I never stated that there were no biblical prohibitions against homosexuality, though others with far more familiarity with the Bible than I seem to disagree with you on the meaning of these passages. Many liberals are in fact Christian, the fact that I am not in no way is representative of the left as a whole. Personally, my impression is the whether or not the Bible does forbid homosexual male sex isn’t of great importance, as unlike you or the AFA, I don’t claim to be basing my argument on it. Sam Molloy and Laurie Hartman have made points about both the account of Sodom and the wording of Leviticus 18:22 in particular thought that you may want to address.

The Bible forbids many things which are considered moral by most Christians today, such as working on the Sabbath, which like homosexuality is given a penalty of death in the Old Testament.

That’s Exodus 31:12-17, just so we’re on the same page.

Debate about biblical views of homosexuality are, however, unrelated to the fact that it also forbids lying. See Exodus 20:16, Proverbs 6:16 and Matthew 15:18, since you seem interested in specific examples.

Feel free to demonstrate as well why exactly accusations of homophobia are irrelevant or desperate against the AFA, which exists for essentially no other purpose. Note that I said nothing about homophobia or racism the tea party, so any example involving that organization comes across as a deflection.

Anyway, let’s take a look at what this is really about. The race card and homophobic card is always the last desperate act of those who have no other hand to play. Liberal media coverage of tea party rallies over the past few years have focused so heavily on the more controversial signs and rhetoric that it has contributed to the perception that such content dominates the tea party movement more than it actually does. Even though Tea Party leaders have overwhelmingly denounced racial slurs this is still used to draw away the focus of the true Tea Party platform, which the liberals have no answer for. “Ah…um…well your racist and homophobic then.” Really?

By the way a. mcewen, I think the reason you are having trouble understand what I’m saying is.…The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 1 Corinthians 2:14

You might well be motivated by the Bible, or at least some parts of it, and you are correct that I am not motivated by the Bible or any other religious text.

Either way, I would suggest that you be very careful of groups like the AFA which claim the same belief in god and then ask you for donations. One of the ten commandments which many Christians claim to follow reads something like this in most translations, though as Laurie mentioned, translation presents another issue with Biblical morality altogether.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.

The AFA and FRC and other such groups, in your opinion, may well condemn what you consider to be a terrible sin. If you truly take your inspiration from the Bible, however, then why do you continue to accept and promote the lies that they tell in their condemnation of it? I don’t mean to insult you, I’ve just never found anyone on the religious right who would answer that question for me.

There are many ways to interpret the commandment of course, ranging from only prohibiting lies in official testimony to prohibiting all lies that harm the reputation of others, to prohibiting lying period. The AFA, however, is guilty of all three interpretations, and has violated repeatedly and unashamedly one of the most important tenants of the moral code which you claim to follow.

Why of all people would Christians unquestioningly support them?

You make a very interesting point. Might you be willing to share your source material (other than the Bible, hee hee)? I gather this is not readily available through a Google search, and I would be very interested in reading about it in the library.

Thanks!

Aron

(Also, thanks for the support, Donamabel. It means a lot :)

If you think that statement is what the SPLC and so many others are worried about, you clearly haven’t been reading very closely.

The audacity!

Bryan Fischer, is that you?

It is true that separating people from religious beliefs, especially those that are typically described as fundamentalist, is particularly difficult. However, there are still good reasons, beyond the principle of not letting lies or logical fallacies stand unchallenged, to keep up the fight, such as it is, against the AFA’s bigotry and other similarly religiously motivated animus.

First, for those of us who are non-heterosexual, wherever we find ourselves on the LGBTQI spectrum, the battle, whether in terms of debate or litigation or referendum, is one of self defence. Christianity has long opposed homosexuality, a feature it shares with many other religions, but the modern day moral crusade against homosexuality is more than just a continuation of longstanding religious objection. At the same time as scholars like Huntington theorize growing cultural divides on religious/ethnic lines, others have noticed that, at least in the west, religious groups are losing power. Not only because of an increase in non-religious people, but also because of the growing number of members of traditional religions who, like KS here, are devout in their beliefs but do not rigidly adhere to official dogma.

Religious authorities know this, and also find their political influence waning. The result is the need for an enemy, and one enemy the religious right has chosen is homosexuality. We have proven an effective enemy, because the media treats religious figures as experts on sexuality, and politicians fear religious influence in this area where they do not around, say, economic issues. Hence, regardless of whether or not we would have chosen this battle, we’re in it, and groups like the AFA won’t stop until the LGBT community is dead or closeted entirely.

