http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17706866

Christian group wants to advertise on buses the ability to cure homosexuality, were rebuffed, and are now seeking advice from m'learned fiends (with an 'r').


A Christian group which had its advertisement pulled from London buses after it was described as anti-gay has said it is considering legal action.

Anglican Mainstream has instructed a law firm to look at whether Transport for London (TfL) acted illegally when it scrapped the adverts.

It said it wanted to know what happened to its contract with TfL for the ads, which implied people could be "ex-gay".

The banned posters read: "Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!"

They were in response to Stonewall promoting equal marriage by having adverts on 1,000 London buses which featured the slogan: "Some people are gay. Get over it!"

The adverts were reportedly booked for two weeks by Core Issues to display on vehicles running on five routes in central London, including buses to top tourist destinations such as St Paul's Cathedral, Oxford Street, Trafalgar Square and Piccadilly Circus.

Tom Ellis from legal firm Aughton Ainsworth said he was going to examine whether the ban was a breach of contract and the group's right to freedom of expression.

A TfL spokesperson said: "We do not believe that these specific ads are consistent with TfL's commitment to a tolerant and inclusive London.

So the Mayor, just before election season, comes down against having these messages on London buses.

If even right wing chancers are intolerant of intolerance, is this a happy harbinger for the future ? Or is this merely a gateway posture to future evil ?

How hypocritical are the Christians being, by appearing to view a sin as a medical condition ?

If the Mayor is scared of losing their votes, are there more than we thought? or is the fight a close run thing ?

I'm surprised he actually stopped them from being shown, equally surprised anyone would think it was a good thing.

I'm actually starting to think when people mock me for being British (claiming ludicrous things are banned in Britain) that they are actually on to something.


How hypocritical are the Christians being, by appearing to view a sin as a medical condition ?


How is it hypocritical?

Breach of contract, maybe. Breach of right to freedom of expression? Not so much.

Let the advertising company chose its clients; it's not illegal to refuse business to someone, whether they be straight or gay.

Apparently some people did not get over it.

How is it hypocritical?

I'll take that as a zero.

You can't say "anti gay" is "not multicultural" because both Christians, Muslims, and several others are all against gays.

edit: before I get flamed, let me clarify that that was a joke. For the record I'm pro-gay rights. I'm just saying it's interesting that several cultures/religions are all anti-gay. Christians are not the only ones guilty of being anti-gay.

Is there a difference between "ex-gay" and "post-gay"? The former is straightforward enough, but when juxtaposed to it the latter seems to suggest that they might come out of the program even more queer than they were to begin with.

The Ads are very tame.
(consider what US politics is like. Maybe British sensabilities ?)

Americans buy bumper stickers a few inches wide. Brits yell out their messages on the sides of buses. I feel so... inadequate.

But seriously, you can't troll that epically in the most obsessed-with-being-politically-correct country in the world and expect that the banners will stay on the buses for long.

Is there a difference between "ex-gay" and "post-gay"? The former is straightforward enough, but when juxtaposed to it the latter seems to suggest that they might come out of the program even more queer than they were to begin with.

Yup. That's the result of a typical trip to the UK.

Is there a difference between "ex-gay" and "post-gay"? The former is straightforward enough, but when juxtaposed to it the latter seems to suggest that they might come out of the program even more queer than they were to begin with.

Quick googling looks like the most common meaning is a sort of gay after equality. Gay without making a thing about it because it's not a political thing anymore. Gay without it being a definitive part of one's identity. Clearly not what those haters meant:

Post-gay and ex-gay are terms used by Christians and some psychotherapists and psychiatrists to refer to homosexual people who have undergone spiritual or pastoral therapy and, according to an Anglican Mainstream definition, have “now left a homosexual lifestyle [and experienced] an increased emotional and sexual attraction to the opposite biological gender and possibly a reduction in or loss of same-sex attraction.”

http://www.peter-ould.net/2012/04/12/ex-gay-adverts-on-london-buses/

So no difference here.

You can't say "anti gay" is "not multicultural" because both Christians, Muslims, and several others are all against gays.

edit: before I get flamed, let me clarify that that was a joke. For the record I'm pro-gay rights. I'm just saying it's interesting that several cultures/religions are all anti-gay. Christians are not the only ones guilty of being anti-gay.

Who said "anti gay" is "not multicultural"?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/13/gay-cure-christian-charity-mps-interns

A sister organisation to the one behind behind this has funded interns for MPs in Parliament, and has also run seminars around the country.

Christian Action Research and Education shows exactly where the CARE comes from, with seminar titles such as 'The Lepers Among Us', and has sessions in it's sponsored conferences entitled "mentoring the sexually broken".

I really don't understand why some religious people get upset by gay people. In any case: Putting up ads calling normal people sick is borderline. So, it depends on the wording. Perhaps if they just want to advertise their treatment it's okay, I guess.

Americans buy bumper stickers a few inches wide. Brits yell out their messages on the sides of buses. I feel so... inadequate.

But seriously, you can't troll that epically in the most obsessed-with-being-politically-correct country in the world and expect that the banners will stay on the buses for long.


There used to be (might be still) a bunch of Atheism advertisements on buses in the US. They were the type that were more of citing statistics about Atheism's numbers, and some quotes from Thomas Jefferson, so they were fairly tame. That garnered a lot of press a while back because it's the US where it's taboo to publicly give Atheists rights or something, and people got angry, but it's not like this isn't unheard of.

And looking at the ads, they appear to be banned due to violation of policy, rather than a free speech thing. It's one thing to have freedom of speech yourself, but another to demand a company broadcast your message that they do not agree is good for their business as being too hateful.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/59637000/jpg/_59637399_59637398.jpg
If this is anything that they were planning to use, the "Get over it" at the end might be what put them off.

I wouldn't want to ban it. Instead it should have been met with a campaign of:

"Ex-christian. Gay and proud of it!".
"We can cure you of christianity! Get over it and lead your own free life."

At least that would not be false advertisement.

I'd be surprised if this was actually a breach of contract. I mean, you would assume there'd be some condition giving a right to terminate if ads are not suitable. It'd be kinda sloppy if TfL entered into a contract whereby they'd be obliged to carry whatever message, no matter how inappropriate.

I'd be surprised if this was actually a breach of contract. I mean, you would assume there'd be some condition giving a right to terminate if ads are not suitable. It'd be kinda sloppy if TfL entered into a contract whereby they'd be obliged to carry whatever message, no matter how inappropriate.

Yes, it would be sloppy.

I was in London just last week, and I saw those Stonewall ads on the buses. They were slightly offensive to me. Yet TfL didn't want those pulled down.

So why can't Christians do basically the same thing except from a different viewpoint?

It's not at all the same thing, though. Just because it's from the opposite viewpoint doesn't make it so. One is stating a fact (which undoubtedly is aimed at taking a bit of a swipe at people who for some reason or another don't want to 'get over it', but nonetheless it remains a simple statement of fact). The other is highly misleading and implies falsities (ex-gay?).

I can understand that you may read them differently to that, but I don't think that can justifiably extend to reading them as the same thing from opposite viewpoints.

Let the advertising company chose its clients; it's not illegal to refuse business to someone, whether they be straight or gay.

The advertising company had no problem with the adverts. The decision appears to have been taken by Transport for London, which is subject to higher standards as a public authority, under instructions from the Mayor.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/13/gay-cure-christian-charity-mps-interns

A sister organisation to the one behind behind this has funded interns for MPs in Parliament, and has also run seminars around the country.

Christian Action Research and Education shows exactly where the CARE comes from, with seminar titles such as 'The Lepers Among Us', and has sessions in it's sponsored conferences entitled "mentoring the sexually broken".

There is some confusion here about who organized what - which is perhaps what The Guardian intended. :mischief: The article actually says 'The Lepers Among Us' was organized by Anglican Mainstream and Core Issues, not CARE. Also, remember that Jesus is fairly well-known for his positive attitude to lepers, an outcast and marginalized group.

It's not at all the same thing, though. Just because it's from the opposite viewpoint doesn't make it so. One is stating a fact (which undoubtedly is aimed at taking a bit of a swipe at people who for some reason or another don't want to 'get over it', but nonetheless it remains a simple statement of fact). The other is highly misleading and implies falsities (ex-gay?).

I can understand that you may read them differently to that, but I don't think that can justifiably extend to reading them as the same thing from opposite viewpoints.

I looked at Core Issues website having read The Guardian article earlier, and it seems the director would assert the advert as his personal experience. So it's possible to see both adverts as truth-claims based on personal experience.

I'm not a scientist, but I think that the idea that sexuality is set in stone at birth in an unalterable way would be open to some dispute.

I'd say fraud and false advertising claims and false medical/psychological claims aren't covered by free speech anyway.

I'd say fraud and false advertising claims and false medical/psychological claims aren't covered by free speech anyway.
Yeah, but shouldn't then the "ex-gay" organization itself be prosecuted for false psychological claims? Having no problem with the organization, but having problem with its provocative adverts is inconsistent.

I should add that I don't find the ad to be terribly hateful. Pretty much just wrong and stupid.

I'm not a scientist, but I think that the idea that sexuality is set in stone at birth in an unalterable way would be open to some dispute.

I actually agree with you there, in my opinion it may happen that people will change their preferences over time. Perhaps I want to think that because I don't like this idea of people defining themselves as "gay" or hetero" or whatever else, as if they had some obligation to stick to what that label is supposed to mean. But I want to point out that the very idea of sexuality is historically recent, 19th century. There does seems to be evidence that people are more attracted to the physical traits of one or the other gender right from an early age, that's what supports the "set at birth theory". But it's weak evidence. I think I was, other people I discussed the issue with claimed to have been, but we all know how we play with our old memories and recollections... I don't think this is anywhere near settled.

In reality, however, the odds of people changing sexual preferences, whether on the strength of the urgings from some religious group of for some other reason, seem to be infinitesimal. People are as they are, and once decided they seldom change something so personally fundamental. I guess that whatever the source of one's preferences, "developing a personality" means getting set in our ways on a number of things, sexual preferences usually being one of those. What people more often do is assume preferences previously kept repressed.


Yes, we can attack these religious campaigns by invoking some "sexuality is set at birth" theory, but that like an excuse: "I was born this way"... an excuse for something that should never need to be excused in the first place! Even it it was definitely, provably true it should not be used.
Which is why I say: let those crazy religious wackos advertize as much as they wish. Just counter-advertize. Just say "it's good to be gay. Far better than being a sad self-blaming religious sheep!". I bet that the net result would be contrary to those religious groups - they seem to be full of closeted/repressed gays in need of some help!

I was in London just last week, and I saw those Stonewall ads on the buses. They were slightly offensive to me. Yet TfL didn't want those pulled down.

What exactly is offensive about the Stonewall adverts?

He can't get over it.

Yes, it would be sloppy.

