Why do many Muslims believe that God wants them to injure, kill, or imprison homosexuals?

[MSizer]

...Islam cannot accept other people's right to practice homosexuality, Islam must go.

I agree %100 with your principle Auto, but we also have to recognize that there's no "making it go". You can't simply make fundies, christian muslim or other just "go away". They're among us, and they probably always will be. When an immoral view exists among many humans, we have to expose the view as the fallacy it is. Look at slavery in the U.S. The vast majority today would agree that slavery is immoral, but that wasn't always the case. I'm curious as to what it was in the U.S. that got people to abolish slavery? Some similar conciousness raising will have to happen IMO to abolish the immoral belief that homosexuality is "wrong". Sadly, when people think their immoral view is justified by myths (as in the case of fundy christians or muslims), it makes it very hard indeed to reason with them.

 

[fallingblood]

Here's what I don't get about Islam, extremist Christianity, etc. O.K., your religion prohibits it. Fine. So don't do it. Your religion also prohibits eating pork. So don't eat pork. But surely it's none of your business if someone else eats it. In the same way, it's none of your business if someone else practices homosexuality.

If Islam cannot take this view, it must be eradicated.

That's what I mean by saying we cannot tolerate intolerance. If Islam cannot accept other people's right to practice homosexuality, Islam must go.

I agree with a lot of what you said. However, it is not Islam as a whole that won't accept homosexuality.

 

[Autodidact]

I agree with a lot of what you said. However, it is not Islam as a whole that won't accept homosexuality.

Really? What part of Islam thinks homosexuality is permissible?

 

[Agnostic75]

Maybe addressing the subject of homosexuality would lead this somewhere. The persecution of homosexuality is not a religious thing. Take religion out of the equation, and they would still hate homosexuality. The reason is simple, they are different, they are a minority.

On the contrary, Muslim inerrantists do not believe that they need any evidence other than Muslim writings to oppose homosexuality, or for anything else that Muslim writings condemn. The same argument applies to Christian inerrantists. Most Christian inerrantists do not know very much about geology, but they still believe that a global flood occured. If your argument was valid, Christian inerrantists would still believe that a global flood occured if they were not inerrantists, but that is obviously false. Christian inerrantists sometimes use secular arguments against homosexuality, but they oppose some other things that are not supported by secular evidence. An example is divorce. Jesus said that divorce is only acceptable in cases of adultery. Many conservative Christians follow that teaching even though there is not any secular evidence that married couples are always better off staying married to each other.

For many Christians, "the Bible says so," and "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it," is reason enough to rubber stamp everything that the Bible says.

Regarding "Maybe addressing the subject of homosexuality would lead this somewhere," that frequently does get somewhere, but usually not with inerrantists, the majority of whom are young earth creationists. Stanton Jones, Ph.D., psychology, and Paul Yarhouse, Ph.D., psychology, are conservative Christians. They said in a book that they wrote that even if science proved that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle, Christians should still oppose it.

 

[fallingblood]

Really? What part of Islam thinks homosexuality is permissible?

If Islam as a whole persecuted homosexuality, then all Muslims would have to persecute homosexuality.

Yet, there are many Muslims who not have a problem with homosexuality. Some Quran scholars even argue that there really is nothing in the Quran saying that homosexuality should be persecuted. Some even say that the Quran does not speak about homosexuality.

 

[Agnostic75]

Consider the following:

LGBT topics and Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on the principles of the Qur'an and the Hadith, several eminent scholars of Islam, such as Imam Malik, Imam Shafi, Ahmad and Ishaaq have ruled that the person guilty of homosexuality should be stoned regardless of his married or unmarried nature.

Ibn Kathir's commentary on the words of Qur'an with respect to homosexuality are,

The words of Allah ‘And the two persons (man and woman) among you who commit illegal sexual intercourse, hurt them both’ mean, those who commit immoral actions, punish them both. Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him), Sa’eed ibn Jubayr and others said: By condemning them, shaming them and hitting them with shoes. This was the ruling until Allah abrogated it and replaced it with whipping and stoning. ‘Ikrimah, ‘Ata, al-Hasan and ‘Abd-Allah ibn Katheer said: This was revealed concerning a man and woman who commit fornication. Al-Saddi said, it was revealed concerning young people before they get married. Mujaahid said: it was revealed concerning two men if they admit it bluntly; a hint is not sufficient - as if he was referring to homosexuality. And Allah knows best."
​

