Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  payback

Belgium’s Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard: AIDS Is What Mankind Gets For Butt Sex

 

Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard, appointed in January by Pope Benedict XVI to be the Roman Catholic Church’s leader in Belgium, tells readers in a new translation of his book that AIDS is basically payback for being disgusting sex-obsessed pervs.

The disease that claims about two million lives a year is “sort of inherent justice” for mankind’s “mistreatment of the profound nature of human love,” says Leonard, who used news of his archbishop appointment to say “homosexuality is not the same as normal sex, in the same way that anorexia is not a normal appetite.”

But maybe we’re all just misunderstanding the religious leader?

In a news conference Friday, he claimed his comments on AIDS had been misunderstood. “When we adopt a form of behaviour that is not right, there are consequences that let us know that it’s not correct,” he said in recorded comments posted on the church website on Friday. “At the beginning of this epidemic, if I’ve understood the scientific articles, there were risky practices, sex with multiple partners, anal relations instead of vaginal which allowed this proliferation to happen. So we can say, if we want to reason in that way, that nature is taking revenge if you don’t use your body correctly.”

Not that he doesn’t totally feel for you with HIV/AIDS!

The archbishop stressed that he had “sympathy” and “solidarity” for all AIDS suffers and the hope that they are “treated in the best possible conditions.” His comments on AIDS first appeared in a collection of interviews published in French in 2006. An updated Dutch-language edition was published on Thursday containing the same phrase translated, despite a warning from the Church spokesman that they would provoke a critical reaction. In the book, a journalist asks Leonard if he believes AIDS to be a punishment from God. He says no, but adds that just as nature reacts when we abuse the environment, “when we mistreat human love, it ends up perhaps getting its revenge”.

So not only is anal sex between two men (and, if you’ve got the right apparatus, two women) the cause of AIDS, but even dudes screwing their wives in the butt is what’s responsible for the virus.

We’re dumbfounded.

Image via Mguillau

By:           max simon
On:           Oct 16, 2010
Tagged: , , , , , ,

  • 49 Comments
    • tallskin2
      tallskin2

      I think we have to keep reminding the bunch-of-pervert-virgin-freaks-in-black-dresses that they can’t be trusted around children.

      Oct 16, 2010 at 5:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      Andre, NAMBLA called… your September membership fee is past due.

      Oct 16, 2010 at 6:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      I don’t put much stock into dysfunctional sexless priests who speak out the side of their ass about things they know nothing about. Supposedly. At least theoretically. More bigotry and hatred coming from those that claim to be spiritual. surprise surprise. I am not interested in poniticating bullshit from priests who resort to spewing their prejudiced views outside the the presence of gay people who would talk circles around them. Disgraceful. Wimps.

      Oct 16, 2010 at 7:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • McShane
      McShane

      I suppose he would say the same thing to the many African mothers with ailing children: that “They are alljust having to much Butt sex”

      Oct 16, 2010 at 7:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Give the archbishop a break – he’s from an institution that took 400 years to admit it made a mistake about Galileo. Figure on a similar 400 years to admit a mistake in this case and then double or triple that estimate because sex is involved.

      So, I figure they’ll “recant” near the end of this millenium or a few centuries into the next one. When you are in a hierarchical organization with a very slow process, it takes a very long time to get the obvious done.

      Oct 16, 2010 at 7:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Enron
      Enron

      The fact that he doesn’t acknowledge that vaginal sexual intercourse is just as much way to contract HIV as anal sex is telling. As a Bishop, I am not surprised he is blaming butt sex, because that’s the only thing closeted gays like him know anyway.

      Oct 16, 2010 at 9:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ron
      ron

      He’s right and you know it. The truth hurts.

      Oct 16, 2010 at 9:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Richard in DC
      Richard in DC

      See, and I thought the spread of HIV and Aids was most directly attributable to unprotected sex, which the church highly encourages. Thanks for making it all clear, Your Excellency.

      Oct 16, 2010 at 9:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AdonisOfFire
      AdonisOfFire

      LOL what does this old fugly bitch know about love? He doesn’t know shit! Not about human love or God’s love. Does he actually think his behavior would make Jesus proud?.

