Thread: Russian anti-gay bill passes, protesters detained Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030684
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I guess we knew this was coming. Doesn't make it any less horrid when it does.
quote:
A bill that stigmatizes Russia's gay community and bans the distribution of information about homosexuality to children was overwhelmingly approved by the lower house of parliament Tuesday.
More than two dozen protesters were attacked by anti-gay activists and then detained by police, hours before the State Duma approved the Kremlin-backed legislation in a 436-0 vote. The bill banning "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations" still needs to be passed by the appointed upper house and signed into law by President Vladimir Putin, but neither step is in doubt.
The measure is part of an effort to promote traditional Russian values as opposed to Western liberalism, which the Kremlin and the Russian Orthodox Church see as corrupting Russian youth and contributing to the protests against Putin's rule.
Mustn't let people protest against Putin's rule. And Fuck The Patriarch for supporting this.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Russia, making American politics look sane since the 1920's.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And Fuck The Patriarch for supporting this.
Careful, now. Isn't that "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations"?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And Fuck The Patriarch for supporting this.
Careful, now. Isn't that "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations"?
Not if you photoshop it out of the pictures afterwards.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Good on the Russian government. They haven't forgotten their faith and make laws accordingly.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
The measure is part of an effort to promote traditional Russian values as opposed to Western liberalism, which the Kremlin and the Russian Orthodox Church see as corrupting Russian youth and contributing to the protests against Putin's rule.
Yeah, Reuters put a photo of some schoolboys practicing "traditional Russian values" at the top of this article. [Warning: unrelated video autoplays]
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Good on the Russian government. They haven't forgotten their faith and make laws accordingly.
Indeed. What could possibly go wrong with Russians remembering their faith and traditions? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Quite a while ago now, I met a very talented journalist who turned out to have been at the same school as me but who was older than I was - completing her education when attitudes here weren't a whole lot better than Russia. Legalisation of gay people's relationships was still a relatively recent thing.
I'll never forget her telling me what it was like to feel like she was alone in the world, with no-one to turn to and believing she would always be alone all her life. She didn't know anyone else like herself and there were no openly gay people in public life or in the media that she knew about.
What finally pushed her over the edge at school was the favourite English teacher we had shared who was the only teacher in the school who mentioned homosexuality and she mentioned it only in dehumanising terms as a 'sickness'. Thus leading a brilliant and talented 15 year old girl to try to kill herself. That's what happens when you make sure gay children have no access to information, comfort and support. And imagine what that would have been like for her family too.
This is what you're wishing on people, Ad Orientem. This and worse. You're wishing misery and suicide attempts on lonely frightened children, and jail (and the violence that goes with state-sponsored persecution) on the brave ones who will try to reach them and comfort them. The views you support will ensure that many people in Russia, like that person who resembled me in almost every respect but that one, will end up isolated, living in misery or fear, taking their own lives or trying to take them.
I've looked at your other posts, and they don't seem to make a habit of wishing misery and harm on others, so I'm surprised at this, but your post is the equivalent of an extremist Muslim poster coming here and gloating about the persecution and stigmatisation of Coptic Christians. You know that many gay and lesbian people post here - yet your post gloats about legislation which will do great harm to people just like them.
Here's the sort of thing that's going on in Russia
quote:
The investigation informed news agencies that before killing Vlad, his attackers had "stripped the victim naked and set about forcing beer bottles into his rear passage. Two bottles went in whole, but the third only halfway. By this time the victim was already unconscious. His torturers placed cardboard boxes under his body and set them on fire, after which they decided to go back to their respective homes. They realised on the way that if he regained consciousness, he would call the police. They turned back, and one of them brought a rock weighing about 20 kilos which he brought down eight times on the victim's head."
The journalist who wrote this story now lives in fear.
quote:
I'm afraid even now. I'm afraid of going into an empty entrance to a block of flats. I'm afraid of walking down a side street at night. I am afraid. And a little sorry that I probably won't be allowed to continue working. They won't let me go back to television. I'm afraid and sorry. But I've got nothing to be ashamed of now.
It's hard to tackle homophobic violence when any attempt to educate against such attitudes is going to be categorised as the crime of "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations". It's hard to reach frightened isolated young people when any attempt to do so may see you losing your job and prosecuted for telling them they're not the only person in the world of their kind, there's not something dreadfully wrong with them, they're not doomed to always be alone.
It's possible to hold conservative views on sexuality without supporting something so wicked as what is going on in Russia right now.
[ 12. June 2013, 02:28: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Good on the Russian government. They haven't forgotten their faith and make laws accordingly.
Perhaps you could point out where, in the gospel accounts of his earthly activities, Jesus commanded secular governments to pass laws against homosexuality?
I was a Christian only for 9 years or so, and I seem to have missed that bit.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Ad Orientem--
I don't believe you actually said that.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Presented for your consideration. Or here is a short film version.
Louise--
Great post, and ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
for all those in such situations.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And Fuck The Patriarch for supporting this.
Careful, now. Isn't that "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations"?
Not if you photoshop it out of the pictures afterwards.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Good on the Russian government. They haven't forgotten their faith and make laws accordingly.
They have, however, forgotten that Jesus fellow. As do so many Christians, unfortunately.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Good on the Russian government. They haven't forgotten their faith and make laws accordingly.
They haven't finished the jobs till they remember to whip up the traditional anti-Semitism.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Good on the Russian government. They haven't forgotten their faith and make laws accordingly.
Indeed. What could possibly go wrong with Russians remembering their faith and traditions?
I invoke another variation of Godwin's Law here.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Good on the Russian government. They haven't forgotten their faith and make laws accordingly.
Indeed. What could possibly go wrong with Russians remembering their faith and traditions?
I invoke another variation of Godwin's Law here.
Feel free. You're still praising a bigoted* law that will have negative consequences that are easily predictable.
*To pre-empt the usual shite, you're not "bigoted" because of your beliefs about the proper expression of sexuality. You're a bigot when you use the law to enforce that on everyone else. As in here.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It seems semi-fascist to me, and will no doubt lead to more anti-gay violence, which is being legitimized.
Is it also possibly a testimony to the gay movement, that such repressive laws have to be passed? I mean, that the gay movement will not go away, so draconian laws are brought in?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
It's possible to hold conservative views on sexuality without supporting something so wicked as what is going on in Russia right now.
I hold fairly conservative view on sexuality and I think this law is disgusting.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I invoke another variation of Godwin's Law here.
That will not do you any good in this debate. Louise has already raised the moral bar way above that.
Let me put it another way. If your post was not gloating, what aspect of Christian morality was informing your comment? This Russian Law has released hatred. Hatred has been given free rein against people who are different. How can that conform, in any sense that I can understand, to Christian morality as it applies to hatred, or to those who are different?
And I am not talking here about anything you might regard as revisonist or new, or a departure from traditional sexual morality. I'm thinking of the central teaching of Jesus in the Beatitudes, in the Sermon on the Mount more generally and the many demonstrations of inclusion by Jesus to those considered "outside the law".
Where is the love? Of God or of neighbour?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
The Russian law is not about hatred, even if some use it as an excuse (such should be dealt with by the law). It's about preventing gay propaganda and this is not contrary to the Gospel.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Russian law is not about hatred, even if some use it as an excuse (such should be dealt with by the law). It's about preventing gay propaganda and this is not contrary to the Gospel.
I was chatting with a friend about this a couple of weeks ago. I'm far along the liberal side of the spectrum, believing the law should interfere as little as possible with people's private lives, but my mate was saying he opposes the gay / equal marriage legislation in the UK because it will lead to more sin happening. Assuming for a moment that homosexual acts are indeed sinful (personally I'm unsure on this), I struggled for a cogent argument against what my friend said.
But that horrendous killing in Russia makes it clearer for me, I think. State-led approval of one way of living over another can so easily lead to hatred and even violence against those who wish to live in a way the state considers sub-optimal.
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on
:
The law is about marginalising people, it is about denying people basic rights like education about sexuality and sexual health so that they can make informed choices about their behaviour and thus about their wellbeing.
In fact, in the long run, the bill is tantamount to the state sponsoring the next round of increases in sexually transmitted infections with all the attached costs, not just in financial terms, to the state and to society.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Russian law is not about hatred, even if some use it as an excuse (such should be dealt with by the law). It's about preventing gay propaganda and this is not contrary to the Gospel.
I was chatting with a friend about this a couple of weeks ago. I'm far along the liberal side of the spectrum, believing the law should interfere as little as possible with people's private lives, but my mate was saying he opposes the gay / equal marriage legislation in the UK because it will lead to more sin happening. Assuming for a moment that homosexual acts are indeed sinful (personally I'm unsure on this), I struggled for a cogent argument against what my friend said.
But that horrendous killing in Russia makes it clearer for me, I think. State-led approval of one way of living over another can so easily lead to hatred and even violence against those who wish to live in a way the state considers sub-optimal.
A cogent argument against what your mate said would be that by the same logic we should make laws against adultery. The law is not religion's tool for enforcing particular moral codes upon people, or at the least it bloody well shouldn't be. No-one gets to impose their rules on me solely because they think their God's got a bee in his bonnet about something.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Thinking about the role of Russian Christians in this, I'm not surprised that many support the bigotry and hate against gays. After all, reactionary and fascist governments have often had a lot of Christian support - think of Franco's Spain and Salazar's Portugal. It's not difficult really to support the dark side.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Thinking about the role of Russian Christians in this, I'm not surprised that many support the bigotry and hate against gays. After all, reactionary and fascist governments have often had a lot of Christian support - think of Franco's Spain and Salazar's Portugal. It's not difficult really to support the dark side.
It scares me. It's why I run a mile from talk of "Christian country" and leaders promoting "Christian principles" in legislation. There are too many closet theocrats out there who'd dearly love to make everyone dance to their tune.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Thinking about the role of Russian Christians in this, I'm not surprised that many support the bigotry and hate against gays. After all, reactionary and fascist governments have often had a lot of Christian support - think of Franco's Spain and Salazar's Portugal. It's not difficult really to support the dark side.
It scares me. It's why I run a mile from talk of "Christian country" and leaders promoting "Christian principles" in legislation. There are too many closet theocrats out there who'd dearly love to make everyone dance to their tune.
Spot on. As soon as Christianity becomes politicized, I find it very leery. So often it becomes authoritarian, nationalistic, repressive, and so on. Secularism is the only sensible position for me. Keep Christians out of government, as they are toxic.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I wouldn't go that far. But Christians qua Christians with a mission to bring the country "back to God's laws" - which suspiciously often seems to mean being generally unpleasant to gay people and women can just fuck off back to the middle-ages.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Russian law is not about hatred, even if some use it as an excuse (such should be dealt with by the law). It's about preventing gay propaganda and this is not contrary to the Gospel.