Ibn al-Qayyim is reported to have said,

Both of them – fornication and homosexuality – involve immorality that goes against the wisdom of Allah’s creation and commandment. For homosexuality involves innumerable evil and harms, and the one to whom it is done would be better off being killed than having this done to him, because after that he will become so evil and so corrupt that there can be no hope of his being reformed, and all good is lost for him, and he will no longer feel any shame before Allah or before His creation. The semen of the one who did that to him will act as a poison on his body and soul. The scholars differed as to whether the one to whom it is done will ever enter Paradise."
​

​

 

[fallingblood]

Consider the following:

LGBT topics and Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That proves what? Here, I will do the same thing you did and show that there is a diversity in Islam concerning homosexuality.

Gay Muslims - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The diverse ways of understanding of the Qur'an are echoed in the documentary by Dr Scott-Siraj Al-Haqq Kugle of Swarthmore College in the United States, currently a research fellow at Leiden University in the Netherlands. He believes that sharia – Islamic law – is determined by male jurists whose interpretations of Islamic texts are based on cultural assumptions situated in particular times, and particular political and geographical locations. Rather than sharia being divine, Kugle believes that it offers different avenues for Muslims to live their lives. He also points out that there is no word in the Qur'an for "gay" or "homosexual", and no mention of lesbians.

 

[berrychrisc]

As far as I know, Muslims who live in the Middle East tend to mistreat homosexuals more than Muslims who live in other parts of the world, although Muslims who live in other parts of the world generally strongly disapprove of homosexuality too.

The intolerance of Muslims towards gay people will limit Muslims' acceptance in the democratic world. So will their subjugation of women. .

Hopefully, Islam will become more tolerant as it is assimilated into the West, as Christianity has become more tolerant under the influence of modern thinking. I don't think a 21st century Catholic's lifestyle and views would be viewed by a medieval Catholic as anything other than rank heresy and worldliness. So there is hope for Islam in that sense.

As a side note, Saudi Arabia does not allow people to have Bibles, but the government is quite content for non-Muslim countries to allow people to have the Koran.

If Muslims were killed in a certain country merely because they were Muslims, they would not like it, but they will not grant non-Muslims the same rights that they want from non-Muslims. .

This point is why I hold back from large scale international ecumenical efforts that include Islam, like those of the Vatican. There is absolutely no reciprocity. I see a value in ecumenism within the context of the Western world, but until the Islamic nations start showing the same respect of Christians' rights that are given to Muslims in the West, there is no point in continuing any dialogue with them.

Do the majority of Muslims want to spread Islam by diplomacy or by the sword? Many Muslims approve of using the sword to mistreat homosexuals.

Muslims are going to have to learn to deal with LGBT people in the West, because we are not going away.

 

[Agnostic75]

There are many Muslims who do not have a problem with homosexuality.

Of course, and no one has said otherwise. The title of this thread says "many Muslims," not "most or all Muslims."

A Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_topics_and_Islam#Homosexuality_laws_in_Muslim_countries
shows that many predominantly Muslim countries punish homosexuals with fines, imprisonment, or the death penalty.

 

[Agnostic75]

Maybe addressing the subject of homosexuality would lead this somewhere. The persecution of homosexuality is not a religious thing. Take religion out of the equation, and they would still hate homosexuality. The reason is simple, they are different, they are a minority.

On the contrary, Muslim inerrantists do not believe that they need any evidence other than Muslim writings to oppose homosexuality, or for anything else that Muslim writings condemn. The same argument applies to Christian inerrantists. Most Christian inerrantists do not know very much about geology, but they still believe that a global flood occured. Now why is that? If your argument was valid, Christian inerrantists would still believe that a global flood occured if they were not inerrantists, but that is obviously false. Christian inerrantists sometimes also use secular arguments against homosexuality, but they oppose some other things that are not supported by secular evidence. An example is divorce. Jesus said that divorce is only acceptable in cases of adultery. Many conservative Christians follow that teaching even though there is not any secular evidence that married couples are always better off staying married to each other.

For many Christians, "the Bible says so," and "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it," is reason enough to rubber stamp everything that the Bible says.