      Oct 16, 2010 at 10:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jen
      Jen

      “Homosexuals have encountered a blockage in their normal psychological development, rendering them abnormal”
      -André-Joseph Léonard, 2007
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre-Joseph_Leonard

      “The archbishop stressed that he had “sympathy” and “solidarity” for all AIDS suffers and the hope that they are “treated in the best possible conditions.”
      But not protected with condoms, god forbid. Mother Teresa ghoulishness, comin’ right up.

      Go fuck yourselves, Catholics.

      Oct 17, 2010 at 12:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rainfish
      Rainfish

      The Christian religion will be a dead religion and consigned to the dust bin of primitive myth-based beliefs by the middle of this century, I predict. Unless it begins to evolve into more social relevancy, most remnants of the Christian religion will only survive to serve the ends of despots and political manipulators — much of which has already come to pass.

      I’m sorry but ask yourself this: if humans were to someday find a cure for death, would we even be having this discussion. Most religions are rooted in the fear of dying: loss of self — nothing more. And, unlike Buddhism, Abrahamic religions don’t really offer anything beyond the promise of the preservation of the self in its present form of consciousness. No real re-birth or evolution beyond the material sense of self — just a continuation of it in some “spiritual realm”. How sad and how limiting.

      Too many “religious types” are like frightened children at bedtime, so afraid when the lights go off. They cling to the past; to the extinguished light of yesterday which only drags them down further into darkness. But the dawn will come sooner, if only you would just stop thinking so much about it. It’s time to move on; make life better in the “here-and-now” so that our children will have a better life to look forward to in this world after we are gone.

      And that means our GLBT children as well. All of us, and especially those of you in the “christian” community, have a lot to make up for with them. It’s time to get started. Reject all forms of exclusion, no matter what you may personally feel about a particular group. As long as no demonstrable harm is being done to another, then you must allow each of us to live our own lives as we see fit. I am no longer a Christian (although I was raised as a German Lutheran), still I believe that your Jesus (perhaps not the present cultification of him), but, perhaps, the true Messiah would have done that.

      The real test of your humanity towards your fellow man or woman is not how well you get along with those who are like you, but how well you receive those who are not. I have no doubt that ol’ J.C. would agree with me on that one. Even Buddha, it is claimed, once said: “Be a lamp unto yourself.” But that doesn’t preclude lighting at least part of the way for others you meet along the road — as long as you don’t force them to follow you on your trail when they may have their own journeys to make along different footpaths.

      Still, I am hopeful. I think we can all find commonality, if we only try a little harder to seek it with one another. I think each one of us has been given a single piece of a cosmic jigsaw puzzle – unique unto itself. I believe that the mystery of our existence will never be completely unraveled until we each come together, along different paths if need be, and arrive at a common destination to help each other put the pieces back together again. Somehow, by then, I don’t think that we’ll be surprise at what we’ll find. We may find that, when the puzzle is complete, that it is just a giant looking glass with one image looking back.

      Maybe that is what faith is. I can’t prove it. I think that it could be true. Or not. But, perhaps, it might be all different tomorrow.

      In conclusion, just remember:

      “Veritas Vos Liberabit” (The Truth Shall Set You Free)

      but… “De omnibus dubitandum” (Everything should be questioned)

      (c) Bud Evans

      [img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jCT9n9hItmA/SyYv1vbfhTI/AAAAAAAAAbQ/HJ5p7174PVI/s1600-h/Religious_syms.png[/img]

      Oct 17, 2010 at 12:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ran
      Ran

      He gives us yet another reason why religion, especially the Roman Catholic religion, is such a joke. Heterosexuals have anal-sex. So should heteros by the hand of his God be contracting HIV as well? Just to add, oral sex to them is unnatural too. How does he explain HIV in Africa and Asia where there is a high level of cases with heterosexuals? I suppose that’s his God’s wrath too. What a horrible God he has.

      He fails to understand or acknowledge that HIV is just a virus that has been here all along in monkeys, where it was passed to humans through consuming monkey meat. HIV does not discriminate and will infect anyone it can. It’s just a virus, like a cold virus only much worse. It just is. His words clearly show the difference between fact/science versus fiction/religion.

