Religion
Related: About this forumChurch of England’s call for dialogue on gays rebuffed in Africa
Trevor Grundy and Fredrick Nzwili
(RNS) Ahead of his five-day visit to Africa, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby issued a statement reminding Anglicans of the commitment the Church of England made eight years ago to the pastoral care and support of everyone, including gays and lesbians.
So far, the archbishops statement has not convinced African leaders.
On Wednesday (Jan. 29), Anglican leaders in Africa rejected a proposal by the English College of Bishops for two-year facilitated conversations to address the differences over homosexuality within the worldwide Anglican Communion.
Kenyas Archbishop Eliud Wabukala, chairman of the Global African Future Conference Primates Council, said the move would project the Church of Englands problems onto the communion as a whole.
http://www.religionnews.com/2014/01/30/church-englands-call-dialogue-gays-rebuffed-africa/
okasha
(11,573 posts)is largely driven by American evangelicals, specifically the Washington group known as The Family. The President of Uganda is one of their wholly-owned subsidiaries.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Everyone knows that religion is just an excuse. If it weren't for religion, people would find some other reason to hate and persecute gays. It's all political.
Right?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)My observation of never having met a homophobic atheist is just as valid.
Which is to say; not valid at all.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)ginning of the video.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I surround myself with people of philosophical alignment similar to mine, so I am exposed to a LOT of atheists. I have yet to meet an openly homophobic such person.
She posts videos about sexuality and other cultural issues that will attract a wide audience, and may well select her for being singled out by a vast pack of assholes. Some atheist, some not. Still anecdotal, when considering the general inclusiveness or homophobia of a GROUP/CLASS like Atheists. Her experiences have likely led her to be exposed to mostly the jerks. Fine. That doesn't mean there's parity between believers and non-believers on rates of bigotry.
Nobody ever claimed every last atheist was a progressive. If they did, they were stupid.
I am sorry for, and sympathetic to her on the treatment she has received. I have experienced a fair amount of that treatment myself, living in a very red county in a blue state, and being very open about my political alignment. That doesn't lead me to generalize about the entire state, when the polls show WA solid blue at the state level.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Her observations, however numerous, do not support her claim WRT to the average population/nature of atheists.
Period.
rug
(82,333 posts)I learn from her observations.
The classic tension between belief and science.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)JUST like my OWN personal experiences in which I mentioned earlier, despite having met THOUSANDS of atheists, I have never once met an OPENLY HOMOPHOBIC atheist. That is anecdotal evidence.
GOOD FUCKING GRIEF
rug
(82,333 posts)Maybe if you were a transgendered atheist, and not an atheist with other privileges, you may have encountered more.
As it is, I'll take Zinnia's observations over yours.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"I've encountered atheists that have essentially told me"
THAT is an argument from anecdote. PERIOD. That is not science.
Sorry, that doesn't prove the claim that atheists are just as likely to be homophobic. That's a statistical claim. It is not supported by her anecdotal experience, however painful and deplorable that experience may be.
rug
(82,333 posts)Caps, italics, boldface and typographical flourishes don't really change anything.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)She made a statistical claim. She backed it up with anecdotal evidence. End of story.
rug
(82,333 posts)By its own terms, simple nonbelief causes neither.
If you do happen to encounter an atheist who is gay friendly or a homophobe, progressive or reactionary, it's for other reasons. You can't have it both ways.
Atheism is no vaccine against homophobia.
She has encountered many and she knows the difference.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)She indicated it's just as prevalent among atheists. That's a untrue claim with a mountain of hard evidence to prove it.
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf
All the anecdotes in the world don't prove her statistical claim to be true. It's not true. period.
As for the correlation between atheism and a lack of homophobia, likely due to there being no rational basis for homophobia. Any residual homophobia in an atheist is likely cultural, as atheism itself doesn't speak to the issue at all. All it does is negate many, many religions with innate dogma that defines homosexuality as a sin. (meaning, as a negative.)
rug
(82,333 posts)Go on, got to her website or video and post your dismissals. I eagerly await her replies.
