Anti-trans - what is its basis in Christian doctrine?

[jeremyp]

Unless you are part of that Church legal process. 

Marriage in this country is not defined by the Church's legal process.

So, I assume that you don't believe that a train driver has to abide by the rules that control that profession?

Do the rules and regulations of driving trains say anything about marriage?

I know of CofE priests who have broken the rules of being a priest including, for instance, having affairs, who have not been sacked.

[Owlswing]

Unless you are part of that Church legal process. 

So, Hope, what you are saying is that Church law takes precedence over Civil law even when applied to those who are not part of your beknighted church?

So, I assume that you don't believe that a train driver has to abide by the rules that control that profession?

Again you resort to taking things to their most illogical coinclusion to try to justify the unjustifiable!

[Hope]

So, Hope, what you are saying is that Church law takes precedence over Civil law even when applied to those who are not part of your beknighted church?

No, I'm saying that if someone is ordained as a CofE cleric, they are required, by dint of the oath they take as part of that ordination, to abide by the laws that govern that ordination.

Again you resort to taking things to their most illogical coinclusion to try to justify the unjustifiable!

A bit rich coming after that comment of your own.  Most people, when they join a particular profession, are required to abide by rules that that profession set out.

[Owlswing]

No, I'm saying that if someone is ordained as a CofE cleric, they are required, by dint of the oath they take as part of that ordination, to abide by the laws that govern that ordination.

So, what you are saying is that the clergy are above the cibvil law?

A bit rich coming after that comment of your own.  Most people, when they join a particular profession, are required to abide by rules that that profession set out.

NOT above the civil law though! If you can think of a profession that is above the civil law by dint of the rules of that profession please tell us what it is. I cannot think of one!

[Hope]

So, what you are saying is that the clergy are above the cibvil law?

No, civil law has a role in the Church context.  But if you, as a CofE cleric, were to choose to disobey the ecclesiatical law, you will be dealt with by Ecclesiastical courts.  The fact that a particular action is legal under civil law doesn't stop an Ecclesiastical court from disciplining someone.

NOT above the civil law though! If you can think of a profession that is above the civil law by dint of the rules of that profession please tell us what it is. I cannot think of one!

I can think of several.  For instance, if a teacher is accused of sexual or physical abuse of a student in their charge, that teacher can find that the accusation (even if shown to have no basis) dogs their attempts to gain employment in education for the rest of their life.  On another level, a train driver has to abide by a series of rules laid out by the train drivers union ASLEF, and sometimes these supersede civil law.

[Rhiannon]

Oddly enough, in view of the number of people we have had in our church congregation who have committed sin over the years, I find this suggestion rather pathetic.  Humanitariaism doesn't automatically allow every form of behaviour.  It also involves discipline.

I find the church rather pathetic.

Echoing Jeremy's point, I know personally a priest still in orders who had an affair with a woman to whom he was offering marriage guidance. Actually he was counselling the husband too. The reason he didn't get defrocked? Their sexual relationship didn't include penetration and in the church's eyes that meant there was no adultery.

But hey, you think it more humane to sack a priest for marrying someone that they love.

The church deserves to die.

[Owlswing]

No, civil law has a role in the Church context.  But if you, as a CofE cleric, were to choose to disobey the ecclesiatical law, you will be dealt with by Ecclesiastical courts.  The fact that a particular action is legal under civil law doesn't stop an Ecclesiastical court from disciplining someone.

OK; as long as you mean that Church only supercedes CivilLaw within the Church.
 

I can think of several.  For instance, if a teacher is accused of sexual or physical abuse of a student in their charge, that teacher can find that the accusation (even if shown to have no basis) dogs their attempts to gain employment in education for the rest of their life.

That is NOT a matter to do with the law. An accusation MUST be folowed by an investigation; exoneration should be justification for action, through the courts if necessary, funded by whichever teaching union the teacer belongs to, if necessary, against anyone using said unproven accusation to prevent employment in the future.

On another level, a train driver has to abide by a series of rules laid out by the train drivers union ASLEF, and sometimes these supersede civil law.

Rubbish! Any attempt to do so would result in action for "attempting to pervert the course of justice". Knowing your personal aquaintence with someone somewhere in every profession klnow to man (or woman) I have checked this with a couple of solicitors and a barrister.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On Facebook today

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/this-christian-mom-made-a-rap-song-attacking-trans-kids-and-thought-the-internet-would-want-to-see-it/comments/#disqus

Comments please

I think you are ignoring all sorts of political chicanery and the establishment of manifest inequalities.