This seems naive. This new law looks to be a part of Putin’s increasingly authoritarian approach to civil society. It also seems to offend against the Russian constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression, and the European Convention on Human Rights, which Russian has signed.
On the surface, the law appears to be aimed at prohibiting the dissemination of so-called gay propaganda (whatever that means) to minors. In practice it seems likely to prohibit the public availability of information about gayness in any place where a minor could see it. It will also hamstring any public advocacy of rights on this matter; rights which are already guaranteed in principle by the Russian Constitution and the European Convention.
This is not a declaration in support of a particular view of morality. This is an assertion of control which targets a minority and has already resulted in violence. It does not deserve any support for these very obvious reasons.
As others have said, it is possible to have traditional Christian views about gay people and be trenchantly opposed to this act.
If you were not fully aware of the wider issues, then perhaps your support was understandable. if you were, then I remain perplexed.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Karl
That's what I mean really. I don't mean that any politician who is a Christian should be disbarred; but we know that any 'Christian Party' or 'Christian Democratic' party is going to be right-wing, repressive, and bigoted.
[ 12. June 2013, 11:33: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
A cogent argument against what your mate said would be that by the same logic we should make laws against adultery. The law is not religion's tool for enforcing particular moral codes upon people, or at the least it bloody well shouldn't be. No-one gets to impose their rules on me solely because they think their God's got a bee in his bonnet about something.
Yes, I think I raised this very point. My friend's answer was that he opposed new laws which would result in more sin happening, but introducing laws to stop sin that's already happening is unlikely ever to come about. It was a pragmatic acceptance of what he thought was possible, though; IIRC my friend didn't try to draw a moral distinction between the two types of legislation.
Fundamentally, I don't think the law's purpose is to reduce sin but I've been finding it hard to defend that viewpoint logically. It just feels right, which isn't always a great basis for one's views. Help me out, someone...? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Sin according to whom? Why should your friend's definition of sin, which includes gay sex, trump mine, which doesn't?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Thinking about the role of Russian Christians in this, I'm not surprised that many support the bigotry and hate against gays. After all, reactionary and fascist governments have often had a lot of Christian support - think of Franco's Spain and Salazar's Portugal. It's not difficult really to support the dark side.
It scares me. It's why I run a mile from talk of "Christian country" and leaders promoting "Christian principles" in legislation. There are too many closet theocrats out there who'd dearly love to make everyone dance to their tune.
And then there's the issue of whose theology runs the theocracy. I wouldn't want Jews or Muslims (say) telling me what I can and cannot eat, not least because I'm very fond of pork scratchings...
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Sin according to whom? Why should your friend's definition of sin, which includes gay sex, trump mine, which doesn't?
I think he'd defend your right to legislate as you saw fit, if you were in a position to do so. If you legislated to reduce the amount of sin (as you understood 'sin') then my friend would be okay with that. It's an admirably consistent position but it does open up the possibility of a Muslim or Jewish leader banning pork scratchings... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
And also stuff like what's happening in Russia, of course. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Russian law is not about hatred, even if some use it as an excuse (such should be dealt with by the law). It's about preventing gay propaganda and this is not contrary to the Gospel.
This seems naive. This new law looks to be a part of Putin’s increasingly authoritarian approach to civil society. It also seems to offend against the Russian constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression, and the European Convention on Human Rights, which Russian has signed.
On the surface, the law appears to be aimed at prohibiting the dissemination of so-called gay propaganda (whatever that means) to minors. In practice it seems likely to prohibit the public availability of information about gayness in any place where a minor could see it. It will also hamstring any public advocacy of rights on this matter; rights which are already guaranteed in principle by the Russian Constitution and the European Convention.
This is not a declaration in support of a particular view of morality. This is an assertion of control which targets a minority and has already resulted in violence. It does not deserve any support for these very obvious reasons.
As others have said, it is possible to have traditional Christian views about gay people and be trenchantly opposed to this act.
If you were not fully aware of the wider issues, then perhaps your support was understandable. if you were, then I remain perplexed.
If a person wants their children to be taught about gay sex at school, that homosexual relationships are normal and equal to heterosexual ones then fine, but it seems Russians don't want their children to be subjected to that and Russia still is an Orthodox country, its faith is once more thriving etc. the legislators are responding to that.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Good on the Russian government. They haven't forgotten their faith and make laws accordingly.
Indeed. What could possibly go wrong with Russians remembering their faith and traditions?
I invoke another variation of Godwin's Law here.
Godwin's law wasn't intended to stifle all conversation about authoritarian policies or to suppress history. If you're going to claim that the current Russian policy of censorship and mob violence against an unpopular minority is a refreshing return to traditional (i.e. Czarist) Russian faith, I'm not sure how the comparison can be avoided.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Russian law is not about hatred, even if some use it as an excuse (such should be dealt with by the law). It's about preventing gay propaganda and this is not contrary to the Gospel.
First off, doesn't advocating the prosecution of gay bashers count as "homosexual propaganda" under the new law? Second, isn't having the police authorities ignore (or even promote) mob violence against unpopular minorities part of that traditional Russian faith you find so appealing?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If a person wants their children to be taught about [Judaism] at school, that [Jews] are normal and equal to [Christians] then fine, but it seems Russians don't want their children to be subjected to that and Russia still is an Orthodox country, its faith is once more thriving etc. the legislators are responding to that.
There. Now it's more traditionally Russian. You may consider that to be unfair, but I'm not sure that it's possible to argue that discrimination against one minority is justified but the other isn't. If you'd rather have a Soviet-era example not steeped in blatant anti-Semitism, here you go.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If a person wants their children to be taught about [kulaks] at school, that [kulaks] are normal and equal to [workers] then fine, but it seems Russians don't want their children to be subjected to that and Russia still is a [Communist] country, its [doctrine] is once more thriving etc. the legislators are responding to that.
Again, I'm not sure there's anything other than arbitrary prejudice involved in claims that it would be totally wrong to single out [Jews/kulaks/homosexuals/whatever] for particular sanction by the state, but the [homosexuals/Jews/kulaks/whatever] are a totally different case who completely deserve it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Yes, the Orthodox marginalizing and killing non-Orthodox is indeed traditional Russian culture. "Tradition" in this sense may be overrated.
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on
:
It's not just Christians, of course - Buddhists in Sri Lanka where the Abbots, or some of them, have the say so on so many issues, Taliban in Afghanistan and many more - all equivalents of the Church in Spain and Portugal under the fascists.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, the Orthodox marginalizing and killing non-Orthodox is indeed traditional Russian culture. "Tradition" in this sense may be overrated.
Holy Russia with its pogroms, which I think were cynically used by different Tsars to get the mob on their side, and avoid criticism of the corrupt regime. But surely Putin wouldn't do this, would he?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
On the surface, the law appears to be aimed at prohibiting the dissemination of so-called gay propaganda (whatever that means) to minors. In practice it seems likely to prohibit the public availability of information about gayness in any place where a minor could see it.
"whatever that means." Exactly.
Because my first thought when reading that was that you could call anything you wanted "propaganda", and any message depicting gay people as having healthy, productive lives, or condemning discrimination, would be seen as propaganda. That's removing an entire voice from the debate, and that is far too much power for the State to take upon itself.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If a person wants their children to be taught about gay sex at school, that homosexual relationships are normal and equal to heterosexual ones then fine, but it seems Russians don't want their children to be subjected to that and Russia still is an Orthodox country, its faith is once more thriving etc. the legislators are responding to that.
Out of curiosity, how does any alleged branch of Christianity "thrive" from condoning violence toward the marginalized?
And you haven't answered my earlier question about where Christ taught followers to encourage secular governments to pass laws against homosexuality.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If a person wants their children to be taught about gay sex at school, that homosexual relationships are normal and equal to heterosexual ones then fine, but it seems Russians don't want their children to be subjected to that and Russia still is an Orthodox country, its faith is once more thriving etc. the legislators are responding to that.
Out of curiosity, how does any alleged branch of Christianity "thrive" from condoning violence toward the marginalized?
And you haven't answered my earlier question about where Christ taught followers to encourage secular governments to pass laws against homosexuality.
I said the Orthodox faith in Russia is once again thriving and as such Russia can be considered an Orthodox country and legislates taking that into consideration. The only reason we don't do that is because we no longer define our nations in such as way, that is, as being principly Christian. Neither the Russian legislator nor the Orthodox faith encourages violence against gays.
As for the last part, where does it say in Gospels does it say we shouldn't? Does the Russian state even portray itself as secular anyway?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
You do remember the famous scene where he said, "Stone the bitch" right?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Out of curiosity, how does any alleged branch of Christianity "thrive" from condoning violence toward the marginalized?
Typically by eliminating intellectual competitors. There's a lengthy list of heretics and adherents of rival faiths who have been kept at the margins of society through Church-condoned violence.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I said the Orthodox faith in Russia is once again thriving and as such Russia can be considered an Orthodox country and legislates taking that into consideration. The only reason we don't do that is because we no longer define our nations in such as way, that is, as being principly Christian. Neither the Russian legislator nor the Orthodox faith encourages violence against gays.
Perhaps you should pass that along to those folks in the Georgian Orthodox Church?
quote:
Some of the priests leading the rock-throwing throngs who stormed past police cordons could be seen participating in the melee; one repeatedly slammed a stool into the windshield of one of several minibuses trying to carry the marchers to safety, while another punched marchers and tried to drag a driver out of a bus. Some gave their names in interviews.
There seems to be a decent size faction within at least one branch of the Orthodox faith that goes far beyond simply "encourag[ing] violence against gays".
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
That certain people who are Orthodox have committed a certain act is not the same as the Orthodox faith encouraging such an act. Surely you realise that?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That certain people who are Orthodox have committed a certain act is not the same as the Orthodox faith encouraging such an act. Surely you realise that?
Indeed. But clergy are usually assumed to have a pretty good grasp of a faith's precepts. If you have numerous rock-throwing priests leading a riot and administering beat-downs, followed by (as far as I've been able to determine) a complete lack of consequences, that's pretty good prima facie evidence that a faith supports (or at least doesn't oppose) anti-gay violence.
It seems very difficult to reconcile the idea that "Russia still is an Orthodox country, its faith is once more thriving" with the proposition that the rise in anti-gay violence in Russia has nothing to do with the increasingly anti-gay preaching of the Orthodox church.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That certain people who are Orthodox have committed a certain act is not the same as the Orthodox faith encouraging such an act. Surely you realise that?
When those people who are (apparently) breaking the law are not merely Orthodox but Orthodox priests, one wonder just how true this is to Russia's faith and if it is, what kind of faith it is. Muslims must be looking on in some bewilderment.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Ad Orientem--
Have you had a chance to read the first link in my earlier post? It's pertinent, and won't take long.
