Islamofascism–Real Peril to Gay People
In my last post, I noted that Pajamas Media had asked me to write a piece on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comments today at Columbia University that they “don’t have homosexuals” in his land.
To whet your appetitie, I’ll give you the first paragraphs and then encourage you to read the rest at Pajamas:
Today is a day when gay people of all political stripes should be united. On this day when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is all over the news, we should be standing tall and condemning this leader of one of the most anti-gay regimes on the planet.Leaders of gay groups rush to put out press releases when the highest court in a state rules that their state’s constitution does not require it to recognize same-sex unions. But, even with that ruling, gay couples can still live openly in Maryland. As they can in many other states which have refused to recognize gay marriage.
But, in Iran, not only are gay couples prevented from living together openly, they could be executed for expressing their feelings for same-sex intimacy. Perhaps it’s because his busy sentencing gay Iranians to death that Ahmadinejad claimed today that “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. . . . In Iranian we don’t have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have it.“
Good article. I’m not holding my breath that the ‘gay leadership’ will come out with any condemnation soon. After all, he stated there are no homosexuals in Iran, so what’s the problem. You can’t execute people who aren’t there, unless of course you already executed them all.
Sure, DADT, DOMA and ENDA are important issues, but if the freest gay organizations in the world can’t stand up for their oppressed brothers and sisters in Iran, then please remind me, why do they exist?
Comment by Leah — September 24, 2007 @ 8:05 pm - September 24, 2007
Excellent post.
Our gay brothers and sisters are being slaughtered in the Middle East by Islamic dictators and we’re arguing over name calling and inflicting virtual verbal wedgies on each other.
I hope that if the rope were tied around my neck, the outcry would be something better than watered down moral equivalency.
Obviously, we’ll all hang separately.
Comment by Vera Charles — September 24, 2007 @ 8:48 pm - September 24, 2007
Fantastic article, Dan. Well done!
Comment by John — September 24, 2007 @ 9:02 pm - September 24, 2007
Excellent post indeed.
-Michael
http://tedandmichael.com
Comment by Michael — September 24, 2007 @ 10:23 pm - September 24, 2007
It’s telling that the world’s biggest homophobe and anti-Semite comes to speak at Columbia U. and I get yet another email from HRC pissing and moaning about the need for ENDA.
The libs circle the wagon for this gap toothed asshole who kills those they claim to love. What’s up with that?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 24, 2007 @ 11:12 pm - September 24, 2007
This fascist agrees with Christian social conservatives, who do not denouce Leviticus for the evil that it is, that homosexuality is “chosen” in “permissive” environments, so in his mind his tyranical repression naturally keeps it from occuring. To what degree our own Christian conservatives adopt their beloved Bible’s prescriptions (”…they shall be put to death”) to create an environment where its people do not “choose” “sin” depends on us, on if we let them. It’s great that you hate this fascist. But you’re fools for coddling up to our own fascists at home.
Comment by arturo fernandez — September 25, 2007 @ 12:14 am - September 25, 2007
“Yes, we should fault the president and his team for failing to repeal the pernicious Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell Policy preventing gays from serving openly in the military and should take the president to task for endorsing the Federal Marriage Amendment.” …
Should we? According to whom and who is ‘we’?
“Gay people can disagree whether or not state courts should accord same-sex unions the same recognition they offer to different-sex couples who opt for marriage…”
Better, but then how does one reconcile the two statements?
Comment by HardHobbit — September 25, 2007 @ 12:25 am - September 25, 2007
But you’re fools for coddling up to our own fascists at home.
Do us a favor, arturo, and start making it clear to people that your antireligious bigotry isn’t caused by your homosexuality; it’s a choice that you make to call religious people “fascists”.
By doing that, you’ll probably do more for gay rights than you could ever manage with your current hate rhetoric.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 25, 2007 @ 12:34 am - September 25, 2007
If you think “antireligious bigotry” is inability to coddle those who will not denounce their Bible’s prescriptions to kill homosexuals (they shall be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”), than, my GayPatriot friend North Dallas Thirty, you are an anti-gay bigot.
Comment by arturo fernandez — September 25, 2007 @ 12:46 am - September 25, 2007
Requiring denunciation of one’s religious beliefs is something our ancestors left in England, arturo, and something which we wrote our constitution specifically to reject.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 25, 2007 @ 1:05 am - September 25, 2007
I will not accept the belief that homosexuals “shall be put to death”. You will. Like the fascist ruler of Iran.
Comment by arturo fernandez — September 25, 2007 @ 1:11 am - September 25, 2007
And by the way, I have much good to say of religion, I’ve said it elsewhere. But when we’re talking about homosexuality, it deserves nothing but contempt.
Comment by arturo fernandez — September 25, 2007 @ 1:21 am - September 25, 2007
I will not accept the belief that homosexuals “shall be put to death”.
Then you intend to punish people for thinking.
That’s because, unfortunately for your argument, gays aren’t dying en masse at the hands of Christians — which means you have to make thinking something the same as doing it in order for your persecution complex to make any sense at all.
Personally, I prefer to wait until they act.
And your pathetic attempts to insist that you are not an antireligious bigot are belied by the facts that you call religious people “fascists” and scream that they all wish to murder gays. Your screaming insistence that homosexuality and religion are incompatible is nothing but a pathetic act of cowardice meant to add a socially-acceptable veneer to your antireligious bigotry.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 25, 2007 @ 2:08 am - September 25, 2007
It is not only in their thoughts that they wish their children be free of homosexual sin. It’s in the world where you and I live that they want their ideas played out. They ARE fascists in their beliefs. You need to understand that, not to “punish” them before they act, even if “punishment” obviously comes so easily to your mind. But because you won’t see the threat coming until they do act.
Comment by arturo fernandez — September 25, 2007 @ 3:20 am - September 25, 2007
I guess you were wrong about homosexuals not coming out against the president of Iran. Numerous articles on the web and on-the-ground incidents disprove your assertions that the homosexual left wouldn’t stand against him.
