Russian religious group threatens Facebook: Stop ‘flirting with sodomites’

[rug]

Facebook's new same-sex couple icons

Filed: Wednesday, July 11, 2012
By Mark Singer

SARATOV, Russia — A Russian Orthodox religious community in the southern Russia city of Saratov has issued an ultimatum to social media giant Facebook, demanding that the company stop “flirting with sodomites” and immediately remove all content “promoting homosexuality.”

The outcry resulted after after the popular social networking website introduced same-sex marriage status icons earlier this month: one depicting two brides, the other two grooms.

The group sent a fax to Facebook’s office in Moscow on Friday, and gave it 24 hours to fulfill its demands.

According to the fax, should the company refuse to comply, then the group stated that they will sue Russian internet service providers who give users access to Facebook content.

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2012/07/russian-religious-group-threatens-facebook-stop-flirting-with-sodomites/

This shit needs a stronger reaction than simple mockery.

[cbayer]

1. Good luck with that

This is the best part. They are doing this because they think there is a plot by the US to stop Russians from having children.

[Goblinmonger]

2. You are calling their deeply held religious beliefs "shit"?

Shame on you.

[rug]

7. Resurrecting the Soviet penal code is not a religious belief.

Until you see the difference you're just gyrating.

[Goblinmonger]

8. Hmmm, I thought " A Russian Orthodox religious community"

was the first clue and "sodomites" was the second clue that this was based on religion.

How nice that we can now call homophobia "not a religious belief." Is that how you make it through the RCC's homophobia?

[rug]

10. You really should read before reflexive posting.

Homosexuality was a criminal offense during the Soviet era with the penalty being a jail sentence or being sent to a mental health “clinic” for evaluation.

The specific article of the criminal code was repealed during the era of former Russian president Boris Yeltsin in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1993, but LGBT activists still are reporting numerous incidents of discrimination as well as homophobic behavior by government bodies.

This year, legislatures of several Russian regions — including St. Petersburg, Novosibirsk and Arkhangelsk — introduced laws and regulations that list “gay propaganda to minors” as an administrative offense that is punished by hefty fines.

Some Russian lawmakers have also suggested a similar move on a nationwide level, efforts that have the backing of the country’s powerful Russian Orthodox Church and other religious leaders.

And it's here because of the attempt to blend religion and state power. It's not that difficult a concept to grasp.

[Goblinmonger]

12. So it is about religion?

Because I did do an SoP alert because you said it wasn't.

Make up your damn mind. Because now I'm back to you making fun of people's deeply held religious beliefs. Which is the point where you say it isn't a religious belief. Round and round we'll go. It will be fun for all.

[rug]

15. A binary mind is a terrible problem.

[Goblinmonger]

16. This is the Religion group

Your OP is either about Religion or it isn't. You said in #7 that it isn't about Religion. So why did you post it here?

[rug]

21. That is the quintessence of binary thinking.

For the last time, it is about religion and state power.

If you had a smidgen of intellectual consistency you'd recognize that religion without state power is no threat. It appears however, you hold that it is religion per se that must be relentlessly combatted from the four corners of your keyboard.

Bankrupt.

[Goblinmonger]

23. No. I see many in here talking about how horrible it is to make fun of peoples' religious beliefs.

You are doing that. You want to mask it in the attack on state/religious melding but you have no problem with that when it is religious beliefs you like.

[rug]

25. I said quite clearly that this is not a case for mockery. It's a case for actual resistance.

Yet here you are, complaining about people on DU.

[Goblinmonger]

9. And also, if this isn't about religious belief

why is it in this forum?

[rug]

11. Why, then, you must alert.

Again.

[Goblinmonger]

13. Done.

Wouldn't have alerted if you wouldn't have said it wasn't about religion. It's your OP and, by your admission, has nothing to do with religious belief.

[rug]

14. Make sure you post the results.

While we're waiting, post the "admission"?

[Goblinmonger]

17. Here

7. Resurrecting the Soviet penal code is not a religious belief.

Until you see the difference you're just gyrating.
To each according to his need.

