The New Atheists

[M. (hristine]

The Ugandan government and the 'American Christianists'. Now there's an unholy marriage lifted straight from the bowels of Bosch's hell realms.

 

You couldn't find more perfect archetypal representatives of the two (actual) primal roots of human aggression if you tried.

[Winston Legthigh]

I don’t understand why anyone would want to be a member of a religious organization that would jail or execute or condemn someone for their sexual orientation.

Ah, and yet here you are - a citizen of a country that does the very same. Gotta love compromise!

[Good Old Neon]

Ah, and yet here you are - a citizen of a country that does the very same. Gotta love compromise!

 

Now that is just silly.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Now that is just silly.

 

Kinda true, actually. Kinda different, but kinda true.

[Good Old Neon]

Ah, and yet here you are - a citizen of a country that does the very same. Gotta love compromise!

 

What if instead of this - I don’t understand why anyone would want to be a member of a religious organization that would jail or execute or condemn someone for their sexual orientation.

 

I said this - I don’t understand why anyone would want to be a member of a country club that would discriminate based on someone’s race or sexual orientation.

 

And he responded with this:

 

Ah, and yet here you are - a citizen of a country that does the very same. Gotta love compromise!

 

I guess I could respond with, cool, fuck it then, my country does the same thing. I was going to quit this bigoted country club, but fuck it, I’m staying. Pass the nine iron. I was also giving serious consideration to quitting the Klan, but since my country also discriminates, fuck it too - I’m staying. Pass the sheets.

[Atticus]

because no one is telling you to say "fuck it" and remain a member of the country club or religious organization, they're pointing out that by living in a country which discriminates against homosexuals, it may be seen as compromising your stated principle against organizations that discriminate against homosexuals. I'm just guessing though.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Well, you elect to be a member of a religious organization just like you elect to remain a citizen of the country in which you were born.

 

There are certain things you really hate about this country, and that's fine. I imagine you stay for your family, the fellowship, your work, and the happiness it does provide you when it's not pissing you off.

 

There are certain things that piss people off about organized religions. A very dear friend of mine desperately wants to go to seminary and become an ordained pastor in the Lutheran church, and put off attendence for years because of the ELCA's policy on GLBT pastors. She is an active member of her church, loves her church very much, and very, very much wanted the ELCA to change its policy, which is exactly why she stayed. Surely she's not the only one.

 

People who stay in religious organizations that discriminate either agree with the policies and that's why they stay, don't really care because that policy doesn't affect them, or want the policy to change and therefore they stay. Is that last one all that horrible?

[MattZ]

I get the point, but it's quite a stretch, and frankly to the point of silly (IMO). The existence of discrimination is different than the institutionalization of it. You can't run away from the existence of something. This country may discriminate against homosexuals and/or women and/or minorities, but we DO have a Bill of Rights. That IS one of the founding principles of this country.

 

EDIT: "Homosexuality is a sin" is arguably a founding principle of certain religions, and of certain country clubs.

[Winston Legthigh]

I guess I could respond with, cool, fuck it then, my country does the same thing. I was going to quit this bigoted country club, but fuck it, I’m staying. Pass the nine iron. I was also giving serious consideration to quitting the Klan, but since my country also discriminates, fuck it too - I’m staying. Pass the sheets.

You could also respond by saying "guess I'm moving to the Netherlands."?

 

Some people stick around in compromising situations because they want to be an agent of change. Some stick around because the compromising situation doesn't weigh too heavily on their conscience.

 

I don't understand why some people will lob the "you hypocrite!" grenade, because we're all hypocrites to some degree. We all make compromises. We all whore our values to some degree.

[MattZ]

I don't understand why some people will lob the "you hypocrite!" grenade, because we're all hypocrites to some degree. We all make compromises. We all whore our values to some degree.

 

I agree with you that we are all hypocrites to some degree, but I (respectfully, of course) reject that being a citizen of a country where discrimination exists is even remotely analogous to being a member of a religion or country club that disciminates.

[Good Old Neon]

because no one is telling you to say "fuck it" and remain a member of the country club or religious organization, they're pointing out that by living in a country which discriminates against homosexuals, it may be seen as compromising your stated principle against organizations that discriminate against homosexuals. I'm just guessing though.

 

There’s glacier sized difference between choosing to remain in an organization that advocates jailing or executing homosexuals, and living in a country that discriminates against them - though, with the exception of marriage, we have laws against that sort of thing.

 

At risk of trespassing against Godwin‘s Law, the last time an organization advocated and/or carried out jailing or executing homosexuals, its members wore swastikas on their sleeves.

