LGBT in schools vs religious parents

[8ball]

I realise that it is not possible to have a serious discussion on this topic, mainly because leftism is itself a religion and cannot tolerate rivals.

maybe i wasn't clear.

the problem i have is NOT with LGBT.
It is NOT with religious Jews
It is NOT with Muslims
It is NOT with Christians either.
It is NOT with ethnic minorities either.

the problem i have is with the left.
all of it, the anarchist left and the trot left, and Corbynistas etc.
The left is fundamentally dishonest and cannot take up some issues

the reason I posted the article wasn't to pick on a group, but just pointing out that the contradictions are too obvious.
It is not because I want it to be so, but the fact is that LGBT rights are not compatible with religion, in most cases.
to the extent that a community is religious, it tends to be against LGBT.
If Muslims gave up Islam, or Jews Judaism, Christians Christianity, then they would have no problem with LGBT. LGBT is accepted in the west to the extent the west has given up Christianity and become completely secular.

It is the religious ideology that is against LGBT.

ethnic minorities are more religious, because the societies they come from are religious. if you can't see it then open your eyes, but i think there is a wilful blindness.
that isn't going to change anytime soon, because most people are not leftists by default and it is not obvious that leftism has any real answers any more than religion.

Anarchist/Communist utopia = kingdom of heaven on earth. ie a fantasy.

the fact is that Muslim parents in the article don't want LGBT ideas taught in school because the religion doesn't tolerate open homosexuality. It is not seen as a good thing.
HOW is the left going to interact with them? sooner or later, there will probably be an Islamic party that will take a chunk of the Labour Party's Muslim vote, because the fact is that Islam is incompatible with much progressive ideology inc. abortion etc. So are other religions, but the issue is framed differently and politicised differently.

what about white religious people? I think if they voice anti LGBT sentiment, they wouldn't be part of the left at all, they would be part of the (far) right.

what i want to know is HOW the left will deal with this problem?
by denial and turning a blind eye pretending there is no problem?
attacking the person who brings up the problem as racist and homophobic?

Where did you copy and paste this from, out of curiosity?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

What point? You said "most Christians would take the verse you quoted to be a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d." (a claim you have yet to actually substantiate, by the way). I then pointed out that at least three of the commentators disagreed, and now you're trying to say that proves your point?

So do Biblical commentaries actually reflect lay beliefs or not?

Most Christians I have spoken to would say it refers to 70ad, but no I haven't done a nationwide poll. The point still stands though, your claim that this verse refers to the final judgement is false.

 

[Pickman's model]

Most Christians I have spoken to would say it refers to 70ad

Twstwt

 

[eoin_k]

Leftists won't tolerate rivals, unless they adhere to gay ideology or are Muslim in which case they just try to accommodate everyone and paper over the differences. Not that I've got a problem with the gays or the Muslims, but there is an irreconcilable contradiction between them, which the leftists all fail to address, as indeed do I because I don't have a problem with the gays or the Muslims... just the leftists.

Have I got this right?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Twstwt

Um, ok then.

 

[tim]

I realise that it is not possible to have a serious discussion on this topic, mainly because leftism is itself a religion and cannot tolerate rivals.

maybe i wasn't clear.

the problem i have is NOT with LGBT.
It is NOT with religious Jews
It is NOT with Muslims
It is NOT with Christians either.
It is NOT with ethnic minorities either.

the problem i have is with the left.
all of it, the anarchist left and the trot left, and Corbynistas etc.
The left is fundamentally dishonest and cannot take up some issues

the reason I posted the article wasn't to pick on a group, but just pointing out that the contradictions are too obvious.
It is not because I want it to be so, but the fact is that LGBT rights are not compatible with religion, in most cases.
to the extent that a community is religious, it tends to be against LGBT.
If Muslims gave up Islam, or Jews Judaism, Christians Christianity, then they would have no problem with LGBT. LGBT is accepted in the west to the extent the west has given up Christianity and become completely secular.

It is the religious ideology that is against LGBT.

ethnic minorities are more religious, because the societies they come from are religious. if you can't see it then open your eyes, but i think there is a wilful blindness.
that isn't going to change anytime soon, because most people are not leftists by default and it is not obvious that leftism has any real answers any more than religion.

Anarchist/Communist utopia = kingdom of heaven on earth. ie a fantasy.

the fact is that Muslim parents in the article don't want LGBT ideas taught in school because the religion doesn't tolerate open homosexuality. It is not seen as a good thing.
HOW is the left going to interact with them? sooner or later, there will probably be an Islamic party that will take a chunk of the Labour Party's Muslim vote, because the fact is that Islam is incompatible with much progressive ideology inc. abortion etc. So are other religions, but the issue is framed differently and politicised differently.

what about white religious people? I think if they voice anti LGBT sentiment, they wouldn't be part of the left at all, they would be part of the (far) right.

what i want to know is HOW the left will deal with this problem?
by denial and turning a blind eye pretending there is no problem?
attacking the person who brings up the problem as racist and homophobic?