[rug]

18. And?

[Goblinmonger]

19. You can't have it both ways.

You want to claim that this is about the melding of religious belief and state action. But when called on the fact that you are belittling someone's sincere religious belief (something you like to wag your finger at atheists about) then you want to say this has nothing to do with religion but with Soviet penal code.

Pick one. Is this about religious beliefs or not.

[rug]

20. Nor can you.

If you were honest you'd note you immediately said this was the result of religious belief, whereas I said restoration of the Soviet penal code is not a religious belief.

As I already told you, the problem is the attempt to meld state power and religious belief, which disrupts your static view of religion.

I don't mind your personal attacks, your whining about me in Meta and A/A, and your inept snark. It's the intellectual dishonesty in the cause of a biased world view that is revolting.

[Goblinmonger]

22. So let me get this straight

Martin Luther King Jr is a hero to many in this group because he used his religion to do things in government.

These people want to use their religion to do things in government and they deserve mockery?

Now why would that be? Could it be because you don't agree with their religious beliefs? It kind of has to be since you don't seem to mind those that are religious doing it when you agree with their beliefs. And now we are back to the beginning of you making fun of religious beliefs of others. YOUR intellectual dishonesty is revolting. So is your hypocrisy.

[rug]

24. This is not about Dr. MLK, Jr.

It's also not about the Berigan brothers.

Or Gandhi.

Or whatever else is rattling around up there.

It's a straightforward post about a religious group in Russia trying to enact an oppressive law.

If you don't get that, I truly wonder if you know why religion needs to be kept out of government.

[Goblinmonger]

26. So MLK, Ghandi, and all the "good guys" should have been kept out of government.

Or is it just the religious beliefs of others you don't like that should be kept out and mocked?

I'm just trying to figure out the rules of what is OK to mock and what isn't. It seems like a pretty shitty standard you want to set up, but I'm trying my best to figure it out. I already know that Mormons and Scientologists can be mocked at will on DU. Catholics are apparently a no-no. Creationists are certainly dumbasses. Now I get to learn about Russian Orthodox. Have to start a spreadsheet pretty soon.

[rug]

27. That would make a semi-interesting thread.

But this is rather more specific.

I'm sorry I said binary. I should have said obsessed.

[xfundy]

28. I will admit to a bias against religious beliefs that seek to harm others or make them unequal.

It's not hate, it's a reaction against hate, or sheer stupidity based on ignorance. And if a religion requires hate, how is that religion valid? (Don't even try to come back with "if a religion hates ____!&quot There is religion, and there is humanity, and the human mind. Grow up.

I have noticed you baiting one or more members here, going out on limbs to claim they should be censored, etc.

You go, girl, stand up for your right to discriminate, but you must accept that the victims have a right to speak back. Oh, if calling you a "girl" offends you, I don't know your sex, nor do I want to hear about it. It shouldn't matter. Or should it?

[Goblinmonger]

33. I generally find "girl" to be diminutive when referring to women, so there's that.

And I'll address the other stuff on your other response to me so as not to get to subthreads of the same thing going on.

[xfundy]

29. Honestly, does your religious belief give you a right to shit on others?

Or shout at them, or claim "persecution" or whatever you seem to be doing lately? You seem to be running wild today.

Personally, I find all "religions" bullshit. Now, go ahead and alert on me, get the jury riled up.

I respect your right to believe whatever nonsense you've been indoctrinated into, whether it involves invisible men, as Christers claim will hurt us, or planet ownership, as both Mormons and $cienos want to believe.

I don't care what bullshit you believe as long as it doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg.

So, why do you have a problem with that?

[Goblinmonger]

34. You are either replying to the wrong person or you are missing something. I'm going with the latter.

I'm an atheist. I have no religious beliefs. I'm not sure what I said in this thread that threw you off, but I am 100% in agreement with what you are saying. My point on this thread has been to point out what the title of your response is. Perhaps I didn't make things as clear as I should have for someone other than rug since he and I have gone back and forth on this so many times.