Regarding "Maybe addressing the subject of homosexuality would lead this somewhere," that frequently does get somewhere, but usually not with inerrantists, the majority of whom are young earth creationists. Stanton Jones, Ph.D., psychology, and Paul Yarhouse, Ph.D., psychology, are conservative Christians. They said in a book that they wrote that even if science proved that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle, Christians should still oppose it.

 

[Autodidact]

If Islam as a whole persecuted homosexuality, then all Muslims would have to persecute homosexuality.

Nope. In order to show that Islam poses a danger to freedom and gay people, it is not necessary to show that 100% of Muslims believe anything in particular. Islam in general and in particular as espoused here at RF, poses a danger to gay people.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to fallingblood: Consider the following:

Largest Religious Groups in the USA

Each year the annual Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches publishes information on North America's largest religious bodies. The Yearbook is a publication of the National Council of Churches (NCC). The membership counts published in this work are primarily based on organizational reporting. The Yearbook's data are used in U.S. Government publications and various almanacs. Below are the largest U.S. religious bodies (distinct churches) according the 2004 Yearbook or more recent organizational reports:

Top 10 largest religious bodies in the U.S.

Church Year Number

1. Catholic Church 2002 66,407,105
2. Southern Baptist Convention 2003 16,400,000
4. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 2004 5,599,177
9. Assemblies of God 2002 2,687,366

I do not have statistics regarding the percentages of those conservative Chrtistians who oppose homosexuality, same-sex marriage, physician assisted suicide, and abortion, largely, primarly, or solely for religious reasons, but it is a virtual given that the numer would be in the millions, and even in spite of declining memberships, such as in the Southern Baptist Convention. It is well-known that in California, Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage was one of the main reasons why same-sex marriage was defeated in a public referendum.

Physician assisted suicide is only legal in two states in the U.S., Oregon, and Washington State. Those states are very liberal compared with most or all Southern Bible Belt states. The main reason why physician assisted suicide was legalized in those states was because of smaller percentages of conservative Christians than the national average. Washington and Oregon are among the top 10 most liberal states in the U.S., reference an article at IPAS Most Liberal States in America « The State of America. It is well-known that the most numerous opponents of physician assisted suicide are conservative Christians.

 

[Agnostic75]

You have a huge fault in your questions. You focus on Muslims too much.

On the contrary, over the past 10 years, at least 95% of the time that I have debated homosexuality, I debated conservative Christians.

Since Islam had over one billion followers, and is growing faster than Christianity is, it is appropriate that I started a thread about Muslims and homosexuality. If I had limited my discussions to conservative Christians, you would have complained about that too.

The United States is a non-Muslim country. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Atheists, etc. all have been responsible for mistreatment of homosexuals. So you should not focus on Muslims.

Same as before.

The question should be what should anyone do about the physical mistreatment of homosexuals, or for that matter, and minority group?

Whatever the religion, fundamentalists are frequently a problem. Obviously, the best way to protect homosexuals is to oppose religious fundamentalism since religous fundamentalists are the chief opponents of homosexuality. In addition, the best way to oppose scientific creationism is to oppose religious fundamentalism since religous fundamentalists are the chief proponents of scientific creationism.

Much of what you are talking about has nothing to do with Islam, but with the culture of those particular places.

But religion is an important part of many cultures. Are you proposing that religion should be removed from cultures?

Consider the following:

LGBT topics and Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on the principles of the Qur'an and the Hadith, several eminent scholars of Islam, such as Imam Malik, Imam Shafi, Ahmad and Ishaaq have ruled that the person guilty of homosexuality should be stoned regardless of his married or unmarried nature.


Ibn Kathir's commentary on the words of Qur'an with respect to homosexuality are,

"The words of Allah ‘And the two persons (man and woman) among you who commit illegal sexual intercourse, hurt them both’ mean, those who commit immoral actions, punish them both. Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him), Sa’eed ibn Jubayr and others said: By condemning them, shaming them and hitting them with shoes. This was the ruling until Allah abrogated it and replaced it with whipping and stoning. ‘Ikrimah, ‘Ata, al-Hasan and ‘Abd-Allah ibn Katheer said: This was revealed concerning a man and woman who commit fornication. Al-Saddi said, it was revealed concerning young people before they get married. Mujaahid said: it was revealed concerning two men if they admit it bluntly; a hint is not sufficient - as if he was referring to homosexuality. And Allah knows best."
Ibn al-Qayyim is reported to have said,

"Both of them – fornication and homosexuality – involve immorality that goes against the wisdom of Allah’s creation and commandment. For homosexuality involves innumerable evil and harms, and the one to whom it is done would be better off being killed than having this done to him, because after that he will become so evil and so corrupt that there can be no hope of his being reformed, and all good is lost for him, and he will no longer feel any shame before Allah or before His creation. The semen of the one who did that to him will act as a poison on his body and soul. The scholars differed as to whether the one to whom it is done will ever enter Paradise."

