Bishop: Religion hampers gay civil rights

[laconicsax]

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/06/Bishop-Religion-hampers-gay-civil-rights/UPI-48101239051440/

ATLANTA, April 6 (UPI) -- Outmoded Western religious beliefs are the biggest obstacle to gay and lesbian civil rights, New Hampshire Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson said.

Robinson's 2003 consecration as the first openly gay bishop in a mainline Christian denomination set off a rift in his church's parent body, the Anglican Communion.

"Let's be honest, most of the discrimination ... has come at the hands of religious people, and the greatest single hindrance to the achievement of full civil rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people can be laid at the doorstep of the three Abrahamic faiths: Christianity, Judaism and Islam," Robinson said in Atlanta at Emory University's Center for the Study of Law and Religion.

[msongs]

1. follow the $$$$ generated by demonizing gays nt

[laconicsax]

5. And?

Are you saying that the religious opposition to equal rights is actually a ploy by clergy to make money?

[rurallib]

2. That has to be the understatement of the year.

[rurallib]

3. on a related subject - I always wondered if Christ was gay

hanging with the guys well past age 30. Has a former prostitute in his group that no one touches. Seems hinkey to me.

[laconicsax]

4. Fiction is always open to interpretation.

[laconicsax]

6. So...no one's going to touch this?

Why am I not surprised?

[Why Syzygy]

7. If you want my personal critique..

I don't often pay attention to your OPs because more often than not, you post just a link, expecting, I suppose, all readers to jump off and read another site to discover what you consider so important. In this one, you post three small paragraphs. Give us some meat. My interest must be piqued enough to leave this site to go roaming around somewhere else.

Additionally, none of those religions are "Western". "Outmoded...beliefs" is not the same AS the religions, and why does a bishop care to participate in something he indicates is against him? :shrug: Why should I care what he has to say when he put himself squarely in the middle of what he opposes? From the little you've presented, I suspect motive and nothing was presented to make me much care.

ps. Also, as a general rule I stay out of the atheists are tearing god a new one threads.

[JerseygirlCT]

8. Just FTR

Gene Robinson's church, (my church as well) is moving quickly toward full gay rights. His election as bishop was used to instigate a big old row among the well-funded (Ahmanson, Scaife) far right. He handled the entire thing, and all the nastiness with truly amazing grace. And he continued and continues to be an outspoken voice for civil rights - and for the fulfilling of our baptismal vow to "strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being"

He's not fighting a battle with his church, or most certainly with his faith - but with a small group of fearful, bigoted people determined not to see the church continue to evolve.

[Why Syzygy]

9. I thought

this had been discussed, both here and in another group. I'm not a denomination member, so the details don't hold as much significance for me.

Clearly, the OP was attempting to use a positive thing for a negative motive. Not worth comment when cast in that light. Right?

[JerseygirlCT]

10. Agreed on that

Bishop Robinson has just been such a terrific example that I didn't want you to think badly of him. He's a brave man, and a kind man. And, bottom line - the people of NH wanted him as their bishop!

But yes, it's sort of disturbing to see something as positive as this cast in a negative light.

[Why Syzygy]

11. I appreciate your clarification

and reminder. :applause:

[laconicsax]

13. I don't think you're as clairvoyant as you think you are.

I saw an article about a prominent religious figure saying that the Abrahamic religions are to blame for opposition to the advancement of civil rights and calling on religious people to change their beliefs. I thought it was worth posting in this forum, so I posted it.

I'm not sure how that's attempting to use a positive thing for a negative motive, but I hope you can tell me what you thought I was intending with my post.

[laconicsax]

12. I try to follow the copyrighted material guidelines laid out by the admins.

From the Rules:

5. Copyrights: Do not copy-and-paste entire articles onto this discussion forum. When referencing copyrighted work, post a short excerpt (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with a link back to the original.

I also try to give my fellow progressives the benefit of the doubt and assume that the members of this board are much more willing to spend less than a minute reading a 250-word article than dittoheads who need to be spoon-fed talking points so they know what to think. I prefer to post things with as little comment as possible so that a discussion can be about the linked material, not interpretation of my motives. I'm sorry if that doesn’t work for you.

