract concepts, instantly.

It's that odd look she gets -- this calm absence of fear, really -- when I ask her what's in it for her that makes me understand that she does what she does, just because.

When I see that, I wish I were an atheist too. :)

[beam me up scottie]

233. No, you stay right where you are (or is that left?) :)

We need liberal believers like you!

You will outnumber the bigots eventually, I'm sure of it.


I miss my mom, she was much like yours- you should send your mother your post, she'd treasure it.

[Sapphocrat]

255. I hate to disappoint you, bmus

...but I'm no Christian, which means I have no pull with Christians. I grew up Catholic, so the only thing "religious" about me is that I was religiously traumatized. LOL

Just a sort of odd hybrid here; I don't believe in an "afterlife" so much as that this life is just part of a continuum. Maybe we get reincarnated bodily, and maybe we don't (I hope not, as I have no desire to return), but ultimately I think we all just get sucked back into this big blob of energy that was our last stop before we were silly enough to end up here -- or "absorbed into the absolute." And rather than believe that I can't exist without that big blob, I believe that big blob wouldn't exist without us. (It's logical to me, too; energy's got to go somewhere.)

In any case, I'm not at all afraid of whatever the "absolute" is -- because I know it's not some Big Mean Guy who really, really loves you, so much that he constantly threatens to boil you in a lake of fire for all eternity.

P.S. If it's any consolation, my mom's still very much Catholic, and more liberal by the day. And, at 85, she's a lot more comfortable mouthing off to bigots. But she still won't let me answer the door when the Sunday proselytizers come a-calling. LOL

P.P.S. Did you ever see the Albert Brooks movie, "Defending Your Life"? Put aside all the Heaven-and-angels stuff, and the message is dead-on: The purpose of life is to simply live -- and to be unafraid of living. What a great message. :)

[beam me up scottie]

261. I'm not disappointed at all.

Most of my friends from high school are now recovering catholics - especially my friend Jane, she was always in trouble for mouthing off about the misogynistic dogma taught in catechism. She also took anthropology with me and enjoyed it as much as I did. In fact, the majority of the class was catholic, not a creationist in the bunch.

I'll have to reserve that movie, I've never seen it. A great philosophy, you get one shot, make the best of it and leave the world better off for having been here.

[SPKrazy]

242. I See The Reward As Being In The Doing

Not in anything that may or may not happen after death

I can't argue anything that can't be proven.

But it is a fact that altruism, and activism are rewards in their own right, and as far as anyone knows, they may be the only rewards?

Besides that, for a Christian to do things with the goal of trying to buy their stairway to heaven, is really not a Christian belief at all.

Good deeds are done for good deeds sake in my opinion. One need not be religious, or a believer to do such things.

And as you have shown BMUS, there are many famous civil rights activists that are atheists.

I'd venture to say that you and any number of atheists do good things for society every day.

I can't say the same for large groups of persons that call themselves Christians.

So more power to you!

:pals:

[beam me up scottie]

257. I'd wager that almost all liberal believers do it for the same reason.

Liberal religious people who do the right thing would still do it if they weren't religious.

This is what most of us are trying to say, despising organized religion has nothing to do with how we feel about individual believers.

I think that you are tolerant of homosexuals in spite of the policies dictated by the dinosaurs at the Vatican.

[Leopolds Ghost]

425. Yes, BMUS but Theologians have always argued, going back before Xtianity,

that fear of an afterlife was no basis for moral judgement and that, in fact, if there WAS a hell it would not serve to get one into heaven if you do the right thing out of fear.

Atheists, of course, have argued the same thing from every viewpoint in the field of ethics.

A theist like myself will naturally hold that a natural system of good and evil (or at least right and wrong) exists, that nobody is on one side or the other, but that if I believe in God then I naturally believe that God set up that system.

I don't believe that good is good BECAUSE it "pleases" God. Good is good because that's how the system was set up, and if something is not really good, or not really bad, then that is the way it is and folks should not interpret any system of laws differently. I believe that both the system of common law and the teachings of the New Testament follow this approach, and it is the "liberal" approach LOL.

Saying that good is good and evil is evil because it "pleases God to say so" is a common fundie mistake, stemming from the same sort of ignorance that causes a belief in "cheap grace" (I am good because I believe in Jesus) or salvation by fear (I have scrupulously done good because I want to go to heaven and fear oblivion).

It is like saying "blue is blue and yellow is yellow because that is more pleasing to God that way." No, blue is blue and yellow is yellow because that is how the universe was created, whether you believe in God or not.

(leaving aside multiverse theory, dimensional probability, mind-body arguments, crystalline space-time theory...)

--LG the "radical" christian

[beam me up scottie]

455. Tell it to the theists who claim they would become immoral beasts without it.

Tell it to the ones who claim we can't be moral because we don't believe in an afterlife and that there's a guy up there holding a stick and a carrot.

I hear it all the time.

[Goblinmonger]

392. As I scrolled through this thread, I was waiting for it

and you came through like I knew you would. Nice dig on atheists.

[ComerPerro]

170. bingo. Especially Christians

[mondo joe]

128. Christian enslaved and Christianns fought it. Basically Christianity seems

to make no difference one way or the other to behavior.

[kiahzero]

137. In aggregate, that's true.

Which is precisely why Elton John is being absurd here.

[ComerPerro]

168. no kidding. Lets not forget that it was Christians who had slaves

[Karenina]

183. Allow me to break up your consecutive posts...

:evilgrin:
Until she spoke, no Christian nation had abolished Negro slavery.

Until she spoke, no Christian nation had given to the world an organized effort to abolish slavery.

Until she spoke, the slave ship, followed by hungry sharks, greedy to devour the dead and dying slaves flung overboard to feed them, ploughed in peace the South Atlantic, painting the sea with the Negro's blood.

