Should Gays Forgive Abrahamics?

[MysticSang'ha]

There's definitely no excuse... not ignorance, not God made me do it, not the devil made me do it. That's why they won't get forgiveness from me. And if there's nothing they can do to make it up to us, oh freakin' well, they decided to be hateful. I'm under no obligation to give them a pass.

A perfect example of such hatred was a number of years ago when a Catholic high school barred We Are The Champions from being played at the graduation ceremony because Freddie Mercury was gay. I kid you not, you can't make this stuff up.

Oh, I believe you.

I went to a wedding where people were told a woman was not welcomed to the ceremony because she is a lesbian. The reason, given by the pastor and the mother of the bride, is because she had not repented of her evil homosexual ways and was unwelcomed in the "House of the Lord."

This wasn't 20 years ago. More like 2 years ago. And it either made people feel very uncomfortable or allowed the bigots to talk all night about how sick and evil queers are during a reception that (I thought) was to celebrate the union of the couple that got married.

So, we're expected to be quiet over stuff like this? And if we speak up about it while in the company of such bigotry, we're suddenly the problem?

 

[Unification]

There's definitely no excuse... not ignorance, not God made me do it, not the devil made me do it. That's why they won't get forgiveness from me. And if there's nothing they can do to make it up to us, oh freakin' well, they decided to be hateful. I'm under no obligation to give them a pass.

A perfect example of such hatred was a number of years ago when a Catholic high school barred We Are The Champions from being played at the graduation ceremony because Freddie Mercury was gay. I kid you not, you can't make this stuff up.

I understand what you mean. It's still better to forgive. Not necessarily to them or anyone directly but in ones own mind. Keeping grudges and bitterness to ones offender(s) indirectly allows them still to defeat one. Has control over the mind. Best to just let go, and be free from it, at peace and rest in mind.

 

[Unification]

Oh, I believe you.

I went to a wedding where people were told a woman was not welcomed to the ceremony because she is a lesbian. The reason, given by the pastor and the mother of the bride, is because she had not repented of her evil homosexual ways and was unwelcomed in the "House of the Lord."

This wasn't 20 years ago. More like 2 years ago. And it either made people feel very uncomfortable or allowed the bigots to talk all night about how sick and evil queers are during a reception that (I thought) was to celebrate the union of the couple that got married.

So, we're expected to be quiet over stuff like this? And if we speak up about it while in the company of such bigotry, we're suddenly the problem?

That's pretty awful. Nevertheless, the house of the Lord is ourselves. Best to speak out in truth and character, and not speak out in reaction of emotion. Respond and not react.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

A perfect example of such hatred was a number of years ago when a Catholic high school barred We Are The Champions from being played at the graduation ceremony because Freddie Mercury was gay. I kid you not, you can't make this stuff up.

That really is dreadful. Shame on them.

 

[Jainarayan]

Oh, I believe you.

I went to a wedding where people were told a woman was not welcomed to the ceremony because she is a lesbian. The reason, given by the pastor and the mother of the bride, is because she had not repented of her evil homosexual ways and was unwelcomed in the "House of the Lord."

This wasn't 20 years ago. More like 2 years ago. And it either made people feel very uncomfortable or allowed the bigots to talk all night about how sick and evil queers are during a reception that (I thought) was to celebrate the union of the couple that got married.

So, we're expected to be quiet over stuff like this? And if we speak up about it while in the company of such bigotry, we're suddenly the problem?

Christian ignorance at its finest. Followers of the man who ate, drank and kept close company with the outcasts of society.

As a Jarlsberg Polytheist (semi-hard ) I tend to believe there are many Otherworlds and Afterlife worlds ruled by different deities. If there is indeed a "Christian" afterlife, I hope these people are made to feel as unwelcome as that woman was. Turn them away and make them wander as outcasts.

 

[Unification]

How should gays tolerate people who believe Leviticus 20:13 commands their execution? No offense to you personally, but that seems like a significant barrier to peace love and understanding....

All of that is old writing very long ago, and is all allegory for internalized meaning, not literal. Particularly the mind. The irony is, that those that take it literally and judge others are the ones who have died (unconsious separation.) All of those laws are old proverbs, poorly translated into English, and essentially mean to love and treat your neighbor as yourself.

 

[Jainarayan]

I understand what you mean. It's still better to forgive. Not necessarily to them or anyone directly but in ones own mind. Keeping grudges and bitterness to ones offender(s) indirectly allows them still to defeat one. Has control over the mind. Best to just let go, and be free from it, at peace and rest in mind.

I wouldn't call it holding a grudge in the traditional sense, or being bitter. Being bitter towards them indicates that I somehow feel I want to be included, which I don't. Just not excusing them or giving them a pass. Also remember that if you don't want to be forgiven you can't be forgiven. I think it will be a cold day on Mercury before the RCC or EOC says "we're sorry for denying communion to non-heterosexuals, and we welcome all". So until that day I'm not going to say "aw that's OK, you're doing what you think is right".

 

[leibowde84]

Other. I vote that gsa needs to grow up.

He could easily say the same thing about you. Why not respond with a counter-argument instead of snarkiness?