      Oct 17, 2010 at 12:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tazz602
      tazz602

      Why do these sad religious bigots always concentrate on the way HIV was spread early in the US epidemic – but rarely acknowledge or bring into the picture the way it was spread throughout Africa and other parts of the world, i.e. mainly vaginal intercourse amongst straight people. Their argument is automatically null and void because they focus on one aspect of the spread of the disease instead of acknowledging it is a HUMAN tragedy and not a gay disease!!

      Oct 17, 2010 at 12:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • damon459
      damon459

      I can’t believe people still believe this garbage it’s nothing but a collection of stories from time when men believed love came literally from the heart, the earth was flat, and the center of the universe. Seriously how can someone with any brain cells at all believe people thousands of yrs ago knew more then we know now?

      Oct 17, 2010 at 1:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Rainfish pontificates: “The Christian religion will be a dead religion and consigned to the dust bin of primitive myth-based beliefs by the middle of this century, I predict.”

      Unless you plan to exterminate thousands of millions of people, Rainfish, going well beyond what that anti-religious governments of the Soviet Union and Communist China accomplished, then your wish won’t come true. People have been predicting the end of Christianity for 2000 years, and yet, it is still here, still pointing humanity the way to equality and justice.

      “Unless it begins to evolve into more social relevancy,”
      Like the ministry of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? Or the thousands of clergy and millions of lay people who are even today fighting anti-gay theology? Or the fine men and women of faith who ran the underground railroad?

      When will atheism evolve any social relevancy? Can a belief that hates most of humanity ever be socially relevant?

      “most remnants of the Christian religion will only survive to serve the ends of despots and political manipulators — much of which has already come to pass.”

      That is a funny imaginary world, and really puts that whole atheist claim ‘religion is a delusion’ in a whole new light – as a form of projection.

      “I’m sorry but ask yourself this: if humans were to someday find a cure for death, would we even be having this discussion.”

      If humans someday find a cure for prejudice, would we even be discussing atheism?

      The cure for death is in God, but atheism denies God, embracing death.

      “Most religions are rooted in the fear of dying: loss of self — nothing more.”

      No, but posts like yours give the impression that atheism is rooted in deception and egomania. Christianity is rooted in justice, though some don’t live up to that.

      One of the remarkable things about religion is that the more faith one has, the less one fears death. When it comes right down to it, isn’t atheism the ultimate fear of death – fearing that death brings proof of someone greater than one’s self?

      “and, unlike Buddhism, Abrahamic religions don’t really offer anything beyond the promise of the preservation of the self in its present form of consciousness.”

      Like homophobes so often do, you paint a false picture. Why is atheism require so many lies to explain itself?

      “The real test of your humanity towards your fellow man or woman is not how well you get along with those who are like you, but how well you receive those who are not.”

      You’re stealing lines from Jesus. Matthew 5:
      43″You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

      ” I am no longer a Christian (although I was raised as a German Lutheran), still I believe that your Jesus . . .”

      Ah, like the way ex-gays still experience sexual attraction to their own gender, but deny that they are homosexuals, deny that homosexuality is innate, and deny the worth of GLBTQ people.

      “I think we can all find commonality,”

      As long as it is on your anti-religious terms, eh?

      The truth I found in Christ set me free, rainfish, and no fundamentalist Christian or fundamentalist atheist like yourself, no bigot of any kind, will ever enslave me.

      Oct 17, 2010 at 1:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • j
      j

      @Cassandra: I’d like to point out that you’re stupid. You can’t be a fundamentalist athiest. What a low tactic, to try and equate us with your ranks. It’s just like teach the controversy, intelligent design “theory” (more like hypothesis, although not even that in that you never set out to disprove it). Our opinions are not equal. Ours are based in observable fact. You can’t be a fundamentalist athiest because athiesm is a lack of a belief, it is a negative, not a positive and therefore attaching a signifier to it is utterly redundant. We don’t have fundamentalist aunicornists, do we? Get what I’m saying?

      Oct 17, 2010 at 5:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • j
      j

      @j: And I don’t mean negative in an emotionally charged way, not that you’ll spot the difference. I just don’t want you feeling hopelessly wrong and clutching at anything that you can make a red herring out of.