Until she spoke, the slave trade was sanctioned by all the Christian nations of the world, and our land of liberty and light included. Men made fortunes by this infernal traffic, and were esteemed as good Christians, and the standing types and representations of the Savior of the World.

Until Haiti spoke, the church was silent, and the pulpit was dumb. Slave-traders lived and slave-traders died. Funeral sermons were preached over them, and of them it was said that they died in the triumphs of the Christian faith and went to heaven among the just.

This segment was extracted from Lecture on Haiti and edited in its present form by Guy S. Antoine ( http://windowsonhaiti.com ) in July 1998. The speech was delivered at the World's Fair, in Jackson Park, Chicago by the Hon. Frederick Douglass, ex-Minister to Haiti on January 2, 1893 and can be read online at:

http://haitiforever.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=678

[noiretextatique]

191. are you saying

black people were actually involved in the abolitionist movement?!? :wow:
not eveyone seems to know that...
:loveya:

[ComerPerro]

167. Last time I checked, slavery wasn't wrong until Moses realized he was a Jew

and not an Egyptian

[Sapphocrat]

198. ...

:spray:

Beautiful! :applause:

[ComerPerro]

200. I am dead serious. That always bothered me

[Sapphocrat]

203. I know you are, CP.

That's why it's funny-in-a-stop-the-bullshit-dead-in-its-tracks way: 'cause it's true.

Beautiful post. :)

[BlooInBloo]

326. Better perhaps: He never recognized slavery as wrong per se....

just HIS OWN (and his peeps').

Freedom for me, not for thee - one might say.

[ThomCat]

383. Yes, and it was christian theology that was used

to maintain all the inequality those christians were fighting against. If you're going to give Christians the credit for curing the problem, give them credit for causing it too. :P

The fact is, churches were the only places available to organize. There were no internet chat room, secular university campuses, or other places where people could easily get organized. The community churches were the only large meeting places. So churches were involved sort of by default.

And, remember, Christians did not rise up in mass against discrimination. Never have. Just as many churches were against equality as were for it in every one of these cases.

[mesobob]

117. Ban Religion complety?

Doesnt sound very tolerant to me.

Trading injustice for injustice doesnt get anyone anywere.

[Mr_Spock]

142. There's a whole lot of truth to that

The hateful lemmings ruin it for everyone else :eyes:

[upi402]

155. k/r

[ComerPerro]

163. every argument against gay marraige is rooted in religous views

[ulysses]

179. not true.

My father is a lifelong agnostic (although he hid it for years when we were young) and has recently become quite anti-religion. Although he's quite liberal, and has made a lot of progress on acceptance of gay folks in recent years (I'll take a lot of the credit for that), I think he would still argue against gay marriage just because he's 77 and isn't quite ready to accept that change.

I'm still working on him, though. :)

[terrya]

169. Sir Elton is spot on. Particularly concerning the Catholic Church.

This Pope is peddling hate towards us gay people. It's disgusting to watch.

[Zhade]

171. ...duh?

Though to be fair, some religions (and/or some sects of some religions) don't preach it (even when it appears in their 'holy book(s)').

This queer has no beef with those types of believers. Heck, I actually admire, say, Catholics who don't hate or work against equal rights for gays even when their pope calls us evil (though why anyone would stay in that organization at that point is beyond me).

[pink-o]

178. I work at San Francisco Airport...

...and one year when I was putting passengers on a plane after Gay Pride in June, one man wore a t-shirt that made me LOL. I'll never forget it, because it sums up this argument perfectly.


The tag line on the T-shirt read: "Jesus: Save me from your followers"

[DarkTirade]

186. I think the word I'm looking for here is 'Duh'. :)

[ComerPerro]

188. LMAO

[beam me up scottie]

213. Oh, dear.

We just can't have gays going on the record saying bad things about organized religion.

No no no, t'wouldn't be fair.

You never see religious people saying bad things about gays, now do you?

[ThomCat]

222. LOL! Best post on this entire thread!

:applause:

We get, at best, only marginal and infrequent support from organized religion. It's usually small sects and individual churches that support us. Meanwhile, the Pope hates us, the Baptists are getting ready to officially ban all support for us, and and it's the rare church that would even consider performing gay marriages even if they were legal.

But we're not supposed to hold that against the churches because that would be hostile. :eyes:

[beam me up scottie]

227. But religion has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Er, at least that's what we were told on another thread.

Some pictures from one of my responses:

[jonnyblitz]

228. but BMUS, those aren't (((REAL))) christians...

geeeeez

[beam me up scottie]

235. D'oh!

I forgot! :banghead:

[BlooInBloo]

328. What a wonderful thing - to define words themselves so that you're always the good guy...

:rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

327. 2nd-ed.

[The Straight Story]

226. To me the point one should make to Elton John is that;

He doesn't like the broad brushing and attack on his sexuality by ignorant people, and yet he broad brushes and attacks billions of religious folks (From JFK and MLK to a lot of other people) based on his limited perception and by seeing only the negative he chooses to see.

Not a very enlightened position to take. One can find negative in any group - from political to religious to sexual. If one chooses to focus mainly on that and brainwash themselves into seeing things in only one manner then they are not progressive imho.

In a world of six billion people where many hold some sort of religious belief it is like him saying 'my way is the right way and those not following should have their ways banned'.

People of faith have done terrible things, and wonderful things. Apparently he believes people without faith are all good all the time.

[beam me up scottie]

229. Stop trying to make him out to be the intolerant one.

GLBT people are simply REACTING to the hatred preached by religious leaders.

Pope calls gay marriage part of "ideology of evil"

Top Vatican Cardinal: Gay Marriage is "A Crime Which represents the Destruction of the World"
Gay Adoption "Destroy's the Child's Future" and is "An Act of Moral Violence Against the Child"

You should be damn glad that they're not prone to violence like your brethren.