Btw, if you indeed knew what you were talking about, you'd know that atheism, or simple nonbelief, need not have a rational basis. It simply needs nonbelief.
In any event, nice apology for reasons, having nothing to do with atheism, why atheists may be homophobes.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And nice try again, to backpedal. I called out a specific claim she made, for which there is peer reviewed hard data to debunk her claim. I pointed out her claim is based on her anecdotal experience, which it is. End of story. Period. Etc.
I have specified several times in this thread that atheism is silent on any subject beyond the question of whether there is a god, in the negative. Nice to see you've been keeping up.
Atheism excludes the possibility of theistic rationale being valid, that was my only point WRT rationality. There is no book atheists can reference and say 'well my faith says'. There are fewer tools in our repertoire that might be mis-applied to a problem.
And this, of course:
"In any event, nice apology for reasons, having nothing to do with atheism, why atheists may be homophobes."
Did not occur anywhere outside your mind.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)to be a bigot or not.
Bigots will use whatever they have to justify their bigotry. While a religious bigot might use religious, a non-religious bigot has plenty of other resources.
To make the argument that homophobia (or any other bigotry) in an atheist is probably cultural is valid. It probably is cultural. It's probably cultural in a person who's culture includes religion as well.
My lack of homophobia initially came from the religious culture I was raised in.
So what?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Really?
And dismiss it with your own anecdotal claims?
REALLY?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)doesn't even know that one can be both secular and religious.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Secular ideologies, like liberalism, being attributed religion-like attributes is usually done by people like, at random, Ann Coulter in the pursuit of shitting all over said rival ideology.
There are some semi-grey areas, like secular paganism, but as they lack 'revealed' dogma, I think we can safely lump them under the 'secular' heading, and not worry about the quasi-religious aspect, for the purposes of this study.
And by the way, it's a compilation, not every referenced study (of which there are many) commit this simplification.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I that makes a compilation even more questionable.
When people use the term secular to speak about people who are not religious, they have made a fatal error.
Good studies do show that atheist tend to be more liberal/progressive in general and are more likely than not to be democrats.
But, they are also more likely to be white, male, educated, straight, employed, white collar and doing fine financially.
In short, they tend to be members of the very privileged class.
So it's really hard to tease out all those variables when looking at complications of atheist attitudes.
And don't get me started on sexism and islamophobia exhibited by some very visible people who identify as atheist.
To say that bigotry is less likely because it is not "rational" just don't not bear out when you look at those areas.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"And don't get me started on sexism and islamophobia exhibited by some very visible people who identify as atheist."
Individual/anecdotes do not disprove a statistical average, one that the person in the video in question upthread claimed was not real, and failed to establish that claim with anything more than personal anecdote.
Please do not commit the same fallacy. I am aware that there can be STAGGERING examples of sexism and homophobia on an individual scale within any group, as there can be staggering examples of love, compassion, and inclusiveness, within any group. Notable exceptions or anecdotes wasn't the issue.
As for whether atheists represent a privileged class, I actually won't argue that point, it may well be true, but it doesn't validate the claim of Zinnia in her video about how it's just as prevalent among atheists, that Rug cited. The claim is untrue, even if atheists happen to be a hugely privileged class.
"To say that bigotry is less likely because it is not "rational" just don't not bear out when you look at those areas."
Just quoting myself for accuracy:
"As for the correlation between atheism and a lack of homophobia, likely due to there being no rational basis for homophobia."
For starters, that's casual speculation on my part. The whole paragraph is, and quite obviously so. "just don't not bear out when you look at those areas" Disagree. There are three primary basis for homophobia: Rational, irrational, and 'revealed truth/dogma'. I have yet to see a rational basis for homophobia that can withstand any sort of scrutiny, so I think I can confidently say it has no rational basis, at least for now/until proven otherwise. Atheists by definition discount/ignore supernaturally revealed truth/dogma such as the bible, which is a source for some interpretations of bigotry against various groups, homosexuals included.