As for the other subject, the reason that homosexuals aren’t dying en masse at the hands of Christians in the US is because Christians have not yet succeeded in establishing a theocracy to infect what should be a secular government yet. Stop defending Christians because just as you argue that Democrats are no friend to homosexuals, Christians are also no friend to homosexuals. Christians are no better than Muslims and don’t bother trying to argue otherwise. 1500 years of history prove Christians are just as murderous and violent as any other religious zealots.
There is no God. Grow up and get over it already.
Comment by fnln — September 25, 2007 @ 4:34 am - September 25, 2007
Numerous articles on the web and on-the-ground incidents disprove your assertions that the homosexual left wouldn’t stand against him.
Then you won’t mind sharing them all with us, would you?
As for the other subject, the reason that homosexuals aren’t dying en masse at the hands of Christians in the US is because Christians have not yet succeeded in establishing a theocracy to infect what should be a secular government yet.
Why wait for a theocracy? The liberals have succeded in handing us the most anti-gay laws out there without one.
Seems to me (and anybody with a lick of common sense) that what the “eeeevangelicals” should have done is pretend to give two shits about gays and convince mindless assholes among them that the liberals hate their guts. That way they could pass all the anti-gay legislation they want and the dumbasses would throw millions of dollars to them in gratitude. Hell, if that were the case, we’d have a constitutional ammendment and the POS “gay leadership” would be defending it to the death and daring anybody to touch it.
BTW, maybe you could explain why liberals defend theocracies elsewhere. And if you’re totally incapable of explaining that, perhaps you can explain your “what should be a secular government” crack.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 25, 2007 @ 6:24 am - September 25, 2007
I’m sorry, but equating the evangelical Christian position that homosexuality is wrong and shouldn’t be accomodated with the fundamentalist Islamic position that homosexuals should be executed doesn’t stack up. Neither is desirable of course, but one is plainly far worse. As for the assertion that Christians aren’t trying to put us to death because they “have not yet succeeded in establishing a theocracy,” I have to say that you’re full of nonsense. Coming from a highly religious area of Texas, I have lots of evangelical friends, and while most of them are honest enough to say they don’t approve of my homosexuality, they don’t let it stand in the way of our friendship, much less use it to advocate my execution. In fact, so far as I’m aware even the worst of the anti-gay evangelicals in our country- Roberston, Falwell, etc- have never advocated a “Final Solution” such as is practiced in many Islamic countries.
Comment by Sense — September 25, 2007 @ 9:17 am - September 25, 2007
15: I think having 155 members of the justice department who’ve graduated from Pat Robertson’s “law school” is a good step towards an “under the radar” infusion of ultra-theocratic attempts to use religion to set policy and law in this country.
As for Ahmadinejad; I am thrilled that he was given a forum for his psychotic comments in this country. To hear the hooting and cat-calling in response to his statements help to make it clear what a dangerous man this guy is.
Comment by Kevin — September 25, 2007 @ 9:21 am - September 25, 2007
Actually, Kev, there was mostly applause to his comments. The left applauds Ahmadinejad for pursuing nuclear weapons, denying the holocaust, threatening to wipe Israel off the map, hanging young girls who resist rape, sponsoring terror against civilians, and butchering U.S. soldiers. They only kluck their tongues when he says something impolitic about gays.
The values of the left are so f**ked up it’s beyond belief.
Comment by V the K — September 25, 2007 @ 9:27 am - September 25, 2007
Oh, and to save you the trouble of denying that the left supports Ahmadinnerjacket, I reiterate several recent posts on the the DailyKos (that website whose convention all leading Democrat presidential candidates went to kneel before) including the Jewish lesbian with a crush on Ahmadinnerjacket, the “Ahmadinnerjacket sounds like a reasonable man” post, the poll where 36% of Kostards wish Dinnerjacket were president instead of Bush, Kostard offense that Lee Bollinger would offend Dinnerjacket by challenging his human rights record …
And, once again, there was that round of cheers and applause at the end of his lecture…
Despite how the apologists spin, love for this brutal tyrant is very much part of the mainstream left.
Comment by V the K — September 25, 2007 @ 9:33 am - September 25, 2007
ThatGayConservative, I think you’re a prophet!
Hell, if that were the case, we’d have a constitutional ammendment and the POS “gay leadership” would be defending it to the death and daring anybody to touch it.
And lo and behold… it is on the horizon.
http://www.malcontent.biz/blog/?p=2545
Comment by DoDoGuRu — September 25, 2007 @ 9:39 am - September 25, 2007
Leviticus is Old Testament and foundational to Jewish law. It is incorporated in the Torah and is one of the five books of Moses. All of this is pre-Christian. If one is going to go on a rant about any part of Leviticus, one must necessarily include the Jews and the Catholics as well as the Christians.
It is convenient for any demogoguer to pull a statement and hang the entire body of the work on it.
The Old Testament and the New Testament are complex works that have stirred debate and controversy since forever. According to Leviticus, I live in sin because I willingly, openly and enthusiastically munch on shrimp and lobster. My wife has never sacrificed a dove, hence she is a sinner, as well.
The official Old Testament view is that man with man is a sideshow to the purpose of sex which is to be fruitful and multiply. The Old Testament is complete with reports of old geezers who get young women pregnant because the older women ran out of reproductive steam.
This idea that we are a nation of “true believers” just waiting to get enough of Pat Robertson’s law school grads into the Justice Department is farce at its most ridiculous. Apparently, non-believers can not see the difference between a religion that preaches the Golden Rule (Christianity) and one that has nothing resembling the Golden Rule (Islam.)
Homosexuality is a subject of religious doctrine within Christianity. For most Christians, it falls under the category of “hate the sin but love the sinner.” Certainly there are some few “Cretan Christians” who take a murdering stand on the topic. If the homosexual would not be willing or able to defend himself against such “Christians” he will find an overwhelming majority of Christians who will come to his aid. It is the Christian thing to do.