Thanks.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
As for the last part, where does it say in Gospels does it say we shouldn't? Does the Russian state even portray itself as secular anyway?
I can't speak for the Russian state, of course. But given some reasonably recent history involving communism, one would suspect that many Russians might still be inclined toward secular views of statehood.
I take it, then, that you consider activities not expressly forbidden in the Gospels to be morally acceptable. As the Gospels record no comment from Jesus on homosexuality during his brief ministry, surely that too passes this test? Yet you seem to take issue with it.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I said the Orthodox faith in Russia is once again thriving and as such Russia can be considered an Orthodox country and legislates taking that into consideration.
I just don't understand people who insist that the majority get to stomp like hell all over the human rights of the minority. It confuses me. Just because your gang is bigger doesn't mean I don't have the right to live my life.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Ad Orientem,
Laws against persecuted groups which stigmatise them as a menace to society help to loosen social inhibitions against all sorts of attacks. Alas, you could ask Pakistani Christians how the added clauses to the blasphemy laws there in the 1980s worked for them in terms of increased harassment, trumped-up charges and murder...
You could also ask them how the word 'blasphemy' had its meaning extended to catch any action that a persecutor could possibly take offence to. Christians have been targeted over matters as trivial as taking ashes to a dump or not offering glass of water. 'Propaganda' is another of those nice vague menacing words like 'blasphemy' which can mean what ever someone wants it to mean against a scapegoated group.
As well as stretching the meaning, you can always plant evidence too - as was done to a 14 year old developmentally-disabled girl to bring a case to help foment riots against Christians. When you put a legal weapon in the hands of persecutors who're vehement against a scapegoated minority group, that's the kind of thing that happens.
This isn't a unique or rare phenomenon - sadly the way these sort of laws work against stigmatised groups is well-documented though time and around the world.
If we don't want to be complicit in violence and persecution, then we can't support such laws.
Gay people exist in Russia just as Christians do in Pakistan. Some people might wish they didn't, and might want them to live in fear of speaking out to protect themselves or to protect others. But anyone who takes seriously that we should treat others as we wish to be treated, and not behave like the wicked servant in the parable who was forgiven by his master only to turn ruthlessly on the servant who lay at his mercy would wish for gay people in Russia to live safely with the right to free speech, publication, broadcast, and teaching to support each other, just as we would wish the same for Christians in Pakistan.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, Russian Christians can surely see their duty today - to reach out to gay people, offer them succour, shelter them from the attacks of thugs, whether official or unofficial, defend their right to form organizations, welcome them into their churches. Nothing could be clearer!
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Trying to track down the quote, but can't.. I believe it was in Randy Shilts' And the Band Played On that an interview with a Soviet diplomat was quoted. The diplomat stated "there is no AIDS in the Soviet Union" and when challenged, went on to say "There are no gays in the Soviet Union."
Which is a chilling statement-- either the guy was in dangerous denial, or he was making some sort of policy statement.
All this to say that the Russian church can't claim anti-gay sentiment as some sort of spiritual mandate.It was going on even when the Church wasn't in power, when the Church was suppressed. Seems more like a sadly stubborn residue of archaic public attitudes.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I said the Orthodox faith in Russia is once again thriving and as such Russia can be considered an Orthodox country and legislates taking that into consideration.
Regardless on whether such legislation violates international treaty obligations or promises within the Russian Constitution?
These issues may be disputed by the legislators of course. But there is a case to answer. It has not been answered; all I have seen is an assertion that there is no case to answer. A short hand way of saying "we're just going to do this, stuff the niceties".
I think you are endorsing a piece of legislation which is backed by the interesting moral principle that our yes should have been no, therefore we are free to change our minds without regard to our solemn and binding promises.
That's not Orthodox Christian morality is it?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Ad Orientem--
Have you had a chance to read the first link in my earlier post? It's pertinent, and won't take long.
Thanks.
I opened it but saw it was a poem and decided not to read it. Not really into poetry.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
It is never too late to learn.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
It doesn't even rhyme.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Your responses remind me of the irrelevant things my kids say and raise when I want them to address something important like going to bed or getting ready for school.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
I think I have already explained my own views in this thread. I think there's a lot of false logic in this thread. The first is that no one has actually shown that A is the cause of B. Talk of pogroms and Jews earlier in the thread are used a debate killers.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I think I have already explained my own views in this thread. I think there's a lot of false logic in this thread.
You bet.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I think I have already explained my own views in this thread. I think there's a lot of false logic in this thread. The first is that no one has actually shown that A is the cause of B. Talk of pogroms and Jews earlier in the thread are used a debate killers.
Well, tell you what, forget all the violence and the Priests who are not expressing anything to do with Orthodoxy when they lead crowds of thugs in violent attacks on gay rights activists, just for a moment, and address the effect this legislation would have on someone in the position of Louise's friend? Or is the odd suicide and life of misery an acceptable price to pay for legal powers to enforce your morality on other people?
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
The scapegoating of unpopular minorities is driven by powerful irrational forces of fear and evil and the search for easy and false solutions to complex problems, it has nothing to do with logic.
The church that claimed at various times that Irish immigrants to Scotland were 'all on the dole' and yet somehow 'taking our jobs' wasn't employing logic. It then also pretended to be shocked when a Catholic eucharistic congress was attacked by 'Protestant Action' with lots of their church goers out on the attack. How many examples would you like of how religious persecution works in practice? Denounce a group that is already stigmatised, demand state action against them and then claim 'it's nothing to do with us' like Pilate washing his hands when physical attacks and discrimination increase.
Refusing to discuss anything because historical parallels you don't like have been raised is a simply an excuse not to answer the serious charges against the position you have taken. If you don't want to talk about how state discrimination created an unsafe persecutory society for Jews in Russia, fine, you've been offered other examples of how scapegoating works in different modern day societies and have simply ignored them.
You could, if you wanted to answer this, raise counter-examples of hated minority groups being targeted by church and state to the point where the state passes discriminatory laws against free speech for them, and you could then try and show that in many cases this was harmless and that persecution of such groups had no evil results and violence against those groups didn't increase.
I'd be very interested to see where you could find such examples, and I'd posit that you can't. We know perfectly well from the disciplines of history and politics what happens in such cases, pretending it doesn't happen or demanding to be shown 'logic' for illogical scapegoating behaviour comes across as an excuse to support persecutory measures while pretending they won't have evil consequences.
We also know in heart-breaking detail what happens to gay teenagers in conservative areas who are left isolated, exposed only to information which attacks them, exposed to anti-gay bullying because teachers are afraid to teach against it, and with nowhere to find support from other gay people. They have a higher prevalence of suicide attempts and increased mental health problems. Many drop out of school because school becomes unsafe for them.
Maybe you have some picture in your head of some sort of imagined or real activist that you hate, but you should replace that picture with one of the first young teenager who walks past you, and ask youself if you're happy to have them placed at greater risk of suicide, misery and isolation, if they should happen to be gay. People like them in Russia would be the real victims of the policies you support. What have those kids ever done to you to deserve such lives?
[ 13. June 2013, 12:09: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Sorry, but I still don't see how legislating against minors being prevented from being subjected to gay propaganda, like being told that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality or being taught about bum sex in sex education lessons, leads to violence against gays or suicides. I certainly wouldn't want any if my children to be subjected to such things, assuming I had children of my own. Such laws, like this or the one banning gays from adopting, may be unpopular in the West but that is only because it no longer defines itself as Christian and thus no longer holds to Christian morality. However, if a nation defines itself as such then it has a duty to govern itself accordingly.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's absurd to say that historical references are debate killers. As Santayana said, those who do not remember the past, are compelled to repeat it.
I think there is a parallel between the historical persecution of Jews in Russia, often instigated by the ruling authorities as a distraction from their own corruption, and the present targeting of gays. In both cases, you have a reactionary and nationalistic drum-beat which accompanies the persecution of some scape-goat, in classic projection style - bad stuff can be projected onto this alien people, and destroyed. It's primitive, and it's surprisingly effective.
In fact, it's going on all over Europe now - especially with the attacks on immigrants and Muslims. Gays provide another target.
Well, denial was always the handmaiden of persecution.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
If attacks on minorities in Europe are rising then I would argue it is due to the failure of western liberal secularism. It has failed the people of Europe, especially if you happen to be white, Christian and straight.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If attacks on minorities in Europe are rising then I would argue it is due to the failure of western liberal secularism. It has failed the people of Europe, especially if you happen to be white, Christian and straight.
Well, you would do. It could never be the fault of over zealous authoritarian governments driven (allegedly) by a religious agenda.
Moreover, where did violence against minorities in Europe come from before western liberal secularism? Did The Annunaki bring it?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If attacks on minorities in Europe are rising then I would argue it is due to the failure of western liberal secularism. It has failed the people of Europe, especially if you happen to be white, Christian and straight.
Yes, straight white Christians are exactly the sort of people being targeted by the EDL, the Front National, Jobbik, and all the rest of them.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think Ad Orientem is partly right. Capitalism is going through one of its periodic semi-collapses, and these often give rise either to war, or to the persecution of minorities, or in fact, often both. I suppose every ruling class wants to distract attention from its own utter failure and corruption - a good way of doing this is to think of some terrible Other who can then be attacked. Look, it's the fault of the Jews/blacks/gays/Muslims!
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Ad Orientem is partly right. Capitalism is going through one of its periodic semi-collapses, and these often give rise either to war, or to the persecution of minorities, or in fact, often both. I suppose every ruling class wants to distract attention from its own utter failure and corruption - a good way of doing this is to think of some terrible Other who can then be attacked. Look, it's the fault of the Jews/blacks/gays/Muslims!
So instead of bread and circuses we have state-approved (or at least tacitly encouraged) beating up on the gayers and darkies. Great...
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
They often go together, don't they? Bread, circuses, and let's beat up the darkies and queers. Trouble is, it's often accompanied also by the lowering of wages and other benefits! So you get bread and circuses and beating up darkies and queers and starvation.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Sorry, but I still don't see how legislating against minors being prevented from being subjected to gay propaganda, like being told that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality or being taught about bum sex in sex education lessons, leads to violence against gays or suicides. I certainly wouldn't want any if my children to be subjected to such things, assuming I had children of my own. Such laws, like this or the one banning gays from adopting, may be unpopular in the West but that is only because it no longer defines itself as Christian and thus no longer holds to Christian morality. However, if a nation defines itself as such then it has a duty to govern itself accordingly.
Then you haven't informed yourself fullly about the law you say you support. This is not confined to what is taught in schools but covers the internet and media ( broadcast and print) - we're talking censorship which will affect society as a whole.