      Oct 17, 2010 at 6:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • codyj
      codyj

      i saw bishop leornard selling WAFFLES at last weeks pride parade (he was in drag,of course)

      Oct 17, 2010 at 6:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      Cassandra, how can you speak out against bigots and then rail against atheists and say that they are hateful people?

      Oct 17, 2010 at 9:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @ron: That will not get you to your heaven. lol. It is well known that Guilt is only the pathway you choose to make yourself feel good.

      Oct 17, 2010 at 11:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kent Peterson
      Kent Peterson

      @Cassandra: Go fuck yourself Cassandra – and your delusional religion. Religion poisons everything, because it is not based on FACTS or REASON. And, no – I do not have to be “respectful” of your faith – when your faith is so demeaning and hateful.

      Oct 17, 2010 at 11:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patrick
      Patrick

      Leonard is what we get for his parents not using a condom or having an abortion.

      Oct 17, 2010 at 2:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @Cassandra: I do not have a problem with what Cassandra said at all. She is quoting the best things she can find about her religion and even if i do not agree with all of it, i certainly won’t demand it be taken away from her. One question though Cassandra? I want to know if you feel being homosexual is a non issue equal to heterosexuality. If you answer no, then i think you are full of shit. If you answer yes, then i think you practice what you preach. By the way, no “BUTS” allowed in your response. Just a yes or no please. It is a simple question.

      Oct 17, 2010 at 4:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Annoyed agnostic
      Annoyed agnostic

      You cant prove there is a God anymore than you can prove there isnt. So why bother. Why bicker?
      Whether or not its true, human beings do naturally want to have answers to what happens to them, I think we have a harder time accepting the non-existence of those we’ve lost more than our own demise (at least I think, people who love do)So I think there will always be “religion.” I believe that people use their free will to act with honor and kindness, or hate and cowardice, regardless of their belief system, or lack of one.

      I choose to use my free will to decide the choices i make in life, regardless on whether its a gift from a higher being, or an evolved trait.

      If there is a God like this Bishop’s version I rather be in hell.
      I will toast….happily. This guys actions and words are ugly whether there is a God or not.

      Oct 17, 2010 at 7:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      “homosexuality is not the same as normal sex, in the same way that anorexia is not a normal appetite.”

      What a spectacularly and hilariously inapt metaphor.

      Homosexuality is indeed comparable to heterosexuality, because they’re both sexualities arising from the perfectly normal physical needs of healthy persons.

      But anorexia is evidence of an abnormal and pathological condition, because it’s the nullification of the perfectly normal physical needs of healthy persons.

      Much like celibacy.

      Oct 17, 2010 at 11:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • peteNsfo
      peteNsfo

      I’m a fundamental Atheist. :) I want nothing to do with any religion and I really don’t want to hear about it either.
      And I don’t ‘hate’ anyone, as Cassandra seems to suggest.

      I do think the hierarchy of that Katholic Khurch is absolutely corrupt, not b/c they’re Katholic, but for all the other obvious reasons.

      Religious people always assert that Atheists still see the world in terms of god- not really, it’s just the language people use. We don’t want in, and b/c we use terminology that allows a conversation doesn’t mean we’re conceding anything- just don’t care is all.

      Oct 17, 2010 at 11:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      J

      “I’d like to point out that you’re stupid.”

      And, I’m smart enough not to rely on insults to make a point.

      “You can’t be a fundamentalist athiest.”

      I can’t, I’m a Christian, but people can be, and are fundamentalists about many things, including atheism. The third meaning of fundamentalism per dictionary.com
      “strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles:”

      Remember, that it is only necessary for one definition of a word be applicable for a given usage.

      “What a low tactic, to try and equate us with your ranks.”
      As opposed to calling me stupid, and make a false claim about my religious beliefs? Instead of rebutting what I actually wrote, you attack my character. How exactly is that going to prove that atheism is not a prejudice?

      “It’s just like teach the controversy, intelligent design “theory” (more like hypothesis, although not even that in that you never set out to disprove it). Our opinions are not equal. Ours are based in observable fact.”

      No, atheism is not based on observable fact. It is based on the absence of observed fact, on the part of atheists, despite the observations of people of faith.