Comment by Heliotrope — September 25, 2007 @ 10:19 am - September 25, 2007
GayPatriot Heliotrope, when I open up the Bible, Leviticus is still there. Nowhere in the New Testament is it denounced as evil, as a mistake, and not as the word of God. If the Gay Bible were to say “and heterosexuals shall be made to breed and be put to death” I would denounce it without qualifications. That in the modern West Christianists have not been allowed to establish laws that their Bible prescribes for a society best cleared of sin is no glory to them.
Comment by arturo fernandez — September 25, 2007 @ 10:57 am - September 25, 2007
I can’t believe I’m having this discussion in a “pro-gay” website with gays or “friends-of-gays”. I’ve called on Christians on their Christian websites to denounce their Bible’s passage that calls for homosexuals to “be put to death” and they never do. But for homosexuals to not do so is unbelievable.
Comment by arturo fernandez — September 25, 2007 @ 11:11 am - September 25, 2007
‘It is convenient for any demogoguer to pull a statement and hang the entire body of the work on it.’
Then, just a few paragraphs later:
‘This idea that we are a nation of “true believers” just waiting to get enough of Pat Robertson’s law school grads into the Justice Department is farce at its most ridiculous. Apparently, non-believers can not see the difference between a religion that preaches the Golden Rule (Christianity) and one that has nothing resembling the Golden Rule (Islam.)‘
Comment by HardHobbit — September 25, 2007 @ 11:23 am - September 25, 2007
Unbelievable!
Comment by arturo fernandez — September 25, 2007 @ 11:48 am - September 25, 2007
arturo, ah another lower caser, why am I not surprised.
Can you not see the difference between words and actions? Yes my Bible, the Jewish Bible does state the a man who lies with another man as with a woman , shall die. Those are harsh words, but they are words.
What is happening in Iran today are actions, real homosexuals being brutally beaten and executed.
So you sit here and whine and complain, about what if? There have been many periods in history when Christianity held political as well as religious power - and despite people being hung for all kinds of offenses, homosexuality wasn’t one of them.
On the other hand, they are happening right now in many Islamic countries, notably Iran.
You are only concerned about what might happen in your sick mind if Christians gain political control. You are completely unwilling to stand up and condemn those who are actively doing so right now. I just hope no Iranian homosexual is reading your comments right now. How depressed they must be, not only to have to hide in order to save their lives. But to have American gays, the freest gays on earth, complain about ‘what ifs’, and not even stand up for their brothers overseas.
People like you disgust me.
Comment by Leah — September 25, 2007 @ 12:00 pm - September 25, 2007
When Christians counsel against homosexuality, it is most often in a spirit of, “you have to turn away from that lifestyle, or you will not inherit the Kingdom of God.” Understood from that perspective, it’s a very loving expression of faith to tell someone whom one perceives as a sinner to turn away from sin. It’s a very different thing from stoning homosexuals, hanging them, crushing them under heavy rocks, or drowning them in sewage… despite the efforts of some to draw equivalence.
Comment by V the K — September 25, 2007 @ 12:09 pm - September 25, 2007
Now now, arturo. Watch the mock-outrage!
Real “Unbelievable” was that time I asked if you were (1) out of the closet, and (2) avoiding really nasty behaviors like restroom cruising or spreading HIV on purpose, and you refused to answer. (Even though I had carefully answered a comparable question from you, first.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 25, 2007 @ 12:10 pm - September 25, 2007
V at #28: I don’t think it’s “loving”, so much as “controlling”… but your point is well-taken: There is a huge moral difference between people who insult you a little by misquoting and ancient book, and people who do really put you and your brethren to death.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 25, 2007 @ 12:13 pm - September 25, 2007
Leah, saying “You are completely unwilling to stand up and condemn those who are actively doing so right now” after reading my comments on this very thread calling the Iranian tyrant a fascist can only mean you are dillusional or a liar.
No spaces ILoveCapitalism, you’re a joke.
Comment by arturo fernandez — September 25, 2007 @ 12:22 pm - September 25, 2007
But because you won’t see the threat coming until they do act.
That’s right; I, unlike you, do not need to invent things to suit a persecution complex.
You are an antireligious bigot, arturo.
Your friend Kevin who screams that people should be discriminated against because of where they went to school and their religious beliefs is an antireligious bigot.
And your friend fnln who mirrors your words about how Christians are all murderers is also an antireligious bigot.
Why does being homosexual make you an antireligious bigot, kevin, arturo, and fnln?
Since you insist that homosexuals are automatically antireligious bigots and you demand discrimination against people based on their religious beliefs — which is a crime under our Federal constitution — why do they deserve any sort of protections whatsoever?
Answer me, bigots.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 25, 2007 @ 12:59 pm - September 25, 2007
Hahahahahahaha…. arturo, you’re pretty funny…. Oh. You’re serious????
I too have some issues with organized religions, and with some specific written doctrines of most religions. Some of it is quite silly when you think about it. Can’t eat pork or shrimp? Must pray everyday at dusk and dawn. Can’t work on Sundays…. oh wait, I like that one. Anyway, that being said, even those Christians who state to believe in the literal word of the bible do not, and could not, survive in the modern world if they truly did so. Modern Christian societies have learned the hard way that the laws of God and the laws of man must be separate in order for both to remain healthy. That was part of the lesson of the reformation, and that is why Islamic extremist fight against modernity. How many of the current tyrannies existing today are ruled by explicit Christian dictates, where civil law is predicated exclusively on biblical law (and, no, the Vatican and Bush administration doesn’t count)? There are none because the church has learned it doesn’t work. Christianity is not so in love with the “Word Of God” that they don’t recognize killing gays or adulterous women is inherently wrong, even though it is commanded to do so in the good book. Even scum like the vile Rev. Fred Phelps knows this. The bible should go through another canonization to cast off those bits that are no longer relevant to modern man. It won’t happen of coarse, but given a choice between a religion that ignores the most vile prescriptions in it’s written texts, and one that executes it to the letter, I’ll choose to have the former, thank you very much.
