Uganda set to make homosexuality punishable by death
While homosexual acts are already illegal in the African nation of Uganda, a new law being discussed would attach a minimum sentence of life in prison for such acts, and practitioners of homosexuality could be given the death sentence.
According to the Guardian U.K. The push for harsher punishments has come mostly from American evangelists Scott Lively, Don Schmierer and Caleb Lee Brundidge. Lively is a noted anti-gay activist and president of Defend the Family International, a conservative Christian association, while Schmierer is an author who works with “homosexual recovery groups�. Brundidge is a “sexual reorientation coach� at the International Healing Foundation. They have pushed stories onto Ugandan officials of European gays "recruiting" men and women from Uganda; and that homosexuality can be cured.
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/2 ... z14c4YoGr8
What do you think about American Evangelists influencing politics in foreign countries?
Is it Justice to execute Homosexuals?
Is homosexuality a crime? Is it a civil crime or a religious crime?
[b]Uganda set to make homosexuality punishable by death[/b]
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Scholar
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:53 am
- Location: Treasure Coast Florida
- Slopeshoulder
- Banned
- Posts: 3367
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
- Location: San Francisco
Post #2
This is just terrible!
And when did evangelism become fused with literalism and hatred?
It is not justice, and it is not a crime.
The religionists and the govermnent are the criminals here.
And when did evangelism become fused with literalism and hatred?
It is not justice, and it is not a crime.
The religionists and the govermnent are the criminals here.
-
- Scholar
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:53 am
- Location: Treasure Coast Florida
Post #3
Yes....it is terrible to execute people for being homosexuals.Slopeshoulder wrote:This is just terrible!
And when did evangelism become fused with literalism and hatred?
It is not justice, and it is not a crime.
The religionists and the govermnent are the criminals here.
But I wonder what would happen to homosexuals in the USA if the religious right ever gained political power to influence the law?
-
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25089
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
Post #4
.
This is yet another example of an extremely negative effect of fusing religion and government -- theocracy -- rule by religion. Most technologically advanced nations have limited the power of clerics. However, that is a relatively recent development in "western nations" where theocracy prevailed for a thousand years of the Dark and Middle Ages (and was imposed by force on conquered lands when possible).
A great deal of influence of religious dogma is still represented in US law -- often criminalizing actions that harm no one, except perhaps the individual involved, (i.e., "victimless crimes") prohibiting actions that offend nothing more than the sensitivities or religious preferences of OTHER people.
Laws prohibiting prostitution, pornography (private, adult), liquor sales, and Sunday sales are examples of areas where religious-based preferences are imposed on even non-religious people.
As occurs frequently, I find myself in agreement with a Thinking Theist.Slopeshoulder wrote:This is just terrible!
And when did evangelism become fused with literalism and hatred?
It is not justice, and it is not a crime.
The religionists and the govermnent are the criminals here.
This is yet another example of an extremely negative effect of fusing religion and government -- theocracy -- rule by religion. Most technologically advanced nations have limited the power of clerics. However, that is a relatively recent development in "western nations" where theocracy prevailed for a thousand years of the Dark and Middle Ages (and was imposed by force on conquered lands when possible).
A great deal of influence of religious dogma is still represented in US law -- often criminalizing actions that harm no one, except perhaps the individual involved, (i.e., "victimless crimes") prohibiting actions that offend nothing more than the sensitivities or religious preferences of OTHER people.
Laws prohibiting prostitution, pornography (private, adult), liquor sales, and Sunday sales are examples of areas where religious-based preferences are imposed on even non-religious people.
.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
- Slopeshoulder
- Banned
- Posts: 3367
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
- Location: San Francisco
Post #5
It would be very ugly if and when theocracy happens. Very.ChristShepherd wrote:Yes....it is terrible to execute people for being homosexuals.Slopeshoulder wrote:This is just terrible!
And when did evangelism become fused with literalism and hatred?
It is not justice, and it is not a crime.
The religionists and the govermnent are the criminals here.
But I wonder what would happen to homosexuals in the USA if the religious right ever gained political power to influence the law?
Let's be friends and work to make sure it never happens.
- flitzerbiest
- Sage
- Posts: 781
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:21 pm
Post #6
It is often argued that the church has a positive, ennobling effect on the population. This is a clear case of the opposite being true. It is somewhat comforting that not all Christians feel this way, but the church is sliding hard to the right, and this is a natural conclusion of that effect.
Honestly, the difference between these evangelists and the Taliban is negligible.
Honestly, the difference between these evangelists and the Taliban is negligible.
-
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25089
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
Post #7
.
"Thinking" is the key word.
I am proud to call many Thinking Theists (here and elsewhere) my friends -- and I truly appreciate the wisdom in your words.