My point is that there are many religious that frequent this group who get really angry with the slightest mention from atheists that their religion may not be 100% awesome. Those same people have no problem saying that Mormons are bad or that Scientologists are crazy, that creationists are dumbasses, and now mocking these people. I, personally, believe that all religion is, and should be, open to any and all criticism. It is silly to say that religious beliefs deserve some higher level of respect than other beliefs like, say, political ones. But the hypocrisy of the people that want religious beliefs to be protected is very frustrating and they never seem to understand the double standard they are holding. That is all I'm trying to point out.

I apologize to you for that being unclear to you because of the history of my stay in this group and with this particular poster. Given what you have typed in response to me, I would venture to guess that you and I would get along fine outside this thread but that you may have problems with other DUers that have posted in here. Just a guess.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. Of course rug is using a double standard here

He didn't want to answer the (valid) accusation that he was calling the opinions of a religion 'shit' while he asks for other deonminations to be respected, so he hid behind the red herring of "this is reenacting a Soviet law". Don't be surprised; you have successfully drawn out another hypocritical aspect of rug's argumentative style. That helps everyone remember why rug's replies are frequently not worth engaging with.

[trotsky]

31. + a billion n/t

[rug]

37. Of course muriel_volestrangler is engaging in unilateral mindreading here.

My words don't require metaphysical arts, let alone your subjective inferences.

The fact is, what I find primarily repulsive about this is this group's attempt to intertwine itself with state power. That was said before and now it's said again.

Now, do you want to discuss that, or me, or continue to accuse me of hypocristy?

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. So you are saying the 'shit' was not the homophobia, but the desire for a Soviet-era law?

Maybe we were giving you too much benefit of the doubt. Since the excerpt you gave mentioned nothing about the laws, or the state, at all, and was just about the religious group's demand that Facebook change, and that they'd sue if they didn't, we assumed that your first "this is shit" was about the homophobia your excerpt described.

When Goblinmonger pointed out you were describing their deeply held religious belief as 'shit' (which seems strange from someone who tends to respect the beliefs of long-established religions), you introduced the resurrection of the section of the Soviet penal code, and seemed to say that this was what you found 'shit'. We, of course, would have had no way of knowing that was what you objected to before then, so your "until you see the difference you're just gyrating" wasn't logical (and a bit rude), but I think we've all being assuming that your objection was still really to the homophobia of the group, and your reference to the penal code was just a way of excusing your apparent insult of a religious belief.

But now you assert you really do think that the repulsive thing is "this group's attempt to intertwine itself with state power". That troubles you more than the homophobia? The 'interwining' consists of a petition, and some lawmakers saying the Orthodox church and some other religions back making homosexuality illegal again. That 'intertwining' consists of the religions making their feelings known, and some lawmakers agreeing with them. It happens all the time in the USA, of course, and while religious groups aren't meant to dabble in party politics, I think they've been always allowed to say "we ought to have a law that says...".

So are you saying that any comment on the laws of any state by a religious group is 'shit'? Will you start denouncing every pronouncement on any law by the Catholic church (with the exception of the Vatican State, I suppose), whether or not you agree with it, as 'shit', and saying it needs more than simple mockery? Would you denounce, say, a cardinal saying the Affordable Care Act is a good thing as "shit"?

You see, I think every other person in this thread, religious or not, thinks the repulsive thing is the homophobia. Now you're saying you want the strictest interpretation of church and state separation possible in all countries of the world - in which religions must keep quiet about their preferred laws, but the homophobia, and the threatened lawsuit against Facebook, is relatively unimportant?

[2ndAmForComputers]

40. I said it before and I'll say it again:

You only give the benefit of doubt when there IS doubt.

[rug]

50. Unerring certitude is a sign of dogma.

[rug]

44. Who is the "we" you keep invoking? Do you have a constituency?

And if you fail to realize the "shit" is using the state to enforce a homophobic penal codes, you might want to consider spending less time twaddling on the internet and more time considering threats based on reality.