PS. Notice there is no ad-hominem aimed toward you on a personal level. It’s not my style.
Comment by sonicfrog — September 25, 2007 @ 1:29 pm - September 25, 2007
Let’s see how many more names the Non-Answering arturo can screech. He is on a roll
I was going to say, note how the subject has been changed from “Islamofascism–Real Peril to Gay People”. But, it hasn’t. We’re witnessing the flailing of some who would prefer not to have a spotlight on “Islamofascism–Real Peril to Gay People”; perhaps because of what it might mean for them or their politics? In that sense, the subject remains the subject.
I will briefly answer this:
That, arturo, is because there is this later part of the Bible, you see, called the New Testament or Christian Testament by some, that already negated those (very few) passages, along with many similar Levitical death penalties. You might want to learn a little Christianity, before you engage with Christians. They probably don’t have the heart to tell you you’re being a complete ignoramus, in terms of what you just screeched at them.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 25, 2007 @ 1:37 pm - September 25, 2007
Oh, by the way, Israel is not only not killing homosexuals, but allowing gay pride parades in Jerusalem, the holiest city in the world. You’d think that a nation whose majority believes in the Old Testament would be the last place that would happen.
Comment by Attmay — September 25, 2007 @ 1:39 pm - September 25, 2007
[...] Patriot has a great post with many other links on the [...]
Pingback by Keith D. Milby :: blog » Blog Archive » The Reason Iran Has No Gays — September 25, 2007 @ 1:50 pm - September 25, 2007
They probably don’t have the heart to tell you you’re being a complete ignoramus, in terms of what you just screeched at them.
It’s more on the order of them realizing that arturo’s psyche is dependent on antireligious bigotry. He literally has nothing and no one to blame unless he can blame the Christians; he’d have to look at himself and his own behavior, and THAT ain’t happening.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 25, 2007 @ 1:51 pm - September 25, 2007
arturo’s comments have elicited responses that only confirm stereotypes applied to both the religious and those on the right, buttressing such bumperstickers as Hate is not a Family Value and Jesus, Save Me from Your Followers. These, obviously, are not created in a vacuum, yet I’m sure some of you find yourselves in a fit of apoplexy when you see these and others on bumpers and elsewhere.
Perhaps an actual scriptural quotation is timely.
From Luke 6:
“But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.”
But I’m sure you will sit back and smile, telling yourself that you’re just a sinner and that giving your tiny egos a stroke or two supersedes any eternal consideration. When one can categorize a deliberate sin as merely ‘falling short’, then why bother trying?
Comment by HardHobbit — September 25, 2007 @ 2:16 pm - September 25, 2007
Reading the comments posted here, I find no evidence to support this assertion.
Comment by V the K — September 25, 2007 @ 2:32 pm - September 25, 2007
HardHobbit - Whom are you addressing? And specifically in response to what? And in expectation that they (whoever they are) have what type of personal religious belief?
You’re going to have to be more specific, if your words are to signify anything. (vs. just being self-congratulation / moral masturbation in a conversation you’re holding with yourself) Thanks in advance.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 25, 2007 @ 2:41 pm - September 25, 2007
Great post. Ahmedinajad violates every code of a free civil society. His Iranian government executes gays. We will not be silent!
Comment by C. Siegel — September 25, 2007 @ 3:00 pm - September 25, 2007
How come when someone criticizes Christianity, it turns into a which religion is better contest?
Christianity has major flaws and fanatical supporters who exploit those flaws and is open to criticism. So does every other religion. Much of the “Never Criticize MY Religion” folks seem to be arguing over who has a bigger a plank in one’s eye.
Instead why don’t we criticize both Iran AND the Saudis while focusing on their governments not their religion.
Both regimes treat homosexuality as punishable by death.
Neither are democracies, both are dictatorships, both are repressive and both have citizens who have killed Americans.
Yet nobody howls when our prez holds their King’s hand…
Comment by gil — September 25, 2007 @ 3:12 pm - September 25, 2007
Until you commented, no one had done so.
Such as?
So, please cite the scripture that says no one may ever criticize anyone else? I guess Jesus Christ should never have chased those money-changers out of the temple, nor should Moses have criticized the Israelites for making sacrifices unto Baal.
And who here is giving the Saudis a pass? Please cite by link to specific comments.
Comment by V the K — September 25, 2007 @ 3:20 pm - September 25, 2007
These, obviously, are not created in a vacuum, yet I’m sure some of you find yourselves in a fit of apoplexy when you see these and others on bumpers and elsewhere.
Not really.
Because we know that these same people who, like arturo, are whining and screaming about “hate”, are also pushing antireligious bigotry and demanding that, in violation of the Constitution, Christians be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs.
Perhaps, HardHobbit, if you were more familiar with Scripture, you would know that Christians are very well aware of evil people using selective quotation to trick and manipulate Christians into doing something wrong, as is so well-demonstrated in Matthew 4. But, as we are told later in 1 John 4, we are to test the spirits — because any one who shows up claiming to quote God, but that refuses to acknowledge God and Christ is a false one, whose interpretations and words need not be obeyed.
Such as yours.
Now go take your place with the rest of the antireligious bigots and hypocrites, HardHobbit.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 25, 2007 @ 3:23 pm - September 25, 2007
Before Scott Beauchamp’s biggest fan squirms out of this, let me redirect. I don’t see anyone denying that there are misguided extremists who claim to be Christians. However, the left places the fanatical extremism of Islam (which says all gays are to be butchered) on an equivalent plane with Christians who oppose redefining marriage.
Now, if Fred Phelps and his ilk had control of the government and a vast army of morality police to carry out his edicts, *then* he would be equivalent to Ahmadinnerjacket. Instead, he is regarded by most all of Christendom as a sideshow freak, as is right and proper.
