Radical Clerics, Christian Morals, and Homosexuality

From Dictionary.com:

quote:

---

Radical

​

1. Arising from or going to a root or source; basic: proposed a radical solution to the problem.
2. Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme: radical opinions on education.
3. Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radical political views.

---

Mr. Dobson's views, along with the views of some ultra-conservative Christians, regarding homosexuality are extremist. He favors radical changes to the US constitution. He has radical views about the nature of homosexuality (that it is somehow "preventable" or "curable") that are in no way consistant with modern psychiatry. He departs widely from the majority of people who don't actually consider homosexuality to be evil or wrong in any way.He also departs from the majority on abortion - he supports the execution of abortion doctors. Note that this is not very different from saying "kill the abortionists." Note also that people who agree with him have actually murdered abortion doctors in their clinics.How, exactly, does he not meet the definition of a radical cleric? That's not the only form of hate speech.Also from Dictionary.com:

quote:

---

Hate Speech

​

Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.

---

Dobson's views are certainly bigotted, and they directly attack a specific social group. How are his statements not hate speech? Yes, this is what most preachers teach regarding sin. Not exactly what all Christians believe, of course - there are different interpretations. Right, so murder, theft, rape, freaking terrorism, and other violations of the actual Ten Commandments are NOT where our culture is under attack? If there is a Satan, why would he try to promote homosexuality when there are so many acts which actually violate Gods commandments? Except for the Christians who don't view it as a sin. Then they just carry on as normal.Except people like Fred Phelps, a man only a baby step removed from Dobson, who actually does tell people to "kill the fags."You know, both of them refer to the "homosexual agenda" in exactly the same way. Yeah, that would be an example. Another would be Dobson. The KKK doesn't have to actually KILL blacks and Jews to be committing hate crimes, you know. Dobson is a radical extremist - he's just not violent, which is not part of the definition.All violent clerics are radical, but not all radical clerics are violent. Dobson, so far, is amongst the latter.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Like I said, we aren't talking about huge leaps to go from "homosexuality is evil" to "kill all the fags." These are the people who will use slective literal reading of the Bible to justify any bigotted and hateful idea they want. All they need is a little less fear of consequence, and they'd cross the line.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

I wholeheartedly agree. The Founding Fathers of America were radicals. Jesus was a radical. History is filled with radicals who advanced society.The flip-side consists of radicals like muslim terrorists and various religion-based hate groups like the followers of Phelps and Dobson.Radicalism is simply extremism. Dobson certainly qualifies - but he's entitled to his views and opinions, even if they are bigotted and wrong, no matter how radical.If he and people like him felt the same way, the world would be a better place. That's exactly what I fear. Theocracy. How you, I, Tal, Dobson, or anyone else feel about homosexuality, abortion, or other social issues is irrelevant. None of us have the right to force those views on people who don't share them.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Canada is completely politically separate from the US. What happens there has little bearing on what's "coming here." The First Amendment guarantees the Freedom of Speech, and indeed it is controversial and offensive speech that requires the most protection, else the freedom would be meaningless.So long as the First Amendment is not overturned (and that, of all of them, would be the least likely to go) your preachers will be able to say whatever they want short of inciting violence. The absolute worst thing that could happen to your churches would be the loss of tax exempt status, which isn't exactly the end of the world for faith groups. Even that would require new legislation and would face massive opposition and would likely never pass for the foreseeable future.The only people who will be "forced" to allow gays to marry will be the various County clerks and justices of the peace - as representatives of the State, they'll have to act as such regardless of any personal beliefs they may or may not have on the matter, in exactly the same way that they'd have to allow interracial marriages even if they personally were racist. If they're morally opposed to doing their paid jobs, then they can find new jobs.

And in fairness, God wouldn;t have been smiting anyone for owning slaves precisely. He'd be smiting us for how we treated slaves. He gave us rules about that, remember. Rules for how to do it, not at all rules about not owning slaves.

By that standard of "persecution," you "persecute" every non-Christian in virtually every post you make.Seriously. "Strong disagreement" equates to persecution now? That's the most absurd example of privilege I've ever seen.

Exactly how was my post "strident hate-filled language?"Again it would seem that your qualification for such negative labels is simply being strongly disagreed with. If someone calls you a bigot, you're being "persecuted." If someone mentions that that is, in fact, not in any way persecution, you call it "strident hate-filled language."I think you're just further proving my point.

It's like Poe's Law...but in reverse!

There is no sexual behavior that can be participated in exclusively by consenting adults which is morally wrong. Period. Anal sex is not immoral. Blowjobs are not immoral. Cunnilingus is not immoral. Analingus is not immoral. BDSM is not immoral. Male/male sex is not immoral. Female/female sex is not immoral. Male/female/male/male/male/male/female sex is not immoral. And so on, and so forth.Consenting adults can do absolutely whatever they want with each other, even if you find their acts distasteful and would not personally want to participate or indeed even think about such acts, distasteful is not and never has been a corollary to immoral.That's what you don't get, Phat.There are many people who are labelled as "sexual deviants" for doing what is absolutely nobody else's business but their own and that of any partners who participate with them. Many of them have suffered persecution through legal and other means since time immemorial. Many of them still do. Simply based on what they choose to do with other consenting adults, because their neighbors just can't stand that somebody might have an erection over something that makes them feel squicky.The extension of your personal tastes (which includes that of a religion as much as it does any individual person) into the business of others through moral condemnation is itself immoral.

Because that doesn't fit with Phat's pseudophilosophical navel-gazing. Same way some Christians insist that atheists know deep down that their god exists and that we're just being rebellious children.

You could just try teaching kids about reality, that sometimes boys are attracted to boys and sometimes girls are attracted to girls, and it's okay and nothing to be ashamed of or make fun of someone for.THen your kids won't grow up as bigots and you also won;t be responsible for psychologically damaging gay kids with shame, self-hatred, and fear of parental abandonment.You know. Being a decent human being, instead of a bigot.There really isn't a major controversy here, Phat. The facts of reality show us that gay families are just as healthy as heterosexual families. Attaching social stigma to otherwise healthy families is nothing but pure bigotry.Say the same, exact things about interracial marriage and families. You might start to see the problem here.