When 'religious liberty' was used to justify racism instead of homophobia

[All Along The Watchtower]

snip:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

While I don't necessarily favor the idiotic laws being put forward in these states, I tend to think that opposition to homosexuality probably has more grounding in alleged religiosity than racism.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

While I don't necessarily favor the idiotic laws being put forward in these states, I tend to think that opposition to homosexuality probably has more grounding in alleged religiosity than racism.

That's because these days you're more likely to see people using religion to justify homophobia than racism.

[Beet]

The problem is that religion can be interpreted or crafted to justify anything. We must continually navigate the boundaries between religious freedom and other laws and social customs.

[All Along The Watchtower]

While I don't necessarily favor the idiotic laws being put forward in these states, I tend to think that opposition to homosexuality probably has more grounding in alleged religiosity than racism.

That's because these days you're more likely to see people using religion to justify homosexuality than racism

You mean homophobia?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

While I don't necessarily favor the idiotic laws being put forward in these states, I tend to think that opposition to homosexuality probably has more grounding in alleged religiosity than racism.

That's because these days you're more likely to see people using religion to justify homosexuality than racism

You mean homophobia?

maybe

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

And before that it was slavery, and before that it was massacre of the Native Americans.... etc etc.  This is so obvious it doesn't need further comment. 

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

While I don't necessarily favor the idiotic laws being put forward in these states, I tend to think that opposition to homosexuality probably has more grounding in alleged religiosity than racism.

Truthfully, it has more to do with conservatives finding homosexuality culturally abhorrent than religiously abhorrent. Religion is being used as a really lazy justification, same as it was for slavery. Modern day religious conservatives greatly dislike supporting anyone they consider different from them.

Some people want to live by a set of rules that are 2,000 years old that prioritize filling the world with as many humans (worshippers and soldiers alike) as possible. Some of us, meanwhile, think that changing times and changing technology changes the world's priorities. It's safe to eat pork and shellfish now, honest.

[Heimdal]

I know that a lot of people regard the struggle for gay rights as a continuation of the civil rights battles of the 1950s and 1960s, where the Republicans of today play the role of Bull Connor and George Wallace.

There are however some important differences. First of all that the Bible has a lot to say about heterosexuality and homosexuality, so it is quite possible to oppose gay marriage on religious grounds (even though a lot of Christians reach another conclusion). However, the Bible doesn’t really have a lot to say about race. So I don’t think it is plausible to support segregation on the basis of Christian faith.

That most churches in the Jim Crow South were segregated is of course a fact. But I don’t think that is really relevant to the current debate about gay rights.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I know that a lot of people regard the struggle for gay rights as a continuation of the civil rights battles of the 1950s and 1960s, where the Republicans of today play the role of Bull Connor and George Wallace.

There are however some important differences. First of all that the Bible has a lot to say about heterosexuality and homosexuality, so it is quite possible to oppose gay marriage on religious grounds (even though a lot of Christians reach another conclusion). However, the Bible doesn’t really have a lot to say about race. So I don’t think it is plausible to support segregation on the basis of Christian faith.

That most churches in the Jim Crow South were segregated is of course a fact. But I don’t think that is really relevant to the current debate about gay rights.

That's nice and all, but the Bible (according to our Constitution) is supposed to have no relevance when it comes to making our laws.  Anything can become one's religious belief if they so claim it. 

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I know that a lot of people regard the struggle for gay rights as a continuation of the civil rights battles of the 1950s and 1960s, where the Republicans of today play the role of Bull Connor and George Wallace.

There are however some important differences. First of all that the Bible has a lot to say about heterosexuality and homosexuality, so it is quite possible to oppose gay marriage on religious grounds (even though a lot of Christians reach another conclusion). However, the Bible doesn’t really have a lot to say about race. So I don’t think it is plausible to support segregation on the basis of Christian faith.

That most churches in the Jim Crow South were segregated is of course a fact. But I don’t think that is really relevant to the current debate about gay rights.

The Bible seems pretty clear about slavery being OK, as one would expect from a 2,000 year old period piece.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I know that a lot of people regard the struggle for gay rights as a continuation of the civil rights battles of the 1950s and 1960s, where the Republicans of today play the role of Bull Connor and George Wallace.

There are however some important differences. First of all that the Bible has a lot to say about heterosexuality and homosexuality, so it is quite possible to oppose gay marriage on religious grounds (even though a lot of Christians reach another conclusion). However, the Bible doesn’t really have a lot to say about race. So I don’t think it is plausible to support segregation on the basis of Christian faith.

That most churches in the Jim Crow South were segregated is of course a fact. But I don’t think that is really relevant to the current debate about gay rights.

The Bible seems pretty clear about slavery being OK, as one would expect from a 2,000 year old period piece.

Altho there is the whole question of whether Bible-era slavery was really comparable to the race-based slavery practiced in the New World.  Certainly in many respects it was less harsh than that practiced here in the American South (and that was less harsh than that done in many other parts of the Americas).  Biblical servitude was more akin to peonage than how slavery was done in the American South before the Civil War.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I know that a lot of people regard the struggle for gay rights as a continuation of the civil rights battles of the 1950s and 1960s, where the Republicans of today play the role of Bull Connor and George Wallace.

There are however some important differences. First of all that the Bible has a lot to say about heterosexuality and homosexuality, so it is quite possible to oppose gay marriage on religious grounds (even though a lot of Christians reach another conclusion). However, the Bible doesn’t really have a lot to say about race. So I don’t think it is plausible to support segregation on the basis of Christian faith.

That most churches in the Jim Crow South were segregated is of course a fact. But I don’t think that is really relevant to the current debate about gay rights.

The Bible seems pretty clear about slavery being OK, as one would expect from a 2,000 year old period piece.

Altho there is the whole question of whether Bible-era slavery was really comparable to the race-based slavery practiced in the New World.  Certainly in many respects it was less harsh than that practiced here in the American South (and that was less harsh than that done in many other parts of the Americas).  Biblical servitude was more akin to peonage than how slavery was done in the American South before the Civil War.

I wholly agree that the world's approach to slavery changed between the Old Testament and The Civil War, just as the world's approach to same-sex relations has changed. I wouldn't use the Bible as a foundation for modern day law on either topic.