So you've eliminated two source categories for homophobia just by defining/identifying as an atheist. In order for your counterpoint to be true, one would then have to assume a higher rate of irrationality among atheists. I've seen no evidence of this. I'm open to evaluating such evidence, if there is any.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)a more left leaning population. But I would argue that the reasons for that may have nothing to do with lack of religious beliefs and more to do with other demographics seen in the population.
And what does it matter anyway. Can't we just agree that bigotry can be found anywhere and should be combatted wherever it is found?
The danger is in ascribing it to whole populations when it is confined to only certain sub-populations or even individuals.
I have yet to see any basis for homophobia that can withstand any sort of scrutiny.
Atheists, by definition, are only one thing, as is repeatedly pointed out in this group. They are individuals who do not believe in god. There is virtually no other conclusion that you can draw from that. You can look at demographics, but that's about it, but you can't draw all these conclusions that you do about truth and dogma and the bible and the supernatural.
You just can't. It's not part of the definition.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"You can look at demographics, but that's about it, but you can't draw all these conclusions that you do about truth and dogma and the bible and the supernatural."
I can extrapolate plenty. For starters, a person who does not believe in a supernatural god isn't going to follow that supernatural god's revealed truth dogma. So you can eliminate that as a basis for any sort of position.
If someone claimed to be an atheist AND claimed homosexuality was a sin, per Leviticus, that would be weird on two counts: 1. Believing in 'sin', and 2. believing in the bible, without a supernatural god/authority backing it up.
That would be genuinely bizarre to find a person that was an exception to that.
Take away 'god' and the bible is just a piece of fictional literature that may or may not be salted with some historical scenery.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You don't speak for atheists and unless you have some data to back up what you are saying, you got nothing.
And you certainly can't say "by definition". That's really going out there on a limb.
Again, you can take it up with all the non-believers right here that say that atheism means one thing and one thing only.
They wouldn't say homosexuality is a sin at all. They might say it's a perversion, unnatural, against the laws of nature or even inconsistent with evolution, but not a sin. That you have never met any of these people doesn't mean much. They exist, believe me.
You can't blame everything on religion, AC. It's not rational or logical.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"They wouldn't say homosexuality is a sin at all. They might say it's a perversion, unnatural, against the laws of nature or even inconsistent with evolution, but not a sin. That you have never met any of these people doesn't mean much. They exist, believe me. "
Humans across all cultures and thousands of other species exhibit some percentage of their population being of this sort of identity/orientation. So the argument that it is unnatural or against the laws of nature is, on its face, false. Done. No problem there.
"You don't speak for atheists and unless you have some data to back up what you are saying, you got nothing."
What kind of fucking idiot atheist would hold up biblical dogma as true, while not believing in the deity it claims is real/revealed the 'truth' in the bible? On what basis? That makes ZERO SENSE. And no, it's not 'out on a limb', atheists by definition do not believe in god. If I don't believe in god, how can I believe in the revealed truth nature of the bible, as true dogma? A starving snake cannot eat itself tail first and expect to survive.
"You can't blame everything on religion, AC. It's not rational or logical."
I didn't. Stop building strawmen.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You think that all atheists are "by definition" rational about everything.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
While many may have come to their atheism through a process they consider rational, they are all deeply flawed human beings, just like every one else.
They have their own distortions, defense mechanisms, blind spots, backgrounds, indoctrinations, areas of cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty as everyone else.
I've got them, you've got them and I've yet to meet a single person on earth who doesn't have them.
You think that homophobia comes only from the bible? You are incorrect. It comes from many places, just as all bigotry does.
Do you think that bigotry against fat people comes from the Bible? How about bigotry against red heads? Mentally retarded people?
And on and on.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"You think that all atheists are "by definition" rational about everything. "
Groan.
"For starters, that's casual speculation on my part. The whole paragraph is, and quite obviously so. "just don't not bear out when you look at those areas" Disagree. There are three primary basis for homophobia: Rational, irrational, and 'revealed truth/dogma'. I have yet to see a rational basis for homophobia that can withstand any sort of scrutiny, so I think I can confidently say it has no rational basis, at least for now/until proven otherwise. Atheists by definition discount/ignore supernaturally revealed truth/dogma such as the bible, which is a source for some interpretations of bigotry against various groups, homosexuals included.