[Bluebear]

230. His point is also about world peace, not only sexuality....

The clip that the OP provided only featured the gay aspect...read on for more of what John said. (Not pouring water on your post, but I think it's important to hear the whole discussion. And I absolutely agree with his take on WWIII and the relative absence of religious leaders trying to promote peace, not more discord.)


=====

The world is near escalating to World War Three and where are the leaders of each religion?

“Why aren’t they having a conclave? Why aren’t they coming together? I said this after 9/11 and people thought I was nuts. Instead of more violence why isn’t there a meeting of religious leaders?” he said.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=364&topic_id=2692542&mesg_id=2699871

[donco6]

234. Well, let's see, who is more justified in using the brush?

Gay people, who constitute a tiny minority of the human race, and who have no possible means of collectively impacting the world in a systemic way; or organized religion, which has *purposely* on uncountable occasions promulgated bigotry, prejudice, fear, hatred, war, and a varied and sundry menu of inquisitions upon the said minority?

In other words, why should anyone be surprised or complain when the wimp finally gives the bully a black eye?

[beam me up scottie]

239. Speaking of the Inquisition, I hear that wasn't caused by religion either.

Religion can only be held accountable for good things, remember?

[donco6]

240. Oh yeah, I remember that logic.

Anything good that happens is because of God; anything bad that happens is ALL YOUR FAULT!

[mondo joe]

244. And even if religion didn't CAUSE the inquisition, it didn't do a damn thing to prevent

it.

[SPKrazy]

247. Where Did You Hear That?

just kidding

Yes religion or rather religious people have been responsible for a large percentage, if not the majority of evil things done to people.

Why is that?

I think that it is because people are fear based for the most part and intolerance is based in fear.

Intolerance leads to some pretty nasty stuff. Human evil I believe can be traced to fear and intolerance for the most part. Then throw in a few sociopaths who feed on the masses fears and you have a movement of fear based ideology.

So, Elton has a right to make his observations. Not all religious people will fit his description, but unfortunately religion has a long history of easily meeting his expectations, and the current mood in many religious circles seems to be to be to look for a scapegoat to blame the problems of today on.

Gays, Lesbians, and others make scapegoats because they are "different" in the eyes of a fear based person, or group.

It is a sad thing to see that religion is still in this day and age used as a hammer to hit the heads of the people who are fearful. Not saying I'm not a person who has fear, but I try to realize that my fear is my fear and not the result of some easily scapegoated group or person(s)

[beam me up scottie]

249. I just remembered why I lurve you so much, SPK.

:hug:

You're right, intolerance feeds on ignorance, and the more fundamentalist sects pride themselves on their ability to keep their sheep in the dark while they scare them with boogie-fags and infidels.

They didn't spend centuries trying to destroy science for nothing.


Liberal believers use their brains, why, they're almost as dangerous as gays and atheists.

[SPKrazy]

251. Almost As Dangerous

well, that is a high compliment I'd say

although I sometimes think that liberal believers may be more dangerous to the "believing right" because we claim similar things, but come up with such different conclusions and actions.

I lurve you too BMUS!

:hug:

[ruggerson]

245. It's not a good analogy or comparison

Show me gay groups that want religious people kept out of the armed forces.

Show me gay groups that want religious people forbidden from marrying each other.

Show me gay groups that want to strip religious people of constitutional protections.

YOu can't because there aren't.

Yet these are the things that many religious people advocate doing to gay people.

[The Straight Story]

250. I can show you a gay man who says he wants to ban my beliefs

I don't think either side is perfect here.

[donco6]

259. That was me.

And - being powerless to carry out such an act - I believe you can view that as "wishful thinking."

I was channeling John Lennon at the time.

[Bluebear]

262. Just don't start singing like Yoko Ono.

She gives me a headache.

[donco6]

263. LOL! Singing? Is *that* what that is? eom

[Bluebear]

264. Kiss, kiss, kiss, kiss, kiss, kiss, kiss, kiss me love!

:crazy:

[ruggerson]

287. A remark

from someone on a discussion forum does not translate into a movement or any group's mission.

My statement stands.

There is no organized gay effort to persecute religious people. Any religious people.

However there is plenty of organized efforts from religious people to persecute gays.

One population is the oppressor and the other is the oppressed. You cannot go around pretending like there is moral equivalence between the two groups.

[GirlinContempt]

252. You missed the point, I think.

It's ok, because they did it worse and first. Some of them are really really bad so it's ok. As long and you don't START it, it's fine. Because you don't have as much power, it's ok to be nasty.

[Bluebear]

254. Who did what "worse and first"?

I don't get it.

[GirlinContempt]

258. "Religion"

[beam me up scottie]

271. She's comparing the way religion was used to persecute gays to Elton John's statement.

They're both equally "nasty", don't you know? :crazy:

[GirlinContempt]

276. Wow.

You're really out to lunch.

[beam me up scottie]

293. No, dearie, I live in the bible belt, people like you are the ones in la la land.

You freak out about a gay man opining that he'd like to ban religion because of the intolerance of homosexuals it fosters while conveniently ignoring thousands of years of persecution of gays suffered at the hands of said religion.

You equate his "nasty" comments with people who want to bring back the good old days where gays were stoned to death in the village square.

If there was a Nobel prize for being oblivious, you'd be a serious contender.

[Bluebear]

277. Where are all the "mainstream" holy men when Falwell & Robertson spout off?

When they said that gays and abortionists caused 9/11, did any of their fellow fundies or Catholic priests get on the airwaves and pronounce those sentiments as "outrageous"?? They didn't.

Maybe they agreed with them. Maybe they didn't. But they did NOT make a hue and cry over those remarks. Yet, here comes Elton John mentioning that religion has had a history of making things difficult to say the least for gay people, and boy howdy, look at the thread.

Disgraceful.