I was in London just last week, and I saw those Stonewall ads on the buses. They were slightly offensive to me. Yet TfL didn't want those pulled down.

So why can't Christians do basically the same thing except from a different viewpoint?
Are the Stonewall ads proposing to turn straight people gay? :huh:

Are the Stonewall ads proposing to turn straight people gay? :huh:

Why is there anything wrong with trying to make gay people straight?

Anyway, this will probably be my last post on social issues for a while, I'm moving on to economic ones.

Why is there anything wrong with trying to make gay people straight?

It doesn't work and it's psychologically harmful. Let people be.

(Though that's beyond the scope of the exchange.)

Yeah, but shouldn't then the "ex-gay" organization itself be prosecuted for false psychological claims? Having no problem with the organization, but having problem with its provocative adverts is inconsistent.

Perhaps, but there are specific rules about false advertising that, I think, go beyond laws prohibiting quackery. There'd be a gap in which things sat which were legal to sell but not openly advertise.

Why is there anything wrong with trying to make gay people straight?.

If they want to be straight, none, but unless they weren't really gay in the first place, I find this very unlikely. There's no possible way to make me gay, even if you somehow forced me to have gay sex.

That said, a gay person can definitely become not dependant on gay sex, and gain the ability to live happily while celibate, which I think is a much more practical and wise goal.

A much more practical and wise, not to mention moral, goal is helping people who want to be helped, not telling people they need help.

Gays commit suicide due to the "help" theists offer.

There's no possible way to make me gay, even if you somehow forced me to have gay sex.

Thanks for pointing out that rape is not a therapeutic tool. :thumbsup:

If they want to be straight, none, but unless they weren't really gay in the first place, I find this very unlikely. There's no possible way to make me gay, even if you somehow forced me to have gay sex.
Why on earth would that make a difference? :huh:

That said, a gay person can definitely become not dependant on gay sex, and gain the ability to live happily while celibate, which I think is a much more practical and wise goal.
No matter how true this statement is, it's just as true or false for heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals.

Delving in to the world of ex-gay Therapy (or pray the gay away therapy) (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/they-say-being-gay-is-a-sin--and-they-cant-get-over-it-7643992.html) reveals how truly disturbing it is:

David Pickup, a "reparative therapist" from California, runs some slides off a projector. He shows a happy, portly, gay couple in a posed photo. "On the outside they might smile, but inside they are numb or dead. Gays that are happy are gays who don't know about themselves," he says.

His central idea is that: "Gay identity is a construct, but it's very real to the person who has constructed it, in that it's based on unfulfilled needs and trauma." Despite his own experiences, his view of what being gay entails is narrow. Gays are promiscuous ("They don't get a lot of love, they get a lot of sex"), and are invariably the victims either of sexual abuse or of profound psychological damage.

erhaps these opinions aren't extreme enough for those in attendance. "I can see these people are broken, but I feel such anger towards them. I just want to hit them," one man bursts out. Mr Pickup calms him: "Gay militants are grooming our children on an industrial scale. If a gay teacher tries to impose their beliefs on your child, do not hit them. Take out your sword of righteous anger, your biblical sword. Take out your sword of compassion, because it cuts clean."

Jacob Wilson, 25, and Peterson Toscano, 47, are unable to joke about their experiences of reparative therapy. They label themselves as "survivors", and believe that those who tried to convert them, in the US and the UK, are monsters. The sessions they had in therapy have left them feeling guilty and ashamed long after their final acceptance of their sexuality.

Mr Toscano began seeking treatment at 18. He claimed that most of his early therapy sessions in New York suggested: "If you memorise enough Bible passages and fill yourself up with Jesus you'll dislodge the gay."

One of the treatments also took place in New York, where women chanted around him, urging him to throw up into a bucket: "They were thrilled to see the vomit because it was evidence the demons were coming out," he said. "I was coughing so hard and so long that there was blood, which they took as a sign the demons were being pulled up from the roots, and they rejoiced in celebration."

A later spell at Love in Action, a conversion camp in Memphis, convinced Mr Toscano that he was gay and left him more at peace with himself, but for Jacob Wilson, memories of his treatment at the same camp have never left him. Mr Wilson, from Salem, a town with a population of just 5,000 in Missouri, was sent to the camp in 2005 at the age of 19. He was outed by his church for having an affair with his pastor.

At the Love in Action facility, Wilson was punished because, as he stretched, he showed his belly button, and this apparently caused another boy temptation. He was banned from wearing Abercrombie and Fitch or Calvin Klein underwear because they were "too gay" and "drew too much attention to the genitals". In his eight hours of daily therapy, "they made it seem like the happiness of our families was reliant on us getting better, the whole weight of the world was on us... For a 19-year-old it was very traumatic." Wilson moved away from home and now lives elsewhere in Iowa, and accepts that he's gay, but he hasn't set foot in a church for more than three years.

Genuinely disturbing. Couple this with the recent retraction of an ex-gay therapy study and it shows serious doubts (both ethically, morally and scientifically) in regards to the validity of "ex-gay therapy".

It's a disgusting, inherently homophobic practise and we have no way of truly knowing whether or not the participants involved are doing so because of their own free will, pressure from society or family or their church pressuring them to do so.

I personally know people who have undergone such experiences, and I fear that they have been damaged and hurt by such a "therapy".

I'm more than happy being celibate, but given that my "cure" is autism, I wouldn't prescribe that to even my worst enemies.

Why is there anything wrong with trying to make gay people straight?

You could equally ask what is wrong with making Christian evangelicals into atheists.

Thanks for pointing out that rape is not a therapeutic tool. :thumbsup:
Even though some people think it's okay to do to gays, to "cure" us.

You could equally ask what is wrong with making Christian evangelicals into atheists.Not comparable. Being religious is a choice, and it's possible one can find happiness with different belief systems. How many heteros here think they could truly be happy never being with the opposite sex again, and having to spend the rest of their lives with the same sex? How many here would like to be raped, repeatedly, in order to "cure" them of their heterosexuality?

Delving in to the world of ex-gay Therapy (or pray the gay away therapy) (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/they-say-being-gay-is-a-sin--and-they-cant-get-over-it-7643992.html) reveals how truly disturbing it is:
This is just one of the videos I remember of local Christian love:

2CNdXeKL54g

A much more practical and wise, not to mention moral, goal is helping people who want to be helped, not telling people they need help.

Gays commit suicide due to the "help" theists offer.

Thanks for pointing out that rape is not a therapeutic tool. :thumbsup:

No matter how true this statement is, it's just as true or false for heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals.

Delving in to the world of ex-gay Therapy (or pray the gay away therapy) (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/they-say-being-gay-is-a-sin--and-they-cant-get-over-it-7643992.html) reveals how truly disturbing it is:













Genuinely disturbing. Couple this with the recent retraction of an ex-gay therapy study and it shows serious doubts (both ethically, morally and scientifically) in regards to the validity of "ex-gay therapy".

It's a disgusting, inherently homophobic practise and we have no way of truly knowing whether or not the participants involved are doing so because of their own free will, pressure from society or family or their church pressuring them to do so.

I personally know people who have undergone such experiences, and I fear that they have been damaged and hurt by such a "therapy".

Looks like a lot of religious people made fools of themselves. We aren't all like that. You have no idea what I've seen.

I'm more than happy being celibate, but given that my "cure" is autism, I wouldn't prescribe that to even my worst enemies.

You have autism? Me too.

Why do you think celibacy is necessarily a "Bad" thing?


You could equally ask what is wrong with making Christian evangelicals into atheists

My answer would be "Because I don't wish Hell on anyone".

@ Useless

i think some of the wierder stuff just escapes some Churches completely...

Mr Wilson, from Salem, a town with a population of just 5,000 in Missouri, was sent to the camp in 2005 at the age of 19. He was outed by his church for having an affair with his pastor.

Why gay sex is worse than no sex? How to prove that?

Looks like a lot of religious people made fools of themselves. We aren't all like that. You have no idea what I've seen.

So do you disagree with gay-aversion therapy? If not, why not? It's clearly ethically, morally and scientifically dubious.

Why do you think celibacy is necessarily a "Bad" thing?

It isn't necessarily bad, but given that humans are social animals with a biological imperative to breed, humanity resolves a lot of things through sex. I choose not to, but I see no political, legal or religious reason to force that choice on any consenting adult.

I myself have not had sexual intercourse for over 15 years for a variety of reasons. I still have some desires remaining but am looking forward to recovering the asexual nature that I believe I had when I was about 7.


edit: I see no reason why anybody that is able to should not delight in the sexual experience providing it is with a consenting partner over a socially determined minimum age and/or competency - er, I was going to add something else but it has flown my mind.

edit: I remember my sexual experiences as the most delightful experiences of my life.

My answer would be "Because I don't wish Hell on anyone".
Interesting that you say that, since it's been well established that trying to "cure" gays is like putting them through hell.

So do you disagree with gay-aversion therapy? If not, why not? It's clearly ethically, morally and scientifically dubious.

Depends. When its done as you describe, absolutely. I do think it would be good if they'd agree to go to counseling.

Interesting that you say that, since it's been well established that trying to "cure" gays is like putting them through hell.

Depending on how... absolutely. And I've decried those methods.

this thread reminds me of " A Clockwork Orange" where they cured the guy who wore cool boots and a bowler of his violence ...except if I remember right the religious guy got him uncured and returned to his natural state so maybe its just the similarities of technique that are alike

I do think it would be good if they'd agree to go to counseling.
Whatever for?

I do think it would be good if they'd agree to go to counseling.

Sometimes I think it would be good for creationists to go to counselling for their denial of how reality works, but if I told people that, I would be considered very rude. Why do you feel you get to do something similar?

I actually agree with you there, in my opinion it may happen that people will change their preferences over time. Perhaps I want to think that because I don't like this idea of people defining themselves as "gay" or hetero" or whatever else, as if they had some obligation to stick to what that label is supposed to mean. But I want to point out that the very idea of sexuality is historically recent, 19th century. There does seems to be evidence that people are more attracted to the physical traits of one or the other gender right from an early age, that's what supports the "set at birth theory". But it's weak evidence. I think I was, other people I discussed the issue with claimed to have been, but we all know how we play with our old memories and recollections... I don't think this is anywhere near settled.

In reality, however, the odds of people changing sexual preferences, whether on the strength of the urgings from some religious group of for some other reason, seem to be infinitesimal. People are as they are, and once decided they seldom change something so personally fundamental. I guess that whatever the source of one's preferences, "developing a personality" means getting set in our ways on a number of things, sexual preferences usually being one of those. What people more often do is assume preferences previously kept repressed.


Yes, we can attack these religious campaigns by invoking some "sexuality is set at birth" theory, but that like an excuse: "I was born this way"... an excuse for something that should never need to be excused in the first place! Even it it was definitely, provably true it should not be used.
Which is why I say: let those crazy religious wackos advertize as much as they wish. Just counter-advertize. Just say "it's good to be gay. Far better than being a sad self-blaming religious sheep!". I bet that the net result would be contrary to those religious groups - they seem to be full of closeted/repressed gays in need of some help!