Only an idiot would fail to see the difference.
Comment by V the K — September 25, 2007 @ 3:25 pm - September 25, 2007
Or someone who, like gil, is trying to lend legitimacy to Iran, Hizbollah, and Hamas.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 25, 2007 @ 3:50 pm - September 25, 2007
Ah, feel the hate. arturo is an anti-religious bigot for pointing to a passage in Leviticus and its inconsistency with religious homosexuals, this blog, etc.. I’m an anti-religious bigot (and a false spirit, my my!) for pointing to a passage in Luke that describes how believers should act in the face of spite, contrasting Christ’s words with the behavior of this thread’s Christian participants. (Never mind that this doesn’t apply to these good Christians when they question the contents of another religious text such as the Koran.) arturo has a ’sick mind’, this courtesy of our Jewish participant. And our Mormon now hurls ‘idiot’. And so it goes.
So here’s how it works, according to the participants in this thread: A non-believer cannot possibly understand religion (because no matter how they got to the point of non-belief, it cannot be any other way) and thus has no basis to criticize, much less point out the inconsistencies between a religion’s texts and the behavior of its adherents. Moreover, anyone who tries to do so is categorized as an anti-religious bigot and a hypocrite (although as a non-believer, I don’t claim to adhere to the religion in question, so my ‘hypocrisy’ is awfully suspect). And the name-calling adds just the right loving, charitable, Christ-like touch, I must say.
Do I have it right? Perhaps if I try ever so hard, I too might understand how you can treat another as you have and then I can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 25, 2007 @ 4:15 pm - September 25, 2007
I feel so left out
And in truth, I don’t really have a horse in this race - being neither particularly religious nor anti-religious at this time in my life (and notwithstanding my background in both modes of being).
Let me note anyway that HardHobbit has not characterized the thread accurately. And let me reiterate my earlier point to arturo; that if Christians don’t repudiate the Levitical death penalties on adultery, bad ritual actions, homosexuality, etc., it’s probably because the Bible itself already does so for them, and (as Christians) perhaps they don’t have the heart to tell arturo his screeching is out of place.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 25, 2007 @ 4:39 pm - September 25, 2007
A non-believer cannot possibly understand religion (because no matter how they got to the point of non-belief, it cannot be any other way) and thus has no basis to criticize, much less point out the inconsistencies between a religion’s texts and the behavior of its adherents.
The problem here, HardHobbit, is that you and your fellow bigots accuse Christians of all being fascists who want to murder gays and who should be denied jobs and opportunities because of their religious beliefs.
The hypocrisy comes in when you not only practice hate and discrimination, but do so in clear violation of the Constitution which you claim to support.
Do I have it right? Perhaps if I try ever so hard, I too might understand how you can treat another as you have and then I can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
It will never happen.
Your antireligious bigotry is too fundamental to your worldview. In order for you to accept Christianity, you would have to embrace reality and admit that the rhetoric about all Christians being murderous fascists like arturo spouts is untrue.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 25, 2007 @ 5:00 pm - September 25, 2007
Let me note anyway that HardHobbit has not characterized the thread accurately.
What else is new?
More fundamentally, in order to receive Christ, you have to come to Him with a broken heart and a contrite spirit. I don’t see how one can do that if one is supremely invested in one’s own egotism.
Comment by V the K — September 25, 2007 @ 6:07 pm - September 25, 2007
I should never say never, though, V the K; far more miraculous things have happened than that.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 25, 2007 @ 6:10 pm - September 25, 2007
Americablog commented negatively on it (http://tinyurl.com/yose8j)
Pam’s House Blend commented on it (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3079)
HRC has posted an official release on it (http://www.hrc.org/7720.htm)
Human Rights Watch has posted an official release on this problem in the past. Looks like Dan got his wish…
Comment by Mr. Moderate — September 25, 2007 @ 6:11 pm - September 25, 2007
The door is always open. One need only ask.
Comment by V the K — September 25, 2007 @ 7:35 pm - September 25, 2007
The problem here, HardHobbit, is that you and your fellow bigots accuse Christians of all being fascists who want to murder gays and who should be denied jobs and opportunities because of their religious beliefs.
Here, I’m accused of accusing Christians of all being fascists [sic] who want to murder gays… Yet the accuser here cannot point to one statement I’ve ever made that would support such a ridiculous claim.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Does this phrase mean anything to anyone on this blog?
Once again, hypocrites do the greatest damage to an institution, especially religion. According to some, there is a special place in Hell for them. The only regret of my agnosticism is that I cannot believe this isn’t where those like you will spend eternity.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 25, 2007 @ 7:41 pm - September 25, 2007
However, the left places the fanatical extremism of Islam (which says all gays are to be butchered) on an equivalent plane with Christians who oppose redefining marriage.
Not quite! The left places the fanatical extremism of Islam (which says all gays are to be butchered) on a HIGHER PLANE than Christians who oppose redefining marriage.
So here’s how it works, according to the participants in this thread: A non-believer cannot possibly understand religion (because no matter how they got to the point of non-belief, it cannot be any other way) and thus has no basis to criticize, much less point out the inconsistencies between a religion’s texts and the behavior of its adherents. Moreover, anyone who tries to do so is categorized as an anti-religious bigot and a hypocrite (although as a non-believer, I don’t claim to adhere to the religion in question, so my ‘hypocrisy’ is awfully suspect). And the name-calling adds just the right loving, charitable, Christ-like touch, I must say.
Uhm, I am non-religious and have pointed out inconsistencies in scripture, yet I have neither been called an anti-religious bigot or a hypocrite, though I’m not sure how someone such as myself could be a hypocrite. Maybe, just maybe, the response you note in you comment is predicated by the writers tone, and whether the commenter has displayed at least some respect for those with whom you disagree.
Comment by sonicfrog — September 25, 2007 @ 8:00 pm - September 25, 2007
Your denial is amusing, HardHobbit, but pointless.