[beam me up scottie]

295. Nothing says tolerance like comparing his remarks to those of Fred Phelps.

Funny how most of Elton's armchair prosecutors never show up in your threads highlighting the threat of dominionists in this country either.

[GirlinContempt]

401. No one compared him to Fred Phelps but you.

[beam me up scottie]

456. Oh, isn't Freddy "nasty" too?

:eyes:

[kiahzero]

298. Plenty did.

And I can guarantee you that the same people posting in this thread were attacking Falwell and Robertson when they made those statements.

[beam me up scottie]

304. Maybe SOME of them would.

While others would be crying about the "War on christians".

Just like on this thread.

[kiahzero]

318. You really think DUers would endorse attacking liberals?

You really think DUers would endorse the argument that liberals, "abortionists," and pagans caused 9/11?

What you might find is some overwrought language about how all Christians are bad, and some people saying, "Hey, we're not Christian and we're not bad. Stop generalizing," like you're seeing a fair bit of on this thread. And some people might get upset and start using loaded terms like "war on Christians," yes.

[beam me up scottie]

322. What the hell are you talking about?

Nobody said "all christians are bad".

Somebody DID say we were waging a war on christians though.

Apparently that's a forgivable sentiment while Sir Elton John's isn't.

Because he couldn't possibly have a reason to be upset, could he?

Your double standard isn't naive, it's illiberal.

[kiahzero]

336. I didn't say his sentiment was unforgivable

I said it was wrong.

[beam me up scottie]

342. You're busted.

You made excuses for the apologetics on this thread while condemning him for lashing out against centuries of persecution.

[kiahzero]

347. I didn't condemn him.

I've said that he's wrong that religion is inherently homophobic. I fail to see how I'm "busted."

[treestar]

414. Maybe they did and the MSM did not pay any attention

This is why I don't like this type of criticism. You'd have to look to find a Muslim condemning 911, for example. The MSM never covers it. You have to look for it.

It's unjust to blame a group for "not speaking up" in an atmosphere were only the crazies get the coverage. The MSM ignores voices of moderation; they are not dramatic enough.

[noiretextatique]

411. i think you missed the point

there is no organized LGBT effort to suppress, destroy, limit, etc. the rights of religious people. on the other hand, there is an organized effort by some religious people to suppress, destroy, limit, etc. the rights of gay people. i believe john was commenting on that effort, and i applaud him for doing so. you are trying to compare apples to oranges.

[Sapphocrat]

449. As long as some people are going to insist...

...there is a "War on Christmas," and/or an organized effort by LGBTs to ban religion, maybe we ought to live down to their expectations, and give them the satisfaction of the persecution they so desperately desire. ;)

[treestar]

413. ITA, you've summed this up well, he ignores that there are religious

people who are tolerant, who even work for gay rights, and even gay people who are clergy in denominations that accept it, or fighting to be clergy in those that don't. He's not helping them, and they're gay. He would ban religion for those gay people? He needs to let them be the ones that speak to the religious about it. He just shows equal intolerance.

[beam me up scottie]

457. "Equal" intolerance ??? Equal ??? EQUAL ???

Are you fucking kidding me?

Equal to the intolerance of these people?:

[NMMNG]

380. LOL

:rofl:


Yes, it's so mean when the minority of gays says something bad about the majority of religious people who have spent so much time demonizing them for the past several thousand years. :sarcasm:

[Unvanguard]

223. This is pretty clear to me.

While it's true that not all varieties of organized religion encourage the hatred of gays, many of the major ones do, and they are the prominent sources of that kind of bigotry.

The harm they cause should not be underestimated.

[beam me up scottie]

372. Whoops, almost missed you there.

Well said.

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[boolean]

278. What did he say that was false?

WHY do the DU Christians ALWAYS get offended when this comes up?

Organized religion promotes hatred of gays. That's not an insult so much as it is a fact. Why do people here who call themselves "liberal christans" associate with the organized wing that so clearly promoted hatred of gays?

I guess what I'm saying here is, why can't I see a response like this:

"I am a Christian and I abhor my leaders who continually promote hatred of gays."

Instead of

"OMG HE IS SO IGNRANT BROADBRUSH I"M OFFEENENNNNNDDDEED!!!!!1111oneoneone!!!"

[BlooInBloo]

333. Would you appreciate someone pointing out the elephant in the room...

... after you spent 1000s of years murdering, raping, brainwashing, forcing stupidity and servility upon large populations - and justified it by saying there was no such elephant?

That would fucking suck.

[beam me up scottie]

377. POTD !!!

:rofl:

That would fucking suck indeed.

[gulliver]

291. Elton and Brittney should do a Sunday Morning Show

They could call it "Dufus and Dunce." That way they wouldn't need to argue about whose name is first in the title. It would be ambiguous.

On edit: And I'm a big fan of Elton John's music, but not Brittney's.

[Bluebear]

296. I take it you don't agree with his premise.

How does that make him a dunce?

[gulliver]

314. I agree with his premise.

I disagree with his conclusion, "I would ban religion completely." That is just a dumb thing to say. He absolutely has the right to say it, but it's dumb...juvenile...counterproductive to his cause. He went off the deep end. Had he left it at organized religion engendering hatred of gays, he would have scored a point or two for tolerance and reform. But he screwed it up and damaged his own side.

Don't get me wrong. He has every right to say it, and I myself could care less about the religious franchises. I think they are to spirituality what McDonald's is to nutrition. But I just think it's usually dumb to mouth off like he did. It was gratuitous.

Most of the people who heard or read these comments probably don't know how bitter Elton John was when he lost so much popularity in the seventies over his admission that he was homosexual. They are probably wondering why this popular "old guy" who happens to be gay and sang with Eminem suddenly decided to snipe at religion.

[hfojvt]

294. that's just silly Elton

people do not need a reason to hate. That's what people do. We are a tribal species. We get together in packs and tribes and hate everybody who is not part of the tribe.

