Church of England’s call for dialogue on gays rebuffed in Africa

[hrmjustin]

Trevor Grundy and Fredrick Nzwili


(RNS) Ahead of his five-day visit to Africa, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby issued a statement reminding Anglicans of the commitment the Church of England made eight years ago to the pastoral care and support of everyone, including gays and lesbians.

So far, the archbishop’s statement has not convinced African leaders.

On Wednesday (Jan. 29), Anglican leaders in Africa rejected a proposal by the English College of Bishops for two-year “facilitated conversations” to address the differences over homosexuality within the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Kenya’s Archbishop Eliud Wabukala, chairman of the Global African Future Conference Primates’ Council, said the move would project the Church of England’s problems onto the communion as a whole.

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/01/30/church-englands-call-dialogue-gays-rebuffed-africa/

[okasha]

1. The anti-gay hatred and persecution in Uganda

is largely driven by American evangelicals, specifically the Washington group known as The Family. The President of Uganda is one of their wholly-owned subsidiaries.

[hrmjustin]

2. I wish the central African Anglicans did not buy into it.

[skepticscott]

3. Impossible

Everyone knows that religion is just an excuse. If it weren't for religion, people would find some other reason to hate and persecute gays. It's all political.

Right?

[hrmjustin]

5. Are there atheists that hate gays?

[rug]

13. Yes.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones/

[AtheistCrusader]

36. Argument from anecdote.

My observation of never having met a homophobic atheist is just as valid.

Which is to say; not valid at all.

[rug]

69. Take it up with Zinnia. You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss her experiences.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. And she shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the hard evidence she herself expounded on at the be

ginning of the video.

[rug]

72. Bullshit. She's recountinmg her own experiences and you're proving her point.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. Her experiences are anecdotal, as are mine.

I surround myself with people of philosophical alignment similar to mine, so I am exposed to a LOT of atheists. I have yet to meet an openly homophobic such person.

She posts videos about sexuality and other cultural issues that will attract a wide audience, and may well select her for being singled out by a vast pack of assholes. Some atheist, some not. Still anecdotal, when considering the general inclusiveness or homophobia of a GROUP/CLASS like Atheists. Her experiences have likely led her to be exposed to mostly the jerks. Fine. That doesn't mean there's parity between believers and non-believers on rates of bigotry.

Nobody ever claimed every last atheist was a progressive. If they did, they were stupid.


I am sorry for, and sympathetic to her on the treatment she has received. I have experienced a fair amount of that treatment myself, living in a very red county in a blue state, and being very open about my political alignment. That doesn't lead me to generalize about the entire state, when the polls show WA solid blue at the state level.

[rug]

77. You shouldn't dismiss observations so easily. There are plenty of them.

[AtheistCrusader]

78. It's like we aren't speaking the same language.

Her observations, however numerous, do not support her claim WRT to the average population/nature of atheists.

Period.

[rug]

81. We're not. You don't like what she says so you dimiss them as anecdotes.

I learn from her observations.

The classic tension between belief and science.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. THEY ARE ANECDOTES.

JUST like my OWN personal experiences in which I mentioned earlier, despite having met THOUSANDS of atheists, I have never once met an OPENLY HOMOPHOBIC atheist. That is anecdotal evidence.

GOOD FUCKING GRIEF

[rug]

84. Don't you see that an anecdote is a observation shared?

Maybe if you were a transgendered atheist, and not an atheist with other privileges, you may have encountered more.

As it is, I'll take Zinnia's observations over yours.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. She states they are JUST AS LIKELY and then supports that with

"I've encountered atheists that have essentially told me"

THAT is an argument from anecdote. PERIOD. That is not science.

Sorry, that doesn't prove the claim that atheists are just as likely to be homophobic. That's a statistical claim. It is not supported by her anecdotal experience, however painful and deplorable that experience may be.

[rug]

86. Sorry, the point has been made several times now.

Caps, italics, boldface and typographical flourishes don't really change anything.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. It doesn't change your comprehension of the point, that's for sure.

She made a statistical claim. She backed it up with anecdotal evidence. End of story.

[rug]

88. The point is there is nothing about atheism that makes a person gay friendly or homophobic.

By its own terms, simple nonbelief causes neither.

If you do happen to encounter an atheist who is gay friendly or a homophobe, progressive or reactionary, it's for other reasons. You can't have it both ways.

Atheism is no vaccine against homophobia.

She has encountered many and she knows the difference.