The Russian journalist I mentioned above was sacked simply for coming out as gay already, people like him could now be prosecuted or have publications fined out of existence for coming out and saying that gay people of all ages don't deserve to be persecuted, that they are not mentally ill and that they deserve to be treated fairly. They could be prosecuted for running a story against anti-gay bullying in schools. You can't guarantee that there are no children reading a paper or watching a TV channel. Run a story about what is happening in schools and you could be said to be targeting minors with your information.
To avoid risks like this bulletin boards, TV stations and health information services run scared of the law and go beyond it to avoid the risk of being charged or sued. This very bulletin board you're posting on runs a hugely strict policy on possible libel because it simply can't afford to defend itself even if it might eventually win the case. When Britain had similar but milder laws, schools were afraid to address anti-gay bullying because saying it was wrong could be construed as 'promoting' homosexuality (see what those loose bogey words in legislation do? That was our one). They were afraid to tell gay teenagers they weren't sick or to give them information about where to find support.
This law uses, in the same way as the Pakistan blasphemy laws, a loose concept which can be stretched by hostile authorities to cover many things - services such as counselling for gay teenagers, or general safe-sex advice, or advice about respectful relationships, or testimonies that being gay is OK and shouldn't mean being isolated or alone or hating yourself. It will have a chilling effect as no-one will be quite sure what is covered or not by the law, and everyone will be aware of what a hostile court can do in terms of elastic definitions.
My posts above could be covered by this law if I lived in Russia because a gay teenager could find them on google and read them as being affirming of gay teenagers and telling them they were OK. The people around you on this bulletin board, if they lived there, could risk being arrested for what we discuss with you. If you saw a post you didn't like on this subject, you'd be able to go and turn us into the police and get the board fined out of existence. At the very least you could get the owner harassed by the police. Anything affirming that gay teenagers have the right to information counselling, sex education and support could count as propaganda.
Cutting gay teenagers off from sources of support, affirmation, counselling and advice leads to the isolation and misery I've described to you above. If you can't see how that poses a risk to them, then maybe it's that you don't want to see it.
[ 13. June 2013, 13:44: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Sorry, but I still don't see how legislating against minors being prevented from being subjected to gay propaganda, like being told that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality or being taught about bum sex in sex education lessons, leads to violence against gays or suicides. I certainly wouldn't want any if my children to be subjected to such things, assuming I had children of my own.
First off, the law doesn't prohibit teaching minors "about bum sex", it just stipulates that only heterosexual "bum sex" may be taught.
Second, do you really not see the connection between insisting that kids be taught homosexuals are an inferior class of human and anti-gay violence? Dehumanizing an unpopular minority almost always leads to that sort of thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Such laws, like this or the one banning gays from adopting, may be unpopular in the West but that is only because it no longer defines itself as Christian and thus no longer holds to Christian morality. However, if a nation defines itself as such then it has a duty to govern itself accordingly.
Does Russia really see itself as a Christian theocracy? Is the next step the banning of all non-Christian worship? Compulsory attendance at Orthodox services? How far do you think the state should go in giving its preferred religion a "leg up" on intellectual competitors? You're obviously comfortable with fines and imprisonment. How much further can the state go along these lines?
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Then you haven't informed yourself fully about the law you say you support. This is not confined to what is taught in schools but covers the internet and media ( broadcast and print) - we're talking censorship which will affect society as a whole.
<snip>
My posts above could be covered by this law if I lived in Russia because a gay teenager could find them on google and read them as being affirming of gay teenagers and telling them they were OK. The people around you on this bulletin board could be arrested for what we discuss with you. If you saw a post you didn't like on this subject, you'd be able to go and turn us into the police and get the board fined out of existence. At the very least you could get the owner harassed by the police. Anything affirming that gay teenagers have the right to information counselling, sex education and support could count as propaganda.
As I mentioned earlier Ad Orientem's claimed opposition to anti-gay violence could itself be considered pro-homosexual propaganda, and since he(?) made that claim on the internet it's obviously available to minors. Yet he(?) claims to support a law he's{?) willing to violate.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
So this actual conversation that we are having here, might well fall foul of the laws in Russia. I suppose Ad Orientem would be content with that - after all, it's all good clean Christian right living, and if we have to censor ourselves, it's worth it.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So this actual conversation that we are having here, might well fall foul of the laws in Russia. I suppose Ad Orientem would be content with that - after all, it's all good clean Christian right living, and if we have to censor ourselves, it's worth it.
I suspect most of the Dead Horses board would fall afoul of the new Russian law. It's on the internet and therefore accessible to minors. Of course, any comments denigrating homosexuals would be okay. Only expressing a "pro-homosexual" opinion would raise the censor's ire.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yet he(?) claims to support a law he's{?) willing to violate.
To say nothing of the law of the faith he claims to follow: love one another.
And then there’s this:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Sorry, but I still don't see how legislating against . . . being told that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality (snips and emphasis mine) . . . leads to violence against gays or suicides.
Really? You don’t see how passing laws which institutionalize and validate inequality can lead to people being dehumanized, discriminated against, and treated with violence?
Read much early Christian history? Anything about Rome, lions and Christians ring any bells?
[ 13. June 2013, 14:24: Message edited by: Porridge ]
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
Or about microaggressions, toxic stress, and PTSD if you want modern, scientific reasons for why discrimination is awful on a physical and mental basis.
Also? Would this be a place to talk about the fact that Greece is apparently rounding up trans* people in INTERNMENT CAMPS?!
From that link:
quote:
In May, the official broadcast to publicise Athens Pride was banned as it included a lesbian kiss, while in Thessaloniki, the Metropolitan of the Greek Orthodox Church described Pride as an “unholy and unnatural event”, urging citizens not to take their children and indicating that he would like to see the event shut down. At the end of last year gay men were repeated assaulted by member of the Golden Dawn, sometimes armed with knifes, in the wake of the violent and vicious rabble that saw the opening of the play “Corpus Christi” besieged by Nazis. One MP from the fascist Golden Dawn attacked a journalist, punching him in the face and screeching after him as he escaped “You run away you faggot, you ass-muncher“, while the police silently watched.
Lord Jesus Christ, son of the Living God, save me from your followers!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Does Russia really see itself as a Christian theocracy? Is the next step the banning of all non-Christian worship? Compulsory attendance at Orthodox services? How far do you think the state should go in giving its preferred religion a "leg up" on intellectual competitors? You're obviously comfortable with fines and imprisonment. How much further can the state go along these lines?
The answer, of course, is genocide, which is part of the Russian "tradition" that Ad Orientem so indiscriminately admires.
[ 13. June 2013, 16:17: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
From that link:
quote:
In May, the official broadcast to publicise Athens Pride was banned as it included a lesbian kiss, while in Thessaloniki, the Metropolitan of the Greek Orthodox Church described Pride as an “unholy and unnatural event”, urging citizens not to take their children and indicating that he would like to see the event shut down. At the end of last year gay men were repeated assaulted by member of the Golden Dawn, sometimes armed with knifes, in the wake of the violent and vicious rabble that saw the opening of the play “Corpus Christi” besieged by Nazis. One MP from the fascist Golden Dawn attacked a journalist, punching him in the face and screeching after him as he escaped “You run away you faggot, you ass-muncher”, while the police silently watched.
I'm guessing Ad Orientem will be along shortly to invoke Godwin's Law in protest of the Golden Dawn being referred to as "Nazis" and "fascists".
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The answer, of course, is genocide, which is part of the Russian "tradition" that Ad Orientem so indiscriminately admires.
Not true! AO seems to be quite discriminating in these matters. Anti-Jewish pogroms: bad. Anti-gay pogroms: good. Noting the similarity between anti-Jewish pogroms and anti-gay pogroms: double-plus ungood!
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Ad Orientem--
Have you had a chance to read the first link in my earlier post? It's pertinent, and won't take long.
Thanks.
I opened it but saw it was a poem and decided not to read it. Not really into poetry.
Ok, let's try this another way. It's a poem called "The Hangman", by Maurice Ogden. I studied it in grade school. It's a story poem, and easy to follow. It does rhyme, but that isn't obvious with that particular typesetting. Here's how it starts out:
quote:
Into our town the Hangman came,
Smelling of gold and blood and flame.
And he paced our bricks with a diffident air.
And built his frame on the courthouse square.
The scaffold stood by the courthouse side,
Only as wide as the door was wide;
A frame as tall, or little more,
Than the capping sill of the courthouse door.
And we wondered, whenever we had the time,
Who the criminal, what the crime,
That Hangman judged with the yellow twist
Of knotted hemp in his busy fist.
And innocent though we were, with dread
We passed those eyes of buckshot lead;
Till one cried: "Hangman, who is he
For whom you raise the gallows-tree."
The hangman kills everyone in the town, one by one--until the narrator is the only one left. Then:
quote:
"For who has served me more faithfully
than you with your coward's hope?" said he,
"And where are the others that might have stood
Side by your side in the common good?"
"Dead," I whispered; and amiably
"Murdered," the Hangman corrected me;
"First the alien, then the Jew...
I did no more than you let me do."
Beneath the beam that blocked the sky,
None had stood so alone as I -
And the Hangman strapped me, and no voice there
Cried "Stay" for me in the empty square.
Here is a short film version.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
From that link:
quote:
In May, the official broadcast to publicise Athens Pride was banned as it included a lesbian kiss, while in Thessaloniki, the Metropolitan of the Greek Orthodox Church described Pride as an “unholy and unnatural event”, urging citizens not to take their children and indicating that he would like to see the event shut down. At the end of last year gay men were repeated assaulted by member of the Golden Dawn, sometimes armed with knifes, in the wake of the violent and vicious rabble that saw the opening of the play “Corpus Christi” besieged by Nazis. One MP from the fascist Golden Dawn attacked a journalist, punching him in the face and screeching after him as he escaped “You run away you faggot, you ass-muncher”, while the police silently watched.
I'm guessing Ad Orientem will be along shortly to invoke Godwin's Law in protest of the Golden Dawn being referred to as "Nazis" and "fascists".
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The answer, of course, is genocide, which is part of the Russian "tradition" that Ad Orientem so indiscriminately admires.
Not true! AO seems to be quite discriminating in these matters. Anti-Jewish pogroms: bad. Anti-gay pogroms: good. Noting the similarity between anti-Jewish pogroms and anti-gay pogroms: double-plus ungood!
If by "pogroms" you mean violent acts against groups of people then I support no such thing, be it against Jews or poofs or whatever. I don't, however, believe homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual ones and I don't believe Judaism is equal with Christianity (being, as far as the ancient faith of the Church is concerned, an apostate sect, having rejected and put to death its Messiah and God).