There's a ton of hatred and violence in the world, and as far as I can see organized religion is responsible for very little of it and is also responsible for trying to stop it.

I do think it's kinda ironic. This kid I worked with - very violent kid, a playa and a "pimp". Where's t-shirts that say 'stop snitchin' and 'no mercy'. Makes rap CDs about how cool he is and how full of sh*t everyone else is. Yet he says at work "homosexuality is wrong. Even the Bible says that." I tried to explain to him that he was no respecter of the Bible. The Bible is pretty clear about condemning a 'no mercy' attitude. He does not read the Bible, doesn't follow it's teachings, and yet, he will 'quote' it when it seems to SAY SOMETHING HE ALREADY WANTS TO BELIEVE. He doesn't hate gays because of the Bible. He hates gays because he hates (or is afraid of) gays and uses the Bible to support his hatred. But he will not hear that kind of message at your average non-fundy Protestant or Catholic church. He might hear alot about 'sexual immorality' in general, which would include his own heterosexual practices.

But I could be wrong about that because when things don't affect you, you don't notice them as much - just like most people do not flinch at the phrase 'paddy wagon' or 'anemic' or 'mouth-breather' when they are used as pejoratives.

[Bluebear]

299. "But he will not hear that kind of message at your average ... Catholic church."

:spray:

World Net Daily September 19, 2005

Applicants with ‘gay’ tendencies won’t be admitted to seminaries

Pope Benedict XVI has given his approval to a new Vatican policy document that bans men with homosexual tendencies from being ordained as priests, reports Catholic World News.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2005/09/19/pope-bans-homosexuals-from-ordination-as-priests/

Pope John Paul II on Sunday urged politicians to defend the institution of the family against what he called grave challenges, an apparent reference to efforts to legalize marriage between homosexuals.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/24/world/main663008.shtml

[hfojvt]

302. neither of those messages is likely to come up

in this weekend's homilies.

Not that I have been to mass in a year or more.

[Bluebear]

306. Sorry, but Boston area Catholic churches were being URGED from the PULPIT

to call their legislators to oppose gay marriage.

Look, if you are religious, more power to you. Gays have been on the receiving end of so much hate from the religious, you will just have to understand that it's too much for some of us.

[jonnyblitz]

307. like the guy in your avatar sings in his most famous song

"
<snip>
"Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace"
<snip>

why John Lennon was as vile as that uppity homo Elton John, eh?

[beam me up scottie]

313. "why John Lennon was as vile as that uppity homo Elton John, eh?"

:thumbsup:

[hfojvt]

324. I said Elton was silly, not vile

and yes I think Johnny was kinda silly there too. I much prefer his 'give peace a chance' to Imagine. However, I would note that it seemed to be the 'religion' of nationalism which was causing most of the killing.

[Bluebear]

310. delete

.

[Bluebear]

315. 11/06: Bishop ORDERS churches to play his homily urging yes vote on gay marriage ban

WAUSAU — The bishop of the Diocese of Madison has ordered his priests to play during weekend Masses a recorded homily from him urging the faithful to vote “yes” on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Same-sex marriage will cause the collapse of the family and “society in due time,” Bishop Robert Morlino warns in his homily. “There is no right to redefine marriage.”

The homily is just one of many efforts religious leaders are making to get followers to the polls Tuesday and sway their votes on the amendment...

In a letter sent to about 110 priests with the recorded sermon, the bishop asked them to support his message.

“I must make it very clear that any verbal or nonverbal expression of disagreement with this teaching on the part of the priest will have to be considered by myself as an act of disobedience, which could have serious consequences,” he wrote.

http://www.journaltimes.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=8887

[beam me up scottie]

303. Oh, can I play too?

Pope calls gay marriage part of "ideology of evil"

Top Vatican Cardinal: Gay Marriage is "A Crime Which represents the Destruction of the World"
Gay Adoption "Destroy's the Child's Future" and is "An Act of Moral Violence Against the Child"

[Bluebear]

308. Pope: Gays can never have a 'deep love' like heterosexuals. nt

[beam me up scottie]

311. Well isn't he the enlightened one?

Reminds me of all the bigots who compare gay marriage to bestiality.

I wonder where they learned that?

[hfojvt]

349. fascinating

but it is very hard to find a church in my area where the Pope gives the homily. Which is not to say that statements from the Pope do not weigh more heavily than local homilies.

I believe I said he would not hear it at his local Catholic church. I never noticed it when I was attending mass regularly, but that was a decade ago and things change.

[beam me up scottie]

359. The Vatican makes the policies, no?

While your particular parish might not come right out and admit it, they are supporting those policies.

Most of my female friends from high school rejected catholicism because of the inherent and obvious misogyny.

And they refuse to indoctrinate their own children.

[Bluebear]

312. 21 churches take out newspaper ad to endorse gay marriage ban

Amendment supporters got help from 21 churches that took out a full-page ad in the Wausau Daily Herald this week endorsing the amendment. The list included Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist and Assemblies of God churches.

The Rev. Kim Swenson, pastor of Bethany Baptist Church, one of the churches named in the ad, said he has preached to his 325-member congregation about the importance of voting yes.
“I just kind of admonished everybody that you need to get out and support what we would believe is the Biblical design for marriage,” he said.


http://www.journaltimes.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=8887

[hfojvt]

358. and in liberal Wisconsin too. Tsk. Tsk.

I did not notice such a big push when that issue came up in Kansas. Perhaps the churches think the vote might be closer in Wisconsin. What was the vote total? I am thinking that their message was coals to Newcastle.

It seems I am hearing about the marriage issue only. That they strongly oppose gay marriage does not prove to me that they regularly teach hatred of gays. I wonder if anyone told them that a vote against gay marriage is a vote FOR gay promiscuity?