[AtheistCrusader]

89. Nope, you don't get to backpedal for her.

She indicated it's just as prevalent among atheists. That's a untrue claim with a mountain of hard evidence to prove it.
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf

All the anecdotes in the world don't prove her statistical claim to be true. It's not true. period.


As for the correlation between atheism and a lack of homophobia, likely due to there being no rational basis for homophobia. Any residual homophobia in an atheist is likely cultural, as atheism itself doesn't speak to the issue at all. All it does is negate many, many religions with innate dogma that defines homosexuality as a sin. (meaning, as a negative.)

[rug]

90. How condescending of you. I daresay she needs no one to speak for her.

Go on, got to her website or video and post your dismissals. I eagerly await her replies.

Btw, if you indeed knew what you were talking about, you'd know that atheism, or simple nonbelief, need not have a rational basis. It simply needs nonbelief.

In any event, nice apology for reasons, having nothing to do with atheism, why atheists may be homophobes.

[AtheistCrusader]

91. I didn't say she needed you to backpedal for her. It was presumptious of you to try.

And nice try again, to backpedal. I called out a specific claim she made, for which there is peer reviewed hard data to debunk her claim. I pointed out her claim is based on her anecdotal experience, which it is. End of story. Period. Etc.

I have specified several times in this thread that atheism is silent on any subject beyond the question of whether there is a god, in the negative. Nice to see you've been keeping up.

Atheism excludes the possibility of theistic rationale being valid, that was my only point WRT rationality. There is no book atheists can reference and say 'well my faith says'. There are fewer tools in our repertoire that might be mis-applied to a problem.

And this, of course:

"In any event, nice apology for reasons, having nothing to do with atheism, why atheists may be homophobes."

Did not occur anywhere outside your mind.

[cbayer]

92. There is nothing inherent in either belief or lack of belief that would lead one

to be a bigot or not.

Bigots will use whatever they have to justify their bigotry. While a religious bigot might use religious, a non-religious bigot has plenty of other resources.

To make the argument that homophobia (or any other bigotry) in an atheist is probably cultural is valid. It probably is cultural. It's probably cultural in a person who's culture includes religion as well.

My lack of homophobia initially came from the religious culture I was raised in.

So what?

[AtheistCrusader]

93. Are you going to ignore the compile of studies and surveys I just linked?

Really?

And dismiss it with your own anecdotal claims?

REALLY?

[cbayer]

94. Yes, I am going to dismiss a "study" in which the author

doesn't even know that one can be both secular and religious.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. Religion and quasi-religious attributes of secular ideologies are not the same thing.

Secular ideologies, like liberalism, being attributed religion-like attributes is usually done by people like, at random, Ann Coulter in the pursuit of shitting all over said rival ideology.

There are some semi-grey areas, like secular paganism, but as they lack 'revealed' dogma, I think we can safely lump them under the 'secular' heading, and not worry about the quasi-religious aspect, for the purposes of this study.

And by the way, it's a compilation, not every referenced study (of which there are many) commit this simplification.

[cbayer]

96. Nah, they are entirely different things and he can't distinguish them apparently.

I that makes a compilation even more questionable.

When people use the term secular to speak about people who are not religious, they have made a fatal error.

Good studies do show that atheist tend to be more liberal/progressive in general and are more likely than not to be democrats.

But, they are also more likely to be white, male, educated, straight, employed, white collar and doing fine financially.

In short, they tend to be members of the very privileged class.

So it's really hard to tease out all those variables when looking at complications of atheist attitudes.

And don't get me started on sexism and islamophobia exhibited by some very visible people who identify as atheist.

To say that bigotry is less likely because it is not "rational" just don't not bear out when you look at those areas.

[AtheistCrusader]

97. Nope.

"And don't get me started on sexism and islamophobia exhibited by some very visible people who identify as atheist."

Individual/anecdotes do not disprove a statistical average, one that the person in the video in question upthread claimed was not real, and failed to establish that claim with anything more than personal anecdote.

Please do not commit the same fallacy. I am aware that there can be STAGGERING examples of sexism and homophobia on an individual scale within any group, as there can be staggering examples of love, compassion, and inclusiveness, within any group. Notable exceptions or anecdotes wasn't the issue.


As for whether atheists represent a privileged class, I actually won't argue that point, it may well be true, but it doesn't validate the claim of Zinnia in her video about how it's just as prevalent among atheists, that Rug cited. The claim is untrue, even if atheists happen to be a hugely privileged class.


