I personally find the idea rather stupid- "Oh look- there's an extremist religious minority who are intolerant of a certain demographic.. Let's go parody them!" I think it only adds to the cycle of stupidty and intolerance.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is the extremist religious minority is so loud they are drowning out the moderates.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And it's not such a minority, I don't think. If it is, it's certainly controlling the agenda.
All this site is doing, so far as I can see, is insisting on consistancy. Good luck with that, though...
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I personally find the idea rather stupid- "Oh look- there's an extremist religious minority who are intolerant of a certain demographic.. Let's go parody them!"
Religious minority? If only that were true.
I've not once, in my 6.5 years on hatrack, encountered even one person whose views against homosexuality weren't largely based on their belief that God opposes it. And I've read the vast majority of the homosexuality threads here. I'm willing to believe that such a person exists, but if they do, they must be rare indeed.
Considering that around 60-75% of America's population is against homosexual marriage, and every single person I've ever encountered who opposes same sex marriage did so at least in part because of their religious beliefs, that "minority" of yours looks an awful lot like a majority.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I personally find the idea rather stupid- "Oh look- there's an extremist religious minority who are intolerant of a certain demographic.. Let's go parody them!"
Religious minority? If only that were true.
I've not once, in my 6.5 years on hatrack, encountered even one person whose views against homosexuality weren't largely based on their belief that God opposes it. And I've read the vast majority of the homosexuality threads here. I'm willing to believe that such a person exists, but if they do, they must be rare indeed.
Considering that around 60-75% of America's population is against homosexual marriage, and every single person I've ever encountered who opposes same sex marriage did so at least in part because of their religious beliefs, that "minority" of yours looks an awful lot like a majority.
I've never once met somebody whose views for homosexuality were not largely based on their own moral convictions, many of which were originated if not influenced by OTHER PEOPLE!!
I simply disagree with you that all who think of homosexuality as a social ill must by neccesity pick up signs with inflamatory rhetoric and talk about hell fire and damnation for all the people who posess that particular trait.
Your assertion that people who are religious therefore have no rationale for their convictions, while those who simply disregard religion must therefore have superior reasoning is a mite on the rediculous side.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've not once, in my 6.5 years on hatrack, encountered even one person whose views against homosexuality weren't largely based on their belief that God opposes it. And I've read the vast majority of the homosexuality threads here. I'm willing to believe that such a person exists, but if they do, they must be rare indeed.
Considering that around 60-75% of America's population is against homosexual marriage, and every single person I've ever encountered who opposes same sex marriage did so at least in part because of their religious beliefs, that "minority" of yours looks an awful lot like a majority.
First, I think your claim that thinking a particular action is sinful makes one intolerant is not a sustainable claim.
Second, the parody is aimed at God Hates Fags. I would think that would be pretty clear. Are you contending that the people who think homosexual actions to be sinful are part of the same group targeted by this site?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I think that most Christians are horribly embarrassed by the likes of Phelps. But there's a spectrum of expression here. Some wish Phelps didn't exist, but say pretty much the same thing he does, just with greater couth. Others think the same thing, but think it's counter-productive to say so. Still others think the same thing, but also feel that since it's hurtful to say it, they shouldn't.
Even OSC, who I admire a lot in most areas, has written that laws against homosexuality should be kept on the books, or restored where they've been removed. Only he wrote it in a different forum than this.
You must understand the worry that such things cause. The knowledge that even enlightened people who act nicely and politely and would never spout filth like Fred Phelps in a billion years may nevertheless, when our backs are turned (so to speak) call for civil law and the coercive force of the government to be wielded against us. It's downright scary.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Black Blade, I'm sorry you feel assaulted here. I have a great deal of respect for people with strong religious convictions. I have a few of them myself.
But Fred Phelps and his extended family (I mean that literally) have thrown out the entire point of Christianity ("for God so loved the world...that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.", emphasis mine and apologies for contracting two separate verses) in their haste to build a life of hatred around one verse of the bible, which action is nicely skewered by this parody, and I, for one Christian, am glad to see it.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Dag, I think that most Christians are horribly embarrassed by the likes of Phelps. But there's a spectrum of expression here. Some wish Phelps didn't exist, but say pretty much the same thing he does, just with greater couth. Others think the same thing, but think it's counter-productive to say so. Still others think the same thing, but also feel that since it's hurtful to say it, they shouldn't.