      “You can’t be a fundamentalist athiest because athiesm is a lack of a belief, it is a negative, not a positive and therefore attaching a signifier to it is utterly redundant.”

      Atheism is not based on fact or experience, it is absolute belief that God does not exist, so, yes people can be fundamentalist atheists. Fundamentalism does not have to be “a positive”.

      “And I don’t mean negative in an emotionally charged way, not that you’ll spot the difference. I just don’t want you feeling hopelessly wrong and clutching at anything that you can make a red herring out of.”

      And another personal attack in place of a substantive argument. It is funny to see you projecting that I might engage in the behavior you just did.

      Oct 17, 2010 at 11:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Soupy

      You asked “Cassandra, how can you speak out against bigots and then rail against atheists and say that they are hateful people?”

      Well, I did not say that atheists are hateful people, first off.

      Second, how could I speak out about one prejudice, like homophobia, and not speak about another, like atheism?

      It is very simple actually. Both homophobia and atheism are about dismissing people as inferior because of who they are and what they experience.

      The only evidence about homosexuality – about the innate attraction, the emotional depth and value, the experience of being gay or lesbian or bi or transgendered, is personal testimony. Even the growing biological evidence is valuable only as confirmation of people’s experiences.

      The core premise of homophobia is denial of the testimony of GLBTQ people about their own experiences. From “it is a choice” to “its just lust”, all anti-gay theology and homophobia is based on denying the validity of GLBTQ people’s testimony about their lives – homophobes just know better from their lack of experience.

      The only evidence for religion is also personal experience. The core premise of atheism is the denial of the testimony of people of faith about their own experiences. From “it is a delusion” to “it is a con”, atheism is based on denying the validity of the people of faith’s testimony about their lives – atheists just know better from their lack of experience.

      How can I criticize homophobia, which denies the validity of my intimate personal relationship with another human being, and stay silent about someone else’s denial of the validity of my intimate, personal relationship with God.

      Either all bigotry is wrong, including atheism, or none of them are. As a GLBTQ person of faith, I know from personal, first hand experience, that atheism and homophobia are both prejudice, just different flavors of the same contempt and malice.

      Oct 18, 2010 at 12:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @Cassandra:

      How about you try turning the other cheek?

      Oct 18, 2010 at 12:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Kent Peterson

      “Go f*ck yourself Cassandra – and your delusional religion. Religion poisons everything, because it is not based on FACTS or REASON. And, no – I do not have to be “respectful” of your faith – when your faith is so demeaning and hateful.”

      Your post affirms my position, Kent. Many homophobes dismiss homosexuality as a mental illness, you just did the same about religion.

      Religion, whether you like it or not, is the primary source for all of the positive ideals in human kind. Sure, atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, as they have in the name of atheism, capitalism, philosophy, science, art, love, etc.

      Religion is based on facts and reason, just facts and reason you dismiss out of hand because who is having the experiences involved.

      Atheism is not based on facts – there are no facts whatsoever that prove that God does not exist, and to argue that your lack of experience defines the universe, everything in it and everything that transcends it, is hardly reasonable.

      Your contempt reflects on you. If you want to be perceived as a reasonable person, then you have to be reasonable. If you want to be perceived as unreasonable, abusive, malicious and bigoted, you should continue to post as you have.

      However, my faith is not demeaning or hateful, my faith respects the intrinsic worth of all human beings, and accepts their testimony about their experiences. You are probably judging my faith by that of some other people, but that is prejudice on your part.

      Your faith, atheism, however, is intrinsically disrespectful to everyone whose life experience is different from your own, and your words here to me were both demeaning and hateful.

      Oct 18, 2010 at 12:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      Then there is a profound difference between us. I can respect the freedom of choice, and the right to believe or not, and you cannot. That, to me, is prejudice.

      Oct 18, 2010 at 12:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Ewe

      “One question though Cassandra? I want to know if you feel being homosexual is a non issue equal to heterosexuality. If you answer no, then i think you are full of shit. If you answer yes, then i think you practice what you preach.”

      Being homosexual is the moral equivalent of being heterosexual, in my opinion, and I can refute anti-gay theology to support that, and cite Scripture about justice, the nature of God, for additional support.

      “It is a simple question.”

