Do religious people have the right to be homophobic?

[B_RedDude]

Is it contrary to the Mormon faith to hire a black person? If so, it's a sorry excuse for a religion.

When I refer to "religion" I am doing so in the broad context of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition as seen by the Founding Fathers when they stated that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." When they were writing this I think they were thinking of denominations existing then, or new ones in the future, that might be imposed on the country. (These days of course, we would have to include Muslims, and perhaps Eastern traditions, about which I admittedly don't know much of anything.) My definition of religion would not necessarily include every little fringe group out there that did things that would be condemned by all other segments of society (and I think there is at least one Supreme Court decision that reigned in the practices of such a group).

I do not deny that there would be a lot of grey area in the practical application of my viewpoint, but I think you missed my point entirely.

You're mixing up the concepts of behavior and feelings. We can't legislate feelings, but behavior is different. Referring back to my previous post, if a Mormon cited religious beliefs for not hiring a black person, he would still be held liable for violating the civil rights laws. Religious practices are protected as long as they do not violate the rights of another individual not sharing the same religious preference.

 

[mariamluvsEMbig]

Or frankly illegal in any other discrimantory way?

This is becoming one of the big battlegrounds of our time. You have a book which you think gives you the right to practices that are now against the law. Am I infringing your rights in believing this book below the considered democratic opinion of my jurisdiction?

Some of you won't like my answer to this question, but your religion is ephemeral. Religions come and go. Should I give respect to Mithras, to Zeus, Jupiter and the Egyptian one? Of course not, because they are wrong and you are right.

it's not illegal because you're allowed to have whatever viewpoint you believe in...your viewpoint, however may not very well received by other people or groups...

 

[THEDUDEofDestiny]

people are allowed to think and say whatever they want in the us regardless of the origins of their rationale. if they try to use those beliefs to discriminate, say not selling their home to a gay couple, they are infringing on other people's rights and are operating outside of the law. i really don't see what is so hard about this.

 

[B_RedDude]

You're mixing up the concepts of behavior and feelings.

Not at all.

 

[THEDUDEofDestiny]

Is it contrary to the Mormon faith to hire a black person? If so, it's a sorry excuse for a religion.

When I refer to "religion" I am doing so in the broad context of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition as seen by the Founding Fathers when they stated that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." When they were writing this I think they were thinking of denominations existing then, or new ones in the future, that might be imposed on the country. (These days of course, we would have to include Muslims, and perhaps Eastern traditions, about which I admittedly don't know much of anything.) My definition of religion would not necessarily include every little fringe group out there that did things that would be condemned by all other segments of society (and I think there is at least one Supreme Court decision that reigned in the practices of such a group).

I do not deny that there would be a lot of grey area in the practical application of my viewpoint, but I think you missed my point entirely.

jefferson mention muslims, jews, buddhist, and others in his personal writings so it wasnt outside of his thoughts

 

[B_RedDude]

Thanks, Dude. I was not aware of that. But the principal behind my argument remains the same.

jefferson mention muslims, jews, buddhist, and others in his personal writings so it wasnt outside of his thoughts

 

[Drifterwood]

jefferson mention muslims, jews, buddhist, and others in his personal writings so it wasnt outside of his thoughts

He also wrote of his conviction that black people were inferior and merrily wrote on human rights but excluded these people without a second thought.

Thomas Jefferson: Radical and Racist - 96.10

 

[B_VinylBoy]

He also wrote of his conviction that black people were inferior and merrily wrote on human rights but excluded these people without a second thought.

Thomas Jefferson: Radical and Racist - 96.10

It's amazing what we find once we dig past the ideological talk and the rhetoric, isn't it?

 

[B_RedDude]

Like I said, concepts of civil rights evolve.

He also wrote of his conviction that black people were inferior and merrily wrote on human rights but excluded these people without a second thought.

Thomas Jefferson: Radical and Racist - 96.10

 

[green carnation]

anyone has the right to think and feel the way the do no matter what they think. Many of these thoughts ought to remain just those though, inside the head and not put into words or actions. As for blaming your homophobia on your religion- That is both cowardly and slanderous and proof of a lack of faith and understanding of religion

 

[Drifterwood]

Like I said, concepts of civil rights evolve.

Indeed and what we now have in the UK is the evolution of morality based upon an evolved view of civil rights which is at direct odds with some religious morality based upon faith tenets.

As an adherent to the principles of secularism, I consider this to be a significant battleground as I said in my OP.

 

[Viking_UK]

My personal view is that everyone has the right to their prejudices. What they do not have the right to is to act upon them or impose them on other people. Personal beliefs, whether religious or otherwise, don't trump secular law.

