Monday, May 23, 2005

Keep your secularism out of my Religion

I have a problem with the Leftist Utopians. Leftist Utopians feel it is fine to bash
Judaism and Christianity if we do not march lock step with the most radical elements
of the Gay agenda. They never do seem to get around to criticizing Muslims for advocating killing Gays. Remember axiom 4 .Muslims are not expected to conform to the
norms of human rights. Thus any critique of their behavior is racist although they do not constitute a race. Thus if a Jewish School denies the right of Gays to be Cantors is it much more important then the norms of the PA that kill Gays.

I am not a Christian but I have respect and admiration for the Christian faith. I understand the deep impact of Christianity on Western Civilization. Western Civilization has often sadly used my people as a speedbump on the path to enlightenment. Those who persecuted Jews in the name of Jesus acted contrary to his message. Yet I also have zero problem with denominations that say I am going to hell
as a non Christian. I would also have zero problem when an Imam says the same thing of compares me to an Ape. My problem start when clergymen start advocating violence.

The problem is that alot of people on the left feel that they have the right to determine what is in scriptures . When religious people do not agree with their interpretation ,they feel they have a license to say whatever they wish about the Pope etc. This rationale is faulty and bigoted.

I was on another board and another Utopian Leftist not 167 was on a tear on Christianity. He blamed the Holocaust and the fall of the Roman Empire on Christianity. I pointed out that I lived amongst Holocaust survivors and never heard
this from them. He went on to call me historically ignorant. The truth is I have likely read seven books to each one he has read on the subject of the Holocaust.

Admitedly like 167 this critic is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I do hope that his first language is not English. I also never thought I could find a person who seriously give me a run for the title worst speller in the USA. This person shall
be nicknamed 170.

" Bush lied because most people like him think everything can be solved through guns
and Jesus."

Religion is not meant to be PC and all religions have a natural tendency to portray
the faithful more favorably. Thus I have zero problem with religocentrism as long as there is Civil law and no violence.

The question is why do the PC brigades feel it is their right to tell me what the Torah says about Gays ? The Old Testament is quite clear on this subject .Does this
mean that I approve of discrimination against Gays ?

I accept and am thankful for the cleavage of Civil Law from religious law. Gays should have the same rights as everyone else within reason. This does not entitle them to superceede theological laws they deem unfair. Thus Gays are not entitled to be cantors or Rabbis in an Orthodox Temple. They can do so in a reformed temple if this is their calling.

The comparison with racial and ethnic minorities is invalid. I also hope that a gay gene is never found. This would lead to the possibility of children being aborted due to orientation . I am pro choice but that would be evil. It would also lead to the possibility of potential cures and that is uneccessary. It would lead to the possible labeling of gays as genetic defectives or freaks. 167 is a freak but that is because he functions without a brain. The safest view for society is to view it as a matter of peference. I prefer petite brunette females , the next guy prefers redheaded females and Clive likes mediteranean men. If we all desired the same type
life would be boring and 9/10 of us would never see any romance. I honestly do not care what someones sexual peference is . Does my love of pettite brunettes make me a better person then 167 who is gay ? 167 gayness tells us zero about him by itself.
His stupidity , arrogance and assorted bigotries tell us all we need to know.

The question of who is forcing their values on whom is not readily apparent. I am all
for teaching children to respect everyone including Gays. I am against the teaching of sexual techniques. A perfect example is on a recent post this website . scroll down to I am not a homophobe. Do kids realy have to learn about fisting and watersports ? This material crosses the line of good taste and is inapropriate.

Respect for everyone includes religious people. The fact that their religious views
do not agree with your politics does not create open season for bigotry. I do draw the line when violence is urged religiously. Human rights are civil matters they should be discussed sans religion . Most religions accept a separation of Church and state. These left wing utopian blowhards hurt their cause each and every time they
go on a anti-religious rant.


Always On Watch said...

Condemning and attempting to invalidate every ideology and every religion not in line with one's own thinking is tyranny, no matter who practices it.

Always On Watch said...

I forgot to mention that I particularly like this sentence: "Respect for everyone includes religious people. The fact that their religious views
do not agree with your politics does not create open season for bigotry."
As a Christian, I try to abide by the philosophy expressed in that sentence.