The excerpt is limited to four paragraphs. Perhaps I gave your constituency too much credit by expecting them to click a link and read before posting snark.

And, while homophobia per se is repulsive, it fades in comparison to homophobia backed by state power.

It's clear you have other pressing concerns you'd rather talk about, such as posting styles on DU.

Oh, and I commend you for posting about me without again overtly accusing me of hypocrisy. That's noble.

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. 'We' is everyone else in the thread

Everyone else is concerned about the homophobia. You're concerned that a religious group has a petition for a change in the law, which you see as religion intertwining itself with state power; you relegate the homophobia to a minor concern.

How much mind reading do you think we're all capable of? You post a story about a religious group and Facebook, use, as your illustrative 4 paragraphs, the main thrust of the story - that this group is trying to make Facebook bow to its homophobic opinions - and then expect us to realise that 'this shit' refers to the group submitting a petition for a homophobic law.

Face it, rug, you don't think like us, and that's why we can't read your mind. You should have made it clear that the homophobia wasn't your biggest concern. But we know now, for the future. The next time you post a story like "Religious Leaders Support President Obama’s Stance on Immigration Reform", we'll know you think that religious leaders publicly expressing their stance on a policy is the intertwining of religion and state power, and thus "shit" which you oppose.

[rug]

49. You either have psychic abilities or delusions of grandeur if you think you speak for everyone else.

You, as in the grand plural, can spin around all you want fulminating on the internet. The threat is any bigotry, including homophobia, that is endorsed by state law.

After you gather with your constituency to agree on a position (do you use OWS hand signals?), get back to me.

[2ndAmForComputers]

39. Oh, yes, they did this because they're Commies.

The Russian Orthodox Church.

[rug]

42. I wish they were, but they're not.

Instead they're calling for the reinstatement of a homophopic criminal code with the power of the state to enforce it.

You can get up off the floor now. Maybe you can put your energy into ways to stop it from happening. Or you can roll around some more.

[2ndAmForComputers]

43. Yeah, but WHY are they calling for such reinstatement?

[rug]

45. The same root cause for all forms of suppression.

Power maintained by division.

[2ndAmForComputers]

46. Yeah, some would consider that an accurate description of most religious organizations' MO.

[rug]

47. It's an accurate description of any organization seeking power.

[Bradical79]

35. I'll say it. It's shit.

Their deeply held religious belief that homosexuals are inherently damaged, evil, and should not have the right to marry is complete shit. The idea that they should be able to use the state to enforce their beliefs on others is even bigger shit. There's lots of people with deeply held beliefs that are complete shit. The KKK, Neo-Nazis, Al-Qaida, etc. I could make quite a list, and you will find many well reasoned arguments backed up with scientific evidence why the beliefs of these people are shit. Similar arguments could be made against the Russian group threatening Facebook, and probably already have.

[cbayer]

36. Agree with you. Not all deeply held religious beliefs are equal and some are evil.

[LuvNewcastle]

3. “The U.S. goal is that Russians stop having children. (They want) the great nation to

turn into likeness of Sodom and Gomorrah,” he said.

The Russian birth rate has been declining for a long time. It has nothing to do with U.S. propaganda, but it has a lot to do with their rampant alcoholism. When some cultures are in the midst of destroying themselves, they look for outside scapegoats.

[AnOhioan]

4. Yeah..I am sure FB will jump right on that....

[LARED]

5. Pretty simple answer

If they don't like what Facebook does, then do not partake in the website.

Problem solved.

[msongs]

6. Slavic cultures are extremely homophobic, probably worse than their hate of Jews nt

[2ndAmForComputers]

41. 3-3.

You can pat yourself in the back now. Truly, this is the Getting Away With It forum.

[LeftishBrit]

32. Ugggghhhhh.

Let them sue if they like; they won't get anywhere. It's not as though anyone is obliged to use Facebook; if they don't like the way Facebook operates, then don't use it.