"To say that bigotry is less likely because it is not "rational" just don't not bear out when you look at those areas."

Just quoting myself for accuracy:

"As for the correlation between atheism and a lack of homophobia, likely due to there being no rational basis for homophobia."

For starters, that's casual speculation on my part. The whole paragraph is, and quite obviously so. "just don't not bear out when you look at those areas" Disagree. There are three primary basis for homophobia: Rational, irrational, and 'revealed truth/dogma'. I have yet to see a rational basis for homophobia that can withstand any sort of scrutiny, so I think I can confidently say it has no rational basis, at least for now/until proven otherwise. Atheists by definition discount/ignore supernaturally revealed truth/dogma such as the bible, which is a source for some interpretations of bigotry against various groups, homosexuals included.

So you've eliminated two source categories for homophobia just by defining/identifying as an atheist. In order for your counterpoint to be true, one would then have to assume a higher rate of irrationality among atheists. I've seen no evidence of this. I'm open to evaluating such evidence, if there is any.

[cbayer]

98. I would agree that it's probably less prevalent based on the statistics supporting

a more left leaning population. But I would argue that the reasons for that may have nothing to do with lack of religious beliefs and more to do with other demographics seen in the population.

And what does it matter anyway. Can't we just agree that bigotry can be found anywhere and should be combatted wherever it is found?

The danger is in ascribing it to whole populations when it is confined to only certain sub-populations or even individuals.

I have yet to see any basis for homophobia that can withstand any sort of scrutiny.

Atheists, by definition, are only one thing, as is repeatedly pointed out in this group. They are individuals who do not believe in god. There is virtually no other conclusion that you can draw from that. You can look at demographics, but that's about it, but you can't draw all these conclusions that you do about truth and dogma and the bible and the supernatural.

You just can't. It's not part of the definition.

[AtheistCrusader]

99. Huh?

"You can look at demographics, but that's about it, but you can't draw all these conclusions that you do about truth and dogma and the bible and the supernatural."

I can extrapolate plenty. For starters, a person who does not believe in a supernatural god isn't going to follow that supernatural god's revealed truth dogma. So you can eliminate that as a basis for any sort of position.

If someone claimed to be an atheist AND claimed homosexuality was a sin, per Leviticus, that would be weird on two counts: 1. Believing in 'sin', and 2. believing in the bible, without a supernatural god/authority backing it up.

That would be genuinely bizarre to find a person that was an exception to that.

Take away 'god' and the bible is just a piece of fictional literature that may or may not be salted with some historical scenery.

[cbayer]

100. Sure, you can extrapolate all you want.

You don't speak for atheists and unless you have some data to back up what you are saying, you got nothing.

And you certainly can't say "by definition". That's really going out there on a limb.

Again, you can take it up with all the non-believers right here that say that atheism means one thing and one thing only.

They wouldn't say homosexuality is a sin at all. They might say it's a perversion, unnatural, against the laws of nature or even inconsistent with evolution, but not a sin. That you have never met any of these people doesn't mean much. They exist, believe me.

You can't blame everything on religion, AC. It's not rational or logical.

[AtheistCrusader]

101. But there's no rational basis for that.

"They wouldn't say homosexuality is a sin at all. They might say it's a perversion, unnatural, against the laws of nature or even inconsistent with evolution, but not a sin. That you have never met any of these people doesn't mean much. They exist, believe me. "

Humans across all cultures and thousands of other species exhibit some percentage of their population being of this sort of identity/orientation. So the argument that it is unnatural or against the laws of nature is, on its face, false. Done. No problem there.

"You don't speak for atheists and unless you have some data to back up what you are saying, you got nothing."

What kind of fucking idiot atheist would hold up biblical dogma as true, while not believing in the deity it claims is real/revealed the 'truth' in the bible? On what basis? That makes ZERO SENSE. And no, it's not 'out on a limb', atheists by definition do not believe in god. If I don't believe in god, how can I believe in the revealed truth nature of the bible, as true dogma? A starving snake cannot eat itself tail first and expect to survive.

"You can't blame everything on religion, AC. It's not rational or logical."

I didn't. Stop building strawmen.

[cbayer]

103. Here is where I think you are making you big logical error.

You think that all atheists are "by definition" rational about everything.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

While many may have come to their atheism through a process they consider rational, they are all deeply flawed human beings, just like every one else.

They have their own distortions, defense mechanisms, blind spots, backgrounds, indoctrinations, areas of cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty as everyone else.