Fee Fi Fo Fum
Etc
I favour taking a Norway Plus approach to trolls

 

[Athos]

I realise that it is not possible to have a serious discussion on this topic, mainly because leftism is itself a religion and cannot tolerate rivals.

maybe i wasn't clear.

the problem i have is NOT with LGBT.
It is NOT with religious Jews
It is NOT with Muslims
It is NOT with Christians either.
It is NOT with ethnic minorities either.

the problem i have is with the left.
all of it, the anarchist left and the trot left, and Corbynistas etc.
The left is fundamentally dishonest and cannot take up some issues

the reason I posted the article wasn't to pick on a group, but just pointing out that the contradictions are too obvious.
It is not because I want it to be so, but the fact is that LGBT rights are not compatible with religion, in most cases.
to the extent that a community is religious, it tends to be against LGBT.
If Muslims gave up Islam, or Jews Judaism, Christians Christianity, then they would have no problem with LGBT. LGBT is accepted in the west to the extent the west has given up Christianity and become completely secular.

It is the religious ideology that is against LGBT.

ethnic minorities are more religious, because the societies they come from are religious. if you can't see it then open your eyes, but i think there is a wilful blindness.
that isn't going to change anytime soon, because most people are not leftists by default and it is not obvious that leftism has any real answers any more than religion.

Anarchist/Communist utopia = kingdom of heaven on earth. ie a fantasy.

the fact is that Muslim parents in the article don't want LGBT ideas taught in school because the religion doesn't tolerate open homosexuality. It is not seen as a good thing.
HOW is the left going to interact with them? sooner or later, there will probably be an Islamic party that will take a chunk of the Labour Party's Muslim vote, because the fact is that Islam is incompatible with much progressive ideology inc. abortion etc. So are other religions, but the issue is framed differently and politicised differently.

what about white religious people? I think if they voice anti LGBT sentiment, they wouldn't be part of the left at all, they would be part of the (far) right.

what i want to know is HOW the left will deal with this problem?
by denial and turning a blind eye pretending there is no problem?
attacking the person who brings up the problem as racist and homophobic?

By seeking to build solidarity on those issues where there is common ground, with a view to ultimately convincing them of the wrongness of religious bigotry. Admittedly, not the easiest of things in practice, but by no means some irrresolvable paradox.

 

[8ball]

Um, ok then.

I think that might just have been a result of headbutting the keyboard.

 

[8ball]

Leftists won't tolerate rivals, unless they adhere to gay ideology or are Muslim in which case they just try to accommodate everyone and paper over the differences. Not that I've got a problem with the gays or the Muslims, but there is an irreconcilable contradiction between them, which the leftists all fail to address, as indeed do I because I don't have a problem with the gays or the Muslims.

Gay Muslims don't seem to feature in this model.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

By seeking to build solidarity on those issues where there is common ground, with a view to ultimately convincing them of the wrongness of religious bigotry. Admittedly, not the easiest of things in practice, but by no means some irrresolvable paradox.

for example?

 

[NoXion]

There is no God described in the Bible. There isn't even one Jesus described in the New Testament. In the different gospels, letters and books. You'll find different authors giving their perspectives on whatever happened. The Old Testament is a collection of documents written compiled and edited over several centuries by sophisticated intelligent writers who didn't necessarily agree with each other. It's not just a simplistic narrative as claimed by the fundementalists or the facile neo-atheists they so resemble

Of course God is described in the Bible. He's one of the central characters, if not THE central character, so how could he not be? That doesn't mean that he's described *consistently* or in any significant detail (which is much the same as it is with Jesus), but it's clear that there is a character in the Bible, variously called God or The LORD or Jehovah, depending on your version of the book, and you can't have a character in a story without giving at least some sense of what they are like, i.e. describing them.

The fact that the Bible is not a conventional narrative in the beginning-to-middle-to-end sense doesn't prevent it from containing characters that are described. All this hot air about sophisticated theology or terrible atheists doesn't change that.

 

[NoXion]

Most Christians I have spoken to would say it refers to 70ad, but no I haven't done a nationwide poll. The point still stands though, your claim that this verse refers to the final judgement is false.

Not according to Meyer.

 

[Pickman's model]

Um, ok then.

They would say that wouldn't they

 

[tim]

He won't. He's far too self-righteous!

Once he's started bashing his dawkins, he can't stop.

 

[tim]

Not according to Meyer.

Sir Christopher?

 

[tim]

Of course God is described in the Bible. He's one of the central characters, if not THE central character, so how could he not be? That doesn't mean that he's described *consistently* or in any significant detail (which is much the same as it is with Jesus), but it's clear that there is a character in the Bible, variously called God or The LORD or Jehovah, depending on your version of the book, and you can't have a character in a story without giving at least some sense of what they are like, i.e. describing them.

The fact that the Bible is not a conventional narrative in the beginning-to-middle-to-end sense doesn't prevent it from containing characters that are described. All this hot air about sophisticated theology or terrible atheists doesn't change that.

