Uganda

aircooled wrote: I am pretty sure he is not referring to you. In general, (using Christians as an example, other are equally guilty), it seems very common to refer the the Bible as "the truth" or something along those lines, and justify things because of that. Yet, there are a number of things (e.g. Old Testament) that they seem to summarily dismiss while fully accepting others (e.g. homosexuality vs having beards / slaves etc. ) As such, this goes back to what I was saying. The "cherry picking" of religious dogma etc. to serve ones personal agenda / believes. Or, an a-hole finding justification for being an a-hole. (to confirm: its a Religious thing, not a Christian thing. Hey, some people don't even feel the need to justify them being an a-hole!)

I agree.

But its not a religious thing. Its a human thing. People cherry pick dogma from political party platforms, radio talk shows, or any random thing they can find on the internet that happens to support their position or agenda.

Why is it surprising that religious people do it?

SVreX wrote: ...Why is it surprising that religious people do it?

I am not sure "surprising" would be the word for it (clearly a lot of people do it). More like ridiculous.

If you ask them why they demand this, they say it is the word of God (or whatever) and that word is clearly shown and it must be followed (because "god"). Of course since they pick what they want, it's actually their word under the pretenses of "god". (which really steps up the a-hole factor)

Its a bit like one of those comedy videos where they stitch together a bunch of words from the speeches of a politician or famous person. Then do that with someone in power and make it say something silly (I.e. "I demand that we all must wear lederhosen from now on") and expect people to follow the proclamation. Which, of course, would be ridiculous.

And yes, to many, it seems as if they Ugandans are all now wearing lederhosen for no particular good reason.

SVreX wrote: Why is it surprising that religious people do it?

Because Christianity is a religion based on Christ's example of tolerance and compassion.

Tolerance doesn't indicate consent or agreement BTW , it just means you have the capacity to put up with someone's elses E36.

This isn't new.

Homosexual behavior has always been illegal in Uganda. In fact, it's illegal in 38 different countries in Africa.

The only thing that has changed is the penalty. And they have added something called "aggravated homosexuality" (which is hard to find a complete definition of, but it apparently includes sex with children, a disabled person, and where one partner is HIV positive, among other things).

President Museveni signed this right before the election, and it is very popular among Ugandans. They claim Western groups are trying to recruit Ugandan children into homosexuality.

Sure looks like it is primarily motivated by politics, not religion.

Except in this thread, of course.

fifty wrote:

SVreX wrote: Why is it surprising that religious people do it?

Because Christianity is a religion based on Christ's example of tolerance and compassion. Tolerance doesn't indicate consent or agreement BTW , it just means you have the capacity to put up with someone's elses E36.

That's a terrible definition of Christianity.

Not even close.

SVreX wrote: The only thing that has changed is the penalty. And they have added something called "aggravated homosexuality" (which is hard to find a complete definition of, but it apparently includes sex with children, a disabled person, and where one partner is HIV positive, among other things).

Ahh, so it was the third thing I wrote in the post. About the language being in the bill.

SVreX wrote:

fifty wrote:

SVreX wrote: Why is it surprising that religious people do it?

Because Christianity is a religion based on Christ's example of tolerance and compassion. Tolerance doesn't indicate consent or agreement BTW , it just means you have the capacity to put up with someone's elses E36.

That's a terrible definition of Christianity. Not even close.

You are correct. A much closer pass would be akin to:

Christianity: A popular 21st century superstition based on a super-set of traditions from other disparate superstitions popular at the time of it's development (c.33-325).

Now back to our regularly scheduled flounder.

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

Thanks, GPS!

You've proven that condescending, sanctimonious atheists are every bit equal to their religious counterparts.

And agnostics, too.

oldsaw wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: Thanks, GPS! You've proven that condescending, sanctimonious atheists are every bit equal to their religious counterparts. And agnostics, too.

There is nothing untrue or condescending in that definition. I was just saying what archaeologists might in 2000 years if the machines haven't risen up and slain us by then. FWIW, I prefer "priggish" to sanctimonious in reference to myself as it removes the "moral superiority" component. Superiority implies I'm working from the same base as everyone else but... then... not everyone laughed until it hurt at the "Eat the poo-poo" video.

Religion or more accurately Christianity has become the popular thing to bash these days because its about the only thing which is still considered politically correct to bash. Certainly there are people who use religion as an excuse to promote hate. With any group/organization/etc there will be people who use that group's beliefs as a reason to spread hate and intolerance. That is not a problem with Christianity, that is a problem with people.

To those who do choose to use Christianity as an excuse to deny others their chosen lifestyle I can only wonder quite simply how they justify it. Certainly the bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, it also teaches many other things are wrong, but the same hate, and vitriol are not applied to adulterers, drinkers, etc etc. I have to imagine, from everything I read in the good book, that Christ would not have denied service to someone because they didn't believe what he was teaching. He would have welcomed them as a brother and tried to teach by example.

Generally I think too many people are looking for something to hate these days. If I let differences of opinion cause me to hate people I probably wouldn't like a whole bunch of you guys :)

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: There is nothing untrue or condescending in that definition.

What is grossly condescending about the statement is the presumption that it is true.