I've got them, you've got them and I've yet to meet a single person on earth who doesn't have them.

You think that homophobia comes only from the bible? You are incorrect. It comes from many places, just as all bigotry does.

Do you think that bigotry against fat people comes from the Bible? How about bigotry against red heads? Mentally retarded people?

And on and on.

[AtheistCrusader]

105. It's like you read half of what I write.

"You think that all atheists are "by definition" rational about everything. "


Groan.

"For starters, that's casual speculation on my part. The whole paragraph is, and quite obviously so. "just don't not bear out when you look at those areas" Disagree. There are three primary basis for homophobia: Rational, irrational, and 'revealed truth/dogma'. I have yet to see a rational basis for homophobia that can withstand any sort of scrutiny, so I think I can confidently say it has no rational basis, at least for now/until proven otherwise. Atheists by definition discount/ignore supernaturally revealed truth/dogma such as the bible, which is a source for some interpretations of bigotry against various groups, homosexuals included.

So you've eliminated two source categories for homophobia just by defining/identifying as an atheist. In order for your counterpoint to be true, one would then have to assume a higher rate of irrationality among atheists. I've seen no evidence of this. I'm open to evaluating such evidence, if there is any."

"You think that homophobia comes only from the bible?"
Strawman. I didn't say that. Search all my posts, you won't find that claim. In fact, I specifically listed multiple sources, and specifically cited the bible as just one example of revealed truth/dogma, out of possibilities that do not even include revealed truth/dogma.


I have to say, you don't seem to be engaging in this discussion in anything resembling an honest fashion.

[cbayer]

107. No, I read everything you write.

Where do you get the idea that there are only three primary bases for bigotry? That's way too simplistic and doesn't take into account the myriad of reasons that a person might be bigoted.

It could be that they have just never met that kind of person, so it could be based on pure ignorance and having been told things that aren't true. That might be logical for them, but not for you because your prisms are different.

What is someone has a deep and abiding hatred of all dogs because they were once bitten by one? For them that might be completely logical, as they lack the ability to tell which dog might bite them and which won't. You may say that's irrational, but if they don't want to get bit again, it might be very rational.

Even if we use your three primary bases, you haven't eliminated anything except the "revealed truth/dogma" option by saying you are an atheist. Your responses may still be irrational.

There is not rational basis for sexism, in my opinion. And clearly the atheist who also exhibit sexism are not basing it on "revealed truth/dogma". So is there bigotry towards women rational? Or are they irrational?

Sorry you don't find my responses honest. That seems to be the meme of the week.

[AtheistCrusader]

109. Yet you have managed to misconstrue just about everything.

"It could be that they have just never met that kind of person, so it could be based on pure ignorance and having been told things that aren't true."

Still irrational. "without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason." You just described a scenario that fits within the bounds of irrationality.

"What is someone has a deep and abiding hatred of all dogs because they were once bitten by one? For them that might be completely logical, as they lack the ability to tell which dog might bite them and which won't. You may say that's irrational, but if they don't want to get bit again, it might be very rational."

Still irrational. Especially from a statistical standpoint. You have a less than 1%/year chance of being bitten by any given dog, to a degree that might require medical attention.

"Even if we use your three primary bases, you haven't eliminated anything except the "revealed truth/dogma" option by saying you are an atheist. Your responses may still be irrational."

I specifically specified irrational as a possibility. So I have no idea what you are trying to object to here. I did ask for evidence that atheists might be more irrational than the average person. You haven't offered anything so far.

"There is not rational basis for sexism, in my opinion. And clearly the atheist who also exhibit sexism are not basing it on "revealed truth/dogma". So is there bigotry towards women rational? Or are they irrational?"

Yes, they are being irrational. And I am perfectly happy to call them to the carpet on it, and fully expect to be able to talk them out of it, or ruin any credibility they may have had with the nearby audience by illustrating their irrationality.

I don't know anything about memes, just this specific conversation. If you've been getting that feedback a lot, I suggest some introspection is in order.

[AtheistCrusader]

102. 'I don't believe in god, but I believe in this document that says god is real'

That's the mental clusterfuck you just concern trolled me with.

If you don't believe in god, it's pretty hard to believe a document that says god is real. Right?

Please agree, oh please, because I would have given you the benefit of the doubt of being able to figure that out...

[cbayer]

104. Wait, are you calling me a concern troll?

I think you might want to back up a bit.