In the case of the couple who refused to allow a gay couple to stay in their B&B because it was against their religious beliefs, there's no question that it was illegal. In Britain, it's illegal to refuse goods or services to anyone based on their sexual orientation. If the couple aren't prepared to run their business in line with current legislation, they shouldn't be in business. It would be interesting to know if they turned away unmarried straight couples, which as far as I know isn't illegal. That should certainly conflict with their religious beliefs in exactly the same way but are they willing to let that slide in the name of profit?

 

[ConstantComment]

My personal view is that everyone has the right to their prejudices. What they do not have the right to is to act upon them or impose them on other people. Personal beliefs, whether religious or otherwise, don't trump secular law.

In the case of the couple who refused to allow a gay couple to stay in their B&B because it was against their religious beliefs, there's no question that it was illegal. In Britain, it's illegal to refuse goods or services to anyone based on their sexual orientation. If the couple aren't prepared to run their business in line with current legislation, they shouldn't be in business. It would be interesting to know if they turned away unmarried straight couples, which as far as I know isn't illegal. That should certainly conflict with their religious beliefs in exactly the same way but are they willing to let that slide in the name of profit?

Is thre more detail to this story. HOw did the hoteliers know that they were homosexual? To me this is a slippery slope. Suppose two women are traveling together and want to share a room to save money. Are they deemed lesbian? Nice way to force them to pay for two rooms,

Suppose these two female friends are of different races as well (as if you can always tell what race someone is by looking at them) . Might the hoteliers pretend to excercise their right to discriminate against lesbianism when in fact they are racist?

 

[Freddie53]

Indeed and what we now have in the UK is the evolution of morality based upon an evolved view of civil rights which is at direct odds with some religious morality based upon faith tenets.

As an adherent to the principles of secularism, I consider this to be a significant battleground as I said in my OP.

Unfortunately, you are right. But you should be wrong. If people based their religion on their actual and real relationship with God as the foundation of their beliefs your statement shouldn't be so.

I casual look at the Bible shows a people whose understanding of God and what they should do is evolving. It is not static (I hope I am using the right word there.) In no way in Biblical times did straight people go about finding a mate for marriage in the same way we do now. Furthermore, the way that that is was done evolved over time in the Bible.

At one time the father of the bride brought the bride to the young man's tent at sundown. The bride went into the tent and they were married. Later the parents picked mates and there was a three day celebration.

There has been and always will be a tension between those who do NOT want change and those who do want to evolve as a culture into something else that is new and exciting.

If there was no religion, that would still be the same. Look at what was the Soviet Union and other communist countries. These countries often put to death gays and lesbians. That wasn't the result of religion. If religion played a part at all in the Soviet Union, it would have been to provide a shelter for those on the run for being gay.

The Bible clearly shows that culture is a major guideline for people to follow. The use of the Bible to condemn homosexuality is on shaky ground. The concept we have now of the gay lifestyle didn't exist in Biblical times. The Scriptures that some people use to condemn homosexuality can be translated more than one way. Several Scriptures that can be written on one page of the Bible are used to over ride the rest of what the Bible says.

I don't want to belabor that point except to say that religion should be fluid. The church should be able to adjust to the culture and society of of its time. I am not referring to the time honored truths. They stay the same.

The couple that refused the gay couple a place to stay in their bed and breakfast had to break a time honored Biblical truth that is to turn someone away from a place to stay. That breaks the message that is found throughout the Bible.

The Ten Commandments are time honored and are applicable today. Even the adultery commandment is applicable today if we understand what Moses meant by adultery. It can be defined as no sex outside the marriage without the approval of the spouse.

The "horror" stories of the Old Testament such as the flood were allegories told to make a point. At the end of the flood story. God repents of his decision to destroy the earth again through floods because he is angry with the actions of his people.

In ancient times people believed that all floods were the result of an angry god. The ancient Israelites knew better. They had the flood story that told them that God didn't bring floods to destroy the earth because he was angry. The fact is God made a promise to his people that he would never do this again.

And then in my country, the USA, we had Katrina that flooded the entire city of New Orleans. The right wing religion Republicans were busy explaining that God was punishing the city of New Orleans because of their sinful lifestyle.

But what about what God said about no more floods? O that? Let us not be concerned with ancient statements by God recorded in the Bible. It interferes with the theology that this segment of religion.

The TV preachers were on American TV explaining that next time God is going to permanently destroy New Orleans for their sins. Those sermons are the opposite of what God said to Moses.

Divorce. The Bible does condemn the practice of divorce as it was practiced then. Women had no rights. Only men did. Only men in the Roman Empire did. All a man had to do was say I divorce you and the woman was cut off. Then the woman was on her own. She was destitute. Jesus did condemn this practice. I would hope everyone here would as well.