B said...

I agree with this post whole heartedly. I just wish more people did. Life is too short to teach hatred. Just because there are gay people in this world should not be a problem to religious people, it is none of their business. That is the problem that the left has with some fundamental religions is that they are trying to impose their beliefs on everyone. If a religion wants to be bigoted, that is their own choice, but why should that same religion have a say in what other's outside of their specific religion do? The simple answer is they shouldn't.

beakerkin said...

Always on the Wath and B

There are certain times democracy and majority rule is not ideal. A lynch mob is a democratic institutionn but not ideal.

Human rights must affect even the most unpopular groups. There are segments that do not like gays. However rights can not be subject
to whims.

Yet I also understand how serious
religions take the concept of marriage. The concept of marriage
is at the core of the family. The
family is the fuilding block of life

Religion is also important in lives and I know plenty of dedicated well adjusted Gay people.
Not all gay people are like 167 and his crew. The person down the hall named Kyle used to joke about me. " You like broadway, fine art
and work in the fashion industry sounds gay to me. " I would point out that I was a logistics man a macho field. Kyle always cheery
and had a smile even when I was dead. He was a good friend.

I am in favor of civil unions for people like Kyle. He is devoted to his partner and they have been together for ten years. Society should be able to offer a civil
equivalent .

Felis said...

"This does not entitle them to supersede theological laws they deem unfair."

I think this is one the best one-liners which summarizes the attempts of the radical-left to secularize religion(s).
Another one I heard recently was:

"The ABC are absolutely horrified that the Vatican appears to have elected a Catholic as its new pope."

beakerkin said...

Felis welcome to my blog.

When we say 167 on this blog it is
a running joke. There is a far leftwing antisemitic and Christian
bigot who sometimes trolls this site.

He posted a long winded reason why
he felt the previous Pope should
not be a Saint. At the end I summed it up with . In short 167
has decided the Pope should not be
a saint for following Catholic teachings.

Sadly I do not recall posts that put the shoe on the other foot.
Sir will you kindly take your secularism out of my religion.

Felis said...

"In short 167
has decided the Pope should not be
a saint for following Catholic teachings."
Well, exactly.
The next pope doesn't look too good from this perspective either.
He even doesn't support Karl Marx's teachings among the South American clergy.
How outrageous.

Warren said...

167 is a shimmering coprolite in a dung heap!

beakerkin said...


This is what kills me about the people like 167. He is not Jewish but he thinks he is an epert in our
history. He is not Catolic and he is an expert there. He is also an expert Mormonism.

My fame has now spread to the Gaurdian UK forum. I guess they are not used to hearing Israels side.

Vavoom said...

Beaker: Interesting post. Are you against religions other than yours to marry homosexual couples? Just curious.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

We should celebrate the diversity of our global community and take care not to impose our values upon others. That's why I advocate that while in Arab lands, we should do as the Arabs do and kill people indiscriminately.


beakerkin said...


I do not like interfering in anyones religious practices. If a church wishes to marry a homosexual
couple that is a matter between clergy and the allmighty.

Religion by nature will have a form
of natural ethnocentrism and be non
PC. However if and when a religion
advocates violence against believers or nonbelievers we must
get involved.

On a practical level I have zero problem with a religion saying as a
non believer I am going to hell. I
have a severe problem if clergy advocates a pogrom and then it is time to get involved. This is largely the case against Sheik Rahman and WTC 93 and I am a survivor of that blasy.

One thing I would like to stress when one reads me on the Chemist one gets the false image that I am
a doctrinaire Conservative. Thus
someone like Maurinsky feels I am a
troll for having differing views. My views on social issues tend to be liberal. The Conservatism is a relitive comparitive conservatism.

beakerkin said...

Mr Beamish

I understand the profound wit in that statement. Here is the problem
with far left types like 167. They
suffer from a form of dementia.

It is evil when a NYC cantorial school denies admission to a gay cantor. Yet if you point out that Gays are killed in some Islamic countries you are a racist. We can
criticize the USA all day but the second one says a word about a thirdword country it is racism.
This is a myopic point of view from a seditious element.