      Not really, though. We turn too many nuanced and multi-level issues into simplistic questions and answers.

      For example, for a heterosexual person, I think, engaging in sex with someone of their own gender is almost always wrong. Either they are using the other person as a thing to get off on, reducing a human being to a dildo or fleshlight, or they are acting against their own self.

      And of course, for a homosexual person, in my opinion, engaging in sex with someone of the opposite gender is almost always wrong as well, for the same reasons.

      So a simple yes or no isn’t quite enough. Sexual orientation is morally neutral in my opinion, but, acting against one’s sexual orientation tends to be morally wrong. I acknowledge though that there may be situations in which the just, morally right action for someone might be to have sex that is not appropriate for their sexual orientation, though I haven’t been in such a situation.

      I think that homophobia and atheism, and racism and sexism and lookism and so many of the social poisons in our society, arise out of looking at the complexity of human life in far too simplistic a manner. Homophobes use a simplistic approach – “I like the opposite sex, so everyone else does do, so gay people are (insert insult)”. Atheism uses a simplistic approach “I don’t experience God, so no one else does either, so religious people are (insert insult)”.

      Rather than acknowledge the complexity of human diversity, both of the above perspectives force a tiny, simplistic worldview on everyone.

      I think we do ourselves, as a society, serious self-injury when we rely on simplistic answers and questions, especially when the subject, like religion and sexuality, is so closely tied to one of the most complex things known to man – the human brain.

      Oct 18, 2010 at 12:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Soupy

      “Then there is a profound difference between us. I can respect the freedom of choice, and the right to believe or not, and you cannot. That, to me, is prejudice.”

      Yes, you are prejudiced.

      Atheism is not about the right to believe or not, atheism goes beyond disbelief to something much more personal and offensive.

      I think that human dignity trumps guesses, and atheism is just a very ugly guess.

      You know, homophobes constantly make false accusations about what I can or cannot do as well. If you respected me, you would not have claimed that I cannot respect freedom of choice. That was a lie on your part, offered only out of malice.

      There is a difference between us, just not the one you think.

      Oct 18, 2010 at 12:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      “How about you try turning the other cheek?”

      Say, by continuing to post politely, without calling anyone delusional, or stupid, or using obscenity, making my case calmly knowing that some people will engage in personal attack?

      Or did you mean I should lock my spiritual self in the closet, be silent as Kent, J, Rainfish and peers malign my life, the lives of my friends and coworkers, my partner, my family, and millions of other people?

      Shouldn’t we all then be silent when the Archbishop maligns our lives, the lives of our friends and coworkers, our partners and families, and millions of other people?

      Prejudice is not the answer to prejudice, and atheism is only a prejudice, it is not and cannot be the answer to homophobia, or racism, or sexism.

      GLBTQ people ask, plead, demand, expect heterosexuals to accept and believe our testimony about our lives – how then can the atheists among deny the testimony of people of faith about their lives?

      When religionists lie about our lives – absolutely call them out. But when people of faith testify about their lives, if you want them to believe your testimony, you have to believe theirs.

      Otherwise, everyone is calling everyone else a liar, and no one learns to accept and respect anyone else.

      Oct 18, 2010 at 12:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Soupy

      Just to return to this a bit more:
      ” I can respect the freedom of choice, and the right to believe or not, and you cannot. That, to me, is prejudice.”

      You appear to be arguing that criticism of a prejudice is itself prejudice.

      That would mean that we cannot criticize the above mentioned Archbishop as well.

      Atheism does not equate to sexual orientation. Atheism is primarily a negative conclusion about other people’s lives and experiences, sexual orientation is a primarily about one’s own life and experience. Atheism is like homophobia – a negative judgment about others, spirituality is like sexual orientation – about one’s own experiences.

      It is a very different thing to criticize an opinion about other people, vs criticizing other people’s experiences. In the case of criticizing atheism and homophobia, what is being critiqued is a mental construct, one or more ideas, a construct of data that may or may not be accurate, and conclusions draw on that. In the case of criticism of sexual orientation or spirituality, people are criticized directly, and about something the person giving the critique does not directly know anything about.

      The issue of rights and freedom of choice was a red herring, because the real questions here are not whether one has a right to be a homophobe, or to be an atheist, or to criticize homophobia or atheism or homosexuality or religion.

