Do religious people have the right to be homophobic?

[THEDUDEofDestiny]

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

that doesn't contradict my post. this country was founded by racist white dudes, everyone knows that. as my grandmother used to say, what's that got to do with the price of eggs?

 

[B_crackoff]

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

But not from his bed!

I'd say Jefferson probably knew more & had a greater intellect than the combined talent of this site.

To convict a man for being of his time is a bit odd.

You're having a go at him for not being a liberal. Jefferson advanced knowledge and humanity. Liberalism has done what? Put us into debt, & remaindered our lives into the hands of some theiving sods who create money out of thin air & charge interest on it.

Jefferson was thunderously opposed to handing over the money supply to private interests, because it literally is giving your money away.

China isn't liberal.
India isn't liberal.
Brazil isn't liberal.
Russia isn't liberal.

And these are the countries that will be taking command of the world economy soon!

 

[B_RedDude]

It is well known that Mormons played an active role in the passage in November 2008 of Proposition 8 in California. This overturned the California Supreme Court's decision that extended marriage rights to same-sex couples.

Interestingly enough, the Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco used to be the Bishop of Salt Lake City, and he reportedly got on the phone to his Mormon buds to get their help in passing Proposition 8.

 

[B_RedDude]

Ah, yes, the United States of America, harbinger of freedom, founded on the backs of African slaves! Such bullshit.

To convict a man for being of his time is a bit odd.

You're having a go at him for not being a liberal. Jefferson advanced knowledge and humanity.

 

[B_RedDude]

Duplicate post deleted.

 

[B_lrgeggs]

Ah, yes, the United States of America, harbinger of freedom, founded on the backs of African slaves! Such bullshit.

Not to forget how it decimated the native population.
That said, however, I don't think there is any culture
that does not have blood on it's hands.

 

[Drifterwood]

Yes.

How else would laws change?

Yes, you see it is our law that is changing and leaving the practiced morality behind, well making it illegal. Certain groups are claiming the right to maintain their homophobic practices on the grounds of it being a religious tenet. We are saying that you have no more right to do that than a KKK Jeffersonian has the right to bar a person for being black.

Did you read any of O'Brien's piece on Jefferson?

 

[B_lrgeggs]

I would put religion aside. What would you hold for those who keep homophobic practive becaused they just want to?

 

[AquaEyes11010]

In referring to our founding fathers (i.e. those who constructed the foundation of how our nation was to be run) and their concepts of religion, remember that most were at best deists, meaning they believed in a non-interfering higher power which didn't answer prayers. Since many of the founding population (i.e. the non-leading citizens) were religious but from different branches of the judeo-christian tree, having leaders who were by and large outside of religious discussion allowed for the most fair construction of religious acceptance in this country. In so being, they were the closest thing to a neutral party with regards to religious discussion.

Additionally, they were already well-aware of the religion of islam, since it is only a few hundred years older than christianity. To say that our founding fathers were considering only different religions from the judeo-christian base is false, as evidenced by the oft-quoted Treaty with Tripoli from 1797, written while our country was still an infant and our founding fathers were still alive and in politics. Article 11 read, "As the government of the United States of America is not founded in any sense on the Christian religion - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] - and as the said states have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." [color changed by me for emphasis]

I believe that if our founding fathers were alive today and were witness to advances in science, they'd likely no longer hold on to even their deist concepts and be atheists in personal practice. It's a shame that our current political leaders need to prove their religious-ness every time they run for office. While atheists are just as prone to wrong-doing as religious people, I feel that by not allying with any particular religion, we are best able to make decisions regarding all religions. It reminds me of the clause stating that the president must be an American-born citizen to avoid any conflict arising should there be war or a decision to be made between our country and the country of his/her birth. Thus if we are essentially a non-religious nation, shouldn't our leaders also be non-religious? Hmmmmm........

 

[AquaEyes11010]

Like I said, concepts of civil rights evolve.

But unfortunately, religion is usually based on texts, which never change.

 

[B_lrgeggs]

But unfortunately, religion is usually based on texts, which never change.

Text might not change....but circumstances and interpretation changes
from time to time.

 

[AquaEyes11010]

Not at all.

You said that we can't legislate how people behave if it is contradicting their religious beliefs. Then you said we can't legislate how people feel. I'm saying that we can -- and do -- legislate how people behave, even if contradicting their religious beliefs. Thus if being homophobic relates to behavior against another person, then religious belief is not proper justification. Feeling homophobic, however, can be justified by religion, since someone's feelings, in and of themselves, do not affect another person until those feelings materialize into behavior.

 

[AquaEyes11010]

Text might not change....but circumstances and interpretation changes
from time to time.

True, but when people use religion as their excuse, they quote text, not what their preacher/priest/rabbi/etc. said at the last religious gathering.

 

[B_RedDude]

Again, you missed my point entirely. What I meant was that, generally speaking, we should not be concerned with the particular motivation (i.e. underlying feeling or emotion) of the crime, but the act itself (i.e. the behavior). What emotion may motivate it doesn't matter. The government should not mete out punishment based on feeling/emotion, only behavior. Doing otherwise is akin to forcing people to feel or not feel a certain way. I am gay, but if people want to hate me for it, I couldn't care less. That's their own problem, unless they try to harm me in some way.