The identification of the Abrahamic faiths as “western” is inconsequential to the issue brought up by Bishop Robinson. The concept of ‘outmoded religious beliefs’ however, is vitally important. Religions are supported by collections of beliefs—that is to say that the beliefs are part of what makes the religion. Christianity has a collection of beliefs and those beliefs are a large part of what makes Christianity.

What I read in Bishop Robinson’s comments is a call for change in doctrine that goes beyond his denomination. He is essentially saying, “these beliefs that form our religion have no place in today’s world and should be changed.” Actually, he says nearly that exact thing:

Robinson called on "religious voices and religious people to undo the harm and devastation" by helping the nation and religious communities to question, if not change their minds about, religious convictions that "we've been very sure about for thousands of years."

I don’t presume to know why you don’t find that the slightest bit interesting.

BTW: If your god is omnipotent, how can a simple mortal such as myself 'tear it a new one' by denying its existence on the Internet? Never mind that you were likely blinded by your prejudices in this case since the article I posted had absolutely nothing to do with 'tearing god a new one' but you went ahead and assumed it did.

[Why Syzygy]

15. I explained

my motives for disregarding your OPs (I only speak for myself).
Take it or leave it. I won't bother again.

Also, as for tearing, see posts #3 & #4. I'm quite familiar with the threads those types of replies spawn.
Atheists who are here for real discussion don't post that way. My "hide thread" list is full of them.
Not interested in juvenile chest beating against something you say is not real. It's pathetic.
Atheists of that type would get along real well as guards at Gitmo, taking little rants out on the Qur'an.
It is exactly the same stench of human depravity.

[laconicsax]

16. Clearly, you aren't interested in discussion either,

otherwise you wouldn't make such hyperbolic attacks.

Atheists criticizing religion online are just as bad as torturers at Gitmo.

Great stuff. Full of privileged arrogance.

I stand by my claim that the Bible is fiction. Show me one piece of evidence that the events depicted in its pages are verifiable historical fact and I will stand corrected.

Of course there is no way to know for certain if your god exists, but the followers who persecute homosexuals in his name are very real and very dangerous. That is what Bishop Robinson's comments were partly about. If you are unwilling to recognize the negative influence that your religion has on this subject, then you are very literally turning a blind eye to true depravity; excusing it, encouraging it.

[JerseygirlCT]

18. I don't think he's saying "these beliefs that *form* our religion"

There are definitely some more commonly held beliefs that he's charging us to look at and change. But they're not central to our religion at all. They don't *form* the religion.

But yes, he certainly recognizes, having dealt with it firsthand, the harm and devastation brought about by convictions concerning people's sexuality and gender. Gene Robinson is one cool guy, IMO.

[Why Syzygy]

19. I caught that too.

RWer's homophobia has absolutely nothing to do with 'our' religion.

[laconicsax]

20. I didn't say they were central, nor did I say "form."

A religion is made of beliefs. Beliefs are of what make a religion. That's what I saw Bishop Robinson as addressing--the hateful beliefs that make part of the religion.

[JerseygirlCT]

21. Actually you did say "form" which was what caught my eye:

"What I read in Bishop Robinson’s comments is a call for change in doctrine that goes beyond his denomination. He is essentially saying, “these beliefs that form our religion have no place in today’s world and should be changed.”

your words.

[laconicsax]

22. My bad. It was a poor choice of words.

I must have missed that when I proofread before posting.

[JerseygirlCT]

23. No problem; we all do it

It was just that particular phrasing that caught my eye.

Truly, though the wingnuts would like to believe differently, Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. It's not by any means a central tenet of Christianity that homosexuals should be treated like crud. In fact, to many of us, that idea itself is what's in opposition to Christian teaching.

But I think people (all people - religious or not) have a, perhaps built-in, need to separate into "us and them". Then they can demonize the "them" and feel satisfied about being one of the "us". To my reading and thought, that's precisely the mindset Jesus attempted to show us the way out of - exactly the way he did not teach or behave. This is the guy who made all sorts of "righteous" people nervous by choosing to hang around with the dregs of society.

He's be squarely on Gene Robinson's side on this one, I'm quite sure of it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. What more needs to be said?

I believe that Bishop Robinson is spot on.

[laconicsax]

17. I said that I wasn't surprised.

Not for the reason you put forward though. That's why I didn't comment on it when I posted.