So you've eliminated two source categories for homophobia just by defining/identifying as an atheist. In order for your counterpoint to be true, one would then have to assume a higher rate of irrationality among atheists. I've seen no evidence of this. I'm open to evaluating such evidence, if there is any."
"You think that homophobia comes only from the bible?"
Strawman. I didn't say that. Search all my posts, you won't find that claim. In fact, I specifically listed multiple sources, and specifically cited the bible as just one example of revealed truth/dogma, out of possibilities that do not even include revealed truth/dogma.
I have to say, you don't seem to be engaging in this discussion in anything resembling an honest fashion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Where do you get the idea that there are only three primary bases for bigotry? That's way too simplistic and doesn't take into account the myriad of reasons that a person might be bigoted.
It could be that they have just never met that kind of person, so it could be based on pure ignorance and having been told things that aren't true. That might be logical for them, but not for you because your prisms are different.
What is someone has a deep and abiding hatred of all dogs because they were once bitten by one? For them that might be completely logical, as they lack the ability to tell which dog might bite them and which won't. You may say that's irrational, but if they don't want to get bit again, it might be very rational.
Even if we use your three primary bases, you haven't eliminated anything except the "revealed truth/dogma" option by saying you are an atheist. Your responses may still be irrational.
There is not rational basis for sexism, in my opinion. And clearly the atheist who also exhibit sexism are not basing it on "revealed truth/dogma". So is there bigotry towards women rational? Or are they irrational?
Sorry you don't find my responses honest. That seems to be the meme of the week.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"It could be that they have just never met that kind of person, so it could be based on pure ignorance and having been told things that aren't true."
Still irrational. "without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason." You just described a scenario that fits within the bounds of irrationality.
"What is someone has a deep and abiding hatred of all dogs because they were once bitten by one? For them that might be completely logical, as they lack the ability to tell which dog might bite them and which won't. You may say that's irrational, but if they don't want to get bit again, it might be very rational."
Still irrational. Especially from a statistical standpoint. You have a less than 1%/year chance of being bitten by any given dog, to a degree that might require medical attention.
"Even if we use your three primary bases, you haven't eliminated anything except the "revealed truth/dogma" option by saying you are an atheist. Your responses may still be irrational."
I specifically specified irrational as a possibility. So I have no idea what you are trying to object to here. I did ask for evidence that atheists might be more irrational than the average person. You haven't offered anything so far.
"There is not rational basis for sexism, in my opinion. And clearly the atheist who also exhibit sexism are not basing it on "revealed truth/dogma". So is there bigotry towards women rational? Or are they irrational?"
Yes, they are being irrational. And I am perfectly happy to call them to the carpet on it, and fully expect to be able to talk them out of it, or ruin any credibility they may have had with the nearby audience by illustrating their irrationality.
I don't know anything about memes, just this specific conversation. If you've been getting that feedback a lot, I suggest some introspection is in order.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That's the mental clusterfuck you just concern trolled me with.
If you don't believe in god, it's pretty hard to believe a document that says god is real. Right?
Please agree, oh please, because I would have given you the benefit of the doubt of being able to figure that out...
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think you might want to back up a bit.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You seem awfully worried that I'm doing a bunch of stuff your strawman of my position seems to be doing.
You seem awfully worried that I'm attempting to speak for all atheists, even though I didn't, I simply referenced DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CLASS/ENTITY.
If you're doing something else, I can't figure out what it is. Whatever it is, it's not honest debate.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)That doesn't make me a concern troll.
I'm not worried about a thing. I find your position on this flawed, that's all.
Don't find me honest? Feel free to move along.
I can be accused of many things, but I LOL when accused of not being honest. Being too honest is probably one of my biggest flaws.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That is not an honest tactic.
It is getting tiring. Please try addressing what I actually say.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There may be many things that explain this right now.
I will try again at a another time and I am sorry if I have been unfair or unkind.
okasha
(11,573 posts)of knowing at least two. Both are far-right conservatives.
rug
(82,333 posts)I'm turning in. Have a good night, okasha.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Sleep well.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Do they hate gays because their atheism or atheist leaders tell them to? No.