And some of us (see above) think exactly the opposite and say it loudly and often and work to have discriminatory laws removed.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh, I did miss that. I was beginning to think I was the only gay Jatraquero left who posted on a semi-regular basis. Darn faulty gaydar . . .
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I personally find the idea rather stupid- "Oh look- there's an extremist religious minority who are intolerant of a certain demographic.. Let's go parody them!"
Religious minority? If only that were true.
I've not once, in my 6.5 years on hatrack, encountered even one person whose views against homosexuality weren't largely based on their belief that God opposes it. And I've read the vast majority of the homosexuality threads here. I'm willing to believe that such a person exists, but if they do, they must be rare indeed.
Considering that around 60-75% of America's population is against homosexual marriage, and every single person I've ever encountered who opposes same sex marriage did so at least in part because of their religious beliefs, that "minority" of yours looks an awful lot like a majority.
The minority (vast, imo) is the "God hates" part. The majority (of americans & chrisitians) is the part that thinks marriage has a purpose that requires confining it to one adult man and one adult woman. I think it actually might be about a 50/50 split between those (americans) who think homosexuality is wrong versus those who think it is value neutral.
...and the picture *is* quite funny, good reminder to read things, especially important things, in context.
Posts: 105 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whew, glad it's a joke, I thought for a minute I was going to be jumped by Christian extremists on my way into Red Lobster. Kind of odd, with all the sin in the world, to punish the lovers of scampi...or coconut...or beer battered...oh the possibilities. Delicious, cocktail sauce covered little sins.
By the way, did anyone click on the Church Sign Generator that was linked below the fake picture of the church sign? The things people do with their free time, and while I imagine how much fun could be had with this, I also imagine it'd lead to a LOT of offended persons, very fast.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Joldo: Huh, I did miss that. I was beginning to think I was the only gay Jatraquero left who posted on a semi-regular basis. Darn faulty gaydar . . .
<sheepish grin> I imagine it's the religious stuff that masked it. I mean, how many Orthodox Jewish right wing fanatic dykes are there in the world?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know Xavier, I suspect that if I were to conflate the radical fringe minority with its group's majority and it were some other group, I suspect you would be offended or even outraged.
And rightly so.
starLisa, you also entirely forget to mention the many Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin, but also recognize that we're all sinners, every one of us, so homosexuals aren't so very different from us at all. Your 'spectrum of expression' doesn't seem to be hitting on all colors.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahh, the irony. And aren't you some sort of 'aspiring Zen Buddhist' anyway? Your karma would be delightfully poetic, I'm sure.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously, though, the quoted verses are exactly the reason that Jews don't eat shrimp (or other non-scaly, non-finny fishes). They are not kosher. And the prohibition against that is much more clearly stated than any prohibition against "gayness".
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But then, the Hebrew doesn't call them both the same thing. To'eiva != sheketz. But you're definitely right that the one prohibition is clear and the other is not.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realize that many conservative Christians consider homosexuality to be a sin- that's not what I was referring to by calling the 'God Hates Fags' people a minority.
As some had guessed- it was the extremist intolerance and ridiculous rhetoric- not to mention some just poor exegetical skills of the bible (well not so much bad skill as rather willful manipulation of the texts)
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about pork? G-d hates that to. Shouldn't we picket the grocery stores next April to stop them from selling Easter ham?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to ruin anyone's fun, but there is Christian scripture that states fairly unequivocally that most of the food rules (all but the ones concerning blood) do not apply to Christians, while rules of sexual morality do. It's based on direct revelation (to Peter, I believe) and what I believe is the first council convened to decide disputed doctrines of faith.
So, yeah, it's funny to make fun of the more odious Christians. But please don't think any kind of actual theological point is being made on that score.
Of course, there are LOTS of theological points to be made about the sentiment "God Hates Fags." Saying that the same rules apply to shrimp as to homosexual relations isn't one of them.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I think it *is* valid to compare because some translations call both "an abomination" in similar language to each other. When used by those who continue to try to tell homosexuals that they are abominable, that scripture bears comparison to the shrimp scripture.
As you say, there are plenty of theological points to make about saying "God Hates Fags" from all sides of the fence on whether or not homosexuality is sinful.
For my part, I am closest to where Rakeesh is: Homosexuality may be sinful (says the Catholic Church...) but so are any number of things I do day in and day out. Grace is a wonderful thing. We do the best we can with what we're given.