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
AO--
To truly reject Jesus as Messiah, they'd have to know that's who he was/is. ISTM that generally wasn't the case.
There's a saying: when Jesus comes back as the Messiah, Jews will say "welcome!" and Christians will say "welcome back!"
BTW, re pogroms: have you seen the film "Fiddler on the Roof"? What happened in it is one kind of pogrom.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If by "pogroms" you mean violent acts against groups of people then I support no such thing, be it against Jews or poofs or whatever.
Doesn't that count as "pro-homosexual propaganda"?
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I don't, however, believe homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual ones and I don't believe Judaism is equal with Christianity (being, as far as the ancient faith of the Church is concerned, an apostate sect, having rejected and put to death its Messiah and God).
Wow. Been a while since I've come across the old "Jews are Christ-killers" meme. I'm guessing religious freedom is another part of "western liberal secularism" you find distasteful.
Which brings me back to the question you've been avoiding. What limits, if any, are there on how far the state can go in suppressing ideas not sanctioned by the state's preferred religion? You've already stated support for censorship and suppression of pro-gay (and presumably pro-Jewish) publications. What about forbidding groups or assemblies of gays/Jews? Mandatory conversion/adherence to the Orthodox faith? Some kind of Orthodox Inquisition? Where's the limit, or is there one?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Sometimes, Christianity can seem like a deeply unpleasant body of ideas. When it embraces politics, it often seems to be like this, supporting reaction, authoritarianism, nationalism, fascism, racism, homophobia, and prejudice.
I guess it doesn't have to be like this, does it?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Wow. Been a while since I've come across the old "Jews are Christ-killers" meme.
It's always been exceedingly popular in Russia. It's part of their Tradition.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
AO--
To truly reject Jesus as Messiah, they'd have to know that's who he was/is. ISTM that generally wasn't the case.
There's a saying: when Jesus comes back as the Messiah, Jews will say "welcome!" and Christians will say "welcome back!"
BTW, re pogroms: have you seen the film "Fiddler on the Roof"? What happened in it is one kind of pogrom.
Ecunenical bollocks! The time is now. When our Lord returns it will be too kate.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
That logic is as sound as the spelling contained therein.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I don't, however, believe homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual ones and I don't believe Judaism is equal with Christianity (being, as far as the ancient faith of the Church is concerned, an apostate sect, having rejected and put to death its Messiah and God).
What do you mean by "equal" here? Obviously, homosexuality is a minority orientation; I've read estimates that roughly 8-10% of people are attracted to same-sex partners.
This minority status is part of the problem. The human race has a long, troubling history of treating outsiders, minorities, and "the different" very badly.
But again, where did Jesus teach, "You're not like us! Get away! We hate you!"
And as for the Jews killing Jesus, well . . . I recall my time within the Church. If I learned nothing else from that experience, I learned this over several Passion seasons: we are all Jews, every one of us.
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Ecunenical bollocks! The time is now. When our Lord returns it will be too kate.
I'm guessing then that you don't believe in death bed conversions then. Of course, how would you know that at least some Jews won't recognize Jesus as Messiah and Lord when he comes back. In fact there is no reason to believe that all Christians will recognize him either...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Ecunenical bollocks! The time is now. When our Lord returns it will be too kate.
That's so-o-o western. How long have you been Orthodox?
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
It will be fun to watch Ad Orientem's reaction when the Government attitude cycles around. No doubt he'll be outraged when similar laws are passed to for a traditional attack on the Russian Orthodox Church
From my point of view, the Patriarch and Putin deserve each other's thuggery.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If by "pogroms" you mean violent acts against groups of people then I support no such thing, be it against Jews or poofs or whatever.
Doesn't that count as "pro-homosexual propaganda"?
Even if the broad sentiment does (which is open to debate), I think the use of "poofs" should signal his loyalties fairly effectively and get him off with a slap on the wrist and a warning to be more careful.
Seriously, did I just fall through a time warp to the 1970s?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
poofs
?
You obviously don't follow Fr. Hopko.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Ecunenical bollocks! The time is now. When our Lord returns it will be too kate.
That's so-o-o western. How long have you been Orthodox?
Silly mousethief, hate transcends hemispheres. It is the true ecunenisn. Ecunemisn. Ekewnemysm. Oh, bother, you you the word. The one about actually giving a shit about your fellows.
Really fucked up my spell check with that one.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
From my point of view, the Patriarch and Putin deserve each other's thuggery.
They are definitely cut from the same cloth, and it's not a cloth that has boded well for Christians down through the centuries -- particularly in the East. Ignorance of history coupled with blind hate -- and you get the makings of an even greater tragedy. How long until the ROC isn't necessary for Putin's (or his sucessor's) machinations? And then watch your icons. Stalin appealed to "Holy Mother Russia" when it suited his purpose during the Great Patriotic War.
[ 14. June 2013, 17:48: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
From my point of view, the Patriarch and Putin deserve each other's thuggery.
But the Russian people do not deserve either one.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
Many people are heavily prone to sexual immorality. In fact this is so much so that sexual sin is the origin of almost all other sin. Russia has had enough, as the sexual libertinism of the Yeltsin era showed. I weep at the industrial scale abortion in that country, where it was first legalized by those wonderful feminists Stalin and Lenin, in a concerted effort to destroy the Christian faith and and the family. Same thing is happening in Britain.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Many people are heavily prone to sexual immorality.
This may or may not be so but, in any case, does making sexual immorality illegal actually reduce its occurrence or help the situation in any other way? I interpret Jesus' approach as notably not calling for such actions to be outlawed.
Rather, he spoke of sin being an internal matter; so it'd be perfectly possible for homosexual acts to be completely illegal but for many people nevertheless to sin (as you see it) by looking at someone of the same gender with the intention of fantasising about having sex with them.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Russian law is not about hatred, even if some use it as an excuse (such should be dealt with by the law). It's about preventing gay propaganda and this is not contrary to the Gospel.
Why is a belief different to yours 'propaganda', exactly?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's a standard conjugation:
I think gays are sinful.
You propagandize about poofs.
He is a flaming poof and should be jailed.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Many people are heavily prone to sexual immorality. In fact this is so much so that sexual sin is the origin of almost all other sin.
"Have an apple".
I know apples look like bottoms, but where is the sexual content in that particular sin?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It sounds very Freudian. I am robbing this bank, because covertly I want to get back into my mother's womb, and raid it for its hidden treasures. Damn, that's almost convincing.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I'm wondering, now, what happens to scientific debate. Is any study pointing towards homosexuality being innate now 'propoganda'?
I have visions of Galileo in my head, and the few select verses and particular interpretations of those verses that the church used to assert that the earth was the centre of the universe. Was Galileo engaging in heliocentric propaganda when he looked in his telescope?
[ 18. June 2013, 13:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I have visions of Galileo in my head, and the few select verses and particular interpretations of those verses that the church used to assert that the earth was the centre of the universe. Was Galileo engaging in heliocentric propaganda when he looked in his telescope?
No, just when he published his results. Interestingly, while displacing the Earth from the center of the Universe was heretical, it was considered a kind of second order heresy. The really big heresy of heliocentrism was teaching that the Earth moved!
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
Sex outside marriage is not allowed. We are not talking about banning it. However brainwashing children into believing that any sort of sex outside marriage is OK is precisely what revolutionaries do to assault Christianity. It is no coincidence that Communist Hungary was the first country to introduce child sex "education" in 1918.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
I suspect that the use of the term "propaganda" is a nod to the Russian Constitution. Article 29 states* in section 1:
quote:
Everyone shall be guaranteed the freedom of ideas and speech.
But section 2 clarifies that by saying:
quote:
The propaganda or agitation instigating social, racial, national or religious hatred and strife shall not be allowed. The propaganda of social, racial, national, religious or linguistic supremacy shall be banned.
So Russia recognizes the right to free speech, but not the right to spread "propaganda". I suspect the use of the term (or whatever term is used in the original Russian for the English translation "propaganda") is meant to indicate a class of speech outside constitutional protections.
--------------------
*I'm obviously using an English translation of a document originally in Russian.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
However brainwashing children into believing that any sort of sex outside marriage is OK is precisely what revolutionaries do to assault Christianity.
How about brainwashing children into believing it's up to each of them to come to their own decision regarding whether sex outside marriage is OK? How would you feel about that; would it constitute an assault on Christianity, in your view?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Sex outside marriage is not allowed. We are not talking about banning it. However brainwashing children into believing that any sort of sex outside marriage is OK is precisely what revolutionaries do to assault Christianity. It is no coincidence that Communist Hungary was the first country to introduce child sex "education" in 1918.
That's a rather amazing amount of influence to attribute to a shaky, post-war political unit that didn't control all its supposed territory and only lasted 133 days. Do tell me how they managed to have such worldwide influence when they couldn't even keep out the monarchists (or the Romanian army, for that matter)?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So Russia recognizes the right to free speech, but not the right to spread "propaganda".
Which in practice means that any speech they want to limit, they merely brand "propaganda," and voilà! it's illegal. Which means they do not recognize the right to free speech at all, and saying they do in their constitution is so much gas.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Sex outside marriage is not allowed. We are not talking about banning it. However brainwashing children into believing that any sort of sex outside marriage is OK is precisely what revolutionaries do to assault Christianity. It is no coincidence that Communist Hungary was the first country to introduce child sex "education" in 1918.
That's a rather amazing amount of influence to attribute to a shaky, post-war political unit that didn't control all its supposed territory and only lasted 133 days. Do tell me how they managed to have such worldwide influence when they couldn't even keep out the monarchists (or the Romanian army, for that matter)?
I'm not attributing influence to that government as such - I merely point out that the specialization of children through "sex education" is desirable from a Marxist point of view, as it creates a "counter-hegemony" to undermine the (Christian) prevailing orthodoxy.
The counter-hegemony of sexual freedom is all the more powerful because it tempts our fallen nature into acts which, though contrary to God's law, we derive physical pleasure from.
To South Coast Kevin: your suggestion that the State should be morally neutral in the matter is problematic on two fronts:
First such a thing could not exist anyway.
Secondly this is based on an Enlightenmennt liberal idea that, given free choice and good foreknowledge, man will choose what is best for him. This is contrary to the Christian view - that man is fallen, lustful and myopic, and thus responsible measures ought to be taken to guide him away from things which will do him harm. That is why, every day, we beg, "Lead us not into temptation."
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
To South Coast Kevin: your suggestion that the State should be morally neutral in the matter is problematic on two fronts:
First such a thing could not exist anyway.