I think you're confusing the Bible with Crimewatch.

 

[zahir]

what i want to know is HOW the left will deal with this problem?
by denial and turning a blind eye pretending there is no problem?
attacking the person who brings up the problem as racist and homophobic?

Maybe a starting point would be to listen to and take a lead from people from those communities who support LGBT rights, whether they’re trying to reconcile it with their religious beliefs or have abandoned their religious beliefs altogether.

 

[Anton]

Gay Muslims don't seem to feature in this model.

they don't because they are politically insignificant. wish them well, but that is just the case.

By seeking to build solidarity on those issues where there is common ground, with a view to ultimately convincing them of the wrongness of religious bigotry. Admittedly, not the easiest of things in practice, but by no means some irrresolvable paradox.

that is at least a real answer. if it can be done. but to do that means admitting there are problems.

but what if from the other side the same thing is going on ie the left is trying to convert the Muslims from Islam to leftism, but the Muslims are also trying to convert leftists from Marxism to Islam. When i was in RESPECT, the SWP and independents thought they could win ordinary Muslims to Marxism, but it never happened. On the other hand, there were leftists who left socialism and converted to Islam, following the example of that extraordinary man George Galloway himself?, and Yvonne Ridley. just as you want to rid them of 'religious bigotry', they want to rid you of the 'atheist delusion'.

Where did you copy and paste this from, out of curiosity?

I didn't, but it does read like that.
I think its a style one picks up, a rhetorical style one gets from going to political meetings or reading certain types of texts. i guess the same style has been used before, perhaps thousands of times before, so it sounds/reads like cut and paste.

 

[NoXion]

I think you're confusing the Bible with Crimewatch.

I think you're talking out of yer arse. Descriptions of people or characters aren't limited to their physical features, nor to specific narratives. The actions and motivations of characters can impact the plot even if they don't appear "in person" within the narrative.

 

[Anton]

Maybe a starting point would be to listen to and take a lead from people from those communities who support LGBT rights, whether they’re trying to reconcile it with their religious beliefs or have abandoned their religious beliefs altogether.

such as? and that are politically significant?

 

[8ball]

I didn't, but it does read like that.
I think its a style one picks up, a rhetorical style one gets from going to political meetings or reading certain types of texts. i guess the same style has been used before, perhaps thousands of times before, so it sounds/reads like cut and paste.

Well, anyway, we've already had a post square this circle nicely much earlier in the thread. There is a conflict of perceived rights here, its true, but your question has already been answered in terms of the best response.

 

[8ball]

I think you're talking out of yer arse. Descriptions of people or characters aren't limited to their physical features, nor to specific narratives. The actions and motivations of characters can impact the plot even if they don't appear "in person" within the narrative.

The Bible has almost nothing to say about Jesus' physical features, except in one case I think it refers to him as not particularly beautiful. Which is better than the converse, in terms of the story, I think.

 

[zahir]

such as? and that are politically significant?

There’s now a significant ex-muslim movement, online at least, that is mostly very supportive of LGBT issues. From within the religion there are also groups like the inclusive mosque initiative which I think are quite small and marginal, but may have some kind of effect.

Inclusive Mosque Initiative - Wikipedia

CEMB marches in Pride London to defend the rights of LGBT, Apostates and Blasphemers – Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain – CEMB

 

[tim]

I think you're talking out of yer arse. Descriptions of people or characters aren't limited to their physical features, nor to specific narratives. The actions and motivations of characters can impact the plot even if they don't appear "in person" within the narrative.

All I can say in response is that my arse is a tad more articulate than yours.

 

[eoin_k]

such as? and that are politically significant?

Clearly devout orthodox people from immigrant backgrounds and openly gay people can treat each other with dignity and mutual respect. I see it all the time at work, school, in my neighbourhood. I live in an area with pentacostlist churches, gay bars, mosques, lesbian housing co-ops and synagogues all within spitting distance of each other. It isn't perfect. But people get along on the whole.

 

[Raheem]

Clearly devout orthodox people from immigrant backgrounds and openly gay people can treat each other with dignity and mutual respect. I see it all the time at work, school, in my neighbourhood. I live in an area with pentacostlist churches, gay bars, mosques, lesbian housing co-ops and synagogues all within spitting distance of each other. It isn't perfect. But people get along on the whole.

Liked, even though it might be a bit rose tinted. Think it's true that mixed working class communities rub along a lot better than many people assume, but with the enormous caveat that it depends what you mean by "on the whole", and on whether that's actually good enough.

 

[Wookey]

Just... stop

I'd rather you didn't tell me who to talk to, if I'm honest.

 

[Saul Goodman]

I'd rather you didn't tell me who to talk to, if I'm honest.

Then you obviously don't mind.

 

[Wookey]

Then you obviously don't mind.

You'll find that is our final interaction.

 

[Saul Goodman]

You'll find that is our final interaction.

My mother said she'll say a prayer for you.