[Bluebear]

319. Calgary's bishop orders letter read in EVERY church to "STAMP OUT" gay marriage

(Calgary, Alberta) The Roman Catholic Bishop of Calgary Sunday called on Catholics to stamp out same-sex marriage.

In a pastoral letter read in every church in the diocese Bishop Frederick Henry equated homosexuality with adultery, prostitution and pornography.

Henry said that the government has a duty to suppress public expressions of homosexuality.

"Marriage and the family are the foundations of society, through which children are brought into this world and nurtured as they grow to adulthood," the bishop said.

"Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the State must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good."

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/01/011605calgBishop.htm

[hfojvt]

361. in retrospect, mentioning Catholics seems to have been a mistake

I just did not remember any homilies or major teaching when I was joining that church and attending mass. Lord knows, they do hate sex though - all sex, not just homosexual sex. Do you think the RC church also teaches hatred of adulterers, prostitutes and pornographers? (probably could include fornicaters and masturbaters in that too). Calling an activity vile and saying that it should not be engaged in is not the same thing as hating the people who engage in those activities.

[Bluebear]

364. :)

Didn't mean to pile on ya, there. Your answer title is hilarious :)

And you are correct about them hating all sex. My favorite line from bernstein's Mass:

God said that sex should repulse
unless it leads to results,
and so we crowd the world
full of consenting adults.

[beam me up scottie]

370. I agree with Bluebear.

You have class, hfojvt. :)

[GirlinContempt]

375. Well

it was a catholic prime minister who pushed gay marriage in Canada.

"We are a nation of minorities and in a nation of minorities, it is important that you don't cherry pick rights. A right is a right and that is what this vote tonight is all about," Mr Martin said before the vote.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4632229.stm

[Bluebear]

321. US Catholics prez. introduces letter to Senate (via Allard-R) re: DOMA

The president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops on Friday endorsed a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. He urged all Roman Catholics to lobby for its passage.

The statement from Bishop Wilton Gregory was the first from the American church backing a specific amendment that would deny recognition of same-sex marriages.

In a letter this week to his fellow bishops, Gregory wrote that the Senate leadership had asked them to "formally register support" for the legislation.

Introduced by Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., the measure defines marriage as "the union of a man and a woman" and is expected to come before the Senate around July 12.

Gregory asked bishops to urge their senators to get behind the amendment, and to encourage priests and parishioners to do the same.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/06/25/bishop_backs_amendment_on_gay_marriage_ban?mode=PF

[Bouncy Ball]

348. Even the Unitarian Universalist church?

It's the only church I've ever been in where gay and lesbian couples feel safe enough to put their arms around each other during the service.

[Bluebear]

366. Decidedly NOT them. They are also called heretics though. nt

[Skittles]

354. he is very much correct

it is why I find religion to be a bunch of nonsense

[readmoreoften]

371. Elton was not accurate. MOST organized religion encourages hatred of gays.

With the acception of:

Conservative (most) and Reform Judaism
50% of Episcopals
Unitarians
United Church of Christ
Metropolitan Church of Christ (gay church)
Wiccans
A small portion of the American Baptists

Most Christians in the US aren't hateful, just intolerant enough to fuck up gay people's lives. Just intolerant enough to spend hours arguing with gays and lesbians and never concern themselves with gaybashers and people who kill impoverished transwomen.

Some non-denominational Christians have become more accepting and helpful as well. Unfortunately the majority still hate us and are sickened by us. The majority of the Islamic world as well.

[beam me up scottie]

374. Some stats to back you up:

From those rabid anti-religious atheists at The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life:

Religious Beliefs Underpin Opposition to Homosexuality

Opposition to gay marriage has increased since the summer and a narrow majority of Americans also oppose allowing gays and lesbians to enter legal agreements that fall short of marriage. Moreover, despite the overall rise in tolerance toward gays since the 1980s, many Americans remain highly critical of homosexuals and religious belief is a major factor in these attitudes.

A 55% majority believes it is a sin to engage in homosexual behavior, and that view is much more prevalent among those who have a high level of religious commitment (76%). About half of all Americans have an unfavorable opinion of gay men (50%) and lesbians (48%), but highly religious people are much more likely to hold negative views.

Religiosity is clearly a factor in the recent rise in opposition to gay marriage. Overall, nearly six-in-ten Americans (59%) oppose gay marriage, up from 53% in July. But those with a high level of religious commitment now oppose gay marriage by more than six-to-one (80%-12%), a significant shift since July (71%-21%). The public is somewhat more supportive of legal agreements for gays that provide many of the same benefits of marriage; still, a 51% majority also opposes this step.

A new national survey of 1,515 adults, conducted Oct. 15-19 by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life finds that homosexuality in general not merely the contentious issue of gay marriage is a major topic in churches and other houses of worship. In fact, clergy are nearly as likely to address homosexuality from the pulpit as they are to speak out about abortion or prayer in school, say people who attend church regularly.

http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=37

[undergroundpanther]

376. If you believe the bible

is sacred and it is words from god, you obey it it colors how you see sexuality. The bible God is a homophobe. Gods in MOST religions and religions are homophobic . Most religions are organized hierarchical social structures with people believing books and writings they think are god speaking to THEM. And they ACT accordingly. Religion has been the excuse for ALOT of atrocities against humanity. So if followers believe it is gods word and refuse to EDIT the book's hate speech out of FEAR of offending this hateful god then they admit by proxy their god hates gays and their god would send me to be tortured forever in hell which is described Like Abu Gharib forever.And that is OK with believers than? That tells me christians do NOT know right from wrong if they FEAR god will punish them to the point they do NOT edit that hate from their bible..they are as immoral as their god is.

To me most gods(including many pagan ones) are sexist, homophobic warmongering,immoral, inhumane psychopaths. That is what I see when I read "holy" texts.I don't trust any god to tell me what is good or evil because they have less moral character than I do, and that is what I have gleaned about the nature of gods from their own texts..