Are there atheist-controlled governments persecuting gays? No.
Are there atheist organizations trying to get anti-gay laws enacted? No.
What was your point again?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)How do Cuba and China treat gays?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)for political reasons, real and imagined, reasons that had nothing to do with atheism.
What was your point again? Or are you unable to express it clearly?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)immediately after the revolution. It wasn't until when Stalin took over and was seeking to improve relations with the Russian Orthodox Church (which to this day hates homosexuality) that laws against it came back.
And of course today, the Communists and their "atheistic" government are gone, but the ROC and its anti-homosexual views, which preceded and followed it, remain.
Bottom line is, there's nothing in atheism to justify hating homosexuals, but people can find reasons in the bible.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I have met plenty of homphobic people and a fair share were atheists.
The governments I mention were atheistic in nature and persecuted gays.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Not much point in responding, it would seem.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)But it does not mean they can't be homophobes.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Were gays the ONLY people those governments persecuted? List for us all of the groups that were persecuted in the Soviet Union under Stalin.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The fa ct is an atheistic goverment had homophobic policies. That was my point.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)you failed. They were also governments run by people with dark hair. Do you blame the hair color of their leaders for the fact that they persecuted all sorts of people? I'm guessing not. So what justification do you have for blaming their lack of church-going?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Are there atheist-controlled governments persecuting gays? No.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There currently are not. There are some that don't do a great job of protecting them, for equal protection, marriage, etc, but none actively pursuing them, today.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The earlier prohibition was not rooted in lack of religion, but rather in culture.
Again, there is no precept in Atheism beyond; 'does god exist' in the negative. That's it. If a 'atheistic' government persecutes gay people (as a couple have in the PAST, but not today, as that poster specified) the impetus came from somewhere else.
One might fairly assume each of those countries dropped their cultural opposition over time due to their lack of theism.
Note that Russia maintains theirs, after communism failed, and actively persecutes homosexuals. They are not a atheistic government today.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)as atheists. But this is not about individuals, is it? It's about governments passing anti-gay laws and enforcing anti-gay policies. How many atheists or atheist organizations have made those things happen? Answer: None.
How many atheists or atheist organizations have claimed that their atheism compels them to oppose equal rights and treatment for gays? Answer: None.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Atheism is a lack in the belief in the existence of god or gods, and that's it. If an atheist is homophobic, or an atheist government enacts homophobic policies, their inspiration came from some one or something beyond atheism, because atheism makes no claims regarding homosexuality. None.
Religions, on the other hand, make plenty. That's the difference.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Are they different from the ones in Africa?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)You might be surprised.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There is nothing about atheism that encourages or establishes any sort of crazy hierarchical entity.
Atheism is a simple Boolean proposition: Is there a god y/N
That's it.
To go beyond that into any sort of ideology, secular humanism, non aggression, being a bloody-minded murdering bastard, all of that requires thought/reason/rationality/philosophy BEYOND the question of Atheism.
In the case of the Soviet Union, that 'beyond' philosophy was their implementation of the concept of communism. There is nothing inherently 'atheistic state' about it.
Efforts to link atheism as the driving impetus behind various murderous regimes around the planet/history, are something you find on conservapedia.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Or, as relevant as what Lenin/Stalin may have had for breakfast on a given day.
Not perceiving the existence of a god does nothing at all to lend itself to killing, persecuting, etc, any other group of humans. To do so, one must bolt on meaning or philosophy that is not intrinsic to atheism.
Neither does atheism proscribe such behavior. Again, it is silent on this matter. It is a single proposition: no perception of the existence of a supernatural god.
What one then does with that proposition, is upon that individual's head.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=110520
Are there atheist-controlled governments persecuting gays? No.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Legal but no explicit protections and no marriage in North Korea.
Homosexuality is no longer persecuted in China, though it doesn't exactly enjoy specific non-discrimination protections.
Cuba similar to China, legal but not explicitly protected.
Albania explicitly protects LGBT rights, lacking only official marriage/civil union.
