Ignorance in action so often aided and abetted by religious conviction continues to cause unnecessary suffering. This is especially true regarding the treatment in law of homosexuals and the active advocacy of religious organizations to promote bigotry and misogyny in the name of god.
From HuffPo:
Rachel Maddow devoted almost half of her Wednesday show to a lengthy interview with David Bahati, author of the infamous bill in the Ugandan Parliament that calls for gay people to face life imprisonment or, in some cases, execution if they are convicted of having practiced homosexuality.
Bahati is also a member of The Family, the religious organization that carries substantial power on Capitol Hill (ever heard of the yearly National Prayer Breakfast?) .
Maddow asked him how gays living openly in Uganda harmed children. “It hurts my family when my child goes to school and is converted into gay…when the purpose of procreation is undermined,” Bahati said.
He also said that he was concerned about following “God’s law.” Maddow pressed him on this point, finally getting him to acknowledge that, in his view, the “appropriate punishment” for violating God’s law is death. “We need to turn to God,” he said.
Watch the entire interview (in two parts) here.
tildeb
Questionable Motives 
Huffington post…..a real intellectual read there…LOL! They lie and tell half the story ALL of the time. As Christians we are taught not to judge others…to treat them as we would want to be treated so when people do go crazy on gays…it is disturbing. However, you cannot blame religion for that or all Christians…these are individuals and SMALL groups.
Comment by 4amzgkids — December 16, 2010 @ 5:46 pm |
“Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter[8].
In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”[10]. ”
Read it for yourself: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html
Lets change some of the words slightly to see how it reads with a more obvious theme based on the prejudice of the colour of one’s skin my changes are in brackets [change]:
“[Deep skin tones], which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter[8].
In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who [have a deep skin tone], [that] present deep-seated [deep skin tone behaviour] tendencies or support the so-called “[Black African American culture]”[10]. ”
The Church does not even recognise ‘gay culture’ – this is prejudice, plain and simple. If it was not prejudice they would not only recognise ‘gay culture’ but they would support it by allowing gay people the FREEDOM to work within their church without discrimination at all.
Comment by misunderstoodranter — December 22, 2010 @ 2:42 pm |
[…] this mission (and here) would be so much more effective if only the state would help impose this […]
Pingback by What are the boundaries of religion? « Questionable Motives — September 10, 2011 @ 8:20 pm |