You chose to defend and support arturo and Kevin’s remarks; you can go down with them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 25, 2007 @ 8:35 pm - September 25, 2007
NDT, I considered pointing out that perhaps you do sometimes lump your opponents together a bit too readily, at least for my taste. But then I noticed this from HardHobbit:
And I realized, HH is much worse. He chooses to insult the integrity of, not you, not me, not V, or whomever his poor little brain is tied up in knots about this time; but everyone on this blog, even his hosts. I find that beyond pathetic.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 25, 2007 @ 9:20 pm - September 25, 2007
And our one-trick-pony (the one that whips out “You’re an anti-religious bigot!” like some psychological tic) now claims I’m defending arturo and Kevin’s remarks. If he had read what I’ve actually written, he’d understand that I’ve done no such thing. (I’ve not referenced a ‘Kevin’ at all, in fact — but he has to bring in another name to give his falsehoods some additional weight.)*
So instead of confessing his lie, he concocts another as if the deity that resides in his mind cannot see him do so. He is evading the tenets of his own fantasy. This is doubly delusional. This is mental illness.
*My point, for those who have fewer issues, isn’t re. what arturo wrote, but what others (others who openly claim religious faith) wrote as responses. I wasn’t defending or supporting arturo’s statements at all, neither was I disagreeing with them. And my accuser cannot give a single example of my having done so.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 25, 2007 @ 9:32 pm - September 25, 2007
More fundamentally, in order to receive Christ, you have to come to Him with a broken heart and a contrite spirit.
Does that include referring to others as idiots? Does that include lying about me, saying I harbor a ‘fierce anti-Mormon bigotry’? Does that include directing the f-word at those with whom you disagree? Or does your god’s open door policy simply whisk all your sins away each time you make the request, enabling you to go about hurting others as a mask for your inner pain?
Comment by HardHobbit — September 25, 2007 @ 9:40 pm - September 25, 2007
HardHobbit, your bitterness at some people may be complex, but the issues here are simple.
1) You treat fair answers to arturo with sarcasm, derision, and unfairness. (Only in your mind could that not amount to defending and supporting him.)
2) You fault and insult NDT, V, etc. for (allegedly) not meeting a standard that you pointedly reject.
3) With no small hypocrisy and irony in light of (1) and (2), you then claim that others lack integrity and have even borne false witness. My goodness.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 25, 2007 @ 10:50 pm - September 25, 2007
Actually, gillie, neither are dictatorships. Saudi Arabia is an Absolute Monarchy and Iran is an Islamic Republic.
Yeah that was weird. I can understand the kissing thing, but…
Anyhoo, simply put, Saudi Arabia is pretty moderate in comparison and very influential in the ME. Therefore, we sorta need them.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 26, 2007 @ 12:09 am - September 26, 2007
I’m sorry, but equating the evangelical Christian position that homosexuality is wrong and shouldn’t be accomodated with the fundamentalist Islamic position that homosexuals should be executed doesn’t stack up.
The fact is, that although both Muslim and Christian “holy” documents contain flagrantly anti-gay statements, governments that consist of mostly Muslims have more alarmingly antigay policies than do governments consisting mostly of Christians.
From a historical perspective, I don’t know whether it’s accurate to say that Christianity is a less-bigoted religion than Islam, but modern-day Christianity is not really comparable to modern-day Islam. I’d argue that this is not due to some inherent “superiority” of Christianity, but to the adaptations that Christians have made in the last few centuries. Christianity, as a faith, has modernized far more than Islam.
The secular influence on Christianity, and the influence of pluralistic nations on Christianity, have brought about major reform within the past few hundred years, both on an institutional level and at the individual level. What Islam needs is a dose of secularism, and the political pressure that comes from having to accomodate people with different fundamental beliefs.
Comment by Phil — September 26, 2007 @ 2:16 am - September 26, 2007
“How come when someone criticizes Christianity, it turns into a which religion is better contest?”
People think that Christianity is above criticism and cannot be criticized. Nonsense. It is just as worthy of criticism as the others, and as are all others.
Religion is a pointless waste of time, yet people still refuse to acknowledge the total and utter lack of evidence of any God whatsoever.
It is hard to believe that some people on here wrap themselves around their evangelical friends to protect them from the evil secularists. (LOL) I wonder if they realize that those they’re protecting and defending are the same ones that go into the churches to listen to preachers rail against homosexuality and constantly hope for conversions to heterosexuality.
I have a question for the evangelical protectors. Have you successfully prayed away the gay yet? I thought not. What must your “friends” think about your sexual activities…and trust me, they think about them. Or, are you closeted Repbulican homosexuals who don’t have sex or perhaps open Republican homosexuals that are asexual? Oh yes, I know, your sex life is not your total being and you’re not living a “homosexual lifestyle.” I would like to know how well putting your little ball of homosexuality away in the toy box works too.
What tools!
Comment by fnln — September 26, 2007 @ 4:46 am - September 26, 2007
For starters, the proof required by ThatGayConservativeOnThePodunkPerch can be found in comment 52…and that proof is just from blogs.
Comment by fnln — September 26, 2007 @ 4:50 am - September 26, 2007
#64
I’m impressed. HRC and AmericaBlog got off their asses and threw us a bone with one paragraph or less. How nice. Pam had a bit more, but not much. Oh well. Wouldn’t want Ahmadinejad to think the libs don’t appreciate him. We get ass loads about how rotten gays are supposedly treated in the US, and a brief aside about gays elswhere who are actually DYING.
I don’t know about y’all, but I feel all warm and fuzzy inside that these “gay leaders” deign to favor us with a soundbite.
Thank you all for your arrogance and narcissism.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 26, 2007 @ 6:16 am - September 26, 2007
#64
Wow. A paragraph each.
How nice of them to dirty their manicures. Guess they ran out of vermouth?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 26, 2007 @ 6:19 am - September 26, 2007
Re: #63 fnln:
Bitter, Party of One? Your table is ready.