[AtheistCrusader]

106. Post 100 sure sounds like it.

You seem awfully worried that I'm doing a bunch of stuff your strawman of my position seems to be doing.
You seem awfully worried that I'm attempting to speak for all atheists, even though I didn't, I simply referenced DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CLASS/ENTITY.

If you're doing something else, I can't figure out what it is. Whatever it is, it's not honest debate.

[cbayer]

108. You just don't like what I am saying and disagree with it.

That doesn't make me a concern troll.

I'm not worried about a thing. I find your position on this flawed, that's all.

Don't find me honest? Feel free to move along.

I can be accused of many things, but I LOL when accused of not being honest. Being too honest is probably one of my biggest flaws.

[AtheistCrusader]

110. You have attributed false positions to me, multiple times.

That is not an honest tactic.
It is getting tiring. Please try addressing what I actually say.

[cbayer]

113. I apologize.

There may be many things that explain this right now.

I will try again at a another time and I am sorry if I have been unfair or unkind.

[okasha]

116. I have had the displeasure

of knowing at least two. Both are far-right conservatives.

[rug]

117. Sorry to hear that.

I'm turning in. Have a good night, okasha.

[okasha]

120. Buenas noches, rug.

Sleep well.

[skepticscott]

15. Are there individual atheists who hate gays? I'm sure there are. And bird watchers and chefs, too.

Do they hate gays because their atheism or atheist leaders tell them to? No.

Are there atheist-controlled governments persecuting gays? No.

Are there atheist organizations trying to get anti-gay laws enacted? No.

What was your point again?

[hrmjustin]

16. The Soviet Union persecuted gays and they were an atheistic state.

How do Cuba and China treat gays?

[skepticscott]

17. The Soviet Union persecuted many groups of people

for political reasons, real and imagined, reasons that had nothing to do with atheism.

What was your point again? Or are you unable to express it clearly?

[hrmjustin]

18. The point is that atheists can be just as homophobic as believers.

[trotsky]

21. Actually, the Soviet Union liberalized attitudes toward homosexuality...

immediately after the revolution. It wasn't until when Stalin took over and was seeking to improve relations with the Russian Orthodox Church (which to this day hates homosexuality) that laws against it came back.

And of course today, the Communists and their "atheistic" government are gone, but the ROC and its anti-homosexual views, which preceded and followed it, remain.

Bottom line is, there's nothing in atheism to justify hating homosexuals, but people can find reasons in the bible.

[hrmjustin]

23. That doesn't negate the fact that atheisst can be just as homophobic.

I have met plenty of homphobic people and a fair share were atheists.

The governments I mention were atheistic in nature and persecuted gays.

[trotsky]

25. You ignored what I said.

Not much point in responding, it would seem.

[hrmjustin]

26. Atheism as a movement does not teach homophobia. I agree.

But it does not mean they can't be homophobes.

[trotsky]

27. Which of course was not my claim. n/t

[hrmjustin]

28. I know that.

[skepticscott]

31. Be intellectually honest here

Were gays the ONLY people those governments persecuted? List for us all of the groups that were persecuted in the Soviet Union under Stalin.

[hrmjustin]

32. I am not making any lists. You can do that.

The fa ct is an atheistic goverment had homophobic policies. That was my point.

[skepticscott]

33. I tried to get you to be intellectually honest

you failed. They were also governments run by people with dark hair. Do you blame the hair color of their leaders for the fact that they persecuted all sorts of people? I'm guessing not. So what justification do you have for blaming their lack of church-going?

[hrmjustin]

34. Here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=110520
Are there atheist-controlled governments persecuting gays? No.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. 'are there' is present tense.

There currently are not. There are some that don't do a great job of protecting them, for equal protection, marriage, etc, but none actively pursuing them, today.

[hrmjustin]

47. But there were at one point.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. The claim was present tense.

The earlier prohibition was not rooted in lack of religion, but rather in culture.

Again, there is no precept in Atheism beyond; 'does god exist' in the negative. That's it. If a 'atheistic' government persecutes gay people (as a couple have in the PAST, but not today, as that poster specified) the impetus came from somewhere else.

One might fairly assume each of those countries dropped their cultural opposition over time due to their lack of theism.


Note that Russia maintains theirs, after communism failed, and actively persecutes homosexuals. They are not a atheistic government today.

[skepticscott]

29. And bird watchers and stamp collectors can be just as homophobic

as atheists. But this is not about individuals, is it? It's about governments passing anti-gay laws and enforcing anti-gay policies. How many atheists or atheist organizations have made those things happen? Answer: None.