It's not quite that I want the State to be morally neutral, just that I want the state to permit people to make their own minds up. So I'm in favour of using the tax system to favour behavioural patterns that benefit society (e.g. imposing taxes on pollutants and on harmful products like cigarettes). If there were credible evidence that equal marriage would harm society then I guess I'd want the tax system to favour woman-man marriage. But AFAIK there is no such evidence, thus I want the state to be neutral on the matter.
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Secondly this is based on an Enlightenmennt liberal idea that, given free choice and good foreknowledge, man will choose what is best for him. This is contrary to the Christian view - that man is fallen, lustful and myopic, and thus responsible measures ought to be taken to guide him away from things which will do him harm. That is why, every day, we beg, "Lead us not into temptation."
No, I don't think people will routinely choose what's best for them, given free choice and good foreknowledge. I think people should have the right to make their own decisions according to their own moral framework, albeit that a balance should be struck between this right and (a) the same right for other people, and (b) the general good of society.
I think it's fundamentally ungodly for the state to control how people live, until and unless there's a demonstrable impact on other people.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I'm not attributing influence to that government as such - I merely point out that the specialization of children through "sex education" is desirable from a Marxist point of view, as it creates a "counter-hegemony" to undermine the (Christian) prevailing orthodoxy.
Given that the example you chose was a failed state that didn't make it past the half-year mark, you're not making a particular convincing case. Exactly how many resources did the Hungarian Soviet put into children's sex ed compared to, for example, fighting their civil war? I have no idea, but if I had to hazard a guess I'd probably say one line in an education plan never actually implemented. Any details you could provide would be helpful.
Quite frankly, if the Christian sexual ethic is so flimsy it collapses in the face of such a (hypothetically) weak onslaught, it was doomed anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
The counter-hegemony of sexual freedom is all the more powerful because it tempts our fallen nature into acts which, though contrary to God's law, we derive physical pleasure from.
So close, and yet you don't draw the obvious conclusion. You don't need sex education to sell people the idea that sex is fun and enjoyable. Sex sells itself! I can't imagine the stunted view of both human sexuality and history that would reach the conclusion that no one thought sex was fun until the development of Marxism.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Sex outside marriage is not allowed. We are not talking about banning it. However brainwashing children into believing that any sort of sex outside marriage is OK is precisely what revolutionaries do to assault Christianity. It is no coincidence that Communist Hungary was the first country to introduce child sex "education" in 1918.
Actually in the Bible, sex happens before marriage, because sex is what made people married. There was no ceremony as such, it was people publicly moving in together and promising to be together for life. Marriage happened that way in most of Europe too, for centuries. It was only property laws that made marriage a more formalised ceremony. In any case, there is no Bible verse that forbids pre-marital sex (just interpretations of particular verses), and sex does not come under Caesar's remit. It is not for governments to legislate against sex between consenting adults.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Sex outside marriage is not allowed. We are not talking about banning it. However brainwashing children into believing that any sort of sex outside marriage is OK is precisely what revolutionaries do to assault Christianity. It is no coincidence that Communist Hungary was the first country to introduce child sex "education" in 1918.
That's a rather amazing amount of influence to attribute to a shaky, post-war political unit that didn't control all its supposed territory and only lasted 133 days. Do tell me how they managed to have such worldwide influence when they couldn't even keep out the monarchists (or the Romanian army, for that matter)?
I'm not attributing influence to that government as such - I merely point out that the specialization of children through "sex education" is desirable from a Marxist point of view, as it creates a "counter-hegemony" to undermine the (Christian) prevailing orthodoxy.
The counter-hegemony of sexual freedom is all the more powerful because it tempts our fallen nature into acts which, though contrary to God's law, we derive physical pleasure from.
To South Coast Kevin: your suggestion that the State should be morally neutral in the matter is problematic on two fronts:
First such a thing could not exist anyway.
Secondly this is based on an Enlightenmennt liberal idea that, given free choice and good foreknowledge, man will choose what is best for him. This is contrary to the Christian view - that man is fallen, lustful and myopic, and thus responsible measures ought to be taken to guide him away from things which will do him harm. That is why, every day, we beg, "Lead us not into temptation."
Marxists are not fond of Enlightenment liberalism, just saying. Your grasp of history seems to be lacking!
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Sex outside marriage is not allowed. We are not talking about banning it. However brainwashing children into believing that any sort of sex outside marriage is OK is precisely what revolutionaries do to assault Christianity. It is no coincidence that Communist Hungary was the first country to introduce child sex "education" in 1918.
That's a rather amazing amount of influence to attribute to a shaky, post-war political unit that didn't control all its supposed territory and only lasted 133 days. Do tell me how they managed to have such worldwide influence when they couldn't even keep out the monarchists (or the Romanian army, for that matter)?
I'm not attributing influence to that government as such - I merely point out that the specialization of children through "sex education" is desirable from a Marxist point of view, as it creates a "counter-hegemony" to undermine the (Christian) prevailing orthodoxy.
The counter-hegemony of sexual freedom is all the more powerful because it tempts our fallen nature into acts which, though contrary to God's law, we derive physical pleasure from.
To South Coast Kevin: your suggestion that the State should be morally neutral in the matter is problematic on two fronts:
First such a thing could not exist anyway.
Secondly this is based on an Enlightenmennt liberal idea that, given free choice and good foreknowledge, man will choose what is best for him. This is contrary to the Christian view - that man is fallen, lustful and myopic, and thus responsible measures ought to be taken to guide him away from things which will do him harm. That is why, every day, we beg, "Lead us not into temptation."
Marxists are not fond of Enlightenment liberalism, just saying. Your grasp of history seems to be lacking!
I never said they were. By co-opting certain forms of language they have AlexAndrian as "liberal" to the extent that New Labour is described as "socially" liberal when in fact it was quite the opposite.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Sex outside marriage is not allowed. We are not talking about banning it. However brainwashing children into believing that any sort of sex outside marriage is OK is precisely what revolutionaries do to assault Christianity. It is no coincidence that Communist Hungary was the first country to introduce child sex "education" in 1918.
In many countries it's perfectly possible for gays to have sex within marriage. Heck, I'm in inner Boston, there could be gay married couples having a lunchtime quickie RIGHT NOW. woot!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Heck, I'm in inner Boston, there could be gay married couples having a lunchtime quickie RIGHT NOW. woot!
Jaysoos, man, children might be reading this. You're brainwashing them with this propaganda. And you don't even have a pussy to riot.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Nonsense, I'm celebrating the joys of married love. Between two hot dudes.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nonsense, I'm celebrating the joys of married love. Between two hot dudes.
I see what you've done there. This is looksism.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Williams leads tributes to Samaritans founder
A bit about Chad Varah, the founder of the Samaritans
quote:
Dr Varah launched the Samaritans in 1953 "to befriend the suicidal and despairing" after conducting the funeral of a 13-year-old girl who had killed herself. Uneducated about sex, she had mistaken her first period for a symptom of a sexually transmitted disease which she feared would afford her a painful, shameful death.
Her case also prompted him to become one of the earliest proponents of sex education, particularly to poorly educated young people, for which conservative 1950s society vilified him as a "dirty old man".
(The article elides the dates a bit - the death of the girl came quite a bit earlier, but moved him to become active in this field)
So, Chad Varah's Christian approach which saved many lives or Indifferently's strange contention that sex education is bad because it is really 'Marxist? You decide.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nonsense, I'm celebrating the joys of married love. Between two hot dudes.
I see what you've done there. This is looksism.
Oh fine. The joys of married love between two rather dowdy middle-aged men, one of whom is stuck in a low level management job he detests and the other who is struggling with sciatica.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
I know not whether there is an epidemic of illiteracy ("dyslexia" perhaps) running wild on this board but people seem to be determined to counter points I simply have not made. I am not suggesting we try to ban sexual behaviour which is contrary to the the clear historic, scriptural and patristic teachings of the Universal Church, I am merely suggesting that active promotion of such behaviour is both wrong and unnecessary.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Sex outside marriage is not allowed. We are not talking about banning it. However brainwashing children into believing that any sort of sex outside marriage is OK is precisely what revolutionaries do to assault Christianity. It is no coincidence that Communist Hungary was the first country to introduce child sex "education" in 1918. the
In many countries it's perfectly possible for gays to have sex within marriage. Heck, I'm in inner Boston, there could be gay married couples having a lunchtime quickie RIGHT NOW. woot!
Please show me where in the Book of Common Prayer exists any provision for marriage other than between one man and one woman.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
An Australian senator has been saying again that same sex marriage could lead to polygamy. Given that the latter is a thoroughly Scriptural practice, the mind boggles as to how that particular strain of religious argument actually works. Because not only do we not promote polygamy, we actively discourage it.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
An Australian senator has been saying again that same sex marriage could lead to polygamy. Given that the latter is a thoroughly Scriptural practice, the mind boggles as to how that particular strain of religious argument actually works. Because not only do we not promote polygamy, we actively discourage it.
That is why we have something called "The Church". It's not just scripture - the teaching of the Fathers and Councils are clear that polygamy is not allowed, and the Lord, raising up marriage into a higher order under the New Covenant, made the union betwixt man and wife an icon of that between Christ and His Church.
But I suppose you're too busy parroting flat pack lefty received opinion to engage in the most basic theology and ecclesiology. So I apologize.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
But I suppose you're too busy parroting flat pack lefty received opinion to engage in the most basic theology and ecclesiology. So I apologize.
Other views of ecclesiology are out there, Indifferently. Obviously you think your view is right, but you can't just ignore the fact that many people think of 'the Church' in a very different way than you, and would even hesitate to use the phrase.
It might be worth thrashing this out on another thread, but I'm far more comfortable with 'the church in' a particular city or area, as this seems to be more faithful to the New Testament witness.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Indifferently
That is you have something called "The Church". It's not just scripture
But I suppose you're too busy parroting flat pack righty received opinion to engage in the most basic theology and ecclesiology.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Sex outside marriage is not allowed. We are not talking about banning it. However brainwashing children into believing that any sort of sex outside marriage is OK is precisely what revolutionaries do to assault Christianity. It is no coincidence that Communist Hungary was the first country to introduce child sex "education" in 1918. the
In many countries it's perfectly possible for gays to have sex within marriage. Heck, I'm in inner Boston, there could be gay married couples having a lunchtime quickie RIGHT NOW. woot!
Please show me where in the Book of Common Prayer exists any provision for marriage other than between one man and one woman.
Please show me the place where Jesus declared the Book of Common Prayer to be the repository of eternal truth.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
An Australian senator has been saying again that same sex marriage could lead to polygamy. Given that the latter is a thoroughly Scriptural practice, the mind boggles as to how that particular strain of religious argument actually works. Because not only do we not promote polygamy, we actively discourage it.