 

[gsa]

Oh...please...!
Christians and Jews can be in immediate danger in many Muslim countries!

There are many different kinds of Gays......... as many as there are Gays, in fact.
And some of them are going to ride the 'we've been downtrodden' bus for ever..... and ever........
I'm more interested in how millions of people could have been killed off by Cambodia's youth ....... a situation where there is no longer any organisation which can apologise for such dreadful killing spree.

So there's been more dreadful acts in the World this last thirty years than a hotel refusing service to a Gay, or a Lesbian, or a gypsy, etc etc...........

Well in any Islamic country in which Christians and Jews are in immediate danger, the same is true of gay people. Although you appear to assume that my OP was myopic and only concerned about the denial of public services or employment within the United States, I am very concerned about the global impact of these particular religions This includes the application of sharia law, which contains prohibitions that are virtually indistinguishable from the Christian and Jewish traditional approaches to homosexuality.

Yes, there have certainly been more dreadful acts. But so what? The fact that one death toll is higher is hardly an indicator that the other death toll is not a serious injustice. You want to compare the refusal to bake wedding cakes to death tolls, but I can very easily take a look at the death tolls from a wide range of Abrahamic polities and construct a rather grim narrative. This objection, I am afraid, is not very serious.

 

[gsa]

I find it problematic that your framing of this issue implies that gay people, by being gay, reject or are no longer part of "Abrahamic religions."

But there are many openly gay Jews and Christians (and some courageous openly gay Muslims) who don't see a need to reject their traditions, but rather see more opportunity to extend the boundaries of their traditions in a positive way. And many straight allies who feel the same.

Your framing also implies that religions are inherently inflexible and rigid, and their alterations are somehow inauthentic, rather than being natural evolutions of theology and practice. Which is just not how religions work, or at least are supposed to work.

Yes. These individuals claim that there is no conflict, or at least assume that the traditions can be modified to eliminate any existing conflict.

But that does not fully address the question: Even if it can be ameliorated, the conflict, if only as a matter of tradition and history, exists. We will never live in a world where Leviticus 20:13 was not widely interpreted as calling for the execution of male homosexuals. That is simply a fact. And that has had a number of consequences for people over history. It also reflects what most believers assumed was a divine command.

I am sure that you are more than a little skeptical about the ability to interpret the Christian scriptures in a way that is pro-Jewish. Consider your own accurate description of Christianity:

Christianity, as a whole, has not shown a love of Judaism in any significant way over the course of its existence. It has, on the contrary, been rife with anti-Semitism, from the Christian scriptures onward.

I can in fact reasonably say the same about Abrahamic religions generally, with respect to gays. Indeed, it is a consistency across the three major traditions and their cousins or would-be successors (including the Bahai and various heretical sects).

This point, from later in that same thread, is also appropriate:

Individuals Jews may come to know and love individual Christians, but individual Christians are not the same as Christianity as a historical whole.

To which I can say, rather pointedly: Abrahamic religions, considered as a whole, have not shown a love of gays or homosexuality in any significant way over the course of their existence. They have, on the contrary, been rife with homophobia, from the Hebrew scriptures onwards. Individual Abrahamics may come to know and love individual gay people, but individual Abrahamics are not the same as the Abrahamic religions as a historical whole.

Does this privilege the reactionary elements within these traditions, and render liberal reformists inauthentic?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

He could easily say the same thing about you. Why not respond with a counter-argument instead of snarkiness?

He already knows my views on his immature opinions about religion. We have talked in the chat room at length about this topic.

 

[gsa]

No, I think they should wallow in anti-religious bigotry.

I think it is an error to assume that opposing Abrahamic religion is the same as wallowing in anti-religious bigotry. There may be sound reasons to oppose dharmic traditions, for this particular reason or for other reasons, to use one example, but the Abrahamic stance on gays is not found in every religious tradition.

 

[gsa]

Where is this? I've not seen the news full of such stories. Occasionally a religious organization lets a bit of modern morality slip out because the leadership is more sophisticated than the rank and file, and a bunch of pewsitters decamp for Africa or somewhere(spiritually).
Tom

I am not saying that it has been done quietly or without controversy, but we now have a relatively pro-gay and large contingent of mainline Protestants (Episcopalian, Evangelical Lutheran, Presbyterian, Disciples of Christ, United Church of Christ) and liberal Jews (Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism). There are of course dissenters, but there has been a steady drip of news developments within the last 5 years alone, and it is the result of concerted efforts that began in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

 

[gsa]

I quite frankly don't care. We should tackle homophobia, but I don't feel a need to "forgive" any religion if it plays no real part in my life. Besides, the faiths themselves aren't the issue; it's some of the followers.

This is only true if you do not believe that religion has any objective content, and that is not how the vast majority of adherents view their religious affiliation. We cannot simply apply a Derrida scalpel to religion and remove it of any meaning whatsoever. It may be that only a minority acts on these principles with most preferring to reform or ignore the divine commands within the religious texts, or reinterpret them, but the texts are there. They do not exist in isolation, but within a fabric of tradition and history and debate and discourse and interpretation.