How many atheists or atheist organizations have claimed that their atheism compels them to oppose equal rights and treatment for gays? Answer: None.

[hrmjustin]

30. Agreed on atheistic organization but those atheistic goverments did.

[Act_of_Reparation]

65. I don't understand why you're having so much difficulty with this

Atheism is a lack in the belief in the existence of god or gods, and that's it. If an atheist is homophobic, or an atheist government enacts homophobic policies, their inspiration came from some one or something beyond atheism, because atheism makes no claims regarding homosexuality. None.

Religions, on the other hand, make plenty. That's the difference.

[hrmjustin]

66. I am n8t having a hard time with this. I have stated atheism does not teach homophobia.

[Act_of_Reparation]

75. Then why bring it up in the first place?

[hrmjustin]

80. What up?

[rug]

19. What were the political reasons?

Are they different from the ones in Africa?

[hrmjustin]

20. Great point!

[trotsky]

22. A Wikipedia search will tell you about China and Cuba.

You might be surprised.

[hrmjustin]

24. Currently or in the past?

[AtheistCrusader]

37. The Soviet Union substituted 'the party' for 'god'.

There is nothing about atheism that encourages or establishes any sort of crazy hierarchical entity.


Atheism is a simple Boolean proposition: Is there a god y/N
That's it.

To go beyond that into any sort of ideology, secular humanism, non aggression, being a bloody-minded murdering bastard, all of that requires thought/reason/rationality/philosophy BEYOND the question of Atheism.

In the case of the Soviet Union, that 'beyond' philosophy was their implementation of the concept of communism. There is nothing inherently 'atheistic state' about it.

Efforts to link atheism as the driving impetus behind various murderous regimes around the planet/history, are something you find on conservapedia.

[hrmjustin]

38. was the official policy of the state atheism?

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Uninteresting.

Or, as relevant as what Lenin/Stalin may have had for breakfast on a given day.


Not perceiving the existence of a god does nothing at all to lend itself to killing, persecuting, etc, any other group of humans. To do so, one must bolt on meaning or philosophy that is not intrinsic to atheism.

Neither does atheism proscribe such behavior. Again, it is silent on this matter. It is a single proposition: no perception of the existence of a supernatural god.

What one then does with that proposition, is upon that individual's head.

[hrmjustin]

40. The rason I brought it up was because this was claimed

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=110520
Are there atheist-controlled governments persecuting gays? No.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Soviet government no longer exists.

Legal but no explicit protections and no marriage in North Korea.
Homosexuality is no longer persecuted in China, though it doesn't exactly enjoy specific non-discrimination protections.
Cuba similar to China, legal but not explicitly protected.
Albania explicitly protects LGBT rights, lacking only official marriage/civil union.
Fully legal, mostly protected in Mexico, lacking equal marriage.
Fully legal and protected in France. Including marriage.

I'm missing any official atheist-controlled governments actively persecuting gays.

[hrmjustin]

48. There were in the past.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. That was not the poster's claim.

It was present tense. Currently, no government that is explicitly atheist persecutes gays, though some vary in what protections or equal treatment they explicitly extend to homosexuals as a protected class.

[hrmjustin]

54. Yes I realize the tense that is why I asked the poster about the past tense.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. And do you realize that none of them still do?

Are you perhaps begging the question of why they may have persecuted them in the past, and ignoring a reason why they may not be doing it now?

[hrmjustin]

57. No I just did not know that they decriminalized being gay.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. They all have.

Not all have extended full civil rights/protections/equal treatment under the law. But even NK has decriminalized it.

(An aside, but all of them beat the state of Texas to it, too)

I can't prove that their lack of theism/state intersection caused that, but it certainly didn't halt or slow their progress.
I don't expect a new state or new regime to change everything overnight. When the First Amendment was ratified by the states, and incorporated against the states, there were at least 3 states in the union wherein one could not own property or vote, or be an officer of the state in any capacity, if one were Catholic.

Change is rarely overnight.

This is a metric by which each of the explicitly atheistic nations on earth have perhaps not performed as quickly as we all might hope, but have done well, nevertheless.

[hrmjustin]

60. I just want to make clear I don't think atheism teaches homophobia.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. Yes, but you did make some relevant claims.

"That doesn't negate the fact that atheisst can be just as homophobic."
"The governments I mention were atheistic in nature and persecuted gays."


I agree with the first sentence in the sense that they CAN be, but, without a religious or non-religious reason to be so, one must consider were it does come from, and how long that idea persists.

