Praise Jesus

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
So yeah, the lawmakers probably had heard of Sodom at some point. Which is why the word "Sodomy" appears in the law. And then it follows that since the word Sodomy has its origins in a Biblical story, that Jesus and the Bible are at fault for this young man being in jail in the year 2007 (or something like that?) . After all, context isn't important when you want to attack religion, is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying religious belief has nothing to do with the idea that anal sex and homosexuality are "sinful" in the first place?

I don't really care whether the Sodomites were actually having anal sex or not. The point is that anal sex would not be illegal without its implied immorality, and this comes directly from church teachings about sexuality.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
There's zero doubt in my mind that sodomy laws are on the books because people think it's immoral. Why else would there be such laws regarding consensual sexual behavior?

We can quibble about what certain passages in the bible say, and possible misinterpretations of scripture. But the bottom line is that the idea of anal/oral sex as immoral/unnatural has been part of most Christian religious teachings. It is naive to think religious belief has nothing to do with these laws existing in the first place. I cannot think of a possible rational reason for anti-sodomy laws that is not based on religious beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]
but unless you believe in god the bible is a representation of man's law. The same sort of bigot who thought it was bad then think it bad now.

chez

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
but unless you believe in god the bible is a representation of man's law. The same sort of bigot who thought it was bad then think it bad now.

chez


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The problem is people have invented a divine authority to legitimize their bigotry.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but unless you believe in god the bible is a representation of man's law. The same sort of bigot who thought it was bad then think it bad now.

chez


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The problem is people have invented a divine authority to legitimize their bigotry.

[/ QUOTE ]
Possibly but non-religous bigots don't seem to have a much of a problem coming up with non-divine authority.

Religon doesn't help but I think its a mistake to believe that bigoted laws wouldn't exist in much the same way without religon.

chez

[Damien]

The Nazarene and his father have a lot to answer for. Especially Georgia.

[SammyKid11]

[ QUOTE ]

The key point is that without government it would be a non-issue. Atheist/naturalist lawmakers can and do use their power for unsavory purposes as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Total atrocity being committed against an innocent kid, brought on by ignorantly strict interpretations of an antiquated text force-fed unjustly into law...and instead of just ACKNOWLEDGING that zealous Christianity in government is FAILING this kid, you regurgitate more nonsense about how we shouldn't have a government and assert that atheist/naturalist lawmakers (how many of them do we actually have?) do bad things too (which, even if you're right, what does it have to do with this situation?).

I remember now why I stopped posting in Politics.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Possibly but non-religous bigots don't seem to have a much of a problem coming up with non-divine authority.

Religon doesn't help but I think its a mistake to believe that bigoted laws wouldn't exist in much the same way without religon.

[/ QUOTE ]

chez, I think the difference is in what we experience on these forums and as commented in the
From Tom Shales comment on the Friends of God film
[ QUOTE ]
Meantime, the Christians we see in this film are unyielding in the rightness of their ideas (i.e., evolution and abortion are wrong, "Jesus is the only way" and America is a Christian nation), and if someone challenges them, they simply say God has told them the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

If religion isn't involved you have a shot at a rational challenge on both the logic and factual content of their claims. When the bigotry is hidden behind religion you merely run into extended version of 'god is in my heart not yours and god said so'.

It seems a meaningful difference to me, but ..??

luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]

The problem is allowing lawmakers to interpret scripture as they see fit and apply it to today's age however they want. It is NOT a problem with religion itself, it is a problem with how some people use and/or follow religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

EXACTLY. And the completely unjustified level of protection from scrutiny that religious belief has in this country facilitated this.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The key point is that without government it would be a non-issue. Atheist/naturalist lawmakers can and do use their power for unsavory purposes as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Total atrocity being committed against an innocent kid, brought on by ignorantly strict interpretations of an antiquated text force-fed unjustly into law...and instead of just ACKNOWLEDGING that zealous Christianity in government is FAILING this kid, you regurgitate more nonsense about how we shouldn't have a government and assert that atheist/naturalist lawmakers (how many of them do we actually have?) do bad things too (which, even if you're right, what does it have to do with this situation?).

I remember now why I stopped posting in Politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know I am the one who posted this, and I am as saddened by it as anyone, but the kid is not innocent. He committed crimes, and his actions after committing those crimes have played a part in putting him where he is now. He chose to go to trial rather than plea (still several years in prison) and become a registered sex offender for the rest of his life, because he wanted to be able to see his little sister.

The outrage isn't because the kid is innocent though. The outrage is because he was put into this absurd situation because, when the law was being discussed and passed long ago, it didn't even need to be defended...because it simply could not have been. The legislators all knew that sodomy was just self-evidently evil and wrong and FAR worse than vaginal sex.

The actual issue is definitely more of a political one. The DA's office could give him a lesser sentence RIGHT NOW if they wanted to, and the reason they do not do this is NOT for religious reasons. Its all a political clusterf*ck at this point. But it should never have come to this.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Possibly but non-religous bigots don't seem to have a much of a problem coming up with non-divine authority.

Religon doesn't help but I think its a mistake to believe that bigoted laws wouldn't exist in much the same way without religon.

[/ QUOTE ]

chez, I think the difference is in what we experience on these forums and as commented in the
From Tom Shales comment on the Friends of God film
[ QUOTE ]
Meantime, the Christians we see in this film are unyielding in the rightness of their ideas (i.e., evolution and abortion are wrong, "Jesus is the only way" and America is a Christian nation), and if someone challenges them, they simply say God has told them the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

If religion isn't involved you have a shot at a rational challenge on both the logic and factual content of their claims. When the bigotry is hidden behind religion you merely run into extended version of 'god is in my heart not yours and god said so'.

It seems a meaningful difference to me, but ..??

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is. Bigotry for secular reasons has no protection in public discourse.