Your God and My Dignity - Religious Liberty, Bigotry and Gays

[cbayer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-religious-liberty-bigotry-and-gays.html?_r=0

JAN. 10, 2015


Credit Ben Wiseman

Frank Bruni

I’VE been called many unpleasant things in my life, and I’ve deserved no small number of them. But I chafe at this latest label:

A threat to your religious liberty.

I don’t mean me alone. I mean me and my evidently menacing kind: men who have romantic relationships with other men and maybe want to marry them, and women in analogous situations. According to many of the Americans who still cast judgment on us, our “I do” somehow tramples you, not merely running counter to your creed but running roughshod over it.

That’s absurd. And the deference that many politicians show to such thinking is an example not of religion getting the protection it must but of religious people getting a pass that isn’t warranted. It’s an illustration of religion’s favored status in a country that’s still working out this separation-of-church-and-state business and hasn’t yet gotten it quite right.

We’re at an interesting crossroads, brought about by the rapid advance of same-sex marriage. It’s now legal in 36 states, including, as of last week, Florida. Equality is increasingly being enshrined into law, and one response from those opposed to it is that the law shouldn’t apply to them.

more at link

[Bluenorthwest]

1. It's a good piece. Last line 'You must put up with me, just as I put up with you.' Is something I

think the 'faith communities' need to learn, not just Christians, but all of the faith communities. Over the last few days, many, many people have been calling for restrictions on speech critical of religion, even right here on DU. Oh, how they opine about the 'tasteless and crude' nature of these cartoons and how any decent person would object to such things. And yet each day on DU there are threads about religious clergy delivering openly hateful attacks on LGBT people, very few comment about them and no one ever calls for limiting the freedom of religion to engage in that rhetoric.
It stuns me, just floors me, that a group of people who regularly employ extremist, hateful language about others have the stone cold audacity to claim they are offended by some satire. In the world of religion, Francis is billed as a big liberal and even he says 'gay people are disordered, they must not have a community or a lobby, fighting their rights is God's war'. How dare people who endorse such rhetoric affect offense at anyone saying anything less than 'they are sick and in league with the devil'?
It's not just Francis. Mullahs, Imams, Ministers, Pastors, Priests, they all engage in utterly unhinged diatribes against gay people, both Islam and Christianity are currently involved in making laws which punish gay people in many countries.

So I'm saying it startles me how some on DU are casually accepting of extreme hate speech from religious figures toward gay people and also furious that some cartoon made fun of a religion. I see people parsing their words about the murderers fault, parsing the innocence of the victims, claiming those who drew the cartoons somehow assisted in their own deaths, but what then of the clergy that insults and denigrates gay people openly and without any satire or art, they just stand there and attack us? What of them? Why should they have impunity if a comic must tread lightly?
How dare the faith community suggest that it should be protected from all criticism while it engages in more and worse forms of hateful rhetoric than any other quarter on the planet?
'I don't condone murder....but' they say. Then they demand that their preacher has the right to call me a pedophile then give a prayer at the Inaugural.
Hypocrites with selective outrage, depending on whose ox is gored.

[cbayer]

2. I'm glad you like it, BNW.

And I agree about the glaring hypocrisy seen in some religious circles.

Fortunately there are groups, both religious and secular, that do stand up to the hypocrisy. They speak loudly and under difficult circumstances. There are groups within both the catholic and mormon communities that are advocating for full LGBT civil rights. They don't get the notice that the other groups often get, but they are there and they are working hard.

As to the issue of free speech, I hope that this has brought it into the limelight. We often post articles here about the hateful speech and behavior of some within the religious community. While I strongly object to what they say, I will defend their right to say it, but shining a light on them for all the world to see can serve a purpose. No hoods this time.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. I've been doing much thinking about these folks who are 'offended' at cartoons critical of them and

the people on DU who agree that 'offensive' materials must be limited and might even give reason for violence. I've spent my entire life hearing really offensive, intentionally denigrating attacks on my community from both Christians and Muslims. Both of these faiths teach 'Do unto others' yet they each will hurl hateful language at other people, then act innocent and assaulted when any slight criticism is offered to them. Neither faith endorses hypocrisy like that. Neither faith says 'what's important is what is said and done to you, not what you say and do to others'.
So what I have come to see is that many DUers religious or not, think that LGBT people should be happy to endure endless hateful attacks from religious people, but if religious people ever feel 'offended' themselves well maybe they have a right to kill or to limit the speech of others.
It's chilling when the same people who defended Rick Warren's attacks on gay people say religious people are allowed to kill if they are insulted. Just chilling. It's not a small thing. They are saying it is ok to attack gay people, not ok to criticize them for attacking us.

[cbayer]

4. Do you really think that DUers think you and other LGBT persons

should be happy to endure endless hateful attacks from religious people? I just don't see that. We see articles posted here all the time that condemn the hate speech proffered by bigoted people and other articles supporting those religious people who take a stand in support of LGBT rights.