I've never met a homophobic atheist. If I do, I guarantee I can or will argue them directly into the bedrock on it. There is literally no basis for it, aside from special pleading that could also be used to claim there is a deity or whatever. It's not a rational position. There is no fallback of 'but that's what my book says'.

So they are intrinsically not equal concepts, and as we have seen with formerly officially homophobic atheist states, the phobia goes away, precipitously.

Likely because there is no rational basis for it.

[hrmjustin]

64. Well I have met them and they can be just as nasty as religious homophobes.

Where they get it from I would say culture and fear of gays.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. I agree, culture is largely the source.

I'm not sure what Stalin's motivation was. I will grant, there may be situations where, in the case of Stalin specifically, he saw the 'new soviet man' as the future, and likely he saw the non-breeding nature of homosexual unions (Under the technology and social constraints of his time) as an obstacle to that.

Stalin had a 'quantity has a quality all its own' approach to many things, and I might speculate that this could have served a 'rational' basis to him personally. Or he could have just been an asshole about one more thing than we already knew he was an asshole about. hard to say.


Stalin's fuckery may not have been cultural in origin. But it was not rational, and not specifically secular by any means.

[hrmjustin]

70. The sad thing now is that the Russian Church pushed for these new bigoted laws.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. Yep, and with the failure of the USSR, Russia is no longer a atheistic state.

So, it's voted off the island for consideration entirely.

China is a favorable comparison, having maintained its status as an atheistic nation part and parcel with its communism, and they have come a long way in not just decriminalizing, but protecting same-sex couples. Still some way to go, but uh... so does my country, so I'm not gonna cast stones.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

42. Are there atheist-controlled governments persecuting gays? No.

Yes. Gays were persecuted in the officially atheist state of Albania under Hoxha and in the officially atheist USSR.

[skepticscott]

43. And if I had used the past tense

You might have some semblance of a point.

I didn't. You don't.

Welcome back from your TO!

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

45. Oh, I see

There are specific examples of now-defunct officially atheistic governments that did persecute gays, but because they were overthrown (within living memory), they don't count. I knew I could count on you to weasel out of it.

BTW, are you going to man up and admit that I quoted Dawkins accurately? And that you slandered me by calling me a liar? Or are you just going to laugh it off again?

[skepticscott]

46. My question, which we all know you read, since you quoted it, was

ARE there atheist-controlled governments persecuting gays? Not "WERE there". Not "HAVE THERE EVER BEEN"

Do you need a lesson on what "are" means? You did study tense in grammar school, right?

And since you failed miserably at linking to where Dawkins ever said what you claimed (as I'm sure you will here too), I see no reason to subject this thread to more of your little vendetta, carried over from old threads that you were banned from.

[hrmjustin]

49. But you agree that in the past there were atheist controlled governments

that persecuted gays?

[skepticscott]

56. See my posts

17, 31 and 33.

If you'd care to discuss those, instead of dodging them, feel free. And if you'd like to discuss what I actually said and not what you and S. Armstrong are pretending I say, feel free to do that too.

[hrmjustin]

58. Simple question yes or no?

[skepticscott]

61. As noted, it was already addressed in those posts.

If I answer it again, will you agree to answer all of the questions I asked in those posts honestly and without evasion? Simple question, yes or no?

[hrmjustin]

63. I read your posts and I have my answer. thank you.

[skepticscott]

68. In other words

You don't want to give me your honest answers in exchange for mine. Not interested in truly honest discussion at all, are you? Not if it will undermine your agenda.

Nice dodge. Now you know why you don't get much respect.

[hrmjustin]

82. No your three posts answeresd my question.

You made clear that yes there was persecution in the past but it had nithing to do with atheism.

[skepticscott]

111. You'd already read those posts

When you asked the question again, so your little dodge now doesn't have much credibility.

Were you really that afraid of having to give direct and honest answers to simple questions? Wonder why that would be?

[hrmjustin]

112. I read them after my later response and saw I had my answer.

I am not afrIad of talking to you.

[skepticscott]

114. No, you didn't.

You asked the question in post 49. In post 56, I referred you to my posts 17, 31 and 33 for the answer. After reading those posts, you repeated the same question in post 58, so clearly you didn't think there was any answer in my posts. I then offered to answer the question again, if you promised to answer MY questions honestly and without evasion. And gee, at THAT point you suddenly found the answer you'd been seeking all along and said "never mind!"