A Wikipedia article at LGBT topics and Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
shows that many predominantly Muslim countries punish homosexuals with fines, imprisonment, or the death penalty.

How do you propose to deal with "the Bible says so," and "the Qur'an and the Hadith" say so"? Stanton Jones, Ph.D., psychology, and Paul Yarhouse, Ph.D., psychology, are conservative Christians. They said in a book that they wrote that even if science proved that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle, Christians should still oppose it. Dr. Jones is the provost at Wheaton College, which is a Christian college. Why don't you contact him and tell him that he should not trust what the Bible says? While you are at it, please contact the ICR (Institute for Creation Research), and AIG (Answers in Genesis) and tell them that they should not trust what the Bible says.

Maybe addressing the subject of homosexuality would lead this somewhere. The persecution of homosexuality is not a religious thing. Take religion out of the equation, and they would still hate homosexuality. The reason is simple, they are different, they are a minority.

If your argument was valid, Christian inerrantists would still believe that a global flood occured even if they were not inerrantists, but that is obviously false since very few Christians who believe that a global flood are not inerrantists. Most inerrantists know very little about geology, but they still believe that a global flood occured because they are inerrantists, and they rubber stamp everything that the Bible says whether or not they know much about an issue. Christian inerrantists sometimes use secular arguments against homosexuality, but they oppose some other things that are not supported by secular evidence. An example is divorce. Jesus said that divorce is only acceptable in cases of adultery. Many conservative Christians follow that teaching even though there is not any secular evidence that married couples are always better off staying married to each other.

Many people who oppose homosexuality are not religious, but they are not nearly as numerous as people who are religious. That is common knowledge. Even someone as misinformed as you are must know that. Many polls show that religious people are far more likely to oppose homosexuality, same-sex marriage, physician assisted suicide, and abortion than skeptics and very liberal Christians are.

Scientific creationists would not be spending lots of time and money promoting scientific creationism if they did not believe that they were influencing lots of people, and skeptics and very liberal Christians would not be spending lots of time and money opposing them if they did not believe that they were influencing lots of people.

You are a joke. You have not provided any credible ways of dealing with conservative Christians, or with conservative Muslims for that matter.

 

[fallingblood]

Nope. In order to show that Islam poses a danger to freedom and gay people, it is not necessary to show that 100% of Muslims believe anything in particular. Islam in general and in particular as espoused here at RF, poses a danger to gay people.

A majority at least has to be shown. I don't know if the Muslims on this site are a fair representative of Muslims in general though.

It may also be better to look at the culture in which many of these Muslims are growing up in. To differentiate between religious beliefs, and cultural beliefs may go a long way.

I agree with you that something must be done, but I think getting rid of Muslims is a bit extreme, and I don't think it would effect the homosexuality problem. I think there would be just as many people who hated homosexuals regardless of religion (I would concede that it is possible it would reduce the amount of persecution to a point, but not drastically).

Also, one must differentiate between what Islam teaches and what Muslims believe. It is not safe to assume that what Muslims practice truly reflects on Islam. In any case, the Quran does not state that Muslims should persecute homosexuals. The fact that some Muslims still do would suggest that there is something more to the subject then just religious belief.

And seeing that the persecution of homosexuality is not confined to Islam, or even religion in general, I think it shows that there is something else that is influencing people to persecute homosexuals.

I argue that the reason people persecute homosexuals is simply because they are a minority. Those persecuting homosexuality want something to hide behind. Some find that in religion. Others find it in their own personal morals or their personal beliefs. Much of it is founded on ignorance though.

People have a prejudice against homosexuality. This prejudice is not confined to any specific group, so it would not make sense to just eradicate groups who have members that hold the prejudice.