That is why we have something called "The Church". It's not just scripture - the teaching of the Fathers and Councils are clear that polygamy is not allowed, and the Lord, raising up marriage into a higher order under the New Covenant, made the union betwixt man and wife an icon of that between Christ and His Church.
But I suppose you're too busy parroting flat pack lefty received opinion to engage in the most basic theology and ecclesiology. So I apologize.
I can assure you, as a person who wrestled with these issues personally for close on 2 decades, that my opinions are not received at all. They are entirely my own and I fought excruciatingly hard internal battles to arrive at them.
It's quite galling to have it suggested that just because my opinion is now more popular in some circles than yours are, that this somehow means I'm just a parrot. I know who I am, thanks. I am a rare blend of influences and personality the like of which it's unlikely you encounter very often. I am Christian, gay, intensely musical, more intelligent than 99% of the population, extremely analytical, honest, ethical, passionate, romantic... And frequently told by people who meet me how damn unusual I am. So kindly pack up your stereotype and take it elsewhere.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I am not suggesting we try to ban sexual behaviour which is contrary to the the clear historic, scriptural and patristic teachings of the Universal Church, . . .
No it's not. Banning certain sexual behaviors has very clear historical and scriptural precedents. It's popularity is second only to banning heretics, blasphemers, infidels, and assorted other dissidents. That's what makes the Russian law so handy. Now you can do both at the same time!
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
That is why we have something called "The Church". It's not just scripture - the teaching of the Fathers and Councils are clear that polygamy is not allowed, and the Lord, raising up marriage into a higher order under the New Covenant, made the union betwixt man and wife an icon of that between Christ and His Church.
But I suppose you're too busy parroting flat pack lefty received opinion to engage in the most basic theology and ecclesiology. So I apologize.
Other views of ecclesiology are out there, Indifferently. Obviously you think your view is right, but you can't just ignore the fact that many people think of 'the Church' in a very different way than you, and would even hesitate to use the phrase.
Not to mention the question as to why those outside "the Church" should be forced to follow its teachings by the laws of the state.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
In the Episcopal Church in the U.S. same sex blessings have been authorized by the Standing Committee on Liturgy and Music (SCLM) since 2009 and are included in the Book of Occasional Services, which is a supplement to the Book of Common Prayer. There is probably a good possibility that it will be included in a future revision of the BCP.
Of course, in places like New York State where I live, Episcopal clergy also act as agents of the State, so as they are pronouncing a blessing on a same sex couple they may (and often) choose to marry them in the eyes of the law.
My Bishop issued this instruction regarding marriage and same sex couples soon after gay marriage was legalized in the State of New York.
Diocese of Long Island: A Theological Perspective and Practical Guideline on Marriage in the Diocese of Long Island as New York State Law Allows Same-Gender Marriage
[ 18. June 2013, 22:56: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Meant to add this, which was issued by the Diocese at about the same time. It includes both a Rite of Blessing of a Civil Marriage and an Alternative Marriage Rite for same sex couples.
Diocese of Long Island: Rites for Usage in the Celebration of Same Gender Marriages Within the Diocese of Long Island
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Not to mention the question as to why those outside "the Church" should be forced to follow its teachings by the laws of the state.
This strikes me as 89% of the issue right here.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nonsense, I'm celebrating the joys of married love. Between two hot dudes.
I see what you've done there. This is looksism.
Oh fine. The joys of married love between two rather dowdy middle-aged men, one of whom is stuck in a low level management job he detests and the other who is struggling with sciatica.
Oh, now I see what you mean!
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Not to mention the question as to why those outside "the Church" should be forced to follow its teachings by the laws of the state.
This strikes me as 89% of the issue right here.
The other 11% being that Jesus wasn't quite the bastard some of his followers are?
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I am a rare blend of influences and personality the like of which it's unlikely you encounter very often.
Damn, but I miss the Offense thread. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Not to mention the question as to why those outside "the Church" should be forced to follow its teachings by the laws of the state.
This strikes me as 89% of the issue right here.
The other 11% being that Jesus wasn't quite the bastard some of his followers are?
Oooh, I left that out. I will have to recalculate.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Please show me the place where Jesus declared the Book of Common Prayer to be the repository of eternal truth.
Probably the same place he said, "Well, if the King James Bible was good enough for *me* to use, you don't need nuthin' else."
NOTE: I don't have a problem with the KJV. But there are folks who say, "well, if it was good enough for Jesus..."
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I know not whether there is an epidemic of illiteracy ("dyslexia" perhaps) running wild on this board but people seem to be determined to counter points I simply have not made. I am not suggesting we try to ban sexual behaviour which is contrary to the the clear historic, scriptural and patristic teachings of the Universal Church, I am merely suggesting that active promotion of such behaviour is both wrong and unnecessary.
Anyone else think it mildly amusing that Indifferently will promote the 'Universal Church' when it suits him, but otherwise make snide comments about the errors of Rome?
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I know not whether there is an epidemic of illiteracy ("dyslexia" perhaps) running wild on this board but people seem to be determined to counter points I simply have not made. I am not suggesting we try to ban sexual behaviour which is contrary to the the clear historic, scriptural and patristic teachings of the Universal Church, I am merely suggesting that active promotion of such behaviour is both wrong and unnecessary.
So you don't have to promote it. Other people who feel it's right and necessary get to promote it. You don't get to tell them they can't. You'll have to depend on your charm and your arguments to convince those who are not of your church and not attempts to ban their promotion.
That doesn't seem to be going very well for you though.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Actually in the Bible, sex happens before marriage, because sex is what made people married. There was no ceremony as such, it was people publicly moving in together and promising to be together for life. [..]
This court case in India was too timely to pass up.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Sex outside marriage is not allowed. We are not talking about banning it.
I may have an unusual peer group (no science here!), but I'm afraid that if sex outside marriage is not allowed, that pretty much constitutes a ban for all but four of my closest friends
To be fair, two of these are hitching up come Saturday.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I know not whether there is an epidemic of illiteracy ("dyslexia" perhaps) running wild on this board but people seem to be determined to counter points I simply have not made. I am not suggesting we try to ban sexual behaviour which is contrary to the the clear historic, scriptural and patristic teachings of the Universal Church, I am merely suggesting that active promotion of such behaviour is both wrong and unnecessary.
So you don't have to promote it. Other people who feel it's right and necessary get to promote it. You don't get to tell them they can't. You'll have to depend on your charm and your arguments to convince those who are not of your church and not attempts to ban their promotion.
That doesn't seem to be going very well for you though.
I don't get this about "promoting homosexuality". In Britain from 1988, Section 28 of the Local Government Act stated that a local authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".
No prosecutions were ever made (I'm not sure if one ever could, given such half-baked drafting) but the second clause intentionally made things difficult for teachers asked for advice by gay pupils or students, even if the relationship were entirely legal.
Then again, Britain is a democracy and the legislation was repealed in 2000 (by the government led by that well-known Marxist, Tony Blair).
[ 19. June 2013, 22:14: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
. . . I am merely suggesting that active promotion of such behaviour is both wrong and unnecessary.
Active promotion of sexuality is largely unnecessary, period. Most people eventually learn how to offer and accept sexual expression, as witnessed by a world population swollen to more than seven billion of our species.
What I'm curious about is this: what constitutes the "promotion" of sexual behavior you disapprove of?
Say that we acknowledge that the behavior exists. Is that promotion?
Say we describe the behavior. Is that promotion?
Say we acknowledge that 8-10% of the population engages in these practices. Is that promotion?
I could go on, but you see what I'm asking.
I'm curious because, in my experience, most of us have at least some imagination: that is, we can summon up mental pictures/sensations of, say, working on a factory assembly line (even if we've never done this). Most of us can at least partially grasp what it might be like to row a boat (even if we've never done this). Similarly, most of us can muster up some dim idea of a sexual encounter (even before we've experienced the Real Thing).
Your mileage may vary, but in my experience, people tend to imagine sexual behaviors that appeal to them. When people imagine sexual behaviors that don't appeal, they generally react negatively, in ways ranging from mild disinterest to outright revulsion.
This fact makes the notion of "promoting" sexual behavior somewhat problematic, in that it's pretty hard to encourage people to engage in behavior that leaves them cold or that they find repugnant.
IOW, how can homosexual behavior be "promoted," except to those who might actually find it appealing (which suggests they may either be homosexual or bisexual already)?
And what, exactly, constitutes "promotion?"
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
An Australian senator has been saying again that same sex marriage could lead to polygamy. Given that the latter is a thoroughly Scriptural practice, the mind boggles as to how that particular strain of religious argument actually works. Because not only do we not promote polygamy, we actively discourage it.
That is why we have something called "The Church". It's not just scripture - the teaching of the Fathers and Councils are clear that polygamy is not allowed, and the Lord, raising up marriage into a higher order under the New Covenant, made the union betwixt man and wife an icon of that between Christ and His Church.
But I suppose you're too busy parroting flat pack lefty received opinion to engage in the most basic theology and ecclesiology. So I apologize.
I can assure you, as a person who wrestled with these issues personally for close on 2 decades, that my opinions are not received at all. They are entirely my own and I fought excruciatingly hard internal battles to arrive at them.
It's quite galling to have it suggested that just because my opinion is now more popular in some circles than yours are, that this somehow means I'm just a parrot. I know who I am, thanks. I am a rare blend of influences and personality the like of which it's unlikely you encounter very often. I am Christian, gay, intensely musical, more intelligent than 99% of the population, extremely analytical, honest, ethical, passionate, romantic... And frequently told by people who meet me how damn unusual I am. So kindly pack up your stereotype and take it elsewhere.
Good job you didn't list "modest" among your attributes.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I have posted an opinion of Indifferently on the Hell Thread about that just started.
The discussion on "Promotion" led me to the thought that if the Church promoted Homosexuality from the pulpit the way it does Peace, Love and Charity, gay sex would be in as much trouble as the other topics. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
I dunno. I'm approaching 50, have had heterosexuality actively "promoted" to me throughout my life, in: church, school, work, the media and every which way imaginable. And despite all the junior high and high school proms, homecomings, parties, summer camps and church functions to which I was pressured to bring an opposite sex date; and all the music, TV shows, commercials and movies where I have heard/watched opposite sex romance, love, sex and family celebrated; and all the work parties where I have listened to straight parents gush over their kids and looked at their pics, it hasn't made me want to run out and get a girlfriend, much less actually fantasize over women parts.
Fears over the "promotion" of a sexual orientation seem pretty overblown. I often wonder if those who kindle this fear worry that they'll catch "the ghey" if the circumstances were right. They also seem to think that if they make being gay difficult people will cease to be gay (despite the fact that there are gay communities in some of the most homophobic parts of the world.) It strikes me as fantasy thinking.