Comment by V the K — September 26, 2007 @ 7:29 am - September 26, 2007
A publication from the church I belong to addresses same-sex attraction this way:
So, where’s the hate?
Comment by V the K — September 26, 2007 @ 8:55 am - September 26, 2007
This, on the other hand, is just plain obnoxious.
Comment by V the K — September 26, 2007 @ 10:11 am - September 26, 2007
Apparently, it is this concept that is most difficult for members of this blog to grasp: One who doesn’t subscribe to a particular codified set of beliefs has every right (and in many contexts, a moral obligation) to point out where that set’s subscribers deliberately stray.
Religions are a kind of philosophy. They ostensibly teach values, morals, ethics, principles of thought and behavior, the hierarchies of spirit, body, mind, and emotion. In fact, secular (intellect-based rather than faith-based) philosophies spring from the examples of world religions.
One doesn’t need to be a socialist in order to point out where a socialist is inconsistent with his stated beliefs. Moreover, one doesn’t even need to subscribe to the principle in question (the value transgressed by the hypocrite) to recognize a particular hypocrisy, i.e. one doesn’t need to subscribe to the idea of state-run health care to point out the hypocrisy of one who has an exemption from standing in line for the health rations suffered by all others who’ve had this Chosen One’s system foisted upon them.
But one can subscribe to that trangressed value while not subscribing to the entire philosophy and still be perfectly consistent in pointing out another’s transgressive hypocrisy. Philosophies, religions, belief systems overlap and not one has a complete moral monopoly. For example, a California environmentalist might help write legislation banning cutting down redwood trees. A fellow citizen has every right and obligation to point out the hypocrisy of that same environmentalist’s adding a redwood deck to his luxury home (after the law was enacted and the price of redwood lumber dropped to pennies per linear foot). That citizen needn’t be an environmentalist to have agreed with the legislation, but all that’s required of him in order to point out the hypocrisy involved is common sense.
So no, I don’t need to be a Muslim in order to point to various passages of the Koran and pose questions, point out hypocrisy. (In fact, my problem with Islamists is that they aren’t hypocritical enough.) I don’t need to be a Christian to point out where several members of this blog routinely treat others like garbage when certain points of faith such as passages in the Bible are called into question, questioned by either believers or non-believers.
When a person proclaims their beliefs publicly, they do so at their own peril (if criticism must be deemed a peril). Although I am an agnostic, I come from a Christian background, so although I don’t consider myself particularly knowledgeable in these matters, I’m not completely ignorant. From my background, a good Christian response would be:
“Hobbit, I’m sorry I have offended you and anyone else and that you consider me a religious hypocrite. Sometimes I think that Christianity is constantly under attack and so I let my emotions get the best of me when I detect an anti-Christian bias. I need to learn to be more detached in my defense of my faith and I want you and everyone here to know that as publicly as I’ve proclaimed my faith, I also proclaim my intention to behave more lovingly toward those I perceive to be Christ’s detractors. It is as He would have me believe and behave. Forgive me. I promise to try to behave differently and I welcome your encouragement, but please remember that I’m a work in progress. It would be a great joy to me if I could have some small part in winning your respect for my faith.”
Or something like that. (Does it ever occur to these people that I might be more than willing to meet them more than halfway?) Instead, I get “You’re an anti-Christian bigot…”, lies, and other such crap, no analysis, no proof, just reaction from an unthinking, uncaring, rather un-Christian blowhard. Again, he and his cohorts never consider that they just might be part of the reason an anti-Christian bias exists with some. Who can take a faith seriously when its adherents do not?
Comment by HardHobbit — September 26, 2007 @ 12:01 pm - September 26, 2007
sonicfrog, sorry — I don’t mean to ignore you, but have wondered what you meant by your comment:
Maybe, just maybe, the response you note in you comment is predicated by the writers tone, and whether the commenter has displayed at least some respect for those with whom you disagree.
Before responding, would you clarify a bit for me? Thanks for your civility, by the way.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 26, 2007 @ 12:10 pm - September 26, 2007
#66, how long are blog entries and press releases supposed to be? So now it’s not just did they comment on it, but did they do so in book or treatise form? My how the goal posts keep shifting…
Comment by Mr. Moderate — September 26, 2007 @ 12:30 pm - September 26, 2007
#70 HH
True, but that’s not what you’re doing.
What you’re doing in effect, or to use the analogy more accurately, is writing bitter comment after comment alleging “You’re not socialist enough!!! You’re a failure, as a socialist and as a human being! I should be a socialist, but I’m not, because of you!” Different category.
In Hypocrite-land, or the land of Savaronolas-Who-Pretend-Not-To-Be: Yes.
And note that “deliberately” is a God-like attribution of motive, on your part. Hypocritical, in light of your earlier complaints alleging that others do so too much.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 26, 2007 @ 12:42 pm - September 26, 2007
The ironic part is, in his own mind, HH believes he is making the case for the superiority of his own brand of secular agnosticism. In fact, everything he posts demonstrates how intolerant his belief system is of others, and how utterly incapable he is of self-examination.
Perhaps, in his belief system, there is nothing requiring him to tend to the beam in his own eye before pointing out the specks in the eyes of others.
Comment by V the K — September 26, 2007 @ 12:49 pm - September 26, 2007
And I love his wild transitions between (a) pointing out that name-calling isn’t Christian, (b) engaging in name-calling, and (c) trying to larn you some Christianity.
I think the difference I’m noticing, is the difference between *noticing* and *preaching*. The difference between noticing that someone may not be living up to his beliefs (allegedly - Not saying HH is right, V), vs. actively preaching to him beliefs that the preacher rejects for himself.
HH wants a socialist analogy, so here it is. I don’t have to be a leftist to *notice* how funny it is that Michael Moore owns Halliburton stock. True. But I had better be a leftist, or at least a respectful leftist sympathizer, before I try to larn Michael Moore some leftism and preach to him *why he shouldn’t* own Halliburton stock. If I’m actually a capitalist and love Halliburton - WTF am I doing?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 26, 2007 @ 1:05 pm - September 26, 2007
Respect is exactly what is missing here.