Z
I agree 100% -- and thus the developing alliance between Thinking Theists and Thinking Non-Theists (at least in our Forum).Slopeshoulder wrote:It would be very ugly if and when theocracy happens. Very.
Let's be friends and work to make sure it never happens.
"Thinking" is the key word.
I am proud to call many Thinking Theists (here and elsewhere) my friends -- and I truly appreciate the wisdom in your words.
Z
.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
- Slopeshoulder
- Banned
- Posts: 3367
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
- Location: San Francisco
Post #8
Bingo! Couldn't agree more. I've been saying that John Walker Lind is not the actual American Taliban since the day he was arrested.flitzerbiest wrote:It is often argued that the church has a positive, ennobling effect on the population. This is a clear case of the opposite being true. It is somewhat comforting that not all Christians feel this way, but the church is sliding hard to the right, and this is a natural conclusion of that effect.
Honestly, the difference between these evangelists and the Taliban is negligible.
-
- Scholar
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:53 am
- Location: Treasure Coast Florida
Post #9
Somebody famous, [I don't remember who] once said....."You can't legislate the public morals."Zzyzx wrote:.As occurs frequently, I find myself in agreement with a Thinking Theist.Slopeshoulder wrote:This is just terrible!
And when did evangelism become fused with literalism and hatred?
It is not justice, and it is not a crime.
The religionists and the govermnent are the criminals here.
This is yet another example of an extremely negative effect of fusing religion and government -- theocracy -- rule by religion. Most technologically advanced nations have limited the power of clerics. However, that is a relatively recent development in "western nations" where theocracy prevailed for a thousand years of the Dark and Middle Ages (and was imposed by force on conquered lands when possible).
A great deal of influence of religious dogma is still represented in US law -- often criminalizing actions that harm no one, except perhaps the individual involved, (i.e., "victimless crimes") prohibiting actions that offend nothing more than the sensitivities or religious preferences of OTHER people.
Laws prohibiting prostitution, pornography (private, adult), liquor sales, and Sunday sales are examples of areas where religious-based preferences are imposed on even non-religious people.
People will usually do what they want to do despite the laws that the Theists pass.
Look what happened with Prohibition. It actually increased the consumption of alcohol.
The Theists have tried to suppress gambling, prostituton, drug use, and pornography without success. Pornography is the biggest thing on the internet.
The shame of the system of supression is that we end up making criminals out of people who just want to smoke marijuana, bet on a football game, and watch a little porn.
- Slopeshoulder
- Banned
- Posts: 3367
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
- Location: San Francisco
Post #10
Me too.Zzyzx wrote:.I agree 100% -- and thus the developing alliance between Thinking Theists and Thinking Non-Theists (at least in our Forum).Slopeshoulder wrote:It would be very ugly if and when theocracy happens. Very.
Let's be friends and work to make sure it never happens.
"Thinking" is the key word.
I am proud to call many Thinking Theists (here and elsewhere) my friends -- and I truly appreciate the wisdom in your words.
Z
I'd also add "wise." Because thinking isolated from wisdom can also lead us to grief. Beware the certainty of technocrat as well as that of the theocrat.
Which brings up a point. I think that in a world of imperfect knowledge (all of it) and imperfect people (all of us), it is best if we speak in terms of the themes and emphases (rather than the alleged "truths") of our respective traditions, areas of expertise, communities, and worldviews. That kind of civility sort of set the tone between demoninations when I was in Div. school, and I don't see why it can't set the tone between all non-extremist people. For example some here emphasize rationality, some data, some poetry, some justice, some the old, some the new, etc. I wouldn't want to make a major decision on a hot button issue without that kind of committee at my disposal. And as we individually strive to become more learned, more experienced, and more supple in our thinking, we each can represent multiple themes and emphases simultaneously (in my own case, these are sourced from liberal, postmodern, catholic, american, euro-male, northeastern, semi-buddhist and taoist, rational, pluralist, business, baby boomer, romantic, and aesthetic engagements and experiences).
So if we find ourselves having to make policy decisions around hot button issues, we can gather to listen to, respect, and try to accomodate the themes and emphases, "bracketing" the "truths." In that way, certain themes like love, forgiveness, healing, wholeness, flourishing, life, inclusion, freedom, rationality, fairness, justice, transformation, trust, etc all have a place at the table.
But we need moderates of broad mind, big heart, little fear and good intentions to accomplish that. The many clowns in politics and the media aren't helping.
So, to hijack Shakespeare, first we shoot all the incorrigable and belligerant extremists. Or at least call them by their name and deny them intellectual and moral equivalency. Fantasy and hate are never acceptable presuppostisions.
Bad Taliban. They're an archetype, so they're all around us. A few years ago Richard Thompson wrote a song about it in which Charlie Parker, Albert Einstein and others were all called into question and dismissed as, like Socrates, corrupters and decadents.