LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia [As Just One Example]
I'll go paragraph by paragrpah.
That may be correct, but it doesn't change the mondset of many in western cultures. I could make the argument that it may be illegal in the US for such activities, but they do exist outside the law through "Gay Bashing".
I'm a Libertarian Socialist and and one reason why I "pop-up" and defend Islam is because I feel there is a very real mind set that lumps ALL muslims to the actions of those extremist such as...ready? Radical Islamic Terrorist. I despise religious extremists of all flavors, but truthfully...Not all Muslims practice Sharia and are barbaricly violent towards LGBT like not all Christians hate LGBT.
You are correct. The Orlando shooter was a Muslim, but the Orlando shooter had an identity crises and was a self-loathing homosexual Muslim who lashed out violently. Wasn't Eric Rudolph, the Gay nightclub bomber a Christian? Tit-for-tat can go on forever.
My view on this is that ALL religous extremism is disgusting and should be fought against. This reinforces my view that religion is the root of all evil.
1) True. Difference is, in the west "gay bashing" is limited to words alone. It doesn't normally include, nor has any rational member of the Christian community ever suggested it should include, tossing homosexuals off buildings, hanging them, burning them alive... AFAIC, while the plight of members of the gay community in the west has been nothing short of horrendous in times past, nothing they've had to endure even closely resembles what happens to them in the Islamic world (sans, maybe, the case of Matthew Sheperd). Frankly, it boggles the mind why LGBT members don't JOIN conservatives in their condemnation of Islamic barbarity (redundant).
2) Agreed on all points. That's why I direct my ire at the IDEOLOGY of Islam. Not all Muslims are alike, but, in Erdogan's own words, "Islam is Islam." It is vile to its very core. Everything about it is disgusting. EVERYTHING! Keep that in mind when you "pop up" to defend Muslims. At least in my case they're not under attack. I view them as victims of cultish indoctrination.
3) And Christians are to be held accountable for his counter-phobia?! (Erick Rudolph was the Atlanta Olympic bomber, and yes, he was a [putative/self-described] Christian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Rudolph )
4) Agreed! Pardon me, though, if I move one particularly nasty variant of 'religious extremism' to the top of my list of targets.
Fantastic post. As usual, you've actually addressed the question. :-)
I don't know. Try hopping on the Peace Train. Cat Stevens is a Muslim.
Christians are to be held accountable for his counter-phobia?!
Yes! That's what I'm saying! All Christians are not accountable for Eric Rudolph & company any more than ISIS and Islamic extremism speaks for all of Islam. Do you not believe that in many cases, violence committed in the west may actually be home-grown, christian inspired terrorism but it's not reported or prosecuted as such?
I'm not giving Islam a free pass by any means. I'm not giving any of them a freebie.
I
So you're pro Shariah now?
That's very interesting indeed. I was particularly struck by this, which almost exactly mirrors how homosexuality was generally viewed in classical Greece.
'...homosexuality can be viewed as a phase. “Homosexuality is considered something one might pass by,” he said. “It’s to be understood as a stage of life, particularly at youth.”'
I'd be very interested to know if this is a long standing perspective. If it is (and I think it may well be) then I wonder if it was already in place when Alexander began to travel east or whether he took it with him.
Good questions, and I think it would be interesting to look into.
When I first happened across this article, I really had no idea that this was as widespread as it apparently is. It seems they rationalize it in much the same way that men in prison sometimes do.
In many Islamic countries being gay is punishable by death so no they are not treated fairly, women are not treated fairly and they tend to hate people who dance... :)
Great question. There's a problem, though, with its basic premise: that there is as much violence against (fill in the minority of your choice) by home-grown terrorists--let alone home grown Christian terrorists--to make the comparison. There plainly isn't. There might be if you include Klan activity, etc. going back to the birth of the nation, but in the last hundred years...eh, no.
In any case, and this is the critical point here, there is no scriptural basis/justification for Christian violence against gays, unbelievers, etc. There is in Islam. The Crusaders had to go WAY the hell and gone OFF the scriptural reservation to foment their atrocities. Muslims do not. Islam--the ideology--is vile, barbaric, violent, rapacious, sadistic, etc. to its very core. With Islam, violence is "baked into the cake." There can be no Islam WITHOUT violence.
I can't argue with you on many points you bring up, but I would still apreciate a rational response from a conservative about one of my original statements.
"I don't understand why conservatives are now concerned about the LGBT community and how they are treated in Islamic countries now."
I realize you could only guess, but it would be helpful to hear a response that does not digress to unrelated territory from a conservative.
This is an issue that's important to me and I am fully aware of what has been said and done by conservatives, past and present, regarding the LGBTQ community. It's being used more and more in conservative talking points to swing gay voters. If that's not correct, I'd like to hear why.