And when there are masses of followers who fear their gods,who refuse to edit out sexism or homophobia from a holy text , I think they are cowards, and they do much to keep their god a jealous,controlling,bullying,primitive, tribal, hateful god. IMHO.

[beam me up scottie]

378. You bring up some of the same points as Sam Harris.

Another evil anti-religion terrorist.

Hang in there, UP, we've got them running for cover now.

We just have to figure out how to keep them that way til '08.

:hug:

[readmoreoften]

441. Those are some glaring statistics, my friend.

It shows that fundamentalist christianity isn't just attracting homophobes, but actually cultivating anti-gay opinion.

[beam me up scottie]

444. Yep, haven't seen anyone try to refute them either.

Although one person has tried to claim that there is no hatred of homosexuals in the bible, it's all the bad translations that just make it look that way.

[Solon]

379. Can you please strike Wicca from the "Organized Religion" list?

We are about as organized as a gang of cats that are around a single, open, can of tuna. Just trying to GET organized is like herding cats.

We don't even have a series of holy books, outside of the Book of Shadows, and that varies from individual to individual.

[undergroundpanther]

433. I know

Wicca is pretty unorganized compared to the cell churches.
But I am wicca and I remember what the cord I wear means, It means we are a community,diverse divided individualistic but we are there for each other, there is organization in wicca but it is INWARD directed to help each other. To be safe in a world with so many people hostile and ignorant to and about our existence and wicca itself..We have to have solidarity to be safe to be. And that is a whole different reason than why the fundies organize..and try to grab political power and force a theocracy.

[readmoreoften]

440. Sure. I just wanted to include Wiccan beliefs. How about disorganized religion?

No disrespect to the pagans!

[6000eliot]

381. Oh, who will defend poor powerless organized religion

against those enormously powerful gays and lesbians?

[AngryOldDem]

394. It's hard to argue with him

And I think Christ Himself would weep at what "organized religion" has become.

I have very little use for it now, myself.

[noonwitch]

395. It all depends on the religion and the individual church/denomination

There are plenty of denominations of christianity that are open to gays. The UCC, UU, PBUSA, Unity, Episcopal Church, etc. Plus, there is a gay denomination, and the UMC has some congregations that are more open to it than others. Even the Catholic church is split somewhat, as far as individual priests and parishes are concerned. In the Detroit area, St. James church in Ferndale is known for being open to all.

On top of that, there are wiccans and neopagans, who have no issues about homosexuality.

So, religion in general isn't the problem for gays, narrow-minded religion is. We live in a society where people are free to think and speak whatever they want, even if it is narrow-minded hate.

[Darth_Kitten]

396. Whatever, Elton......

sweeping generalities......

[spoony]

443. Apparently they're very popular here, though

Pretty sorry to see "liberals" advocating banning a series of philosophies they don't like. Of course it's the same bunch of bitter prats you can find in any thread like this, but it's still pathetic to see.

[beam me up scottie]

458. Really? Point them out.

"liberals" advocating banning a series of philosophies they don't like

Where?

[spoony]

467. Feigned ignorance is the dumbest approach to an argument

What a surprise you'd reply to me. Hit a little close to home sparky?

[Puglover]

474. Gosh, your post brings what word to mind?

Oh I know...bullshit. The majority of people posting in this thread haven't advocated banning anything. What the debate has been about is how organized religion vilifies gays. Or did that blow right past you "Sparky"?

As to your "bitter prat" nonsense. Try being without basic civil rights though out your entire life pal. Try being compared to "man on dog" sex. And so much more. All of this being promoted by many of your "series of philosophies" and not being a teeny bit bitter and angry to wards them.

You want to worship the fucking rock in your backyard? Knock yourself out. But when you start fucking with my life because Rock tells you to then expect this "bitter prat" to be in your face.

[spoony]

476. You don't know anything about me

And if I were to launch into a bio, you'd feel pretty damn stupid for your assumptions. But whatever, continue hating 90% of the world's population, I couldn't care less.

By the way, if you'll read what John said, he said he'd BAN RELIGION. And people have been saying in this thread they AGREE WITH HIM. If they fail to either understand or qualify their own agreement, it isn't my fault. I can only read what they wrote, that they agree with what he said.

Clear enough for you like?

[Puglover]

478. Believe me Spoony.

Nothing you could say or do would make me feel stupid.

Yeah, I so hate 90% of the world's population. Speaking of assumptions.

The whole argument is asinine to begin with. Noone in this thread, none of us evil homos or Elton John have any power what so ever to ban religion. So cheer up. For the time being you, 90% of the world's population and Rock are safe.

[jpwhite]

399. that's why I am a unitarian universalist

There is a reason I am a unitarian universalist: they encourage people to think for themselves. We as UU's believe that there are many paths to God. I personally do not take a literal point of view on the bible. There are many things that the bible teaches that I don't agree with. In the bible it says that slavery is okay, that women are to be subservient to men, and that it's okay to beat your kids with a rod. But I don't throw away the baby with the bathwater either. I believe that you should be discerning when it comes to the bible or any other holy book. The simple question to ask is what is the most loving way to handle this situation?

People who are gay should be allowed to get married and enjoy the same rights that heterosexuals have. It won't destroy heterosexual marriages if they get married. In fact, it was my friend Charles who was there for me when things between my wife and I were going sour. I had to quit my job so that I could go to college full time and finish my degree. During my last semester I was taking 18 hours (6 classes) and 3 of those classes involved some kind of group work. That meant I was at the library at least 3 nights a week. My wife was furious because she felt that I was ignoring her and our 3 daughters. She almost left me over this. But my friend Charles (who happens to be gay) was there for me to encourage me to work things out with my wife.