[Winston Legthigh]

There’s glacier sized difference between choosing to remain in an organization that advocates jailing or executing homosexuals, and living in a country that discriminates against them - though, with the exception of marriage, we have laws against that sort of thing.

And that's glacier's name is "rationalization"

 

I realize that there's a sliding scale, and slippery slope and all that. But we tend to rationalize the items on the small end of the scale, and (hopefully) rebel against the ones on the Nazi end of the scale. That's what appeasement, er, um, I mean compromise is all about.

[Guest Speed Racer]

You can't run away from the existence of something. This country may discriminate against homosexuals and/or women and/or minorities, but we DO have a Bill of Rights. That IS one of the founding principles of this country.

 

You are aware that police used to routinely arrest gay men in bars, generally beat them to a pulp, parade them around town and THEN book them, for the crime of trying to date men? In the United States? Until very recently? And it still sometimes happens? Occassionally to women too? And sodomy used to be illegal in a number of states (and still is in a few)?

 

Edited to add: The Supreme Court actually struck down all the sodomy laws in 2003, so sodomy laws in the U.S. are, like, ancient history.

[Winston Legthigh]

And sodomy used to be illegal in a number of states (and still is in a few)?

Sodomy? Hell, fornication is still in the books in Minnesota! (damn you Bachman!)

[Atticus]

There’s glacier sized difference between choosing to remain in an organization that advocates jailing or executing homosexuals, and living in a country that discriminates against them - though, with the exception of marriage, we have laws against that sort of thing.

 

 

I agree that there is a difference. I just don't think that your example of the country club refuted the point that was being made--that you do choose to continue to live in a country which denies homosexuals some rights. You seemed to be saying that because the country discriminates, that is a justification to say "fuck it, I'll just keep being a member of this country club" and I don't think that anyone was making that argument.

[Atticus]

we DO have a Bill of Rights.

 

which is great except that it doesn't apparently afford homosexuals the right to a marriage license.

 

EDIT: "Homosexuality is a sin" is arguably a founding principle of certain religions, and of certain country clubs.

 

I think I know what you were intending here, but I hardly think that country clubs were founded on the principle of "homosexuality is a sin." I think it was more akin to "wouldn't it be great to have a place to play golf with other rich white people?" I think the "homosexuality is a sin" is more of a shared opinion.

[Guest Speed Racer]

At risk of trespassing against Godwin‘s Law, the last time an organization advocated and/or carried out jailing or executing homosexuals, its members wore swastikas on their sleeves.

 

I'm sorry, were the Nazis popular before or after the mayor of New York City revoked the liquor licenses of known gay bars and ordered the police to entrap as many gays as possible, in ancitipation of the 1964 World's Fair? Did the Nazis do their thing before or after the FBI and Post Office kept tabs on known homosexuals in the '50s? And what about that Stonewall thing, where a number of police raided - what? - Isn't Stonewall that place in Scotland with all those rocks?

 

which is great except that it doesn't apparently afford homosexuals the right to a marriage license.

 

Oh no, gays can marry - they just can't marry someone of the same sex.

[Atticus]

I sit corrected

[MattZ]

You are aware that police used to routinely arrest gay men in bars, generally beat them to a pulp, parade them around town and THEN book them, for the crime of trying to date men? In the United States? Until very recently? And it still sometimes happens? Occassionally to women too? And sodomy used to be illegal in a number of states (and still is in a few)?

 

Edited to add: The Supreme Court actually struck down all the sodomy laws in 2003, so sodomy laws in the U.S. are, like, ancient history.

 

I remain confused about your apparent need to be so patronizing in this thread. You dont have to remind anyone in here about how poorly homosexuals and minorities have been treated by this country. If you take a step back for a moment, everyone in this discussion agrees on this point.

 

As I've said, this country has a Bill of Rights. It's right there in the founding document. If you want to tell me that this country was founded on the principle that black men were 3/5 of a person, and that women couldn't vote, and that sodomy was illegal, and that this is no different than Eve being created from the rib of a man, and homosexuality being a sin, then of course, I get your point. I still think that this country, for all its despicable shortcomings, has institutions that seek to treat people equally. It falls short far too often. And when it does, you walk down to your local courthouse or call your local congressperson and you do what you can to change it. That's an entirely different construct than the Bible (in my mind). I am happy to agree to disagree with you on this.