Fully legal, mostly protected in Mexico, lacking equal marriage.
Fully legal and protected in France. Including marriage.
I'm missing any official atheist-controlled governments actively persecuting gays.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It was present tense. Currently, no government that is explicitly atheist persecutes gays, though some vary in what protections or equal treatment they explicitly extend to homosexuals as a protected class.
Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #51)
hrmjustin This message was self-deleted by its author.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Are you perhaps begging the question of why they may have persecuted them in the past, and ignoring a reason why they may not be doing it now?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Not all have extended full civil rights/protections/equal treatment under the law. But even NK has decriminalized it.
(An aside, but all of them beat the state of Texas to it, too)
I can't prove that their lack of theism/state intersection caused that, but it certainly didn't halt or slow their progress.
I don't expect a new state or new regime to change everything overnight. When the First Amendment was ratified by the states, and incorporated against the states, there were at least 3 states in the union wherein one could not own property or vote, or be an officer of the state in any capacity, if one were Catholic.
Change is rarely overnight.
This is a metric by which each of the explicitly atheistic nations on earth have perhaps not performed as quickly as we all might hope, but have done well, nevertheless.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"That doesn't negate the fact that atheisst can be just as homophobic."
"The governments I mention were atheistic in nature and persecuted gays."
I agree with the first sentence in the sense that they CAN be, but, without a religious or non-religious reason to be so, one must consider were it does come from, and how long that idea persists.
I've never met a homophobic atheist. If I do, I guarantee I can or will argue them directly into the bedrock on it. There is literally no basis for it, aside from special pleading that could also be used to claim there is a deity or whatever. It's not a rational position. There is no fallback of 'but that's what my book says'.
So they are intrinsically not equal concepts, and as we have seen with formerly officially homophobic atheist states, the phobia goes away, precipitously.
Likely because there is no rational basis for it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Where they get it from I would say culture and fear of gays.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'm not sure what Stalin's motivation was. I will grant, there may be situations where, in the case of Stalin specifically, he saw the 'new soviet man' as the future, and likely he saw the non-breeding nature of homosexual unions (Under the technology and social constraints of his time) as an obstacle to that.
Stalin had a 'quantity has a quality all its own' approach to many things, and I might speculate that this could have served a 'rational' basis to him personally. Or he could have just been an asshole about one more thing than we already knew he was an asshole about. hard to say.
Stalin's fuckery may not have been cultural in origin. But it was not rational, and not specifically secular by any means.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)So, it's voted off the island for consideration entirely.
China is a favorable comparison, having maintained its status as an atheistic nation part and parcel with its communism, and they have come a long way in not just decriminalizing, but protecting same-sex couples. Still some way to go, but uh... so does my country, so I'm not gonna cast stones.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Yes. Gays were persecuted in the officially atheist state of Albania under Hoxha and in the officially atheist USSR.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)You might have some semblance of a point.
I didn't. You don't.
Welcome back from your TO!
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)There are specific examples of now-defunct officially atheistic governments that did persecute gays, but because they were overthrown (within living memory), they don't count. I knew I could count on you to weasel out of it.
BTW, are you going to man up and admit that I quoted Dawkins accurately? And that you slandered me by calling me a liar? Or are you just going to laugh it off again?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)ARE there atheist-controlled governments persecuting gays? Not "WERE there". Not "HAVE THERE EVER BEEN"
Do you need a lesson on what "are" means? You did study tense in grammar school, right?
And since you failed miserably at linking to where Dawkins ever said what you claimed (as I'm sure you will here too), I see no reason to subject this thread to more of your little vendetta, carried over from old threads that you were banned from.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)that persecuted gays?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)17, 31 and 33.
If you'd care to discuss those, instead of dodging them, feel free. And if you'd like to discuss what I actually said and not what you and S. Armstrong are pretending I say, feel free to do that too.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)If I answer it again, will you agree to answer all of the questions I asked in those posts honestly and without evasion? Simple question, yes or no?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)You don't want to give me your honest answers in exchange for mine. Not interested in truly honest discussion at all, are you? Not if it will undermine your agenda.