If you believe the right-wing propaganda about homosexuality you would hear them say that gay men want straight guys to leave their wives and become gay. That is so wrong. My friend Charles was there for me every step of the way until my wife and I worked things out. He was so encouraging and I am grateful for what he did.

It's funny....Pat Robertson's theories about people who are gay look like swiss cheese.....because there are a ton of holes in them!!!

James
[e-mail]

[DrunkenMaster]

403. Organized Religions Suck. Period.

And not just for the reasons EJ states here. The fact is that ANY religion -- Islam, Xtianity, Wicca, and even Unitarianism, abandons Occam's Razor and scientific scepticism in favor of FAITH and BELIEF. Faith and Belief are antithetical to critical thought and analysis in every situation. "Moderate" believers of ALL stripes are only "moderate" to the extent that they abandon the fundamental principles of their faith, as Sam Harris has finely written.

Humanity needs INTELLIGENCE, IMAGINATION and CREATIVITY, not more obedience training. Religion is anti-evolutionary.

[donsu]

412. a great post to end this thread with

nt

[cboy4]

427. BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Like you think a thread about religion/bashing gay people has an end!

That's a good one!! :rofl:

:popcorn:

[donco6]

437. Actually, if we'd started with it, it would have been.

EVEN BETTER!

[Leopolds Ghost]

428. Occam's Razor

Named after religious scholar William of Ockham, 1200s AD...

BTW . Ever hear of postmodern theory or a little book called
"Critique of Pure Reason"?

[DrunkenMaster]

439. Just like Newton!

Ockham was a religious scholar just like Newton was an alchemist. Their ideas transcend their religious belief systems -- that's the whole point.
And yes, I've read "Critique" (loooong time ago, tho!). Personally, I found the idea that freedom is found within "laws" to be a bit of congnitive dissonance and even a bit offensive...but that's just me.

I would absolutely argue that "reason" can become a faith-based, dogmatic system just as easily as any type of religion. Any time we abandon model agnosticism, forget that our knowledge is limited by the instruments we use (including our own CNS)and claim possession of Truth (Capital "T", the whole and nothing but)and use that Truth to harm, punish, exclude or demonize others, we have absolutely committed the sin of Idolatry (Yeah, I know it's a religious metaphor, but it works well, I think), no matter if we call it "Christianity" or "Wicca" or "Reason".

Christian theologians know this...which is why most of them avoid "organized" religion like the plague. Paul Tillich, one of my personal favorites, summarized it well when he said "'God' is a symbol for God." I'd love to see organized religions adopt this brilliant perspective, but it would take a miracle -- religion woulid have to drop the idolatrous, idiotic anthropomorphization (I have no idea if I spelled that correctly) of Diety.

In most circumstances, claiming absolute truth is a dangerous myth and we need to work hard to abandon it as garbage in order to continue to evolve.

[KamaAina]

419. I belong to no organized religion. I am a Religious Scientist.

</will-rogers>

We have at least one gay couple among our micro-flock of two dozen or so (on a good week :-) ) We let them take turns as ushers and everything! :sarcasm:

What's up, Elton? Rug on too tight or something?

edit: spacing

[beam me up scottie]

459. "What's up, Elton? Rug on too tight or something?"

Yeah, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the millions of people who think he's an abomination because their god told them so, could it?

Pope calls gay marriage part of "ideology of evil"

Top Vatican Cardinal: Gay Marriage is "A Crime Which represents the Destruction of the World"
Gay Adoption "Destroy's the Child's Future" and is "An Act of Moral Violence Against the Child"

Yeah, Elton's the one with the problem.

[KamaAina]

477. Those odious quotes both come from one of the many organized religions

Granted, it does take a little poking around, but one can find organized religions that aren't suffused with homophobia: Unitarian Universalism, Reform Judaism, Episcopalianism (in the U.S., at any rate), United Church of Christ are just a few.

So why strike out at all organized religion, rather than the specific ones that are causing the problem (hardly limited to Roman Catholicism)?

[majorjohn]

446. Why should anyone care...

what Elton John thinks? He's just some singer.

[pitohui]

448. well good for him if he did say it

elton john is so kind and tactful that i don't often associate him with a blunt speaking of the truth, although i know he has done so much to raise awareness of glbt issues

i agree with this quote 100 percent to be honest

there are many good religious people who DON'T do this, however, let's be honest, they are rising above their religious heritage, they are not in the mainstream of what religion has usually done to gay people

[beam me up scottie]

461. The Brits are allowed to criticize religion.

Just look at what happens when we do it here.

SHRIEK !!!

CHRISTIAN BASHING !!!

HATE SPEECH !!!

WAR ON CHRISTIANS !!!

CALL O'REILLY !!!

[spoony]

468. You agree with the banning of religion as John said? n/t

[last_texas_dem]

482. I think he's right to a point

I believe organized religion is the strongest factor influencing anti-gay bigotry. I understand why he feels passionate about this. I feel strongly about this, too. I have known many people who, if they were thinking rationally and not letting their indoctrination think for them, would have had nothing against gay people. As it was, they were homophobes.

However, I think his "I would ban religion completely" commment is extreme. While there have been times, as an agnostic, I have wondered if there is truth to the idea that the world would actually be a better place without religion, any talk of "banning" it just seems silly and, although I know this isn't the most exact word I'm looking for to say what I'm trying to say, undemocratic. I think many people will always think they need some form of religion, so the best thing to do is to let them evolve. There may always be the fundamentalist factions to deal with, but if the majority of religious believers "progress" along with the social values of their times, religion may not always be the anti-gay force it, for a large part, seems to be as of now.

[iamthebandfanman]

487. organised religion

is the work of the devil.

faith is whats important.

rules and regulations to keep you bound and make you hate.
trickery i say.
lol

[flvegan]

488. Organized religion is neither.

Now, dogma...that's another thing altogether.