Posted by Dennis the Menace (# 11833) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I dunno. I'm approaching 50, have had heterosexuality actively "promoted" to me throughout my life, in: church, school, work, the media and every which way imaginable. And despite all the junior high and high school proms, homecomings, parties, summer camps and church functions to which I was pressured to bring an opposite sex date; and all the music, TV shows, commercials and movies where I have heard/watched opposite sex romance, love, sex and family celebrated; and all the work parties where I have listened to straight parents gush over their kids and looked at their pics, it hasn't made me want to run out and get a girlfriend, much less actually fantasize over women parts.
Fears over the "promotion" of a sexual orientation seem pretty overblown. I often wonder if those who kindle this fear worry that they'll catch "the ghey" if the circumstances were right. They also seem to think that if they make being gay difficult people will cease to be gay (despite the fact that there are gay communities in some of the most homophobic parts of the world.) It strikes me as fantasy thinking.
Well said
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Fears over the "promotion" of a sexual orientation seem pretty overblown. I often wonder if those who kindle this fear worry that they'll catch "the ghey" if the circumstances were right.
As best as I can tell, some such people think that if you don't tell a young man that "gay" exists, it won't occur to him to find that other young man attractive.
The rest just think you're disgusting and don't want to hear about you - they want you firmly in the closet, communicating solely by the secret gay handshake.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Modesty does not consist of lying about oneself.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
A hundred years or so ago, writing with your left hand was actively discouraged in most schools. Children were encouraged (sometimes with a big stick) to conform to the right-handed norm.
Nowadays children are encouraged to decide for themselves which hand to write with and left-handers are allowed to flaunt their left-handedness in public. Some have even written books about famous left-handed people and claim that left-handed people are superior to right-handed ones.
Despite this shocking promotion of left-handedness, most of the population is still right-handed. Including my daughter, right-handed child of two left-handers.
(this isn't really a tangent: think about it)
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
According to this article, Russia's homophobia is unique in that it is not principally motivated by increased religiosity:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/06/why-is-russia-so-homophobic/276817/
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on
:
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>
Indifferently -I refer to your post of 23rd June in response to Orfeo.
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Good job you didn't list "modest" among your attributes.
I need to remind you of Commandment 3
'Attack the issue, not the person
Name-calling and personal insults are only allowed in Hell. Attacks outside of Hell are grounds for suspension or banning.'
Please note that this is a hostly and probably final warning - not a suggestion or a recommendation.
And to all who may be so minded - remember commandment 4:
'If you must get personal, take it to Hell
If you get into a personality conflict with other shipmates, you have two simple choices: end the argument or take it to Hell.'
There is already a suitable thread for this purpose here!
Host Mode <DEACTIVATE>
Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
<bump>
Buzzfeed's 36 Photos From Russia That Everyone Needs To See.
Just some more of those "traditional Russian values" everyone seems so keen on.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
<bump>
Buzzfeed's 36 Photos From Russia That Everyone Needs To See.
Just some more of those "traditional Russian values" everyone seems so keen on.
Cool it with the "everyone."
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Well, every Christians should see them and act e.g. by writing to the Russian embassy.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Well, every Christians should see them and act e.g. by writing to the Russian embassy.
I'm not sure a few sternly worded letters will sort it all out. This may require more a more direct form of action:
quote:
Sidetrack, 3349 N. Halsted St., today said that it would be removing Stolichnaya Vodka and other Russian products from their shelves. The decision comes in the wake of Russia's implementation of oppressive anti-gay laws last month.
"I had been following the various news reports about what was going on in Russia," said co-owner Art Johnston. "It's hard to believe that they could carry out and enforce that kind of a law, but they did." He added that there was no way he could in good conscience continue to serve Stolichnaya or any other Russian products at the nightclub.
Businesses that imported and distributed Stolichnaya for Sidetrack have been huge supporters of the LGBT community, Johnston said. "They've always been quite responsive to us, so it's not a move that we take lightly."
The ownership of the Stolichnaya name was the subject of international litigation for many years. In 2012, it was returned to the Russian government. A statement Sidetrack posted on its Facebook page noted the irony: "Very soon the Russian government itself, which bans positive portrayals of LGBT people, may be the beneficiary of the goodwill earned by Stoli's distributors and bars over the years."
Pretty straightforward. A product that is not only directly sold by the Russian state (at least the Stolichnaya brand) and is culturally linked with the country in most people's minds. It's almost elegant.
[ 25. July 2013, 17:20: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I don't disagree with that.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
A gay bar I know in Melbourne is moving to do the same thing. The situation in Russia is definitely making a stir in the LGBT community.
It's also making me think very hard about the whole question of free speech.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
The ownership of Stoli may be more complicated than that statement appears, though. Not so straightforward after all.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Apparently someone at Stoli noticed the boycott, because their CEO released an open letter to The Advocate pointing out how supportive Stolichnaya is of the gay community in the U.S., Austria, Israel, and South America. For some reason there was no mention of Stoli's support of the gay community in Russia, other than a generic condemnation of "[t]he recent dreadful actions taken by the Russian Government limiting the rights of the LGBT community". How about supporting Gay Pride events in Moscow and St. Petersburg, not just Miami and Vienna?
You'd think the 72nd richest man in Russia would have a few more political levers at his disposal than having his CEO put out an "open letter" in an American publication targeted at a gay audience and hoping it filters back to Putin.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
A gay bar I know in Melbourne is moving to do the same thing. The situation in Russia is definitely making a stir in the LGBT community.
It's also making me think very hard about the whole question of free speech.
What connection with free speech are you referring to?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
A gay bar I know in Melbourne is moving to do the same thing. The situation in Russia is definitely making a stir in the LGBT community.
It's also making me think very hard about the whole question of free speech.
What connection with free speech are you referring to?
If you don't have specific free speech protections, there's really no reason why a law can't be created that labels a particular view as 'propoganda' and forbids its expression. In this particular case I find the law outrageous because it's targeted at speech I support, but what about cases where I don't support the speech that is targeted? What about, for example, laws in Germany that target people who deny the existence of the Holocaust?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What about, for example, laws in Germany that target people who deny the existence of the Holocaust?
They're wrong. If free speech isn't free for everybody, it's not free. There are limits but they are related to things like inciting violence, not disagreeing with the PTB.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You'd think the 72nd richest man in Russia would have a few more political levers at his disposal than having his CEO put out an "open letter" in an American publication targeted at a gay audience and hoping it filters back to Putin.
By remarkable coincidence it turns out that the set of Russian oligarchs who are guilty of corruption almost exactly coincides with the set of Russian oligarchs who criticise Putin.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Bumping this thread to link to this video clip of Stephen Fry interviewing Vitaly Milonov, the principle sponsor of Russia's Anti-Gay Propaganda bill.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Bumping this thread again because I came across two articles dealing with the fallout of the Russian law (so far). The first is Being Gay in Russia by Jeff Sharlet over at GQ. Here's a bit from page 4:
quote:
There are three faces of homophobia in Russia: that of the state, that of the Orthodox Church, that of the fringe. And yet they're one — a kind of Trinity. The state passes laws; the church blesses them; the fringe puts them into action. The state is the mind of hate, the church, now, its heart; the fringe is made up of its many hands. Some use the courts; some use fists. There are street fighters, and there are polished men and women who attend international conferences on "family values."
The other is The Brutal, Bloody Horror of Gay Life in Putin’s Russia by Mark Joseph Stern over at Slate. That one is more of a news round up than the in-depth, on-the-ground piece Sharlet wrote, but they're both worth reading.
At any rate, in what seems to be a totally predictable (and predicted) development, various Russians have taken their cues from the government that gays are somehow a threat and have taken matters into their own hands.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
The counter-hegemony of sexual freedom is all the more powerful because it tempts our fallen nature into acts which, though contrary to God's law, we derive physical pleasure from.
Counter-hegemony... good way to put it... almost as good as a witless homophobe's complacent warning that "the truth will out". Give me that truth, as well as counter-hegemony over hegemony, any day.
I see it as all the more powerful because it counters the universal tendency of whatever hegemony (whether state or corporate) to cow its subjects by invoking God so handily as primarily an all-seeing spy-in-the-sky-- thereby covering whatever gaps its own surveillance technology to date has left open. You see, to the extent that a hegemony can impress upon a populace the idea that even the most private acts are severely controlled, the more absolute its effective power becomes. From a ruler's point of view, promoting this idea is the main function of religion and of clerical lapdogs. Hence the almost universal doctrinal preoccupation with sex.
This crackdown is part of Putin's response to his sagging popularity: an appeal to the most conservative elements of Russian society in the name of nationalism. That the church should allow itself to be used for such ends is a travesty.
The writings of the Marquis de Custine described the character of czarist Russia at about the same time, and with similar keenness of insight, to those of Toqueville re America at about the same time. It is depressing how little has changed since. As one latter-day successor to the czars, Putin feels no more obligation to human rights, especially those of a small minority, than did another, Stalin, re the Jews. They're all mere
instruments, toys, if you will. The extent of concern shown by more democratic countries for the Jews post-WWII simply baffled Stalin and his henchman. Let's hope Putin will face similar puzzlement.
[ 07. February 2014, 10:16: Message edited by: Alogon ]
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
I love the Google doodle.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Bumping this thread with an illustration of how far-reaching Russia's anti-gay laws are:
quote:
Russia Takes Down Steve Jobs Memorial After Apple's Tim Cook Comes Out as Gay
A memorial to Apple Inc founder Steve Jobs has been dismantled in the Russian city of St Petersburg after the man who succeeded him at the helm of the company came out as gay. The more than six-foot-high monument, in the shape of an iPhone, was erected outside a St. Petersburg college in January 2013 by a Russian group of companies called ZEFS.
Citing the need to abide by a law combating "gay propaganda," ZEFS said in a statement on Monday that the memorial had been removed on Friday -- the day after Apple CEO Tim Cook penned a piece about being gay. "In Russia, gay propaganda and other sexual perversions among minors are prohibited by law," ZEFS said, noting that the memorial had been "in an area of direct access for young students and scholars."
So Steve Jobs has to be "disappeared" from public records because the man who succeeded him as Apple CEO just came out as gay. While this kind of memory hole activity does seem kind of "traditional" in Russia, I'm not sure it's the kind of tradition that should be encouraged.
[ 04. November 2014, 18:16: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Two things:
1. Its ironic that all this happens in a state headed by Vladimir Putin, widely regarded as a gay icon.
2. The more likely /truthful explanation is that the memorial has been removed as part of the current drive to show the west how little Russia cares about the economic sanctions imposed over their involvement in Ukraine and the downing of the Malaysia Airlines flight. But by labelling it as reprisal for Tim Cook coming out they can kill two birds with one stone...
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0