It is critical to get the complete story from those stories in the Bible before making value judgments.

Christianity, all of it that I am aware of, has the same viewpoint that Jesus came to earth to be an example for people to follow.

It doesn't take long to read the four Gospels. Jesus preached reconciliation. Jesus preached God's grace for EVERYONE including those that religious people of his day had determined were going straight to hell in a hand basket. Jesus sought Mathew as a convert. Matthew wrote the first book in the New Testament. Matthew was a despised tax collector

For me, in general, I question the validity and reliability of all human organizations to be perfect in their relationship with God and that includes the church I attend every Sunday. The word question here is not a derogatory term if used correctly. Each person should develop his own relationship to God. Not all people are going to come up with the same statements of beliefs because humans are not perfect people. No one is ever going to get it 100 % perfect. Neither is the pro golfer or the professional goal kicker. But both of these strive to get 100 % of their shots correct. So should we in our relationship to God.

If enough people practiced this, humans could avoid at least the worst of the catastrophic wars. Surely people who are genuinely trying to follow God's will in their lives are ot going to come up with the idiotic concept that they have a duty to round up all the Jews, gays, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, blacks, whites and any other group that can be defined and proceed to have them killed because they were born as a Jew or any of the others groups named.

How could people genuinely trying to practice love for fellow man that Jesus taught come up with a plan to wipe out entire groups of people. Jesus did the opposite. Jesus condemned the hatred of other people.

I don't feel I have really said what I wanted to say, but I tried to express my feelings. The failure of the church to adequately deal with the issues of the day rest at the footsteps of the members. We would rather blame the priests, ministers, the church as an instituton rather than take the personal responsibility for the failings of the church that we are a member if we are a member of a church. The same holds true if we are are members of any other institutions that have significant moral relationship to th subject at hand.

 

[B_stanmarsh14]

Is thre more detail to this story. HOw did the hoteliers know that they were homosexual? To me this is a slippery slope. Suppose two women are traveling together and want to share a room to save money. Are they deemed lesbian? Nice way to force them to pay for two rooms,

Suppose these two female friends are of different races as well (as if you can always tell what race someone is by looking at them) . Might the hoteliers pretend to excercise their right to discriminate against lesbianism when in fact they are racist?

News feed here about it....

BBC News - Gay couple turned away from B&B in Cookham

 

[helgaleena]

:scared: :banghead: :bigeyes:

 

[B_crackoff]

Yes.

How else would laws change?

I don't know how this thread turned itself into a homophobia thread, but it's bizarre that anyone believes it was invented by the church, or even the Israelites.

Anyone who'd read Leviticus would realise the penalty for engaging in homosexual acts is identical as that for adultery & doing a mother & her daughter, & having sex with an uncircmsized man.

Christianity made it clear that there was a covenant between God & the Israelites, but post Jesus, there was no such covenant between Christians & God (Paul's epistles). All the church crap/laws are man made.

Homosexuality has been ill treated since the dawn of history - look at what the Aztecs, Japanese, Chinese, Sub Saharan Africans & aboroginals acted towards them.

Not a Christian in sight


The odd thing about the question is & the reponses is, that had it be posed in 1930s Germany, you'd all be defending their racist policies against certain minorities, purely because they were legal. Slavery was legal, but it was only impassioned Christians who finally got it repealed in the UK, & the British Empire.

It seems people only live in the present though, with no thought of history, & the endless cycle of bullshit revolving around again.

Just because you think something is right, or even a majority do, doesn't mean that that belief is shared in any other nation, or in any prior or succeeding generation.

Exactly where does morality come from if not religion? Soaps, America's Got Talent? And who's advancing the propoganda that's forced down our throats, what's their agenda, & how do they have the right?

Religion at least has the advantage of being relatively fixed, & like a stopped clock, will at least be exactly right some of the time.

 

[midlifebear]

OK, so this is going back to the 1960s BEFORE I discovered the value of LSD. I grew up in one of the most white (as in no people of color to be seen for miles and miles) parts of the USA, American Fork, Ewetaw. I remember a venerable 9th grade social studies teacher trying to make us all understand why the Equal Rights Amendment was not a good idea. His argument was:

"What if I were Chinese and I owned a Chinese restaurant? By granting equality to all races would interfere with my freedom to hire who I wanted. Because I own a Chinese restaurant, I want to hire only Chinese employees so my clients receive the most authentic Chinese food experience possible." I probably should note this particular social studies teacher was not of any discernable minority -- just a plump white guy with a degree in education from Brigham Young University. And by extension, he used the same miswired logic to explain that homosexuals were deviant, should be prosecuted and locked up for their entire lives unless they were successfully "cured" of their deviancy by conversion therapy. At the time (and for many years following) Brigham Young University's psych research facilities were and still are dedicated to the idea of "conversion" therapy. These days they regard homosexuality as an appetite, thus all appetites can be "modified."