I agree that allowing everyone to advertise is probably the solution in London, although it wouldn't work everywhere.

No matter how true this statement is, it's just as true or false for heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals.

I think that the ex-gay people behind the banned adverts would strongly agree with that statement, and put it into effect: at least some of the sponsors would be celibate heterosexuals because of their pastoral/priestly role.

Whatever for?

I think counselling can be very helpful for many Christians (probably other theists too, but I haven't thought it through). There is likely to be great tension between the decision to adopt Christianity and sexual urges. For those with homosexual orientation, those tensions will be exacerbated by the extra factor of people who accuse them of being weird or irrational. In any case, it's going to be good for someone's mental health to deal with those tensions, rather than suppressing them, right?

The only difference I see here between heterosexuals and homosexuals is the extra social pressure that Boris Johnson, (based on comments so far, which may be unfair) Lord Gay, and others place on only one subgroup of Christians.

Gays are easy targets because they're in the minority, have been long-oppressed by most cultures and religions, and do not generally have public opinion on their side.

As such, whenever I see people trying to change them, or slander them, or otherwise kick them when they're down, I always think to myself... When did the gay people rise up and oppress you? When did they, as a group, harm you in any way whatsoever? And when did it become a morally righteous thing to crusade against people who already have a rough go of it in life thanks to [expletive deleted] people like you, just for being who they are?

When did you become so awesome that you could tell people that the way they live their own lives, happily, without hurting anyone, is wrong? What is it that you do that makes you superior to them?

This moral superiority complex is pride, and ignorance, if not outright hatred. That superiority is the same sort of pride and arrogance that made people in Germany believe that only their race and culture deserved to exist, that only their values were the correct ones.

It's not a loving message being spread. The message is clear: You're inferior, you're sick, you're evil, you're wrong, and the only cure is to be exactly like me. And if you don't, I hope you suffer intolerably forever. That's not love, unless you subscribe to a pretty sadomasochistic idea of love.

That's a message that comes from a demented mind, and it's a truly disturbing one.

Free speech means you can say that message yourself, you can hold up signs, and you can post ads with businesses and agencies that subscribe to your viewpoint. Those that do not share your insanity can terminate their business with you, they're not required to endorse stupidity. Free speech does not mean you're guaranteed time on public airwaves, or private billboard space. It means you can go out there and say what you want to say, and make a complete {deleted} of yourself on your own time, and your own dime.

Gays are easy targets because they're in the minority, have been long-oppressed by most cultures and religions, and do not generally have public opinion on their side.

As such, whenever I see people trying to change them, or slander them, or otherwise kick them when they're down, I always think to myself... When did the gay people rise up and oppress you? When did they, as a group, harm you in any way whatsoever? And when did it become a morally righteous thing to crusade against people who already have a rough go of it in life thanks to [expletive deleted] people like you, just for being who they are?

When did you become so awesome that you could tell people that the way they live their own lives, happily, without hurting anyone, is wrong? What is it that you do that makes you superior to them?

This moral superiority complex is pride, and ignorance, if not outright hatred. That superiority is the same sort of pride and arrogance that made people in Germany believe that only their race and culture deserved to exist, that only their values were the correct ones.

It's not a loving message being spread. The message is clear: You're inferior, you're sick, you're evil, you're wrong, and the only cure is to be exactly like me. And if you don't, I hope you suffer intolerably forever. That's not love, unless you subscribe to a pretty sadomasochistic idea of love.

That's a message that comes from a demented mind, and it's a truly disturbing one.

Free speech means you can say that message yourself, you can hold up signs, and you can post ads with businesses and agencies that subscribe to your viewpoint. Those that do not share your insanity can terminate their business with you, they're not required to endorse stupidity. Free speech does not mean you're guaranteed time on public airwaves, or private billboard space. It means you can go out there and say what you want to say, and make a complete {deleted} of yourself on your own time, and your own dime.

It might be ignorance in some people who just never knew any gay people or only learned what their local insular community told them about it, but for others, I don't think it's pride or ignorance or any of that, I think it is their own repressed homosexual feelings that they cannot deal with and feel ashamed about, so they deal with it by publicly creating this militant anti-gay facade. They may have gained that initial shame through early ignorance, but they've developed into something more.

It's a cliche but I really think it's true. It's not just a joke anymore.

On the topic of the OP, I must say that I'm not normally inclined to conspiracy theories, but in this case I'm pretty suspicious.

Boris Johnson is a pathologically lazy mayor who hardly ever does anything of note. It's therefore surprising that he's done anything in this case. Moreover, as an upper-class, Conservative mayor of a largely working-class, left-wing city, his hold over his position is tenuous at best, particularly when the election is a month away. It's therefore extremely convenient that an issue suddenly arises in which he can demonstrate his (normally non-existent) good liberal tendencies at this particular time.

It's also pretty odd that these people were initially given permission to run these ads, only for that permission to be suddenly removed by an uncharacteristically direct action by the mayor.

So I wouldn't be at all surprised if, when the fundamentalists applied for permission, Boris' people deliberately gave them permission simply so that it could later be worked into a scandal and allow Boris himself to "intervene" and resolve it, striking a great blow for liberty, tolerance, and his own re-election.

All that said, of course it was the right thing to ban ads of that kind. It just should never have got to that stage.

I was in London just last week, and I saw those Stonewall ads on the buses. They were slightly offensive to me. Yet TfL didn't want those pulled down.

So why can't Christians do basically the same thing except from a different viewpoint?Perchance because it is false advertising to claim to be able to 'cure' people of being gay, which means the ad itself is illegal.

And if you don't, I hope you suffer intolerably forever

There is no legitimate Christian that HOPES these people will suffer forever. This is an awful exaggeration, if not outright twisted lie.

I do think it would be good if they'd agree to go to counseling.Do you think would be good if religious people would agree to go to counseling?

Non-Evangelical Christians:p

And non-Christians:p

I think it would be good if theists - any of them - would agree to go to counseling.

Why, exactly?

Why, exactly?
To educate them on alternatives. So many are indoctorinated into a religious lifestyle choice from such a young age that a bit of counseling might get them to see alternatives that they did not consider before.

To educate them on alternatives. So many are indoctorated into a religious lifestyle choice from such a young age that a bit of counseling might get them to see alternatives that they did not consider before.

It's called unbiased education on Religion.

What is?

It's called unbiased education on Religion.

Its called Christianity is objectively right, and homosexuality objectively being a sin.

Why, exactly?

Because they're particularly prone to making lifestyle choices that are harmful to themselves and others.

Let's try to think about this from another point of view:

~~~~

Christians trying to control their homosexual desires are easy targets because they're in the minority, have long been oppressed by most cultures and religions, and do not generally have public opinion on their side.

As such, whenever I see people trying to change them, or slander them, or otherwise kick them when they're down, I always think to myself... When did the celibate Christians people rise up and oppress you personally? When did they, as a group, harm you in any way whatsoever? And when did it become a morally righteous thing to crusade against people who already have a rough go of it in life thanks to people like you, just for being who they are?

When did you become so awesome that you could tell people that the way they live their own lives, happily, without hurting anyone, is wrong? What is it that you do that makes you superior to them?

This moral superiority complex is pride, and ignorance, if not outright hatred. That superiority is the same sort of pride and arrogance that made people in Germany believe that only their race and culture deserved to exist, that only their values were the correct ones.

It's not a loving message being spread. The message is clear: You're irrational, you're sick, you're wrong, and the only cure is to be exactly like me. And if you don't, I will censor your ideas so that I don't have to think about them. That's not tolerance, unless you subscribe to a pretty hateful idea of tolerance.

Free speech means that a public authority allows different views to be heard on contested moral issues, especially ones that are currently being debated in Parliament. Privately-owned newspapers are one thing, but every London taxpayer subsides Transport for London, and different views should be heard (although the advertising authorities have the useful role of ensuring that those views are expressed tastefully and decently).

~~~~

Those are not my views, but my best guess at how a Christian struggling with homosexual tendencies might see things, if they were as angry as askthepizzaguy was (and I think a lot of people will be understandably angry about such key issues of identity).

We should remember that the people behind the banned advert did not start this debate: they are clearly responding to Stonewall's initiative, which decided that buses were the appropriate place to discuss what is "morally righteous".

I also note that we have validated Godwin's law, but perhaps it is worth continuing the discussion if we can turn the heat down a bit.

Its called Christianity is objectively right, and homosexuality objectively being a sin.

Is this a joke or is this another of your 2010 posts?

On the topic of the OP, I must say that I'm not normally inclined to conspiracy theories, but in this case I'm pretty suspicious.

Boris Johnson is a pathologically lazy mayor who hardly ever does anything of note. It's therefore surprising that he's done anything in this case. Moreover, as an upper-class, Conservative mayor of a largely working-class, left-wing city, his hold over his position is tenuous at best, particularly when the election is a month away. It's therefore extremely convenient that an issue suddenly arises in which he can demonstrate his (normally non-existent) good liberal tendencies at this particular time.

It's also pretty odd that these people were initially given permission to run these ads, only for that permission to be suddenly removed by an uncharacteristically direct action by the mayor.

So I wouldn't be at all surprised if, when the fundamentalists applied for permission, Boris' people deliberately gave them permission simply so that it could later be worked into a scandal and allow Boris himself to "intervene" and resolve it, striking a great blow for liberty, tolerance, and his own re-election.

All that said, of course it was the right thing to ban ads of that kind. It just should never have got to that stage.

Boris Johnson's politics are diametrically opposed to my own, and he has personally mistreated some of my friends. However, I think that in this case, he has acted from principle as well as expediency. To quote a recent column (http://www.economist.com/node/21551476) in The Economist, "He stands firmly at the socially liberal end of his party, a philosophy reflected in his exuberant private life."

As to the idea that he allowed the advert, then cancelled it: I don't think this is plausible. The advertising company would have no reason to censor it, and did not do so. TfL do not routinely vet ads, as far as I know. It was only when the advertiser issued a (premature!) press release that Mr Johnson stepped it and censored the advert. However, he did intervene in a way that is irregular, and perhaps illegal (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Article_10_.E2 .80.93_Freedom_of_expression.C2.B9).

Boris Johnson's politics are diametrically opposed to my own, and he has personally mistreated some of my friends.

I'm intrigued by this. You're right of course that Boris isn't exactly on the socially conservative wing of the Tories, as I suppose his private life illustrates - not that "exuberant" is the first word I'd choose to describe it. On the other hand, he has hardly acted in the interests of social justice and tolerance as mayor. You may remember that one of the first things he did was to force the "Rise" festival against racism to remove its anti-racism stance, on the grounds that anti-racism is too overtly a political position. The sponsors all withdrew as a result and the festivals ended. I suppose I find it a bit hard to believe that a man who thinks that anti-racism is a controversial political position that the London authorities cannot be seen to endorse would be so concerned about gay rights that he would act against the displaying of anti-gay propaganda.