Or, to put it in movie terms... sometimes an act of piracy can be the right action (forgive the failure to actually quote it).
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Dag, I think it *is* valid to compare because some translations call both "an abomination" in similar language to each other. When used by those who continue to try to tell homosexuals that they are abominable, that scripture bears comparison to the shrimp scripture.
As you say, there are plenty of theological points to make about saying "God Hates Fags" from all sides of the fence on whether or not homosexuality is sinful.
For my part, I am closest to where Rakeesh is: Homosexuality may be sinful (says the Catholic Church...) but so are any number of things I do day in and day out. Grace is a wonderful thing. We do the best we can with what we're given.
Or, to put it in movie terms... sometimes an act of piracy can be the right action (forgive the failure to actually quote it).
Just so that I am clear on your views, are you saying that you believe that all sins are equally wrong in the eyes of God? Or that because Jesus's grace covers all sins, therefore we ought not to few any one sin so harshly?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Closer to the latter.... but my views on sin are pretty complex, recently arrived at, and therefore very hard for me to articulate. I only mention them to be forthcoming. If I ever feel capable of explaining better than in the ramblings of my blog, I will likely post it here because there are several people here whose opinions of them I would really value.
More specifically to this thread, however, I think it's clear that no matter what your view of sin, no human (and yes that includes Hitler and Saddam) is an abomination... and especially not for merely being subject to a complex psycho-sexual state (if I may call homosexuality that without being offensive... I was trying for "neutral description" not "DSM-IV diagnosis", for what it's worth).
Edit:
It's also my opinion that homosexuality receives an elevated attention out of proportion to it's actual degree of sinfulness. At worst, in the New Testament, it's one of a long list of sins in one of Paul's epistles (I Cor 6:9-10), that any of us would do well to avoid for a week, much less a lifetime, given some of Jesus's words on what constitues adultery or murder (Matt 5:21-22, 27-28)
quote:Dag, I think it *is* valid to compare because some translations call both "an abomination" in similar language to each other. When used by those who continue to try to tell homosexuals that they are abominable, that scripture bears comparison to the shrimp scripture.
The problem is one of rhetorical effectiveness. It's easily answered, plus it ignores the most important reasons for condemning "God Hates Fags." It's kind of like condemning the Dred Scott decision because the writing style is bad. That's true, but not the reason Dred Scott should be condemned.
quote:For my part, I am closest to where Rakeesh is: Homosexuality may be sinful (says the Catholic Church...) but so are any number of things I do day in and day out. Grace is a wonderful thing. We do the best we can with what we're given.
This is very close to my own view.
quote:It's also my opinion that homosexuality receives an elevated attention out of proportion to it's actual degree of sinfulness.
I agree with this as well. However, the problem is, to people who consider it their duty to counter error regarding Christian doctrine, many of the responses to Phelps's crap are also wrong. If one joins the "conversation" caused by Phelps, one has a duty not to support by silence any views one considers wrong.
The unfortunate result? Phelps is countered by people who not only condemn his hate in the name of God (something I consider to be a horrible sin), but by people who also say that homosexual actions are not sinful. If one is trying to counter spiritual error and one believes both sides are in error, then both sides must be countered.
posted
There are some very useful, scholarly works that put the scriptural "condemnation" in context. One of my favorites is The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart by Peter Gomes.
Important to understand is that homosexuality is understood very differently now than it was in the first century after Christ. Also important to remember is that, due to the influence of the Stoics, the spiritual and the physical were considered separate and in conflict with each other - hence any kind of sexual pleasure was bad). Even Catholics have figured out that error!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also should be noted that one of the reasons that homosexuality is given harsher treatment is that it has become emboldened in the last century. Where once it was a "gentlemans game." today we hear, "Its OK to be gay!" While I am not commenting on whether or not that is a good thing I can clearly see that for the religious, its easier to be incensed by "Iniquity parading itself as righteousness." then "Everyone knows its wrong but it still happens."
For the non religious this open the door for accusations of a "double standard," within Christianity. But for the religious it makes perfect sense, "You dont hear anybody saying its ok to abuse your spouse."
I guess to sum up, people who disagree with homosexuality probably were for the large part silent until gay rights activists started speaking up.
This is why it appears that homosexuality is given harsher treatment by Christian groups as it is perceived as a more visable threat.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somewhat similar, I believe, to racism becoming more apparent during the civil rights movement.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