Aside: It's also a bit ironic that the largest collection of pornographic materials in the State of Ewetaw is own and cared for by Brigham Young University, and therefore by extension, the mormon church. Just sayin',

And I remember the poorly educated, naive children of 1960 era mormon sweet spirits eating this up as if it were a delicious new flavor of ice cream. Of course, things have changed a great deal since the early 1960s, even in American Fork, Ewetaw. But despite those changes, mormons teach hate and fear at a early age to their spawn. They do this under a veil of "love" and "Families are forever!" and insist they are not racists, homophobic, or intolerant of others who do not believe as they do. But it's mostly lip service. Not long ago I was told by the wife of a long-time acquaintance, "I so completely disagree with you and your 'life style', but my church teaches that I have to love you anyway." Well, thanks for nothing.

Homosexuals have a different means of forming a community in Ewetaw than in most larger populations because of how their heterosexual peers are raised to believe that gay bashing is written somewhere in the Constitution of the United States (I can assure you that very few have ever read the Constitution). There are a few stores in SLC "known" to be owned by gays. But for the most part, the gay bars are mixed both gay and straight. Cruising is done on the down low for the most part, because homosexuality is not really accepted behavior, despite SLC government policies preventing discrimination because of sexual orientation and a few other spots humanistic light that shines through in a few places. So, in Ewetaw's gay community the idea of going out and openly cruising for a contact in a bar which will result in sexual tryst is considered in poor taste. Yet everyone does it or secretly wants to. But if the mormon church could get away with it, homosexuals would be rounded up and confined in camps. Although they will never openly admit as much. After all, many famous mormons in their church's hierarchy have a brother, son, nephew, niece, cousin, or daughter who is living "out in the open" somewhere.

In Ewetaw it is hate the sin but love the sinner. Yeah, like that makes sense. Therefore, hate homosexuality, but love the homosexual, (after all, we're all so good a crafts and interior design). But mormon men don't want any government agency telling them what to do. There are a lot of mormon-owned restaurants that cater to large mormon families. So, if you want to have a bit of fun, if you're ever in Provo or Brigham City, Logan, St. George, etc., don't go to the obvious Starbucks for a cup of coffee. Go to one of the many restaurants that cater to big mormon families and innocently ask, while giving your order to your waiter/waitress "How fresh is your coffee?" Not always, but many times you'll cause your waiter/waitress to turn exceptionally pale. They know there is a coffee maker somewhere in the restaurant, but in five years working there they have never had to use it, because non mormons know that the mormon restaurant is not for them. (Mormons eschew hot drinks such as coffee and tea, as well as cold drinks.)
Of course, there are some famous eateries that are middle grounds for mormons (who teach their children to hate fags) and regular folk, where hot drinks (especially coffee and alcohol) flow like Windex in a glass factory. I'm sure most of you have heard of the famous mormon-owned hotel chains and restaurants. When there is a buck to be made, suddenly mormon ideology takes a back seat to commerce.

So, is it OK for the mormon to hate the non mormon for not accepting the mormon faith as reality? Not really. But they do. And a more gossipy bunch you've yet to meet, unless you live in the land of Zion, which is what mormons call Ewetaw among themselves. They are an amusing bunch. Sister Ruth (who has an openly gay son) will be treated like royalty among her Relief Society peers and poured over with sympathy, while at the same time those same people will discuss just what wrong path Sister Ruth must have taken to be cursed with such a sinful burden in her family.

And in their quest to love the sinner but hate the sin, they are the greatest champions of conversion therapy and like to boast of their successes. But their successes are imaginary and cause a great deal of pain and emotional discomfort to those they try to "turn straight." But for BYU-trained psychologists, causing pain and emotional discomfort is half the fun.

So, in my experience of having grown up in the difernt [sic] world of Ewetaw, I have to say "no." No religion has the right to teach hatred against homosexuals just as they have no right to hate and discriminate against people who are left-handed. And those religions that rail against coffee and tea need to learn how to brew a good cup of espresso, extra foam, and a little cinnamon dusted on top, please -- if they want to pocket that famous tourist dollar :smile:

And for those of you religious people who think it's OK to be homophobic: Get The Hell of of My God Damn Lawn!*

*For clarification, that's the official name of my political party.:biggrin1:

 

[helgaleena]

LSD beats LDS then! :240: :wink:

 

[midlifebear]

IMO anything beats LDS, but I'm quite serious about Lysergic acid diethylamide. It's really quite a valuable drug when administered properly. The right micro-dosage prescribed to be taken once every three to four months could quite possibly put all the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors out of business. But, of course, we can't have that.