On the question of "who started it", it is worth pointing out that this is not the first bus ad controversy. A couple of years ago Christians put evangelistic messages on buses urging people to believe in God. Atheists responded by raising money (cheer-led by Richard Dawkins and The Guardian) to put ads on buses reminding people that God probably doesn't exist and they should lighten up. So if one sees this as part of the same annoying dialogue, it really was the Christians who started it!

As for whether removing the ads threatens those people's freedom of expression, I'm not convinced by that. Freedom of expression doesn't mean you have the automatic right to broadcast your views in that kind of way. Personally I think the fact that young gay people's lives are severely blighted by the expression of views such as these, to the point of suicide in many cases, far outweighs any right of the holders of these views to express them.

Is this a joke or is this another of your 2010 posts?Or he's redefining words again. Instead of saying: from my perspective, worldview and convictions it is objectively right, he's just calling it objectively for brevity.

I'm intrigued by this. You're right of course that Boris isn't exactly on the socially conservative wing of the Tories, as I suppose his private life illustrates - not that "exuberant" is the first word I'd choose to describe it. On the other hand, he has hardly acted in the interests of social justice and tolerance as mayor. You may remember that one of the first things he did was to force the "Rise" festival against racism to remove its anti-racism stance, on the grounds that anti-racism is too overtly a political position. The sponsors all withdrew as a result and the festivals ended. I suppose I find it a bit hard to believe that a man who thinks that anti-racism is a controversial political position that the London authorities cannot be seen to endorse would be so concerned about gay rights that he would act against the displaying of anti-gay propaganda.

I've never lived in London, so I had to look up the details of the festival. Mr Johnson's culture chief put their side of the story in a Comment is free blog (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/17/1). It's not surprising that he was uncomfortable with a union-sponsored festival with a prominent SWP presence. He was obviously going to find a way to shut it, and the "racism is a political position" line was the botched angle he chose. But the fact is, he has an culture chief, and not a "London heritage" adviser. He hasn't said a word or let out 'dog whistles' about immigration, even though there are obviously enough racist votes to elect BNP assembly members. I know that this is a weak argument from silence, but I think that a socially conservative Mayor would have done things differently.

He described himself as a "libertarian" in a Pink News (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2007/09/23/exclusive-boris-johnson-courts-gay-vote/) interview, which seems to me an accurate description of his principles (although he seems to be willing to allow a much wider range of views to go out under his name in order to flog magazines).

On the question of "who started it", it is worth pointing out that this is not the first bus ad controversy. A couple of years ago Christians put evangelistic messages on buses urging people to believe in God. Atheists responded by raising money (cheer-led by Richard Dawkins and The Guardian) to put ads on buses reminding people that God probably doesn't exist and they should lighten up. So if one sees this as part of the same annoying dialogue, it really was the Christians who started it!

This is a good point. I suspect the original Christian advertisers never imagined things would wind up the way that they have. The sides of buses are just not a great place for complex issues!

As for whether removing the ads threatens those people's freedom of expression, I'm not convinced by that. Freedom of expression doesn't mean you have the automatic right to broadcast your views in that kind of way. Personally I think the fact that young gay people's lives are severely blighted by the expression of views such as these, to the point of suicide in many cases, far outweighs any right of the holders of these views to express them.

I agree that society should go a long way to protect the weak and vulnerable, especially oppressed minorities. However, I think that's an argument to allow the adverts. Christians struggling to be chaste despite homosexual desires are surely more vulnerable and more of an oppressed minority than gay people. Shouldn't we allow their voice to be heard?

This is a good point. I suspect the original Christian advertisers never imagined things would wind up the way that they have. The sides of buses are just not a great place for complex issues!
?

I suspect the original Christian advertisers got exactly what they wanted... a widespread propaganda campaign , getting their views on the webs/papers and no doubt radio.... fishing has always been understood by Christains

the atheist did it awhile back, I think they learned it from Greenpeace who know hanging a banner from a polluting smokestack is not the point ... the coverage is the point... there is no such thing as bad publicity

no reason to presume that Christan's are any less smart than atheists and greenies

Or he's redefining words again. Instead of saying: from my perspective, worldview and convictions it is objectively right, he's just calling it objectively for brevity.
Subjective objectivity?

However, I think that's an argument to allow the adverts. Christians struggling to be chaste despite homosexual desires are surely more vulnerable and more of an oppressed minority than gay people. Shouldn't we allow their voice to be heard?
The issue here is these "Christians struggling to be chaste" want other gays to be chaste too, and spread disinformation about their psychological methods, proclaiming that their methods work fine and dandy, while in reality, their methods work only on a small number of people and drive more people to suicide. That's the claim of their opposers, at least. Furthermore, I was under the impression that these ads are about conversion of gays to straighthood, not about insisting on chastity for them? An analogue to these "Christians struggling to be chaste" would be a pro-gay organization that insists that being heterosexual is a sin, and advocating "homosexual therapy" that easily turns people homosexual, away from the "wicked lifestyle of disgusting breeding" or some other stuff like that. Can you really describe the leadership of that hypothetical organization as "heterosexuals struggling to become homosexual"? I'd describe them as "loonies who have a strange issue with heterosexuality and advocate a therapy that is likely to be destructive".

Further, are Christians struggling to be chaste despite homosexual desires really more vulnerable and more of an oppressed minority than practising homosexuals? Some churches have bad things to say about practising gays, but have no issue with "Christians struggling to be chaste despite homosexual desires". Your claim is not self-evident.

I agree that society should go a long way to protect the weak and vulnerable, especially oppressed minorities. However, I think that's an argument to allow the adverts. Christians struggling to be chaste despite homosexual desires are surely more vulnerable and more of an oppressed minority than gay people. Shouldn't we allow their voice to be heard?

Ah, but you forget that homosexual Christians are gay too. We're protecting all gay people as a group, including the Christians, by not allowing such adverts to be posted.

Or he's redefining words again. Instead of saying: from my perspective, worldview and convictions it is objectively right, he's just calling it objectively for brevity.Subjective objectivity?

After numerous online discussions, I've come to use my own definition whenever I see people use the word "objective":

Objective Truth: A claim made by an individual that their subjective opinion is inherently superior to another's, and should be respected and obeyed without need for justification or be subject to challenge.

EDIT

Christians struggling to be chaste despite homosexual desires are surely more vulnerable and more of an oppressed minority than gay people.
What what whaaat!?!

OMFG.

Ah, but you forget that homosexual Christians are gay too. We're protecting all gay people as a group, including the Christians, by not allowing such adverts to be posted.

An actual gay Christian would not be willingly living in such a sinful lifestyle (Unless they were ignorant somehow, but in this world, I doubt it.)

An actual gay Christian would not be willingly living in such a sinful lifestyle (Unless they were ignorant somehow, but in this world, I doubt it.)
Wat percentage of actual Christians willingly engage in masturbation?

Wat percentage of actual Christians willingly engage in masturbation?

You need to understand what "willingly" means. I don't mean making a bad choice, or even a lot of bad choices, under temptation. What I'm talking about is knowing that your lifestyle is sinful, but still living as though its not. And not just a temporary phase, but a long period of time.

If a Christian knew masturbation was a sin, and didn't doubt the fact, yet did not even attempt to quit, I would question his salvation, yes.

Note that even though I do believe it is implied, masturbation is not explicitly banned in the Bible, while homosexual activity is, so its a bit more likely that people could justify it while not necessarily thinking it was a sin, even if that is in fact because they justified it.

Speaking of which, let's face it, everyone justifies their sin sometimes. What I'm talking about is a distinct kind of willful denial of ones sin. Basically, if you know the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, you lust after men, you know you lust after men and you know what the Bible says, but you simply choose, not just for awhile, but continually, not to give up the thing that you know is a sin... I don't think you are a Christian, though I'll let God deal with the direct, individual judgment. Unless its a Hitler-like case, I won't tell these people they aren't saved. I'll quote the Biblical verse saying to "Exammine yourself."

If, on the other hand, a person knows that homosexuality is wrong, lusts after men, but genuinely tries to resist his desires, prays to God for strength... but still falls at times, that's completely different. Technically its still "Willingly" since it was a voluntary action, but that's not what I was referring to exactly. Same thing with masturbation, or any other sin that the person actually knows is a sin.

I really don't see how, with all the anti-gay stuff that's out there (In fact, I think its probably too much focus on one sin TBH) it would be hard to not figure out that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin.

If someone masturbates more often than the typical homosexual person engages in homosexual sex, does that make the masturbation willful? Shouldn't a Christian that knows they will not always successfully fight the temptation put a chastity device on and give the key to a trusted keyholder until marriage?

If someone masturbates more often than the typical homosexual person engages in homosexual sex, does that make the masturbation willful?

Well, masturbation (Whether you're thinking of your own gender or the other is besides the point) is clearly more easily accessable than homosexual sex, however that is irrelevant because the point isn't frequency, but intent. Theoretically, you can fall into sin everyday and still not be "Willful" in the way I describe, or you could theoretically fall in only a few times a year and still be "Willful." I think its hard to understand for an outsider to Evangelical thinking, but the general point is that sin is naturally in the heart.

Shouldn't a Christian that knows they will not always successfully fight the temptation put a chastity device on and give the key to a trusted keyholder until marriage?

That's ALMOST like what Jesus said about cutting your arms and eyes out if they cause you to sin. And in that case as well as this one, sin is still a cause of the heart, and cutting off body parts isn't the way to deal with it. (And, for the record, Jesus was being hyperbolic. I've seen a lot of things said about Jesus in my day, I've even seen "Turn the other cheek" be interpreted as if someone tries to kill you, don't defend yourself, that Jesus was a Communist, and all other sorts of weird stuff, but I've NEVER seen anyone take those particular verses literally.)

I just think that a Christian that has a chronic masturbation problem and refuses to go with the chastity device/keyholder solution isn't all that serious about ending the sinful pattern and thus is living a willfully sinful lifestyle - perhaps to the point that one would wonder how serious they really are about being a Christian.

Considering you aren't a Christian (As far as I know) I couldn't care less what you think about Christianity.

Considering you aren't a Christian (As far as I know) I couldn't care less what you think about Christianity.
For someone that is not gay (as far as I know), you seem to care a lot about it. I would be willing to hold the key for you so that you can make it to marriage without a recent history of a particular sin.

For someone that is not gay (as far as I know), you seem to care a lot about it. I would be willing to hold the key for you so that you can make it to marriage without a recent history of a particular sin.

Yeah... like you'll give it back:p


I'll stick with trying to resist the Biblical way, prayer, memorization of Scripture, and more prayer.

Ah, but you forget that homosexual Christians are gay too. We're protecting all gay people as a group, including the Christians, by not allowing such adverts to be posted.

