Let Rome BURN!

Or watch the next new episode of House.

Whatevs…

Not true, but even if it were, so what? There are countries in the world that live according to religious law. America is not such a country. The UK, where I live, is not such a nation. Both nations profess to embrace their multi-cultural heritage, and America even has enshrined in its Constitution a guarantee of religions freedom. That means freedom FROM religion as much as it means freedom to pursue whatever faith you want.

In short, it doesn’t matter if EVERY religion in the world, major and minor, condemned homosexuality, if you live in a society that embraces freedom of religion then you cannot seek to impose religious law on anyone for any reason.

“This is not just a Christians admonition to society, ask the Dalai Lama and you will get a similar response.”

Really? That’s strange, because I’ve read various interviews he’s done and he seems conflicted on the subject. Sometimes he says that it’s a sin, but quickly clarifies by stating that it is only a sin according to his holy teachings and only as far as sexual acts, not sexuality itself.

And then there are the interviews where he refuses to condemn homosexuality at all. In 1997, for example, he said that if any two people enter into a relationship that is not sexually abusive, he could not condemn that relationship.

In fact, the only consistency in the Dalai Lama’s conflicted responses regarding homosexuality is his assertion that all Buddhist monks must refrain from sex. FULL STOP. Not sex with members of the same sex. ALL SEX.

So would we get the same response from the Dalai Lama? It seems his response depends on what mood he’s in on any given day.

“To hurt others livelihood because of their convictions and morality is wrong and intolerant.”

So when are you Christians going to stop boycotting businesses that try to implement gay friendly policies?

Sorry, sweetie, but you can’t have it both ways. Either EVERY person has the right to boycott a business because of a moral or religious objection, or none do. You don’t get to condemn the gay community for refusing to line the pockets of a bigot whilst simultaneously supporting the right of Christians to boycott gay and gay-friendly businesses.

I have to laugh at your hypocrisy, I’m sorry. It’s wrong to hurt a person’s livelihood because they believe that homosexuality is a sin, but it’s perfectly fine to not only hurt a person’s livelihood, but hurt them and trample over their rights because they’re gay?

Pray for guidance, dear, because it’s a fucked up God who expects a world to abide by that hypocritical logic.

“These boycotts and threats only serve to show the public the more dark side of those engaging in this behavior.”

No, dear. These boycotts also serve to deny funding to people who actively support bigotry and intolerance by severing their source of income. These boycotts also serve to send a message to society that the gay community, while a minority group, will not smile happily while our rights are stripped away.

“Truly sad, may those who engage in this repent and find peace in their hearts.”

My heart is perfectly peaceful.

Maybe I am going to Hell when I die, but sweetie, if you’re an example of what I have to look forward to in Heaven, bring on the hellfire and damnation already!

And if I might return the gesture, I truly hope that you find peace in your heart. Perhaps you can find space for it between the hatred and the bigotry.

Really? Are you defending anglicanism? There isn’t one “religion” out there that doesn’t think they’ve got possession of the truth and, given that, that other religions are either implicitly or explicitly false. That includes anglicanism, and many of its stripes and incoherent flavors or whatever. Are they not christian? No defense.

Now it may have been founded upon divorce by that vile pig henry VIII, but that doesn’t mean that it does not differ from roman catholicism in key and important ways that its members would characterize as “true” christianity, or the RIGHT way to worship god. Perhaps next you’ll be saying that they don’t believe that christianity is the true religion, too.

We all seem to get overly sensitive when our cherished religious beliefs are on the chopping block.

The Anglican Church has NEVER claimed to have / be the “one true faith.”

Henry VIII’s quarrel with Rome was political and financial.

As Woolsey pointed out, absent a male heir, there could have been renewed dynastic wars.

England was the cash cow of the papacy, and Henry wanted the pope’s hand out of the till!

Most THINKING Anglicans (and sadly that excludes the homophobic bigots of the “Global South”) are Universalists to one degree or another …

“All rivers lead to the sea.”

“God” is so far beyond our ability to imagine … to claim to know His/Her mind is really the ultimate hubris/blasphemy.

Using the Bible as a *weapon* against *anybody* is a “moral failing” (sin).

The one recorded instance in the Gospels when Jesus lost his temper was when He plaited a whip and drove the money-changers out of the Temple.

One wonders what He would think of the mega-churches, Focus on the Family, American Family Association, Big Hairs for America, etc. …

The bushel baskets of money go in one end, and hate spews out the other.

The pope condemns materialism while seated on a golden throne.

The American Family Association has just called for a boycott of Campbell Soup because they ran an ad in the Advocate.

That’s THEIR right.

And it’s OUR right to publicize / boycott ALL those who supported Prop Hate.

Bud Burgoon-Clark
San Diego CA USA

Only the major world religions are universal in the condemnation of homosexuality? What about the minor ones?

Are you saying that only the views of major world religions should be respected?

Also, what does it matter what the major world religions think? If the major world religions jumped of a bridge, so would you?

“To hurt others livelihood because of their convictions and morality is wrong and intolerant.”

What about voting in such convictions and morality as LAW against other people?

“These boycotts and threats only serve to show the public the more dark side of those engaging in this behavior.
Truly sad, may those who engage in this repent and find peace in their hearts.”

Are you talking about the major christian organizations that organize boycotts of businesses which are inclusive and friendly toward gay people?

If we follow you «logic» – that is, your ad populum fallacy – then we never should have banished slavery, since it was inshrined into tradition by the majority of religions and cultures (and by traditional tibetan culture, among others).

By the way, just find me *one* single passage in the Bible that condemns slavery as an abomination. I am at a loss as to why god – or any human being, for that matter – would find slavery more palatable than homosexuality.

«To hurt others livelihood because of their convictions and morality is wrong and intolerant.»

Oh yes, sure. LGBT people who ask not to be treated as second class hurt some poor heterosexuals’ livelihood and convictions. Women who ask not to be treated as second class hurt some poor men’s livelihood and convictions. Blacks who ask not to be treated as second class hurt some poor white people’s livelihood and convictions. Native people who ask not to be treated as second class hurt non-native white people’s livelihood and convictions.

Guess what? Even slaveowners felt hurt in their livelihood and convictions when slavery was abolished. Will I cry for them and pity them? No. There is nothing precious and to be cherished and protected in the belief of one’s superiority over others.
We lgbt people do not consider ourselves superior to heterosexuals. But several heterosexual (religious) folks do consider themselves superior to us and build part of their self-esteem on that. Anything that would mine their superiority complex is then seen as an attack and they are becoming the victims. Boohoo.