I understand that you can't provide anything other than a guess, but maybe a conservative on here can respond to that without bringing up Hillary, Liberals, democrats, or Islam. This is a challenge. Impress me :)
"I don't understand why conservatives are now concerned about the LGBT community and how they are treated in Islamic countries now."
If you think about it, this one's pretty easy to grok. Conservatives are looking to build allegiances against what they feel is a far greater philosophical (if not literal) enemy. (BTW, in case you were unaware there is a pro-gay rights wing of the Republican party. I think they're called Log Cabin Republicans.)
They also don't care too much for political inconsistency. Inasmuch as they've caught so much abuse from the left on account of their traditionalist stance on 'moral issues,' they can't understand why the left comes out in favor of Islam despite the fact that Islam treats LGBT people SOOOO much more horribly. If you need another example slightly more abstract, why do self-described advocates of feminism take donations from Islamic regimes known to oppress/abuse women?
I appreciate your analysis, but I would like to hear one of the conservative folks try and answer that.
Don't get me started on Log Cabin Republicans.
No, and no.
Note to the usual suspects: this isn't about me or any 'agenda' which you imagine I might have. It isn't about Donald Trump or how Christians used to be worse.
The answer to that question is clear. Radical Islamic cultures typically execute LGBTQ.
I don't understand why conservatives are now concerned about the LGBT community and how they are treated in Islamic countries now. Where is the conservative outrage at Uganda's treatment of gays?
It's not possible to fairly respond to this if fundamatalist Christians are off limits when the likes of Pators Roger Jimenez and Steven Anderson (who advocate killing gays and applaud the Orlando shooter) have thrown their support behind the Donald.
The LGBTQ community is not a convenient political pawn to garner votes
"The answer to that question is clear. Radical Islamic cultures typically execute LGBTQ."
Correct! By comparison, the conservative variant of statism ain't so bad. Seriously, all they do is thump bibles and pontificate about Sodom and Gomorrah.
"I don't understand why conservatives are now concerned about the LGBT community and how they are treated in Islamic countries now."
Not being a conservative I'll just have to guess, but it's probably because, whenever they go on a rant about the barbarity of Islam (a rant which normally doesn't involve gays), liberals pop up to defend it with the now tediously formulaic "...but Christians are worse..."
"Where is the conservative outrage at Uganda's treatment of gays?
Great question. As far as I'm concerned it's every bit as heinous...but then I'm not a conservative.
"It's not possible to fairly respond to this if fundamatalist Christians are off limits when the likes of Pators Roger Jimenez and Steven Anderson (who advocate killing gays and applaud the Orlando shooter) have thrown their support behind the Donald."
Maybe it shouldn't be possible to bring up an irrelevancy in a discussion about Islam until fundy Christians actually make good on their 'advocacy.' BTW, wasn't the Orlando shooter a Muslim? And what does any of this have to do with Trump?
No and no.
Not that this in any way mitigates the horrendous atrocities committed by Muslims against gays, but I found it rather interesting.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/05/the-kingdom-in-...
An excerpt:
The Kingdom in the Closet
Sodomy is punishable by death in Saudi Arabia, but gay life flourishes there. Why it is “easier to be gay than straight” in a society where everyone, homosexual and otherwise, lives in the closet
‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’The gay men I interviewed in Jeddah and Riyadh laughed when I asked them if they worried about being executed. Although they do fear the mutawwa'in to some degree, they believe the House of Saud isn’t interested in a widespread hunt of homosexuals. For one thing, such an effort might expose members of the royal family to awkward scrutiny. “If they wanted to arrest all the gay people in Saudi Arabia,” Misfir, my chat-room guide, told me—repeating what he says was a police officer’s comment—“they’d have to put a fence around the whole country.”
In addition, the power of themutawwa'in is limited by the Koran, which frowns upon those who intrude on the privacy of others in order to catch them in sinful acts. The mandate of the Committee on the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice is specifically to regulate behavior in the public realm. What occurs behind closed doors is between a believer and God.
Now things have changed somewhat over the years since this was written. But if gays were being executed routinely, I think it would be more in the public eye than it is, particularly since the ME is currently under such scrutiny.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/un-human-rights-council-saudi-arabia-s...
So while the Saudis may be cracking down on gays, they are coming from a fairly lax (given the Islamic mandate against homosexuality) practice.
That doesn't make their stance on homosexuality right.
But frankly, despite my abhorrence of Islam, I think we all could take a lesson in the practice of minding ones own business.
As far as our presidential candidates accepting money from the Saudis or any other ME...or any other foreign countries...hell no!
Does not matter. All donors will be flawed, but the problem is when donors donate millions of dollars as a way of bribing, and that is what is happening with hillary.