Agnostic: I'm not taking the time to read what you have to say. Basically, I see the information you present no more credible then what Brian Flemming presented in The God Who Wasn't There. For those who don't know better, it may sound convincing, but the simple fact that you haven't really researched what you're saying, and simply have a bone to pick makes debating with you just bothersome and not worth the time.

 

[Autodidact]

A majority at least has to be shown. I don't know if the Muslims on this site are a fair representative of Muslims in general though.

Well, here's a poll of British Muslims. 0% found homosexuality morally acceptable. (Does anyone else find this ironic?) Here, 73% of Muslims polled said their city was not a good place for gay people to live.

It may also be better to look at the culture in which many of these Muslims are growing up in. To differentiate between religious beliefs, and cultural beliefs may go a long way.

Islam is culture, religion and government.

I agree with you that something must be done, but I think getting rid of Muslims is a bit extreme, and I don't think it would effect the homosexuality problem. I think there would be just as many people who hated homosexuals regardless of religion (I would concede that it is possible it would reduce the amount of persecution to a point, but not drastically).

Goodness, I'm not advocating getting rid of Muslims! I'm advocating combating Islam!

I guess the alternative would be a vibrant gay rights movement in the Islamic world, which doesn't exist. In fact, gay people can't even risk advocating for their rights, at risk of being killed.

Also, one must differentiate between what Islam teaches and what Muslims believe.

Why? Does it make any difference to the dead Iranian men why their government killed them?

It is not safe to assume that what Muslims practice truly reflects on Islam.

Yes, apparently Muslims are really bad at being Muslim, or so they tell me.

In any case, the Quran does not state that Muslims should persecute homosexuals. The fact that some Muslims still do would suggest that there is something more to the subject then just religious belief.

Well the religious belief sure isn't helping the situation.

And seeing that the persecution of homosexuality is not confined to Islam, or even religion in general, I think it shows that there is something else that is influencing people to persecute homosexuals.

that may be, and you're welcome to pursue those other factors. Meanwhile, religion plays a huge part in it.

I argue that the reason people persecute homosexuals is simply because they are a minority. Those persecuting homosexuality want something to hide behind. Some find that in religion. Others find it in their own personal morals or their personal beliefs. Much of it is founded on ignorance though.

Well, left-handed people are a minority, and I don't see them being executed. I think there's something more going on.

People have a prejudice against homosexuality. This prejudice is not confined to any specific group, so it would not make sense to just eradicate groups who have members that hold the prejudice.

It is rife among some groups (Ugandans) and virtually non-existent among others (Icelanders.) Why do you think that is?

 

[Autodidact]

Apparently, more Muslims believe suicide bombing is moral than homosexuality.

I think that tells you all you need to know about so-called Muslim "morality." It's not morality at all.

 

[Agnostic75]

I argue that the reason people persecute homosexuals is simply because they are a minority.

Many people who oppose homosexuality are not religious, but far more religious conservatives oppose homosexuality than skeptics and very liberal Christians. That is clearly because of religion.

Consider the following from another thread:

Stop claiming that millions upon millions of Christians are doing everything you are saying when you have no proof.

The proof is easy to find. Just call any Southern Baptist, Mormon, or Assembly of God church, whose collective membership numbers in the millions, and ask whoever you speak with whether or not they believe that at least 75% of their members oppose homosexuality, same-sex marriage, physician assisted suicide, and abortion, partly or solely for religious reasons.

Consider the following:

SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION AND HOMOSEXUALITY

The 35 million Baptists form the largest division within Protestant Christianity in the United States. About 16 million are associated with the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Traditionally, this denomination had varying levels of tolerance for homosexuality and had expressed concern over gay-bashing. However, with the shift of the SBC towards fundamentalism since about 1980, attitudes have significantly hardened into an extreme opposition to equal rights for gays, bisexuals and lesbians, including allowing sexually active gay, lesbian, and bisexuals to be members.

Physician-Assisted Suicide: The changing opinion landscape - Casting Stones

When Americans in general were asked their opinion of the statement, "When a person is facing a painful terminal disease, it is morally acceptable to ask for a physician's aid in taking his or her life"--30% "strongly agreed" and 20% "somewhat agreed" that it is "morally acceptable." While 33% of Americans "strongly disagreed" and 11% "somewhat disagreed," clearly a significant shift has taken place in American culture on this issue.