If what you describe here is happening, then it is the utmost in hypocrisy. I haven't seen anyone say that religious people should be allowed to kill if they are insulted. I would find that statement extremely hard to justify. I also am not seeing people say that it's ok to attack gay people.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Without a doubt. Compare the posts that suggest murder was understandable because religion was

insulted to the posts about full tilt hate speech toward gay people by religion. No comparison. Look at Rick Warren-calls us all criminals and pedophiles, a month later DU cheers him as 'America's Minister' and Obama calls him brother. Our objections to that slander, that highly offensive language toward an oppressed minority were mocked soundly by DU 'you people just want a pony, you just hate Obama because you are all racists, this is just Church talk, stop the poutrage'. It went on and on and it almost all sided with the guy speaking offensive things about a minority group.
Then look at a cartoon that offended some murderous religious folks. Because killers, murderers were offended, DU excused and rationalized their murdering Jews and artists. 'Some of the victims were more innocent than others' they say and 'I don't condone murder, but.....'
The shout 'we are offended and offended and no one has a right to offend'. Except apparently every clergy member that wants to shit on gay people. They offend. Deeply, constantly and regularly. Rick Warren at the Inaugural, very insulting, denigrating and offensive. Called us all pedophiles. And DU expected us to endure that without any criticism of their precious politicians and preachers.
But for a cartoon that offended murderers, oh my, they all call for restrictions on free speech and shout about hate speech. 'Gays are like pedophiles or other criminals, we are at war with them'. That was fine, for the DNC and for DU. Fine for the 'faith community' as well. But it was hate speech, offensive, insulting and denigrating.
People on DU who defended that hate speech say they can understand why the murderers murdered. They are vile hypocrites and not good people.

[cbayer]

6. I have seen neither kind of post that you describe.

If someone here endorses full tilt hate speech towards gay people by anyone, I don't think they would last long.

I have seen posts stating that the actions of the magazine were risky and that the murders were not entirely unanticipated. Even the editor of the paper had made such statement prior to his death. He knew there was a risk he would be murdered. That's not the same thing as saying it is "understandable", as that would imply that is was somehow justified. I haven't seen any say that either.

While I agree that the Rick Warren debacle was a hug mistake on the part of Obama, I never saw anyone here call him "America's Minister", but I do agree that there was some dismissal of the outrage voiced by some members.

Sometimes I think you extrapolate some of what is going on outside of DU into DU. This site is not full of homophobes who love Rick Warren and think that religious people have the right to murder if they are offended. That kind of hyperbole sometimes obscures your often valid points, BNW.

You speak of DU as a monolith that speaks against the GLBT community with a unified and homophobic voice, but I just don't' believe that is the case. There are indeed bad people that populate this space and there are indeed vile hypocrites, but I firmly believe that is not the case for the overwhelming majority of members.

The people of this site are not your enemies. They are by and large your allies.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. So hate speech against gay people is accepted, hate speech that offends murders must end to

appease the murderers. That's what some on DU are saying. They openly call for restrictions on the 1st Amendment right to free speech and want anti blasphemy laws.
Meanwhile, here is the OP that greeted me on DU the morning after the last election, which we won here handily:
"The openness and brazenness of the LBGT agenda and the media flaunting of gay marriages all across the country cost Dems dearly and threatens to do so in the future."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025764803#post45

Poster is still on DU and I have in fact had a post hidden for calling out this offensive material. That's DU.

Religious clergy speaks more offensive and insulting hate speech about others than any cartoonists ever could. Islam is not innocent of that. Christianity is not.
DU as a community demanded that LGBT people accept being insulted by deeply offensive speech from religious quarters. Because of that I find it disturbing to see so many on DU claiming that being insulted by offensive speech is a reason for violence. We were told it was not even a reason to speak criticism. Why don't they tell the fucking killers 'You just want a pony, can your poutrage' like they told us? Why not? Why is it suddenly nuanced? They could not understand why LGBT people were offended, but they can understand why these killers were offended? Seriously?
DU has problems.

[cbayer]

8. Hate speech against gay people is not acceptable at all.

Neither is appeasing terrorists, imo.

I just haven't seen an endorsement of hate speech against gay people or a call for blasphemy laws on this site. Where are you seeing this?

I find the linked post really objectionable and am glad to see that she was so forcefully called on it to the point that she deleted it. She is not representative of this community in any way.

The world has problems and DU is a part of the world. My concern is that overt rage and the tendency to grossly exaggerate or paint with a very broad brush does little to help resolve these problems.

Again, you speak of "they" as if DU were a monolith that spoke with one voice. You are very good at taking to task those who truly don't get it or those that truly are grossly hypocritical, but when you rope your allies into that ring, I think you are making a mistake.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Stop getting your 'morals' from

sun-addled bronze age desert goat herders, and this stops being a problem.

[Prophet 451]

10. Fucking fundies

This is only a problem in countries with a large fundy population. Here (UK), most of the population are Christian and a solid majority of the populace supported the legalisation of same-sex marriage. It's difficult for me, in a country where faith is overwhelmingly seen as a private matter, to understand.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. If you leave out Ireland, 'No Religion' is 50.6% in the UK.

That would seriously be a breath of fresh air around here.

[Prophet 451]

12. "No religion" doesn't necessarily mean "atheist" though

The way the term is used here, it might easily translate as someone who believes in god but doesn't subscribe to any particular ideology or church. A lot of Britons call themselves Christian but are functionally Deists. But institutionalised religion lost it's role in public life here after the abuses of WWI. Today, we have plenty of believers but it's seen as a private matter, something to be kept between the believer, his god and perhaps his family.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. I find I get along with 'no religion' people pretty good, even if they aren't atheists.