I think that a terminological distinction might help the debate move forward:
- homosexual: someone with sexual desires for the same sex
- gay: someone who has sexual desires for the same sex, regards them as positive, and in principle is a member of the same-sex dating pool

We could easily switch the words around, but hopefully its obvious that there's a difference between the two groups.

If Warpus is using those words in anything like the sense I've outlined, then his/her comments suggest an enormous power grab, imposing the gay identity onto people who do not want it.

What what whaaat!?!

OMFG.

Difficult to respond to such a well-reasoned argument... expressed with such sensitivity towards other readers :rolleyes:

If you think homosexual Christians are a well-entrenched and powerful group, then maybe you could provide some example of public figures and/or fictional heroes who fall into it.

The issue here is these "Christians struggling to be chaste" want other gays to be chaste too, and spread disinformation about their psychological methods, proclaiming that their methods work fine and dandy, while in reality, their methods work only on a small number of people and drive more people to suicide. That's the claim of their opposers, at least. Furthermore, I was under the impression that these ads are about conversion of gays to straighthood, not about insisting on chastity for them? An analogue to these "Christians struggling to be chaste" would be a pro-gay organization that insists that being heterosexual is a sin, and advocating "homosexual therapy" that easily turns people homosexual, away from the "wicked lifestyle of disgusting breeding" or some other stuff like that. Can you really describe the leadership of that hypothetical organization as "heterosexuals struggling to become homosexual"? I'd describe them as "loonies who have a strange issue with heterosexuality and advocate a therapy that is likely to be destructive".

Further, are Christians struggling to be chaste despite homosexual desires really more vulnerable and more of an oppressed minority than practising homosexuals? Some churches have bad things to say about practising gays, but have no issue with "Christians struggling to be chaste despite homosexual desires". Your claim is not self-evident.

These are good points. If you look at the sponsors' websites, they do not claim to offer 'conversion therapy' (http://www.core-issues.org/index.php?page=Proposal) and they state (http://mike-core-issues.blogspot.com/) that "its doubtful that any UK therapist is offering 'Conversion' therapy". It's just possible that they mean it's offered by amateurs, but I think it's unlikely that they are advertising a service that they cannot provide. Like so much of this debate, I think the adverts are about identity. 'We are here, and are not ashamed of it.' Although if Core Issues had paid attention to the quotation in the left column of the website, and the principles in the right column of the blog, they might have realized buses were not the way forward. But that's their decision, not the Mayor's, and they should be free to advertise there.

By the way, Mr Johnson has defended himself (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/mayor/boris-johnson-why-i-banned-gay-cure-bus-ads-7660738.html?origin=internalSearch) to a public meeting of church leaders, in a shameless piece of politicking.

Yeah... like you'll give it back:p
I'll give it to your wife as it would be her decision. Think of how it would enrich your marriage:

1. The male is giving honor to his wife by allowing her to keep his most private area locked away for her use only.

2. Keeping a man in chastity allows the wife to have a say when he is given the honor of having sex with her. Men often think that they can demand their wives to have sex anytime. This is not being very considerate. The man should
consider it a great honor to have his wife allow him to be inside of her and enjoying their intimacy together. In fact, the man should even ask permission to enter his wife, showing her honor in this way.

3. A man in chastity cannot masturbate, which is a frequent problem with men. When a man gets an erection, the first thing he wants to do is to have an orgasm to make the erection go down. This can be a very damaging event in a relationship because now the man may not have interest in his precious wife.

4. A man in chastity will have his focus on his wife. There is often a brute pride in a man, ordered by his testosterone. A good husband will also be a humble man, and gentle, not ordering his wife and belittling her, but being kind, considerate, helpful, generous, speaking well of her, etc. It should not take a chastity device to make the man be this way, but sometimes it can be a help.

5. A chastity device can be a good training device used by a loving and thoughtful wife to help her husband "learn" how to be the husband he ought to be. She can set goals and standards. If they are met, then he just might get a nice "reward" by being let out or getting some nice attention.

6. There is a heightened level of sexual intimacy that is achieved by keeping a man in chastity. While he is locked up, the wife can have her sexual needs met by him in various ways. But when she finally rewards him by letting him out, he will experience a thrill and enjoyment in sexual intimacy that he has not ever experienced before!
http://www.keptforher.com/why-chastity.html

and they state that "its doubtful that any UK therapist is offering 'Conversion' therapy". It's just possible that they mean it's offered by amateurs, but I think it's unlikely that they are advertising a service that they cannot provide.
However, they state that "CORE is a non-profit Christian initiative seeking to support men and women with homosexual issues who voluntarily seek change in sexual preference - not, apparently, just change in gay identity - and expression" and confirm (when you click on the word "change" on their main page) that "Merely abstaining from homosexual activity, although admirable, cannot be regarded as healing. Heterosexual preference is the goal of gender-affirming therapy". If they don't engage in conversion therapy (making homosexuals have heterosexual preference is surely conversion!), it's very strange that they place it in (a link located in) their statement. Furthermore, they have ties with groups like Exodus International,

Speakers at this conference represent significant leaders in their fields, from far and wide:

Alan Chambers President, Exodus International
Christine Sneeringer, Exodus International (Worthy Creations)

Which is a group that engages in gay conversion therapy.

On the other hand, they do state that they see "gay" and "having issues with homosexual feelings" as not necessarily the same thing, but from what I posted above it seems that they are suspiciously waffling about on the issue.

An actual gay Christian would not be willingly living in such a sinful lifestyle (Unless they were ignorant somehow, but in this world, I doubt it.)Just like rich men can't be Christians. Right?

An actual gay Christian would not be willingly living in such a sinful lifestyle (Unless they were ignorant somehow, but in this world, I doubt it.)

Wow, come to London some time. Believe me, there are plenty of gay Christians who are "living the lifestyle" very happily.

I used to have a friend who, as an ordinand, worked as a secretary to George Carey when Carey was archbishop of Canterbury. He found that quite a large proportion of people at Lambeth Palace, and of Anglican priests in London, were not only gay but very actively gay. In fact sometimes it sounded like Carey was the only straight Christian in the whole organisation. (My friend was somewhere between straight and bisexual, and pretty flamboyantly and unrestrictedly so, and I think even he was a bit taken aback by it all.) He had a flatmate who was a gay ordinand and every time I visited there seemed to be a different gay priest staying there with him!

GhostWriter, you need to understand that not everyone shares your understanding of what a "Christian" is or of what Christians believe and do. There are many, many Christians out there who do not believe that homosexuality is sinful, and who do not believe that just because the Bible says something that makes it true. You may think them wrong in these beliefs - it's even conceivable that you're right to think them wrong - but that doesn't make them not Christians. You can't make blanket statements of this kind about what Christians will or will not do when there are some pretty dramatic counter-examples walking around, complete with earrings and dog collars.

(I mean "dog collars" in the sense of clerical collars, not - well, now I'm not sure.)

Homosexuality is mentioned 12 times in the Bible. To contrast this: Self-righteousness is mentioned 79 times.

An actual gay Christian would not be willingly living in such a sinful lifestyle (Unless they were ignorant somehow, but in this world, I doubt it.)

I'm sorry? Is this yet another of your presumptuous statements about how no one is a "true Christian" unless they believe what you do? It's arrogant, offensive and wildly unfair to anybody who you're insulting like this and no amount of "sheltered upbringing" or "neurological complaint" is going to mitigate your flagrant disrespect in any fashion. I should know, believe me.

If you think homosexual Christians are a well-entrenched and powerful group, then maybe you could provide some example of public figures and/or fictional heroes who fall into it.
I hardly think any group comprised of gays is well-entrenched and powerful, I was simply quite surprised to hear you suggest that Christian gays somehow have it far worse than gays in general. It was an outlandish claim to me, and left me astonished.

I hardly think any group comprised of gays is well-entrenched and powerful, I was simply quite surprised to hear you suggest that Christian gays somehow have it far worse than gays in general. It was an outlandish claim to me, and left me astonished.

The claim is based on a crude kind of maths.

Gays* get grief from:
- ignorant school children
- upset family members
- people who think they shouldn't exist, for philosophical or religious reasons
- people who think they can abuse people in minorities

Homosexual* Christians get grief from:
- ignorant school children
- upset family members
- people who think they shouldn't exist, for philosophical or religious reasons
- people who think they can abuse people in minorities
- gay people who think they're irrational and repressed

You could probably extend the list by a few categories, but the point is made.

*See post above for definitions, as otherwise we're guaranteed to be arguing at cross-purposes


Wow, come to London some time. Believe me, there are plenty of gay Christians who are "living the lifestyle" very happily.

I used to have a friend who, as an ordinand, worked as a secretary to George Carey when Carey was archbishop of Canterbury. He found that quite a large proportion of people at Lambeth Palace, and of Anglican priests in London, were not only gay but very actively gay. In fact sometimes it sounded like Carey was the only straight Christian in the whole organisation. (My friend was somewhere between straight and bisexual, and pretty flamboyantly and unrestrictedly so, and I think even he was a bit taken aback by it all.) He had a flatmate who was a gay ordinand and every time I visited there seemed to be a different gay priest staying there with him!

GhostWriter, you need to understand that not everyone shares your understanding of what a "Christian" is or of what Christians believe and do. There are many, many Christians out there who do not believe that homosexuality is sinful, and who do not believe that just because the Bible says something that makes it true. You may think them wrong in these beliefs - it's even conceivable that you're right to think them wrong - but that doesn't make them not Christians. You can't make blanket statements of this kind about what Christians will or will not do when there are some pretty dramatic counter-examples walking around, complete with earrings and dog collars.

(I mean "dog collars" in the sense of clerical collars, not - well, now I'm not sure.)

There's no doubt that there are parts of the Church of England that are dominated by homosexuals. Wikipedia reports claims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Stephen%27s_House,_Oxford#Culture) that St Stephen's House, one of the Anglican Permanent Private Halls in Oxford, is 90% homosexual, and its description is completely in line with what my friends there said. The Archdeaconry of Northolt in west London has a similar reputation.

However, it's worth noting that this is all in defiance of the Church's official teaching (see 1.3.18-21 of this study guide (http://www.chpublishing.co.uk/uploads/documents/0715138685.pdf)).

I actually think GhostWriter's point stands though. He/she could have written it as, "An actual gay Christian should not be willingly living in such a sinful lifestyle," but the whole logic of Christian teaching on santification is that over time, should not becomes will not. And, in the words of Michael Swan (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=swan+practical+english+usage&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FPractical-English-Usage-Michael-Swan%2Fdp%2F0194420981&ei=xyGST9WgDMbC6AHil6nABA&usg=AFQjCNFIyPF1dQgh1zR64xs1HEVz-F1znA), "In many structures, [would] is like a less definite form of will." Probably without much thought, he/she chose language that admits there is a gap between ideal and reality.