Nice dodge. Now you know why you don't get much respect.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You made clear that yes there was persecution in the past but it had nithing to do with atheism.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)When you asked the question again, so your little dodge now doesn't have much credibility.
Were you really that afraid of having to give direct and honest answers to simple questions? Wonder why that would be?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am not afrIad of talking to you.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)You asked the question in post 49. In post 56, I referred you to my posts 17, 31 and 33 for the answer. After reading those posts, you repeated the same question in post 58, so clearly you didn't think there was any answer in my posts. I then offered to answer the question again, if you promised to answer MY questions honestly and without evasion. And gee, at THAT point you suddenly found the answer you'd been seeking all along and said "never mind!"
Doesn't it embarrass you to be this transparently dishonest, and then to keep doubling down on it and feigning total innocence? I mean, really...would it be that hard to just answer things honestly and directly right from the start? Isn't that the kind of room you'd like to be host of?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)wrong.
Good night Scott. Keep going if you want but I am done talking to you.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And that's the truth.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)I gave a couple of atheist governments which WERE within living memory, but have since been overthrown, so they don't count.
As I said, I expected you to weasel out, and you did.
And, as I also expected, you are not gracious enough to admit that you slandered me by calling me a liar.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)atheist and persecuted gays, that no longer do so.
One might even wonder if the fact that they had a secular government led to a cultural shift.
Contrast to one that did not survive the formerly atheistic government of Russia/USSR's failure, where the state is no longer officially atheistic, AND it persecutes GLBT's who dare to even speak out about their sexual identity.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Have you seen it?
I'm not sure how to access it, but I hope it gets some wide distribution.
I don't think this relationship is known or understood by the general public.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Sometimes I think the Episcopal church should stop funding them.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Is there anyone in leadership Africa who represents a potential for change?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)About 8 to 10 years ago when it looked like the communion would split the SA church said they would go with the American church.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The Scotish, Canadian, South African, Mexican, Cuban, New Zealand, And Australian churches made clear they would stand with The Episcopal Church if there was a Split.
The Queen made clear to the Archbishop of Canterbury she did not want a split but she was in favor of ditching the Central African Churches and the Churches of the Southern Cone if there was a split.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,355 posts)The Most Revd Dr. Thabo Makgoba, Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town and Metropolitan of Southern Africa, has partnered with international human rights group Human Rights Watch to release a video message decrying homophobic violence and anti-LGBT discrimination on the African continent.
In the video Makgoba challenges arguments put forward by several African governments that culture, tradition, and religion justify the marginalization of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people.
Dont fear,Makgoba says to LGBT people in the video message.
Youve been given this task of helping the rest of humanity to realize that we are called to respect and we are called to honor each other. People may come and say this is un-African, and Im saying love cuts across culture.
- See more at: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/southern-africa-anglican-archbishop-calls-end-violence-against-lgbt-people221013#sthash.rgWdT9X9.dpuf
And Desmond Tutu is a good advocate of LGBT freedom, of course. Whether the rest of the Anglicans in Africa listen to them seems less sure.
okasha
(11,573 posts)But Jeff Shalert has addressed the subject extensively in print.
The Family is attempting to do to LGBT Africans what they were prevented from doing to LGBTs here. They are racist as well as homophobic.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Or is that a silly question?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Of the church evangelised in central Africa and they tend to be more conservative.
The high church Anglicans or the more ritualistic anglicans evangelised in the south and they were more moderate.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)We're talking about some of the poorest countries on Earth. Governments are corrupt, unstable, and unable to provide basic services to their citizens. Churches, through missions and charity, do what the government cannot.
Most studies I've read correlate religiosity with a lack of "secular goods". The less people can rely on their governments for necessary services, the more they rely on religion.
Evangelicals know this. They are nothing short of predatory.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)The conservatives have been busy over there feeding on some of their superstitious cultural beliefs and adding homophobia too those superstitions. Uganda is just one example of how bad it is on Africa for gay people. Guess I'll never be going on any safaris. Oh well, less tourist dollars for them. This GayTM is closed to those countries.