If your hypothesis that Christianity is nothing more than a superstition is ever proven true, then you are right, and factual.

Unfortunately, it is circular reasoning, because your hypothesis can not be proven true.

Therefore, it is arrogant and condescending. Your tolerance is limited to people with similar faith and belief systems as you have.

So, religion argument aside.

What (if anything) should the international community do? (note, not talking US politics, but international and more UN and NATO centered)

Should this be considered enough of a humanitarian problem for the international community to step in?

SVreX wrote: ...Your tolerance is limited to people with similar faith and belief systems as you have.

Now, now. We all know that is not true!

His vitriol is certainly not limited to those outside his believe system.

In reply to aircooled:

Lol!

SVreX wrote: Therefore, it is arrogant and condescending. Your tolerance is limited to people with similar faith and belief systems as you have.

My tolerance tolerates everyone. Tolerate and Embrace are not the same thing. Nor is tip-toeing around like I'm tolerating rather than embracing. I tolerate people who think I need to prove their claims of magic are false before I can proceed as if they are unvalidated superstitions. It is no more arrogant a position than defending unsubstantiated claims as true. Pots and kettles.

Back on topic - the Ugandans (or whatever they are) are using the most convenient bully pulpit to suppress people based on something untrue. So are the Arizonians. It's really only superficially about the jebus.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/uganda-slapped-aid-cuts-anti-gay-bill-22693295

At least three European countries are withdrawing millions in direct support to Uganda's government, which depends on donors for about 20 percent of its budget. Washington has also signaled it could cut aid to Uganda over an anti-gay measure the White House described as "abhorrent." Ofwono Opondo, a spokesman for Uganda's government, said Thursday that the aid cuts show Ugandans "that the world does not owe them a living." "It's actually a trap for dependence," he said, talking about donor support. "It's actually good that they removed the aid, so that we can live within the means we have."

Text cherrypicked, but I think it gets the point across.

I think things might get interesting over there if the course continues.

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

So, you tolerate religious people as long as you can insult them and denigrate them, right?

Oh, and if they feel offended in any way, then you can throw in a little name calling along with your tolerance.

Nice.

In reply to Apexcarver:

Thank you, for a little bit of actual information about real events so I can learn something.

Apexcarver wrote: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/uganda-slapped-aid-cuts-anti-gay-bill-22693295

"It's actually a trap for dependence," he said, talking about donor support. "It's actually good that they removed the aid, so that we can live within the means we have."

Didn't the Nazis blame the Jews for the economic misfortune that befell Germany after WW1?

Some of you guys are so full of it... One could use scientific fact to to "speak out" against homosexual behavior and you would still call it bigoted, and even religious.

hiding your own bigotry behind a gay flag doesn't make it less bigoted..

Oh... Uganda is trying to handle this the best they know how... I don't even like what they are doing.. but so what? out of all the problems in Africa this is about the lowest thing on what I have time to concern myself with...

The Arizona law.. Like the KS law it is VERY poorly written.

I think a business owner should be able to refuse service for ANY reason... Some sue happy nutcase shouldn't be able to walk into a Cake or flower shop for the sole purpose of picking a fight and demand service. That is absurd. Just as if a gay man ran a shop catering specifically to the needs of Gay couples.. He shouldn't be FORCED to cater to straight couples.. I can't imagine in today's world it would be impossible for a gay couple to find a decorator or flower shop willing to serve them...

Or whatever...

The laws are written poorly because it makes an issue out of this one specific bias.. and that is wrong... The CHURCH am attending which doesn't recognize nor support gay marriage spoke out strongly against the Kansas Law.

All these laws need to say... Which they should...

Anyone has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason...

Simple as that.

SVreX wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: So, you tolerate religious people as long as you can insult them and denigrate them, right? Oh, and if they feel offended in any way, then you can throw in a little name calling along with your tolerance. Nice.

Whatever. You are free to be as offended as you like that I don't pretend to have any respect whatsoever for the constructs of religion but I didn't call you any names at all.

And you know what? I am pretty berkeleying nice.

EDIT: smiley added to denote friendliness, not sarcasm

ronholm wrote: ...All these laws need to say... Which they should... Anyone has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason...

I see the point, and on the surface I agree. After all it is a private shop, they can do as they wish. Of course, it gets a bit weird when you start excluding Jews etc.

There is the whole "we reserve the right to refuse to serve" thing. I wonder how far that goes, and if it is even legal? Obviously, if the basis for not serving is race, that runs into civil rights issues. What basis can you refuse service? Because they are an a-hole? Who decides that?

BTW - the Jews have been a target ever since they were the only ones who could lend money (not technically allowed under Christianity, usury and all). It's funny how many "things" are really money "things". Heck the Catholic fish on Friday thing was a money thing, and most consider it a religious thing (not sure they even ask why).

Let them refuse service for whatever reason.... Then let the good people of this country sort it out..

Why do you anti religious zealots think you need to use the laws to enforce your morality on people?

Kansas law- poorly written, and unnecessary.

Uganda law- something I don't know much about, and came here to learn. It is obvious that very few people here know anything at all about it either.

Clearly politically motivated, like most laws and things political, but further details are pretty sketchy to me.