His point doesn't stand at all if you don't consider homosexuality to be sinful, as many people do not, whether or not the Church says so. It is really that simple.

Considering you aren't a Christian (As far as I know) I couldn't care less what you think about Christianity.

Considering you aren't LGBT why should any LGBT person even give a modicum of thought towards your views on homosexuality? Seriously, if you're going to play that game your views should also be dismissed, in the same way you did to JollyRogers.

I actually think GhostWriter's point stands though. He/she could have written it as, "An actual gay Christian should not be willingly living in such a sinful lifestyle," but the whole logic of Christian teaching on santification is that over time, should not becomes will not. And, in the words of Michael Swan, "In many structures, [would] is like a less definite form of will." Probably without much thought, he/she chose language that admits there is a gap between ideal and reality.

This!

Jesus Christ takes all men as they are, but he does not leave them in despair.

The claim is based on a crude kind of maths.
I assumed you were talking about legal and societal persecution on a (inter)national scale, not the mistreatment one receives on a local level.

Nonetheless, some of the biggest problems all people with same-sex attractions (SSA) suffer are those of isolation, depression, self-doubt, self-disgust, rejection and abandonment. I don't know if you're gay Seek, but I'll tell you that one of the great holes in our lives growing up gay is the complete and total lack of ANYTHING positive in media, film, radio, news, tv, or anywhere regarding homosexuality. It's hard to describe to people, to get them to understand what it's like growing up NEVER hearing ONE SINGLE THING positive about your group. Ever. I don't know if straights can appreciate the psychological damage that causes to only hear negative and never hear positive.

To whatever extent you wish to measure it, Christianity is at least somewhat accepting of people who accept Christianity's notion that SSA is a choice, and struggle to repress their "sin". This support and encouragement is like water in a desert, no matter how bitter it is to swallow. It's like the wife, beaten by her husband, who says, "hey, at least it's attention". Gays don't have a handy local support network (at least not when I was growing up, though the internet can help some). It is this lack of support that drives many gay teens to suicide, because they feel there is literally NOBODY supporting them. It's why things like the It Gets Better project are helpful.

While Christianity continues to repudiate and vilify gays, Christians with SSA who try follow Christianity's rules receive support and encouragement from other Christians. While I think this help is toxic, it is nevertheless SOME kind of positive feedback.

Christians struggling with SSA will already have access to churches and holy people as children and teens, while gays have to survive long enough to get on their own and find gay centers, gay bars, or some other gay organization and even then find people to trust.

No, I don't think Christians with SSA have it worse than gays in terms of negative feedback in their daily lives. Of course, if you refer to the brainwashing that goes on in Christian organizations and ex-gay programs, then yes. I will absolutely agree with you.

This!

Jesus Christ takes all men as they are, but he does not leave them in despair.

So, still refusing to address any points in the thread that don't agree with your mindset? Tell me, why do we bother doing this all the time?

This!

Jesus Christ takes all men as they are, but he does not leave them in despair.

Is he active or passive ?

Hopefully by the time I'm old and senile I'll at least have the pleasure of stuff like this being social suicide. Legally, put up what ever billboards you want (free speech is nearly absolute, as it should be) but I hope the court of public opinion completely buries anti-gay bigots in the US as well. I really cannot wait until this petty "hate the sin not the sinner" crap is viewed as similar to "I don't wanna kill black people, I just think they should go back to Africa."

As soon as gay bashing is exactly like racism I'll consider it mission accomplished.

Full speed ahead. No apologies.

By the way, Mr Johnson has defended himself (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/mayor/boris-johnson-why-i-banned-gay-cure-bus-ads-7660738.html?origin=internalSearch) to a public meeting of church leaders, in a shameless piece of politicking.

Boris Johnson is shameless politicking personified. It seems his own career prospects are the only issue he really cares about.

Curiously, though, his hypocrisy is so blatant as to be an electoral asset in the capital. Londoners are sufficiently cynical to regard all claims of political principle as inherently suspect when coming from viable mayoral candidates, and the city is so diverse that only a shameless hypocrite like Boris or Ken could pretend to represent a majority of its people.

As for the issue at hand, I dislike the use of advertisements on public transport to proselytize on moral and political questions, and would prefer to see all such things blocked. There's no great free speech issue here (given the vast range of other advertising options), and the way this kind of advertising uses the public nature of the buses to generate controversy makes me a little uncomfortable.

Hopefully by the time I'm old and senile I'll at least have the pleasure of stuff like this being social suicide. Legally, put up what ever billboards you want (free speech is nearly absolute, as it should be) but I hope the court of public opinion completely buries anti-gay bigots in the US as well. I really cannot wait until this petty "hate the sin not the sinner" crap is viewed as similar to "I don't wanna kill black people, I just think they should go back to Africa."

As soon as gay bashing is exactly like racism I'll consider it mission accomplished.

Full speed ahead. No apologies.

Lincoln said that:p

Seriously though, the idea that we have to accept a lifestyle we don't agree with, and comparing failing to do so to be the same as failing to accept someone in spite of their race does not make any sense. I don't have to agree with your lifestyle period. (Note: "Same as yours" would be appropriate.)

It isn't a matter of "accepting" a lifestyle which you don't agree. That is your own personal choice, and it has always been so.

It is a matter of no longer being able to publicly discriminate against those on that basis anymore. It is about time.

Lincoln said that:p

Different eras have different norms. If he said that now he would be extremely fringe.

Seriously though, the idea that we have to accept a lifestyle we don't agree with, and comparing failing to do so to be the same as failing to accept someone in spite of their race does not make any sense. I don't have to agree with your lifestyle period. (Note: "Same as yours" would be appropriate.)

Look, I really don't want it to be this way, but I don't think we have a choice. It's clear that either gays ( and non-theists, my personal area of concern ) are going to be marginalized, or the public role of faith will be significantly diminished. There is no other option. Gays and infidels are not content to exist quietly as second class citizens, so the friction will keep building until there is some sort of resolution.

Unlike many Christians I'm not suggesting that anyone be arrested or imprisoned. I could go find a dozen Christians who, if they were honest, would like to see people like me executed, imprisoned, or at least marginalized for seeking to cause apostasy.

Why wouldn't you, after all? I'm sending people to hell, right? If atheists are free to speak their minds then your very own children could be misled and end up in hell. How can you believe this and still allow atheists to write books and live outside of prison cells? Nothing Christians do, from an atheist perspective, could compare to our evil from your perspective. Your beliefs are fundamentally incompatible with my right to exist.

It isn't a matter of "accepting" a lifestyle which you don't agree. That is your own personal choice, and it has always been so.

It is a matter of no longer being able to publicly discriminate against those on that basis anymore. It is about time.

Exactly this. You won't be forced to "accept" it, but you won't get by with spinning nonsense about gays, or demonizing them. Politicians won't be able to bash gays and then hold office. It will be wonderful.

People like Rick Perry will rightly be considered no better than a member of the KKK. I won't apologize for this.

Look, I really don't want it to be this way, but I don't think we have a choice. It's clear that either gays ( and non-theists, my personal area of concern ) are going to be marginalized, or the public role of faith will be significantly diminished. There is no other option. Gays and infidels are not content to exist quietly as second class citizens, so the friction will keep building until there is some sort of resolution.

Unlike many Christians I'm not suggesting that anyone be arrested or imprisoned. However, I could go find a dozen Christians who, if they were honest, would like to see people like me executed, imprisoned, or at least marginalized for seeking to cause apostasy.

Why wouldn't you, after all? I'm doing the worst thing possible, I'm sending people to hell, right? If atheists are free to speak their minds then your very own children could be misled and end up in hell. How can you believe this and still allow atheists to write books and live outside of prison cells? Nothing Christians do, from an atheist perspective, could compare to our evil from your perspective. Your beliefs are fundamentally incompatible with my right to exist.

I've addressed this before (Though perhaps you haven't seen it) but essentially, Christianity HAS TO BE voluntary. You can't be forced to convert, or it won't do anything. So forcing you to convert is pointless.

Christians would hold that since their ideas are true, they can be proven in open debate, or at least demonstrated to make more sense than the alternatives in public debate. Therefore, to ban such discussion would, in fact, prevent people who hold to such views from challenging us, losing, and ending up converting. Plus, "Silencing the opposition" while a very good outward conversion technique, won't actually change souls.

Plus, pragmatically, we don't want people who would be like the "Christians" you describe, but a different religion, persecuting us. There's no way we could get away with "All the world should enforce Christian theocracy" but if we ourselves have a free society, we can rightfully condemn Muslim theocracies (Or any other if they exist) for not giving us the same courtesies we give them in Christian countries.

As for being arrested, executed, or marginalized for apostasy, I don't think anyone wants any of the former two. I'd obviously like my beliefs to be more widely accepted than yours though. That's just common sense.

EDIT: *Snip*

I've already said everything I meant to say, and I don't have a response that wouldn't amount to repeating what I've already said. So, this being the case, I'll just leave the discussion as it stands.

Christians would hold that since their ideas are true, they can be proven in open debate, or at least demonstrated to make more sense than the alternatives in public debate. Therefore, to ban such discussion would, in fact, prevent people who hold to such views from challenging us, losing, and ending up converting. Plus, "Silencing the opposition" while a very good outward conversion technique, won't actually change souls.

The only time that purely religious/philosophical arguments make more sense is when you're talking to someone who's inclined to agree with you. Arguments on the basis of natural law certainly fall into that category.

So, apparently, non-Christians will be marginalized in a Christian society, but in an Atheistic society, religious people will not be marginalized?

Why don't you tell us? You're good at wild predictions.

These are hate groups who want to attack and disparage minorities. They can go to hell as far as I'm concerned just like the neo-Nazis who want to advertise how evil Jews supposedly are.

So, apparently, non-Christians will be marginalized in a Christian society, but in an Atheistic society, religious people will not be marginalized?
What's an "atheist society"?

So, apparently, non-Christians will be marginalized in a Christian society, but in an Atheistic society, religious people will not be marginalized?

We'll see. :pat:

So, apparently, non-Christians will be marginalized in a Christian society, but in an Atheistic society, religious people will not be marginalized?
Are you implying that we live in a Christian society right now? Telling.

The only time that purely religious/philosophical arguments make more sense is when you're talking to someone who's inclined to agree with you. Arguments on the basis of natural law certainly fall into that category.

Not necessarily. If you don't believe in any God, obviously Natural Law means nothing, but it can be used between two religious people, even of different faiths.

What's an "atheist society"?

Stalinist Russia? Today's China? France?

I'd say all of those are different levels of "Atheistic society." Obviously, Stalin was far worse than China, and China is far worse than France, but the forced secularism in France qualifies it as at least a "Secular society" (Which is fundamentally different than a free one.)

Secular Society is a moderate form of Atheistic Society. A free society, on the other hand, is absolutely neutral, neither endorsing secularism OR religion, but allowing citizens to freely choose both options without any inclination from the government one way or another.