Second, psychological and sociological studies of the religious right, the kind of people who support and fund the AFA and those individuals who follow their religious leaders and express outrage at whatever if preached against that week, have found that public perception matters a great deal to them. If they believe that their viewpoints about homosexuality are mainstream, they express them loudly, but their desire to fit in and their desire for group membership can erode these prejudices if they feel that they will be excluded as a result of holding them.

The US is reaching a tipping point in this area where it comes to perception of LGBT people, and research has shown one factor in this change is the actual behaviour of anti-gay groups themselves, with all the lies and name calling which feeds their stronger supporters what they want to hear but alienates others. Again, thank you to KS for posting here, an excellent example of exactly what the homophobes in the Catholic Church fear, and one that is becoming more common by the day.

As you say, none of this makes the LGBT community’s efforts likely to sway the most deeply antagonistic people from their beliefs; but attitudes are changing, and this isn’t really a battle we can particularly afford to lose.

And William C., I’m assuming your Christian, or at least hold Christian values, based on your words. Next time, please do a little research (thank you, Linnea) before you make the rest of us look like homophobic morons.

And everyone else, thank you for realizing that being Christian/Catholic/religious doesn’t automatically make you anti-gay. I’m living proof, haha.

Having spent the better part of my life observing different cultures and peoples around the world, it has been my observation that the decline and passing of the 20th century saw the end of conflict base on ideology. The next one seems to be seeing a dramatic increase in peoples seeking a more traditional identity versus ideological affiliation. Religion/spirituality, along with race/ethnicity, culture/heritage, linguistic affiliation, and geography are providing peoples everywhere an anchor amidst tremendous urbanization/migrational changes.

None of these can strictly be defined in any measureable, rational way, but they exist and flourish because people believe they do, a force that can be as real and motivating as anything in the more logical “scientific” realm.

The world’s great religions, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Sikhism believe incredible things, when considered in the light of all that we know about the world. They believe not because of any logical “proof” but because of a transcendent experience independent of rational, observational experience. No amount of reasoning, or well intentioned persuasion will likely dissuade them from these beliefs. In fact, studies have demonstrated exactly the opposite of intended effect. Real or imagined persecution and condemnation actually tends to solidify and harden a religious persons identity for and within a faith group, increases morale and coherence of its group, and provides a readily identifiable other to strive against.

Not quite saying this effort is futile, but coming pretty close.
Standard disclaimers: Not a Christian, Jew or Muslim (or Hindu or Sikh) nor an advocate for their positions.

Lets unpack this sentence.

“Peaceful” seems to mean that the group is not actually physically attacking LGBT people. This implies, incorrectly, that hatred is the same as physical violence. There are many non-physical forms of hatred, and many non-physical means to encourage physical hatred as well.

“Christian” seems to imply that because the group is religious, or claims to be religious, or uses religious terms, it is wrong to oppose the group. I do wonder if other religions would be granted the same immunity.
Regardless, it does not matter that the AFA is Christian, just like it would not matter if they were Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan or Atheist. Calling attention to their religious beliefs does nothing to excuse their lies and hostility, particularly as their Bible is at least as clear in prohibiting lying as it is in prohibiting male homosexual sex.

“Preserving traditional moral values” is an appeal to tradition, a notable logical fallacy and yet more proof that the group offers no rational opposition to homosexuality. That values are traditional does not make them beneficial. Segregation based on skin colour was a traditional value in much of the USA, that did not make it valuable. The same is true of sexism, the same is true of homophobia.

And the next part is just as empty.

“evil, racist, violent hate groups”

“Evil” is, of course, an extremely subjective term, and unlike the term Christian, is never used by groups to describe themselves, only their enemies. Here it just means that the writer opposes the KKK’s moral views, while he presumably agrees with the AFA’s.

“Racist” does more than describe the KKK, it implies that racism is “real” hatred while homophobia is not. Of course, longer term readers of the Hatewatch blog will remember some pretty blatant racism from Bryan Fischer directed at North American aboriginal people, so even aside from defining hatred to conveniently exclude groups the writer hates, this fails to actually counter SPLC critiques of the organization.

If I’m wrong William C., please correct me, but you don’t seem to have brought an awful lot of evidence of the AFA’s innocence to the table in your above post.

First, there is nothing peaceful about anti-gay bigotry, so the AFA is NOT peaceful just because you are Christian and share some of its views. Bigotry is bigotry, and that some passages in the Bible condone or even support that bigotry doesn’t make it any less destructive. If the Bible openly supported racism, would you think racist groups are peaceful? Don’t you understand that KKK members also claim to be Christians?

Dale Husband, the Honorable Skeptic

Aron