 

[gsa]

He already knows my views on his immature opinions about religion. We have talked in the chat room at length about this topic.

Whether or not my opinion on "religion" in the abstract is immature (and I don't know that I have expressed any opinion on religion as an abstract concept), it is safe to say that I am not talking about religion generally in this thread. I am discussing a particular family tree of religions.

 

[gsa]

I guess the millions of LGBT Christians, such as myself, don't count or don't exist. It's not either/or. Like I said, people need to grow up on both sides of the debate.

You exist, but you are usually not representative of your religions. In many regions, particularly the West, you are also not necessarily representative of the LGBT population. Consider a 2013 survey:

Nearly all of those surveyed said they saw at least one of six religious institutions as "unfriendly" to LGBT people. Most -- about eight-in-ten -- said Islam, Mormonism and the Catholic Church were unfriendly. Nearly three-quarters said evangelical churches were unfriendly to them. Fewer people said they found Judaism and non-evangelical Protestant churches to be unfriendly, but more people still found those groups to be unfriendly compared to those who said they were friendly.

About three-in-ten of respondents added that they have "been made to feel unwelcome at a place of worship or religious organization." The survey did not ask about friendliness or unfriendliness among other religious groups aside from Muslims, Mormons, Catholics, evangelicals, Jews and non-evangelical Protestants. (Previous surveys from Pew and other organizations have shown that despite their church's official stance against same-sex marriage, Catholics Americans are one of the most supportive religious groups when it comes to gay rights).

I would also note that 48 percent of the survey respondents are unaffiliated (31% nothing in particular and 17 percent atheist/agnostic). By contrast, only 42% are Christian and only 14% are Catholic. The only affiliation that matches general population numbers is Jewish, at 2% for both LGBT and general population. Mormons are the next closest, with 1% of LGBT identifying as Mormon and 2% of the general population identifying as Mormon.

Indeed, if you take a look at the complete results of the survey, you can see that LGBT people are very good at discerning the relative stances of various religious groups: Muslims and Mormons are ranked as the most hostile, followed by Catholics and Evangelicals. They are more evenly divided on Jews and mainline Protestants, with a majority viewing them as either positive or neutral (but a plurality still viewing both as hostile).

It is not that religious LGBTs don't exist. You clearly do. But you are not a majority of LGBT people, at least not those willing to self-identify, at any rate.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You exist, but you are usually not representative of your religions. In many regions, particularly the West, you are also not necessarily representative of the LGBT population. Consider a 2013 survey:

Nearly all of those surveyed said they saw at least one of six religious institutions as "unfriendly" to LGBT people. Most -- about eight-in-ten -- said Islam, Mormonism and the Catholic Church were unfriendly. Nearly three-quarters said evangelical churches were unfriendly to them. Fewer people said they found Judaism and non-evangelical Protestant churches to be unfriendly, but more people still found those groups to be unfriendly compared to those who said they were friendly.

About three-in-ten of respondents added that they have "been made to feel unwelcome at a place of worship or religious organization." The survey did not ask about friendliness or unfriendliness among other religious groups aside from Muslims, Mormons, Catholics, evangelicals, Jews and non-evangelical Protestants. (Previous surveys from Pew and other organizations have shown that despite their church's official stance against same-sex marriage, Catholics Americans are one of the most supportive religious groups when it comes to gay rights).

I would also note that 48 percent of the survey respondents are unaffiliated (31% nothing in particular and 17 percent atheist/agnostic). By contrast, only 42% are Christian and only 14% are Catholic. The only affiliation that matches general population numbers is Jewish, at 2% for both LGBT and general population. Mormons are the next closest, with 1% of LGBT identifying as Mormon and 2% of the general population identifying as Mormon.

Indeed, if you take a look at the complete results of the survey, you can see that LGBT people are very good at discerning the relative stances of various religious groups: Muslims and Mormons are ranked as the most hostile, followed by Catholics and Evangelicals. They are more evenly divided on Jews and mainline Protestants, with a majority viewing them as either positive or neutral (but a plurality still viewing both as hostile).

It is not that religious LGBTs don't exist. You clearly do. But you are not a majority of LGBT people, at least not those willing to self-identify, at any rate.

I'm aware that we're mostly likely a minority. However, we still do matter. Right? Or is this just a numbers game? If so, then LGBT people as a whole don't matter.

 

[gsa]

All of that is old writing very long ago, and is all allegory for internalized meaning, not literal. Particularly the mind. The irony is, that those that take it literally and judge others are the ones who have died (unconsious separation.) All of those laws are old proverbs, poorly translated into English, and essentially mean to love and treat your neighbor as yourself.

I do not think that there is a longstanding allegorical and non-literal interpretation of Leviticus 20:13 that conveys a meaning of "love and treat your neighbor as yourself." I am open to being shown otherwise.

 

[gsa]

I'm aware that we're mostly likely a minority. However, we still do matter. Right? Or is this just a numbers game? If so, then LGBT people as a whole don't matter.

Is anyone saying that you do not matter?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Is anyone saying that you do not matter?

Your post could be taken as implying it.