That's incredibly hard to do, but modern secularists have no desire to do it. They want the pendulum bent their way. Thus they support a (Moderate) atheist society.

Are you implying that we live in a Christian society right now? Telling.

Again, there are different levels of... America can't decide whether its a Christian society or a secular one... I wish we'd just pick "Freedom" and move on:p

So you want to pick "freedom" yet you won't extend said freedom for homosexuals (specifically in the case of allowing them to marry)?

So you want to pick "freedom" yet you won't extend said freedom for homosexuals (specifically in the case of allowing them to marry)?

I'm talking about the theocratic VS Secularism debate specifically. I don't believe either side actually supports freedom.

As for gays marrying, I don't want to forbid them from marrying. They can do whatever they want. I don't want the government to legally declare them married.

You are depriving them of the legal benefits that come marriage,which is a profoundly messed up thing, simply because you aren't able to concede that what constitutes marriage is not set in stone (look at inter-racial marriage, and see how the same arguments against that pop up in regards to arguments against gay marriage).

These are hate groups who want to attack and disparage minorities. They can go to hell as far as I'm concerned just like the neo-Nazis who want to advertise how evil Jews supposedly are.

These people are nothing like Nazis, I hope you are trolling.

@ TF, A society in which the majority of people do not believe in a god.

Secular Society is a moderate form of Atheistic Society. A free society, on the other hand, is absolutely neutral, neither endorsing secularism OR religion, but allowing citizens to freely choose both options without any inclination from the government one way or another.
You define "free society" here, but you don't explain why it's distinct from a "secular society". Would you be able to expand on that? Because, at present, it seems that you're simply giving us the common definition of "secularism" minus the name.

(Edit: Musta ninja'd GW16. My bad.)

@ TF, A society in which the majority of people do not believe in a god.
So, by analogy, the United States is a "white society"?

You are depriving them of the legal benefits that come marriage,which is a profoundly messed up thing, simply because you aren't able to concede that what constitutes marriage is not set in stone (look at inter-racial marriage, and see how the same arguments against that pop up in regards to arguments against gay marriage).

I just said all legal benefits should be the same (Except adoption, which I specifically excluded and decided I didn't want to talk about.)

But that's what "secularism" means..? :confused:

Theoretically, but see France to see why. Secularism is more like "Treat all religions equally, restrict them all" (Not "Ban them all" like Soviet Russia, note the difference) freedom of religion is more like "Give freedom to them all as much as we can."

EDIT: Just noticed TF asked me to explain. I just did:)

Theoretically, but see France to see why. Secularism is more like "Treat all religions equally, restrict them all" (Not "Ban them all" like Soviet Russia, note the difference) freedom of religion is more like "Give freedom to them all as much as we can."
What do you mean by "restrict", here?


(Also, the Soviet Union never just "banned all religion". That's a bad cartoon of a very complicated history.)

What do you mean by "restrict", here?

Well, just to give an example that has nothing to do with the rights I personally want protected FOR ME out of it, take the French burka ban. In a "Secular" society, something like this might be banned if the public sees it as "For the greater good." In a free society, the right to an unconventional religious practice like this would be absolutely legal without question, no matter what anyone thinks of it.

I should point out that "Democracy" tends to lead to either a religious or secular society, the only way to a free society, I think, is through a strong, binding constitution, or a lot of luck.

(Also, the Soviet Union never just "banned all religion". That's a bad cartoon of a very complicated history

Yeah, I know, but Stalin would certainly have liked to. A secular society wouldn't, but would want to restrict extreme religious activities for "The common good" even if not overtly being hostile to religion.

So, by analogy, the United States is a "white society"?

race and Religion are different, so I have to say no.

Well, just to give an example that has nothing to do with the rights I personally want protected FOR ME out of it, take the French burka ban. In a "Secular" society, something like this might be banned if the public sees it as "For the greater good." In a free society, the right to an unconventional religious practice like this would be absolutely legal without question, no matter what anyone thinks of it.
So a "secular society" is one in which there is a state, enforcing laws, while a "free society" is an anarchist one? That would seem to be the most straightforward interpretation of your post, at any rate, because I can't for the life of me think of an existent state-society that would not in practice draw the line at some point. The United States, for example, prohibits the abduction and sacrifice of members of rival communities, despite the importance of such practices in many world faiths.

I should point out that "Democracy" tends to lead to either a religious or secular society, the only way to a free society, I think, is through a strong, binding constitution, or a lot of luck.
What's the historical basis for this claim?

Yeah, I know, but Stalin would certainly have liked to. A secular society wouldn't, but would want to restrict extreme religious activities for "The common good" even if not overtly being hostile to religion.
I'm not sure that your doubtless well-researched insights into Stalin's private ambitions supersede the actual history of religion in the Soviet Union.

race and Religion are different, so I have to say no.
What's the difference, in this context? You made no particular reference to structures or norms, merely demographic majorities, so it seems like the same should carry over fairly directly.

What's the difference, in this context? You made no particular reference to structures or norms, merely demographic majorities, so it seems like the same should carry over fairly directly.

Race is Biological, Religion is a belief, that's the difference.

Race is Biological, Religion is a belief, that's the difference.
I don't follow.

I don't follow.
Well at least if you are looking at apparent cases like black people or East-Asian people, their group membership it determined biologically, while religious group membership is determined culturally (though that culture can make use of biological components of course - like those Jews and their breeding programs - and well, the actual perceived relevance of being black or East-Asian is of a cultural nature as you will know)

Well, just to give an example that has nothing to do with the rights I personally want protected FOR ME out of it, take the French burka ban. In a "Secular" society, something like this might be banned if the public sees it as "For the greater good." In a free society, the right to an unconventional religious practice like this would be absolutely legal without question, no matter what anyone thinks of it.What about all the secular governments where this hasn't occurred, including the US? Can you really judge all secular governments on the basis of a single one making a decision which has been greatly criticized by many agnostics and atheists, as well as those who are religious?

What examples of religious discrimination have occurred in the US, other than Christians for the most part trying to restrict Muslims now and Jews in the past, as well as Protestants discriminating against Catholics? It seems that all the discrimination in Western civilization has had a religious context instead of a secular one. France is overwhelmingly Catholic, and it has been for over a millennium.

So a "secular society" is one in which there is a state, enforcing laws, while a "free society" is an anarchist one? That would seem to be the most straightforward interpretation of your post, at any rate, because I can't for the life of me think of an existent state-society that would not in practice draw the line at some point. The United States, for example, prohibits the abduction and sacrifice of members of rival communities, despite the importance of such practices in many world faiths.

Obviously, if an action is going to actually harm someone else, that's off limits, anywhere.


What about all the secular governments where this hasn't occurred, including the US?

There are other examples:

Banning "Hate speech" (Philadelphia, Canada, and Australia have that one down, which restricts more fringe religious groups even though they aren't directly harming anyone.)

Banning circumcision (Deeply held religion conviction of the Jews, while it causes pain, its not actually harmful, see the other thread to discuss that one.)

Refusing to allow Bibles in school (Note: I'm not talking about teacher-led Bible lessons, which should not be done, but students bringing Bibles on their own. I've heard of people doing this and getting punished for it in some areas.)

Restrictions on proselytization.

Exc.

Granted, not all of those things necessarily happen in a secular society, but when religious liberty is not regarded as special, but instead a privlege granted by the majority, things like that happen.

Can you provide an citation showing that Philadelphia bans "hate speech"? That would seem to be unconstitutional.

And I have never heard of a student prohibited from bringing a Bible to a public school. Do you have some examples, as well as where proselytism has been restricted?

Refusing to allow Bibles in school (Note: I'm not talking about teacher-led Bible lessons, which should not be done, but students bringing Bibles on their own. I've heard of people doing this and getting punished for it in some areas.)

This has been a key part of impractical conservative rhetoric and their degeneration of Obama's views towards Christians. In reality, you can't find a single instance in which any kid was banned from a school for having a Bible nor can you solidify these claims with more concrete evidence that doesn't include "I've heard of it".

Anyway, this will probably be my last post on social issues for a while, I'm moving on to economic ones.

Whatever happened to that?

Also, I wait with bated breath for your brilliant analyses of economic issues.

You're walking a fine line here (which you crossed later in this thread).

Considering you aren't a Christian (As far as I know) I couldn't care less what you think about Christianity.

Considering you seem to deny the validity of Christian views that are unlike yours, I don't think you care about many Christians' views on Christianity either.

As for gays marrying, I don't want to forbid them from marrying. They can do whatever they want. I don't want the government to legally declare them married.What does the government have to do with your religious believes?

There is no one definition of "secularism". Different people mean different things by it. In the United States, "secularism" means no official endorsement or aid to religion in general or to any particular religion. It is, if you like, the free market for religions. In France, "secularism" means religion is completely divorced from the state to the extent that certain expressions of religion in wider society are not permitted. This is, I think, the one single thing where I'd say the United States is closer to what is fair and preferable than France is, at least in theory (whether in reality the US doesn't endorse one religion over another is perhaps an open question). The UK, of course, can't make up its mind what it means by secularism, and as long as unelected bishops sit in the legislature of a largely non-Christian country, it won't be able to.

Under both the French and the American models, though, secularism would seem to be against the idea of preventing gay people from having civil marriages, at least if the objection to those marriages is based on religion. To be honest I can't really understand any argument, religious or not, against allowing gay civil marriages, but then I'm quite a committed secularist in a broadly American sense.

Still, "secularism" is a bit like "freedom", which also means so many different things to different people that it's virtually meaningless.

Obviously, if an action is going to actually harm someone else, that's off limits, anywhere.
So religious activities can be prohibited "for the greater good"? Isn't that the very "secular" logic that you were just decrying as incompatible with civil liberty? :huh:

Well, just to give an example that has nothing to do with the rights I personally want protected FOR ME out of it, take the French burka ban. In a "Secular" society, something like this might be banned if the public sees it as "For the greater good." In a free society, the right to an unconventional religious practice like this would be absolutely legal without question, no matter what anyone thinks of it.

In a secular nation the basic rights of the people are usually meant to trump other rights - including religious ones - if those religious "rights" are contradictory in some way with other, more basic rights that are provided by the state.

I suppose you could find that restrictive - I myself would prefer basic rights to trump the others. If you put *any* set of rights on a pedestal - you are restricting the others; your scenario then, of a society where anyone is able to engage in any religious practice, is restrictive as well.

In a secular nation the basic rights of the people are usually meant to trump other rights - including religious ones - if those religious "rights" are contradictory in some way with other, more basic rights that are provided by the state.

I suppose you could find that restrictive - I myself would prefer basic rights to trump the others. If you put *any* set of rights on a pedestal - you are restricting the others; your scenario then, of a society where anyone is able to engage in any religious practice, is restrictive as well.