I tend to agree with the maxim that it is not very often the case that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, but more often that it has been found difficult and left untried.
Comment by V the K — September 26, 2007 @ 1:12 pm - September 26, 2007
One who doesn’t subscribe to a particular codified set of beliefs has every right (and in many contexts, a moral obligation) to point out where that set’s subscribers deliberately stray.
Then in that case, antigay groups have every right — and in fact, a moral obligation — to point out every single example of gays molesting children, using drugs, committing suicide, being treated for mental illness, eating sh*t/piss, and having unsafe sex at maximum volume and maximum criticism.
I don’t need to be a Christian to point out where several members of this blog routinely treat others like garbage when certain points of faith such as passages in the Bible are called into question, questioned by either believers or non-believers.
“Called into question”, indeed.
This fascist agrees with Christian social conservatives, who do not denouce Leviticus for the evil that it is
They ARE fascists in their beliefs.
As for the other subject, the reason that homosexuals aren’t dying en masse at the hands of Christians in the US is because Christians have not yet succeeded in establishing a theocracy to infect what should be a secular government yet.
There is no God. Grow up and get over it already.
I think having 155 members of the justice department who’ve graduated from Pat Robertson’s “law school” is a good step towards an “under the radar” infusion of ultra-theocratic attempts to use religion to set policy and law in this country.
Religion is a pointless waste of time, yet people still refuse to acknowledge the total and utter lack of evidence of any God whatsoever.
I have a question for the evangelical protectors. Have you successfully prayed away the gay yet? I thought not. What must your “friends” think about your sexual activities…and trust me, they think about them. Or, are you closeted Repbulican homosexuals who don’t have sex or perhaps open Republican homosexuals that are asexual? Oh yes, I know, your sex life is not your total being and you’re not living a “homosexual lifestyle.” I would like to know how well putting your little ball of homosexuality away in the toy box works too.
What tools!
And thus is HardHobbit’s hypocrisy revealed in stunning detail — as what he supports and considers valid and good behavior is demonstrated.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 26, 2007 @ 1:16 pm - September 26, 2007
Ooooh, that one’s gonna leave a mark.
Comment by V the K — September 26, 2007 @ 1:24 pm - September 26, 2007
#74
“The ironic part is, in his own mind, HH believes he is making the case for the superiority of his own brand of secular agnosticism. In fact, everything he posts demonstrates how intolerant his belief system is of others, and how utterly incapable he is of self-examination.
Perhaps, in his belief system, there is nothing requiring him to tend to the beam in his own eye before pointing out the specks in the eyes of others.”
Wrong and wrong.
I’m not making any case for the superiority of my life choices. I’m just pointing out when you don’t live up to yours while you proclaim them, all while complaining they aren’t respected.
According to Christianity, we are all sinners — no one is beyond reproach. But according to V the K, no one should ever point out another’s faults because we are all sinners; no one (especially a non-believer) should point out that a self-proclaimed believer is behaving in a manner completely at odds with the tenets of the faith to which he claims to adhere. By using the ‘plank in the eye’ analogy, he’s absolved (in his mind) of any wrongdoing because we’ve all got wood (so to speak). He thinks mine is bigger than his (so to speak) and I’m flattered, but I happen to think publicly lying about someone (which he has done to me) is pretty bad. But, since I’m a sinner, I have no right to point that out until I ‘have nothing in my eye’. Thus, he’s completely free to hurt as many people he likes and well, that’s just between he and his god.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 26, 2007 @ 2:16 pm - September 26, 2007
“Respect is exactly what is missing here.
I tend to agree with the maxim that it is not very often the case that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, but more often that it has been found difficult and left untried.”
Yes, respect is missing, including self-respect. I don’t believe Mormonism to be Christianity, but whether that is or is not the case, you prove it a difficult road nearly every time you post a comment. You are a steady stream of hate.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 26, 2007 @ 2:22 pm - September 26, 2007
I don’t know how much louder I can denounce him. In my opinion we should be bringing him up on charges related to the 1979 kidnapping of American diplomatic personnel, not inviting him to speak.
Comment by Houndentenor — September 26, 2007 @ 2:24 pm - September 26, 2007
“Then in that case, antigay groups have every right — and in fact, a moral obligation — to point out every single example of gays molesting children, using drugs, committing suicide, being treated for mental illness, eating sh*t/piss, and having unsafe sex at maximum volume and maximum criticism.”
Notice how Dallas has to twist my words to his own ends (which is just one form of lying — as he did earlier in the thread when he claimed I was supporting and defending the statements of others, in particular a ‘Kevin’).
Here’s what I wrote:
“…and in many contexts, a moral obligation…”
And his translation:
“…and in fact, a moral obligation…”
A minor difference? Not quite, but either such subtlety is lost upon him or he’s very aware of what he’s doing. (I suspect the former rather than the latter.) One statement recognizes appropriateness of context, the other is a sweeping generalization which I didn’t make, but serves the purposes of a liar.
More particular to his example, I wish that gays themselves would point out examples “…of gays molesting children, using drugs…maximum volume…”, though I’m not sure what is meant by “…[at]…maximum criticism.” Gays need to get their own community in order and I don’t see why a criticism from any quarter, even an anti-gay group, be devalued merely due to the source. The validity of a message stands on its own, not on the merits or faults of its messenger.
But I doubt that every single example (to use his words) of this kind of depraved behavior Dallas describes need be made an example, for the purposes of conclusions to be drawn about a larger community. And of course that’s not what I stated nor what I implied. Yet another lie.
Then Dallas goes on to enlist the irresponsible words of another thread participant (fnln?) to attempt to link me to what another has written. Again, this is a form of lying. To wit:
“And thus is HardHobbit’s hypocrisy revealed in stunning detail — as what he supports and considers valid and good behavior is demonstrate