When Americans approve physician-assisted suicide in terminal patients by a 50% to 44% margin, it is clear that the morally relative "quality of life" ethic has made substantial progress in changing the hearts and minds of Americans away from the "sanctity of life" ethic upon which our nation was founded--"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Interestingly, only 6% of Americans responded "don't know" about physician-assisted suicide, suggesting that most people have given the idea at least some serious thought--enough to state a definite opinion, yea or nay.

When the same poll asked Southern Baptist pastors this question, however, the results could not have been more opposite to the population at large. Among Southern Baptist pastors, 88% strongly disagreed and 9% somewhat disagreed that physician-assisted suicide was "morally acceptable" in terminal cases. Only 1% of Southern Baptist pastors "strongly agreed" and 1% "somewhat agreed" that such assisted suicide was "morally acceptable."

The Mormon Curtain - HOMOSEXUALITY IN MORMONISM

Mormonism does not tolerate gays and lesbians. Any Mormon member that confesses homosexuality is automatically forced to appear in front of Church Courts. These Courts then decide whether the homosexual transgressions merit either excommunication or dis-fellowshipping. Mormons who have practiced homosexual intercourse with the same sex are automatically excommunicated.

During the 1970's the practice of electro-shock therapy was used at the LDS Church owned Brigham Young University.

There are no homosexual Mormons who are in "good standing" with the LDS Church. Homosexuals that are excommunicated are no longer able to participate in any Mormon Church function, including praying, teaching or holding any office. The Mormon priesthood is taken away and all "blessings", rights and Temple privileges are taken away. Excommunicated members are further ostracized in Mormon Sacrament Meetings where they are forbidden to take the Sacramental offerings - or even speak vocally.

It is well known that Mormons are homophobic.

Euthanasia and Prolonging Life - LDS Newsroom

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life, and is therefore opposed to euthanasia. Euthanasia is defined as deliberately putting to death a person who is suffering from an incurable condition or disease. Such a deliberate act ends life immediately through, for example, so-called assisted suicide. Ending a life in such a manner is a violation of the commandments of God.

Largest Religious Groups in the USA

Each year the annual Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches publishes information on North America's largest religious bodies. The Yearbook is a publication of the National Council of Churches (NCC). The membership counts published in this work are primarily based on organizational reporting. The Yearbook's data are used in U.S. Government publications and various almanacs. Below are the largest U.S. religious bodies (distinct churches) according the 2004 Yearbook or more recent organizational reports:

Top 10 largest religious bodies in the U.S.

1. Catholic Church
Year - 2002
Number of members - 66,407,105

2. Southern Baptist Convention
Year - 2003
Number of members - 16,400,000

4. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Year - 2004
Number of member - 5,599,177

9. Assemblies of God
Year - 2002
Number of members - 2,687,366

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to fallingblood: Why do you suppose that millions of Christians believe that a global flood occured, most of whom are inerrantists? Regarding most of them, obviously, because "the Bible says so" since the vast majority of them do not know very much about geology. How do you propose to convince them that a global flood did not occur.

 

[Agnostic75]

In another thread, fallingblood said:

There is a difference here. It is at this point that they are trying to force their ideas on others. Yes, something should be done. However, for the most part, this is not the case.

That is patently false as I proved in my post #57.

What do you call the Dover trial? Well, it was about conservative Christians trying to force public schools to teach creationism. Do you favor the teaching of creationism in public schools?

It is well known that many conservative Christians would never vote for politicians who endorse one of more of the following things:

homosexuality
same-sex marriage
physician assisted suicide
abortion

Regarding the proposition 8 issue in California, are you not aware that the chief supporters of it by far were religious conservatives? Opposition from various church groups was all over the media.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to fallingblood: Do you live in the U.S.? If not, that explains your ignorance about conservative Christianity in the U.S., but only partly since the Internet is full of articles about how conservative Christians in the U.S. frequently try to legislate religion. There are many very politically active conservative Christian organizations in the U.S. Would you like a list of some fo them?

The court case "Lawrence versus Texas" was about homosexuality. The court case "Gonzales versus Oregon" was about physician assisted suicide. If there were not any conservative Christians in the U.S., neither case would have happened.