I recognize that the law might traditionally take into account emotion in some cases (i.e., crimes of passion) but this would apply to everyone without distinction. I don't think it has any business statutorily increasing the punishment based upon a negative feeling for a particular group of people. Even without such specific laws, judges have the ability to vary sentences within a range anyway, so practically speaking the law sort of provides for this already.

You said that we can't legislate how people behave if it is contradicting their religious beliefs. Then you said we can't legislate how people feel. I'm saying that we can -- and do -- legislate how people behave, even if contradicting their religious beliefs. Thus if being homophobic relates to behavior against another person, then religious belief is not proper justification. Feeling homophobic, however, can be justified by religion, since someone's feelings, in and of themselves, do not affect another person until those feelings materialize into behavior.

 

[B_crackoff]

Ah, yes, the United States of America, harbinger of freedom, founded on the backs of African slaves! Such bullshit.

Odd Fact - 1st registered slave in America owned by a black guy!

What? F*ck all the indentureds?The Irish & Chinese who built the railroads, all those highly educated Europeans who set their sights on freeing the country 1st, then making it a global powerhouse?

Weren't all those slaves actually slaves in Africa 1st? How did Mali, Benin, Togo, & Burkina Fasso etc do themselves with all those slaves.

Oh right, not well at all - there must be a flaw in the statement.

Is there one country in the world that wasn't built at some time on slaves? It's the fact that not only was it gotten rid of, but actively prevented globally which is to be celebrated.

 

[BIGBULL29]

I am not sure who was saying this on this thread, but some of the biggest enemies of gays and lesbians are non-religious people.

I really don't like it when Evangelical Christians say "Love the sinner, hate the sin." That is just stupid and very condescending. Who are you? God?

Who is the god of most Christians? Money! How dare you judge a gay or lesbian person. Wake up, fools!

 

[B_RedDude]

Post deleted.

 

[B_crackoff]

Yes, you see it is our law that is changing and leaving the practiced morality behind, well making it illegal. Certain groups are claiming the right to maintain their homophobic practices on the grounds of it being a religious tenet. We are saying that you have no more right to do that than a KKK Jeffersonian has the right to bar a person for being black.

Did you read any of O'Brien's piece on Jefferson?

Gaaa! I've not only read it now, but also all the background source material.

I've never liked O'Brien anyway, a jumped up prick, who didn't like Charlie Haughey., but here he pretty much bastardized Jefferson's views, rather carelessly & unprofessionally for a man of 80. Jefferson thought that there would be massive enmity between white & black that would last (well he was f*ckin right there), & the only effective solution would be freeing, then shipping slaves home. He couldn't see that being cost effective though. To call him a racist for that is a liberty.


If people think you're a pervert - they have a right to. If they think you're going to hell - they can. Freedom of speech & thought is exactly that. Can I choose who comes into my house - yes I bloody should, it's mine.

You do not have the right not to be offended! Neither do I.

Do non religous people have a right to be homophobic?

Do homosexuals have the right to be Theophobic?

It's the same thing. I don't see many Gay activists hanging around mosques or synagogues though - why is that? Most Christian s couldn't give a stuff on this side of the pond.

In a free society it's citizens must be free to believe what they will, otherwise it ain't f*ckin free. Tolerance is a 2 way street, you don't have to accept or like what other people think or do. How people worship is upto them, if you don't like it, start up your own church.

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

According to some of you homophobic-phobics- we should shoot people who are homophobic. How hypocritical since there is so much you hate about violence being portrayed upon gay people. So let's just portray violence on straight people eh? Sounds like that's going to really fix the problem.

So should i start taking out most of the elderly people on the planet? They are pretty homophobic on the whole.

The hypocracy is ridiculous. This should be about letting people live the way they want, including those who don't agree with you if they aren't doing any harm to you or anyone else.

Phobia translates to a fear of something- are you afraid of straight people if you don't like what they are doing? I don't think all people who disagree with gays are necessarily afraid of them. They aren't likely to get violent about their beliefs either.

There are news stories that don't represent a true reality that exists out there. I'm really disappointed in those who resorted to believing their belief in violence towards bigotry is different than say.... someone wanting to shoot an abortion doctor. They're both wrong.

 

[B_RedDude]

Phobia translates to a fear of something-

I believe that the classic psych definition of homophobia was "an IRRATIONAL fear". I guess non-psych professionals could argue what is and what is not an irrational fear, but I think that in current culture the term homophobia is used more broadly than for the condition for which it was originally coined. There was another part to the original definition, but I can't at the moment recall it.

I don't think a simple dislike of homosexuals necessarily constitutes homophobia. I don't like loud, obnoxious people. Is this the result of a "phobia"? I think not.

These days I'm more fond of the term "heterosexism" because it describes the manifestation of an assumption of a superiority of heterosexuality over homosexuality.