      The questions are whether it is moral and ethical to denounce all people who share a particular trait, and whether it is moral and ethical to summarily dismiss people’s testimony about their own lives, whether one can condemn one prejudice while celebrating another.

      Homophobes frequently insist that they have a right to judge homosexuality, and most GLBTQ folk argue that it is none of their business. NOM claims they have a right to vote on same-sex marriages, a right to pass judgment on our intimate relationships. How can we argue that NOM and homophobes should mind their own lives, and then say that atheists have a right to judge and dismiss the lives of people of faith?

      We cannot decry the prejudice against us based on our sexual orientation with integrity and honor if we also cultivate prejudice based on any other trait, including religion.

      Oct 18, 2010 at 1:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @Cassandra:

      No, I’m not asking you to turn the other cheek. Nor am I asking you to stop judging other people.

      Somebody else asked you to do it.

      Oct 18, 2010 at 1:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sux being you
      Sux being you

      Truth hurts.

      Oct 18, 2010 at 3:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sidney Vaught
      Sidney Vaught

      If this is the case, what is the “justice” for Roman Catholic priests who’ve molested little children? This is a prime example of a so-called Christian who can’t seem to read beyond the Old Testament. As far as I’m concerned he can stay in Belgium and keep his old book there too.

      Oct 18, 2010 at 7:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      Cassandra, I’m not sure why, in your post directed to me that you stated “Atheism does not equate to sexual orientation”. I never made any claim that it was. You seem to be arguing with someone else.

      Oct 18, 2010 at 9:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      the crustybastard

      “No, I’m not asking you to turn the other cheek. Nor am I asking you to stop judging other people.

      Somebody else asked you to do it.”

      Did someone steal your id and write post 28?

      I asked you to explain what you were looking for as ‘turning the other cheek’ and you chose not to explain, indicating that your prior remark was pointless snarkiness.

      Soupy

      “Cassandra, I’m not sure why, in your post directed to me that you stated “Atheism does not equate to sexual orientation”. I never made any claim that it was. You seem to be arguing with someone else.”

      I’m addressing the principle you raised in your post. You not only lied about me with a false accusation, you apparently equate criticism of atheism as bigotry.

      I explained that criticizing atheism, because atheism is a construct of ideas, is very different from criticizing sexual orientation.

      But perhaps you did not mean post 30 to be a serious rebuttal, but presented as just a snarky insult.

      The attachment to religious prejudice here is just as unhealthy as homophobe’s attachment to homophobia. But they are not trying to win by extolling a virtue – justice – so they can fight from the gutter. Since GLBTQ people argue that prejudice itself is wrong, we cannot engage in it in return.

      Oct 18, 2010 at 1:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      You are certainly free to say that I am prejudiced. That’s your truth. Not a universal one. I am not an atheist. Most of my contemporaries and my partner are. In my personal experience, none of them have ever proselytized to me, disrespected me, mocked my beliefs, or attempted to convert me. There was nothing “snarky” about my post.

      I’m not angry, upset, or offended in any way.

      Oct 18, 2010 at 2:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TedinCalifornia
      TedinCalifornia

      ???
      First of all, it’s an unfortunate fact that there are many (and steadily increasing)heterosexual couples that are engaging in anal sex. It’s not just gays, bis, or,apparently, lesbians (???)

      Let me be clear: I consider myself to be gay. I am physically and emotionally attracted to people of my own physical gender. And I am also not a religionist of any kind, christian, muslim, jewish, mormon, etc.

      But I feel insulted by all of the assumations here: 1) That all gay men engage in anal sex. 2) That anal sex is the only vector by which HIV/AIDS spreads. 3) That HIV/AIDS is just another virus.