You're assuming, there, that religious rights are not among the "basic" rights. But some people would say that religious freedom is actually one of the most basic ones, because it is the same thing as freedom of conscience, which is presupposed by e.g. freedom of speech and freedom of action.

This isn't a view I'm inclined to agree with, but it's one that we should be aware of. You're quite right, of course, that rights conflict with each other, and that anyone legislating for this kind of thing has to decide which rights should override which, and there may be no "right" answers to such a problem.

This is why you can't really talk simply of "a free society" as GhostWriter does. "Free" in what sense? Free to do anything? That's anarchy, and in a society like that you actually have quite restricted freedoms, in that you can't e.g. walk down the street free from the possibility of being attacked. Or just free to practise whatever your religion dictates? But what if you subscribe to the religion of the Aztecs and it dictates that you practise human sacrifice? It is correct that religious freedom is important, and I think that the French approach is quite wrong, but that doesn't mean that people should be allowed to do anything they like provided they say they're doing it for religious reasons. That basically creates a bigots' charter where people are allowed to opt out of e.g. anti-discrimination laws on the grounds of religion. You don't want that, but at the same time, you do want to respect people's right to practise their religion. It's a very difficult balancing act. Permit some freedoms and you restrict others, and vice versa.

You're assuming, there, that religious rights are not among the "basic" rights. But some people would say that religious freedom is actually one of the most basic ones, because it is the same thing as freedom of conscience, which is presupposed by e.g. freedom of speech and freedom of action.

I would have to say that some are - indeed that most of them are - because they don't contradict any other type of basic right that people are usually afforded in a secular western nation.

Consider the ones that do contradict an existing right - blasphemy for example. It contradicts several rights that we would expect to have, and as such any religious right to punish those who blaspheme is trumped by other, more basic rights, that everyone in our society should have.

This isn't a view I'm inclined to agree with, but it's one that we should be aware of. You're quite right, of course, that rights conflict with each other, and that anyone legislating for this kind of thing has to decide which rights should override which, and there may be no "right" answers to such a problem.

In my opinion there are several "very basic" rights that should trump all else - I'm talking about things like the right to a fair trial, the right to privacy, and so on.

People need to be able to practice their religion without fear, but as soon as they do something that goes against a right that society has deemed to be a basic right, that's where I'd draw the line.

I don't have any examples for you because in most cases there aren't any conflicts of rights that would warrant one set of rights to be suppressed. The only thing I can think of is priests discriminating based on sexual orientation when marrying people - but that's a complex situation with hundreds of years of history behind it - I am happy enough with the concession for those reasons - it's good enough for now, not really that big of a deal overall, and deeply entrenched traditions are hard to get rid of anyway, especially in "unchanging" organizations.

So you can take my stance as an ideological one - I can't actually think of many examples where I'd see religious rights being trumped - unless you consider extreme things like a religious cult wanting to sacrifice their daughter. I'm sure there are better examples out there, but I'm sleepy.

Can you provide an citation showing that Philadelphia bans "hate speech"? That would seem to be unconstitutional.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/inpublic.asp

I'm well aware the sentence was overturned, but still...

And I have never heard of a student prohibited from bringing a Bible to a public school. Do you have some examples, as well as where proselytism has been restricted?

I've heard about the first one happening, but not sure how often it actually does. As for banning proselytism, it doesn't happen in the US, but is restricted in other nations (Even "Secular" ones)
There is no one definition of "secularism". Different people mean different things by it. In the United States, "secularism" means no official endorsement or aid to religion in general or to any particular religion. It is, if you like, the free market for religions. In France, "secularism" means religion is completely divorced from the state to the extent that certain expressions of religion in wider society are not permitted. This is, I think, the one single thing where I'd say the United States is closer to what is fair and preferable than France is, at least in theory (whether in reality the US doesn't endorse one religion over another is perhaps an open question). The UK, of course, can't make up its mind what it means by secularism, and as long as unelected bishops sit in the legislature of a largely non-Christian country, it won't be able to.

Under both the French and the American models, though, secularism would seem to be against the idea of preventing gay people from having civil marriages, at least if the objection to those marriages is based on religion. To be honest I can't really understand any argument, religious or not, against allowing gay civil marriages, but then I'm quite a committed secularist in a broadly American sense.

Still, "secularism" is a bit like "freedom", which also means so many different things to different people that it's virtually meaningless.

For me its not the WORD secularism per say, but the wider implications. I don't want to see us become like France...

So religious activities can be prohibited "for the greater good"? Isn't that the very "secular" logic that you were just decrying as incompatible with civil liberty? :huh:

NO. When there is a definite victim, not the "Greater Good" crap. "Greater good" is way too open to the point where if you can restrict religious freedom for the "Greater Good" then religious freedom doesn't exist.

NO. When there is a definite victim, not the "Greater Good" crap. "Greater good" is way too open to the point where if you can restrict religious freedom for the "Greater Good" then religious freedom doesn't exist.
Do you actually know what the term "greater good" means?

Do you actually know what the term "greater good" means?

Yes and I think its a cliche.

I have no idea what that means?

Its a cliche:

If we were going to ban religion when for the greater good, we'd ban the Westboro Baptist Church. They aren't really "good" for anything. However, I support the right to free religion. However, I support their right to exist, in spite of the fact that they aren't really helping anything, simply BECAUSE they have the right to freedom of religion.

If we were going to do the economy for "The Greater Good" we'd ban the rich. Split their money up equally! Or at least as much as we can and still keep the jobs coming. However, this is (In my view) fundamentally unfair to them. Its for the "Greater good" but its wrong.

"The Greater Good" would allow wiretapping of phones. Theoretically, if you're doing the right thing, you have no need to be afraid, and it can save lives! However, in reality, the "Greater Good" is subservient to the right to privacy here, the right to privacy wins, and the greater good is (Rightfully) kicked to the curb.

That's just three examples. I could ALMOST apply it to my entire ideology.

I'm not seeing any references to cliches there. Unless you think cliche means some weird combination of slippery slope and strawman arguments and are showing instead of telling.

I'm not seeing any references to cliches there. Unless you think cliche means some weird combination of slippery slope and strawman arguments and are showing instead of telling.

It is a cliche, since there is no such thing. Greater good can not protect every one, unless we all agree to be programmed with the same mind. It probably won't happen but the greater good could just as well flip flop in 5 years and the minority will be the majority. Stranger things have happened before.

Do people just not care what words mean any more?

On political forums, no, apparently not.

Do people just not care what words mean any more?Definitions are a secular construct to confuse the hell out of fundamentalists. Actually having to use those definitions in combination with reasoning limits their Religious Freedom.

If we were going to do the economy for "The Greater Good" we'd ban the rich. Split their money up equally! Or at least as much as we can and still keep the jobs coming. However, this is (In my view) fundamentally unfair to them. Its for the "Greater good" but its wrong.

If you think that doing this would be so unfair to the rich that it would outweigh the benefits it would bring to everyone else, then you don't think that it would serve the greater good at all. "Greater good" doesn't mean the wishes of the majority over against those of the minority. It means the greatest good overall. A great injustice committed against a minority in order to win a minor benefit for the majority would not serve the greater good, even though more people benefit than lose out, because the loss is greater than the benefit.

On political forums, no, apparently not.

Not even just there. In politics as a whole, and increasingly in the news as a whole. Recently Paul Krugman was noted for using "Keynesian" wrong on his NY Times blog.

I'm not seeing any references to cliches there. Unless you think cliche means some weird combination of slippery slope and strawman arguments and are showing instead of telling.

I wish Christians were more intelligent.

Inappropriate.
If we were going to ban religion when for the greater good, we'd ban the Westboro Baptist Church. They aren't really "good" for anything. However, I support the right to free religion. However, I support their right to exist, in spite of the fact that they aren't really helping anything, simply BECAUSE they have the right to freedom of religion.

If we were going to do the economy for "The Greater Good" we'd ban the rich. Split their money up equally! Or at least as much as we can and still keep the jobs coming. However, this is (In my view) fundamentally unfair to them. Its for the "Greater good" but its wrong.

"The Greater Good" would allow wiretapping of phones. Theoretically, if you're doing the right thing, you have no need to be afraid, and it can save lives! However, in reality, the "Greater Good" is subservient to the right to privacy here, the right to privacy wins, and the greater good is (Rightfully) kicked to the curb.

That's just three examples. I could ALMOST apply it to my entire ideology.

Um, one could always argue that rights exist for greater good, as someone like Mill might say. Also, I fail to see how banning Westboro Baptist Church for the greater good necessarily has anything to do with banning religion. One could always argue that freedom of religion or association does not trump some other rights other people have that WBC (specifically) tramples on.

Definitions are a secular construct to confuse the hell out of fundamentalists. Actually having to use those definitions in combination with reasoning limits their Religious Freedom.

Even Religious Freedom is a secular construct, so I fail to see how being wise in secular things would limit one's freedom, even in a religious sense.

The only thing that limit's freedom is the enforcing of the law, not the law itself. Now if one wants to make a law that forces people to go against their beliefs, is that no different than acknowledging that there is a God that can do the same thing?

If you think that doing this would be so unfair to the rich that it would outweigh the benefits it would bring to everyone else, then you don't think that it would serve the greater good at all. "Greater good" doesn't mean the wishes of the majority over against those of the minority. It means the greatest good overall. A great injustice committed against a minority in order to win a minor benefit for the majority would not serve the greater good, even though more people benefit than lose out, because the loss is greater than the benefit.

OK, that's fair. Its just when I see "Greater good" then (For society) seems to be the unspoken point. But if you're talking about the moral "Greater Good" than that makes more sense.

What do you imagine to be the distinction?

Well, if enough people are offended, it hurts their feelings, and they have a good reason to be offended, then an ad should be blocked. No exceptions.

I fail to see how the state is obligated to allow blatantly false advertising.

Whenever I hear people tout "the greater good" I'm reminded by Dawn of War Dark Crusades Tau soldiers destroying everyone who thinks differently to them.

On topic though I don't see why this is a religious issue. It's blatant false advertising and should be treated like any other spurious claims.

Whenever I hear people tout "the greater good" I'm reminded by Dawn of War Dark Crusades Tau soldiers destroying everyone who thinks differently to them.
That's the Hollywood cliché, certainly. Ironic given that the protagonists of these things will invariably resort to some utilitarian logic of their own in justifying whatever destructive activity they commit during the course of saving the day. That some people appeal to a consequentialism held together by spit and wishes no more invalidates it as an ethical framework than the fact some people claim God wants them to fly a plane into a building invalidates deontology.

That's the Hollywood cliché, certainly. Ironic given that the protagonists of these things will invariably resort to some utilitarian logic of their own in justifying whatever destructive activity they commit during the course of saving the day. That some people appeal to a consequentialism held together by spit and wishes no more invalidates it as an ethical framework than the fact some people claim God wants them to fly a plane into a building invalidates deontology.

Absolutely!