Doesn't it embarrass you to be this transparently dishonest, and then to keep doubling down on it and feigning total innocence? I mean, really...would it be that hard to just answer things honestly and directly right from the start? Isn't that the kind of room you'd like to be host of?

[hrmjustin]

115. Dishonest. I realized after you posted number 61 what you were talking about. I am sorry I got it

wrong.

Good night Scott. Keep going if you want but I am done talking to you.

[cbayer]

74. You have more respect that just about anyone here, justin.

And that's the truth.

[hrmjustin]

79. Thanks. I was going to say I got the answer from his three posts like he said.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

121. You are saying there are none CURRENTLY doing so

I gave a couple of atheist governments which WERE within living memory, but have since been overthrown, so they don't count.

As I said, I expected you to weasel out, and you did.

And, as I also expected, you are not gracious enough to admit that you slandered me by calling me a liar.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. OR, one could point to nations like Albania that were both

atheist and persecuted gays, that no longer do so.

One might even wonder if the fact that they had a secular government led to a cultural shift.
Contrast to one that did not survive the formerly atheistic government of Russia/USSR's failure, where the state is no longer officially atheistic, AND it persecutes GLBT's who dare to even speak out about their sexual identity.

[cbayer]

4. There is a new documentary out about this.

Have you seen it?

I'm not sure how to access it, but I hope it gets some wide distribution.

I don't think this relationship is known or understood by the general public.

[hrmjustin]

6. The central African Anglican Churches break my heart with their bigorty.

Sometimes I think the Episcopal church should stop funding them.

[cbayer]

7. It's a terrible situation.

Is there anyone in leadership Africa who represents a potential for change?

[hrmjustin]

8. The anglicans in South Africa are more like the Episcopal Church.

About 8 to 10 years ago when it looked like the communion would split the SA church said they would go with the American church.

[cbayer]

11. Was there any resolution to that?

[hrmjustin]

14. No it was all informal.

The Scotish, Canadian, South African, Mexican, Cuban, New Zealand, And Australian churches made clear they would stand with The Episcopal Church if there was a Split.

The Queen made clear to the Archbishop of Canterbury she did not want a split but she was in favor of ditching the Central African Churches and the Churches of the Southern Cone if there was a split.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. South Africa does a lot better

Southern Africa Anglican archbishop calls for end to violence against LGBT people

The Most Revd Dr. Thabo Makgoba, Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town and Metropolitan of Southern Africa, has partnered with international human rights group Human Rights Watch to release a video message decrying homophobic violence and anti-LGBT discrimination on the African continent.

In the video Makgoba challenges arguments put forward by several African governments that culture, tradition, and religion justify the marginalization of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people.

‘Don’t fear,’Makgoba says to LGBT people in the video message.

‘You’ve been given this task of helping the rest of humanity to realize that we are called to respect and we are called to honor each other. People may come and say this is un-African, and I’m saying love cuts across culture.’

- See more at: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/southern-africa-anglican-archbishop-calls-end-violence-against-lgbt-people221013#sthash.rgWdT9X9.dpuf

And Desmond Tutu is a good advocate of LGBT freedom, of course. Whether the rest of the Anglicans in Africa listen to them seems less sure.

[okasha]

119. I haven't seen the documentary,

But Jeff Shalert has addressed the subject extensively in print.

The Family is attempting to do to LGBT Africans what they were prevented from doing to LGBTs here. They are racist as well as homophobic.

[Htom Sirveaux]

9. Why do the conservatives have this kind of influence in Africa?

Or is that a silly question?

[hrmjustin]

12. Within the Anglican Communion it is because the low church Anglicans or more evangelical wing

Of the church evangelised in central Africa and they tend to be more conservative.

The high church Anglicans or the more ritualistic anglicans evangelised in the south and they were more moderate.

[Act_of_Reparation]

118. Goods and services

We're talking about some of the poorest countries on Earth. Governments are corrupt, unstable, and unable to provide basic services to their citizens. Churches, through missions and charity, do what the government cannot.

Most studies I've read correlate religiosity with a lack of "secular goods". The less people can rely on their governments for necessary services, the more they rely on religion.

Evangelicals know this. They are nothing short of predatory.

[Jamastiene]

35. Not surprising at all.

The conservatives have been busy over there feeding on some of their superstitious cultural beliefs and adding homophobia too those superstitions. Uganda is just one example of how bad it is on Africa for gay people. Guess I'll never be going on any safaris. Oh well, less tourist dollars for them. This GayTM is closed to those countries.