      Here goes: HIV/AIDS is not just another virus, it’s deadly. It kills only after a period of physical torture and decline, until you’re finally killed by what you’ve been comparing it with: a common cold or flu, some other normally easily treatable ailment. While anal sex (protect or otherwise–no condom is failsafe) is a major contributor to the spread of HIV/AIDs, so is vaginal sex (indeed, it is the largest vector of the African continental spread of HIV/AIDs) oral sex, and contaminated needles, not to mention contact with contaminated blood or other bodily fluids or being born to someone who has HIV/AIDS.
      Finally, I get annoyed when it’s assumed that all gay men have anal sex. I’m gay, and I do not engage in anal sex. I think it is destructive on the body (of the reciever) in the long run, spreads disease 5000% faster than vaginal or oral sex, and is (and this fact is the only one which is subjective on my part)inherantly unequal. Anal sex creates a dichotomy of roles and relations where there should be equality and freedom. I think we fell into this snare when we were told that we had to be heteronormative, that we were just like straight people. We are different and should be proud of it, and we shouldn’t try to imitate straight physical sexual norms.

      Oct 18, 2010 at 2:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @Cassandra:

      I thought it was pretty clear. I’m not looking for you to do anything. However, as a self-professed Christian, I thought you might want to consider following the approach Jesus suggested for you. I only bring it up because I’d hate to see you forego your promised great heavenly reward you win for patiently suffering these heinous internet persecutions.

      Perhaps you imagine your rhetorical talents are better spent convincing us that as nonbelievers we are socially irrelevant bigots who probably engage in enslavement or extermination fantasies arising from our egomania, delusions and projections, and that religion is the reason anything good has ever happened in the history of the universe. Your charming, if unpersuasive words. Distilled.

      My opinion: I don’t think you deserve special rights, privileges or exceptions because you still have a magic invisible friend, but I don’t think you should be charged for two seats either.

      On the other hand, religious people think they get to win every dispute because it’s not just their opinion — they’re expressing the words and will of Eternal God! And it’s our own damn fault if we fail to have our own personal hotline to the Almighty, because if we did, we would have no other choice but to agree with them. What’s more, believers typically think that if God doesn’t want them to follow the law, well they simply cannot be expected to conform to it. Oh, and their religions should avail themselves of all the communal benefits provided by taxpayer dollars, but don’t need to contribute to this common fund, however jaw-droppingly wealthy they may be.

      “Atheism is not about the right to believe or not, atheism goes beyond disbelief to something much more personal and offensive.”

      [img]http://alerio.freehostia.com/oppressed.PNG[/img]

      Oct 18, 2010 at 3:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      “You are certainly free to say that I am prejudiced. That’s your truth.”

      No, it is the impression your posts present of you. Once again, you are arrogantly defining me for me, just as homophobes do.

      “I am not an atheist. Most of my contemporaries and my partner are. In my personal experience, none of them have ever proselytized to me, disrespected me, mocked my beliefs, or attempted to convert me.”

      So, you are telling us that you have never read any of the posts here on Queerty by RainFish, Tallchief and company. Ok.

      “There was nothing “snarky” about my post.”

      Ok I’ll settle for deliberately abusive instead.

      Oct 18, 2010 at 3:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      It’s odd. You have produced a physical reaction in me of cold, clammy fear.

      Oct 18, 2010 at 4:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      “It’s odd. You have produced a physical reaction in me of cold, clammy fear.”

      Soupy – that is how guilt feels to some people.

      Additionally, homophobes resort to fear-mongering too, claiming to be fearful of homosexuals. And racists resort to fear-mongering, claiming to be afraid of “those people” destroying “decent folk”.

      Look, homophobes respond in exactly the same way as you, crusty, and company have responded when their prejudice against GLBTQ people is criticized. That should tell you something.

      I frequently fundamentalist Christians to think about what it means that their religious belief ‘homosexuality is sin’ causes them to sin (telling lies, nurturing violence and injustice, etc). So think about what it means that atheism requires people to use exactly the same techniques, tactics and arguments that homophobes, and racists, and misogynists, etc. use.

      These correlations are critically important.

      Oct 18, 2010 at 4:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      I did not ask you to analyze my feelings, nor do I think that you can. And you called me arrogant?

      Oct 18, 2010 at 5:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • pete
      pete

      Cassandra, you must be a real hoot at a dinner party!

      Oct 18, 2010 at 5:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @Cassandra:

      tl;dr. LOL.

      [img]http://men-haircuts.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/tom-cruise-acting-crazy.jpg[/img]

      You’re a nut. Seriously.

      Have a nice day.

      Oct 18, 2010 at 5:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.