[Guest Speed Racer]

My whole point is that this country was very, very recently in a bad place in regards to how it treated homosexuals. For 200 years we had that Bill of Rights and institutionalized and legalized the mistreatment of homosexuals, without batting an eye. But people who disagreed stayed in this country, and things are started to change.

 

Religious institutions are no different than nations in this regard - they have their doctrines to love everyone, and while they have institutionalized the marginalization of homosexuals for centuries, things are started to change in many, many denominations. For every passage of Scripture used to condemn homosexuals, there are others that either condone it (yes!) or condone loving everyone despite their differences. Just because you don't have a Bill of Rights doesn't mean your institution completely loses the capacity to progress and change, just like having a Bill of Rights doesn't mean police won't beat you to a pulp because you try to pick someone up in a gay bar.

[Good Old Neon]

I'm sorry, were the Nazis popular before or after the mayor of New York City revoked the liquor licenses of known gay bars and ordered the police to entrap as many gays as possible, in ancitipation of the 1964 World's Fair? Did the Nazis do their thing before or after the FBI and Post Office kept tabs on known homosexuals in the '50s? And what about that Stonewall thing, where a number of police raided - what? - Isn't Stonewall that place in Scotland with all those rocks?

 

 

 

Oh no, gays can marry - they just can't marry someone of the same sex.

 

As bad as the discrimination in the 50’s and 60’s was, and it WAS fucking horrible, it never reached the level of this, from the article:

 

the church's provincial secretary told the Monitor newspaper in Kampala, Uganda, that jailing homosexuals was preferable to executing them. "If you kill the people, to whom will the message go? We need to have imprisonment for life if the person is still alive.

 

Note the use of “if the person is still alive.” - which, might insinuate that killing them, though not as great as jailing them, is still ok. The police acted reprehensibly, but this is something else altogether.

[MattZ]

I think I know what you were intending here, but I hardly think that country clubs were founded on the principle of "homosexuality is a sin." I think it was more akin to "wouldn't it be great to have a place to play golf with other rich white people?" I think the "homosexuality is a sin" is more of a shared opinion.

 

yes, fair point.

[Guest Speed Racer]

As bad as the discrimination in the 50’s and 60’s was, and it WAS fucking horrible, it never reached the level of this, from the article:

 

Nowhere was I ever saying the U.S. was on par with Uganda, I was simply saying that you elect to remain a part of an institution that used legal means to outlaw and punish homosexuality and homosexual acts. Not that you elect to remain a part of the worst organization that does that, but you can't deny that our nation has historically, and very recently, advocated the jailing of homosexuals and the legal system has frequently turned a blind eye to blatant hate crimes (executions, one might say). And you're still here. And that's totally fine.

 

So you can understand why people elect to remain a part of those institutions. You can't understand people in Uganda's situation - nor can I - but I frankly think homosexuality is lowest on the list of reasons I can't fathom their circumstances.

[Good Old Neon]

Nowhere was I ever saying the U.S. was on par with Uganda, I was simply saying that you elect to remain a part of an institution that used legal means to outlaw and punish homosexuality and homosexual acts. Not that you elect to remain a part of the worst organization that does that, but you can't deny that our nation has historically, and very recently, advocated the jailing of homosexuals and the legal system has frequently turned a blind eye to blatant hate crimes (executions, one might say). And you're still here. And that's totally fine.

 

So you can understand why people elect to remain a part of those institutions. You can't understand people in Uganda's situation - nor can I - but I frankly think homosexuality is lowest on the list of reasons I can't fathom their circumstances.

 

I was responding to your response in which you took issue with my comparison between what the Nazi’s advocated and what the church is now advocating.

 

As Matt pointed out, I’m fully aware of and appalled by the injustices perpetrated against gays and lesbians in this country - despite our differences regarding the role religion plays in this whole mess, you won’t find a greater ally in the fight against discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, etc.

 

With that said, I find the comparison between remaining in an organization that discriminates, and living in a country with a history of discrimination weak.

[Guest Speed Racer]

With that said, I find the comparison between remaining in an organization that discriminates, and living in a country with a history of discrimination weak.

 

The U.S. is still an organization that discriminates.

 

A question, for clarification: are you baffled too by Americans who are members of religious denominations with institutional discrimination? Do you hold them accountable for violence perpetrated against persons outside of the United States, by different branches of their organization?

 

If that's true, one of the reasons I find your statement so...I can't think of a word...frustrating, maybe? Still not sure that's right...Anyway, one of the reasons it frustrates me is that you don't account for religious institutions' capacity for change, despite the fact that they have evolved pretty significantly throughout the course of history. Or do you, and I'm missing that?