Jerusalem not Proud of Gays

W

Woody

Musical Creationist
Registered Senior Member
from source:

JERUSALEM (AFP) - Orthodox Israeli Jews are stepping up their efforts to ban next month's week-long festival for gays in Jerusalem, which they fear will besmirch the sanctity of a city holy to three faiths.

Rabbi Ovadia Yossef, spiritual leader of the Orthodox Shas party, a member of Israel's coalition government, has denounced the parade from the pulpit as an "insupportable abomination," a party member said.

Other well-known rabbis have called for a mass demonstration against the rally to prevent it from taking place "at any price."

Radicals have even handed out leaflets around the city promising a 20,000-shekel (4,500-dollar) reward anyone who "kills a sodomist."
Click to expand...

Whoaa, that's pretty extreme! This is definitely a no-shellfish event.

"Gay pride" is an oxymoron anyway. Well they got their warning: go take their tight britches and pissy-prissy-sissy butts elsewhere to scourge someone else's city.
 
Last edited:
What is the point in this (and other anti-gay) posts? Woody is just simply preaching a crusade against gays.
 
woody is gay, he hates the fact he is gay, so to make it appear that he's not gay, he will condemn it to the extreme, this is I think his sixth or seventh post.
because of his angst towards his gayness, he has only showed his true self.
it's about time he accepted it, and got on with his life.
 
This is an appropriate action, (except for killing them). Society has a right to protect itself from moral harm.
 
Lawdog said:
This is an appropriate action, (except for killing them). Society has a right to protect itself from moral harm.
Click to expand...
So, in a secular society, would it be ok to persecute religious devotees on the grounds that they are deemed to be doing society 'moral harm' by misleading its citizens? What I'm saying is: definitions of morality are highly subjective. Can you justify your position on objective grounds without reference to your entrenched beliefs and, if not, why should they be of value to anyone but you?
 
No one can justify this kind of prejudice. They'll try to compare their beliefs with such outrageous examples as economically measurable criminal activity, but us more intellectually advanced people will see their fallacies for what they are, a desperate cry for company in misery.
 
redarmy11 said:
So, in a secular society, would it be ok to persecute religious devotees on the grounds that they are deemed to be doing society 'moral harm' by misleading its citizens? What I'm saying is: definitions of morality are highly subjective. Can you justify your position on objective grounds without reference to your entrenched beliefs and, if not, why should they be of value to anyone but you?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is persmissible, but not in modern "pluralist" society which would not benefit from such actions nor understand them. In Medieval society and other civilizations it is entirely appropriate and necessary. Cults and false religions and philosophies destroy societal cohesion. This is not unusual, after all our own civilization persecutes and makes war upon those with dangerous or contrary values: communists and nazis, religious cults like David Koresh, for example.

Only the Catholic Church has the right and authority to make guidelines for the State in such aggressive actions in order that all justice and mercy is adhered to in destroying a societal threat.

Nor is it permissible to persecute the Church. Only the Church has the right to exist as a religion. ll other "faiths" and religions are tolerated through her clemency. They could be eliminated in the blink of an eye.
 
Last edited:
The question was whether it is right and just to have an inquisition.
 
Lawdog,

this

redarmy11 said:
So, in a secular society, would it be ok to persecute religious devotees on the grounds that they are deemed to be doing society 'moral harm' by misleading its citizens?
Click to expand...
was rhetorical. Any reasonable person would say no, it's not acceptable to persecute someone on the grounds of their religious beliefs.

This
redarmy11 said:
definitions of morality are highly subjective. Can you justify your position on objective grounds without reference to your entrenched beliefs and, if not, why should they be of value to anyone but you?
Click to expand...
is the point that I'd like you to address. What gives Christians - a shrinking population - the right to dictate what is moral and what is not moral to the rest of us?
 
redarmy11 said:
So, in a secular society, would it be ok to persecute religious devotees on the grounds that they are deemed to be doing society 'moral harm' by misleading its citizens? What I'm saying is: definitions of morality are highly subjective. Can you justify your position on objective grounds without reference to your entrenched beliefs and, if not, why should they be of value to anyone but you?
Click to expand...

Good point.

If religious societies consider it OK to kick out gays/gay activities then lets see how the religious nutjobs like to be on the recieving end of fascism by banning religious activities in secular societies...
 
KennyJC said:
Good point.

If religious societies consider it OK to kick out gays/gay activities then lets see how the religious nutjobs like to be on the recieving end of fascism by banning religious activities in secular societies...
Click to expand...
That's not quite my point. I want to know what hold Christian morality should have over secular society. Who made the Catholic Church the ultimate arbiter in this?
 
Without refering my belief system,
I would have to say there are no grounds for
persecuting anyone for religious beliefs save
those that endanger lives.

It does not matter what hold you think
that Christianity has over society. Regardless
of how weak or illogical the Church seems, how
outdated and redundant, that is not the point.
You must submit to the Church because only the
Church has the right to determin morality.
 
Lawdog said:
You must submit to the Church because only the
Church has the right to determin morality.
Click to expand...
Damn, I have to go now, just as we're getting somewhere. OK: What has the Church to offer me, a non-believer, in the way of morality? Here's your chance to convert me, Lawdog. I consider myself a very moral person: don't kill, don't steal, don't lie or cheat or covet your neighbour's ox - all precepts that I can agree with. What I can't accept is a doctrine that rejects 10% of the population (those born gay) as an "abomination". I believe in live and let live, love thy neighbour, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take. So why is the Catholic Church's morality on this superior to mine?
 
We do not reject gays.

The first rule of our faith (through which all other doctrines are understood) is LOVE and MERCY.

We only forbid gays to engage in homosexual acts. This can be difficult for some, but not impossible. Married men and Priests must refrain from touching other women. Nuns may not have any sex. The Church proscribes Chastity even for unmarried men and women. Even masturbation is forbidden. That is our way, it is the way that is best for all.
 
Last edited:
One day, when Christianity rules, and no one is allowed to determine what is moal or not except church leaders and the Pope... the next generation... when they become church leaders... and the pope... will not know iddly squat... for they never exercised their right to decide what is moral and what is not...

*wakes up from this nightmare*
 
Lawdog said:
The first rule of our faith (through which all other doctrines are understood) is LOVE and MERCY.
Click to expand...

i dont care what you say, killing innocent people, attacking them, annoying them, calling out wars against them, Crusades, Inquisitions, Witch Burnings, defacing them throughout society, and banning them from everything your faith is not love and mercy but instead a reminder of the middle 1900's when White Supremacists wanted all blacks to die just cause they were black.
 
Your alarmist knee jerk rant shows lack of depth. Supression of these destructive currents is love and mercy for the greater society.
 
ra said:

What gives Christians - a shrinking population - the right to dictate what is moral and what is not moral to the rest of us?
Click to expand...

because they far outnumber atheists, and we are a democrasy that votes on standards of decency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top