You ignore the massive pool of anti trans and homophobia in secular Britain in public and in the workplace.

[Owlswing]

I think you are ignoring all sorts of political chicanery and the establishment of manifest inequalities.

I am not sure what, exactly, you are getting at with this comment.

You ignore the massive pool of anti trans and homophobia in secular Britain in public and in the workplace.

Oh yeah? Examples please! Checkable ones. Ones that are in the public domain.

[SqueakyVoice]

http://nonadventures.com/2015/10/24/the-blast-supper/

The example of Jesus (in comic form).

[Bubbles]

I am not sure what, exactly, you are getting at with this comment.

Oh yeah? Examples please! Checkable ones. Ones that are in the public domain.

In areas of society which are still very macho, where there is no regard for what the rest of society thinks.

The sort of places gay people don't go, because they know their mockers don't care.

Women often get discriminated against too, but there is nothing the law can do, because it isn't something like a job.

It's more on the social side that you find it, on the fringes where the law doesn't reach.

The last bastions of the macho male.

I'd say most of them are atheist and have absolutely nothing to do with religion at all.

[Aruntraveller]

I'd say most of them are atheist and have absolutely nothing to do with religion at all.

And I would say they aren't atheist.

What I would say is that they belong to that vast majority in this country that are made up of the unintelligent who lack the willingness to acquire any sort of knowledge beyond what box set they are watching or the latest "offer" Sky TV are pushing at them to keep them in their ignorant apathetic state.

Whether you agree with atheists or not, they have usually thought through their position and in my experience (although I know others claim differently - but if its good enough for them its good enough for me) atheists very seldom express any homophobia.

In addition you might want to look at the institutions that currently support discrimination against homosexuals in this country - that would be, in the main, let me see - oh yes the religious institutions.

They will be the same institutions that in the main have long supported anti gay views within society - and if you scratch the surface of the aforementioned apathetic, ignorant folks I have described, sooner or later they will say well it's in the Bible.

Unthinking, apathetic, caffeine drink addicted, MCdonald eating fuckwits that we have created by our insistence that the market knows best, that consumerism is king, and self interest is the way to go.

The current thinking of Free marketry being created by Thatcher, Blair, Cameron who are or were,at least, nominally Christians.

[Bubbles]

This link is from stonewall 2014

I would argue that this attitude often has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity or any other religion, but children being unpleasant as they can sometimes, also the reactions of many of the teachers make light of it.

Then you have the gay teachers who find they are getting prejudice from other teachers.

I'd argue this isn't always religiously based, in fact I think it often has nothing to do with religion.

It might be children pick it up from elsewhere, more from their peers than their parents.

My children came out with it " gay lord " and all that, nothing to do with me or religion, I just thought it was their age, discovering their own sexuality and all that, and explained what it meant.

I can see that if a child has same sex parents it does send them a bad message about their parents though.

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/teachers_report_2014.pdf

[Bubbles]

And I would say they aren't atheist.

What I would say is that they belong to that vast majority in this country that are made up of the unintelligent who lack the willingness to acquire any sort of knowledge beyond what box set they are watching or the latest "offer" Sky TV are pushing at them to keep them in their ignorant apathetic state.

Whether you agree with atheists or not, they have usually thought through their position and in my experience (although I know others claim differently - but if its good enough for them its good enough for me) atheists very seldom express any homophobia.

In addition you might want to look at the institutions that currently support discrimination against homosexuals in this country - that would be, in the main, let me see - oh yes the religious institutions.

They will be the same institutions that in the main have long supported anti gay views within society - and if you scratch the surface of the aforementioned apathetic, ignorant folks I have described, sooner or later they will say well it's in the Bible.

Unthinking, apathetic, caffeine drink addicted, MCdonald eating fuckwits that we have created by our insistence that the market knows best, that consumerism is king, and self interest is the way to go.

The current thinking of Free marketry being created by Thatcher, Blair, Cameron who are or were,at least, nominally Christians.

I was actually thinking of secular private clubs who still don't allow women or gay members.

Some of them are pretty much anti religion.

It's usually because the macho image matters more than other considerations.

Religion doesn't always come into it.

Just like religion doesn't come into this one

http://www.voice-online.co.uk/article/women-refused-club-entry-being-too-dark-and-too-fat

Horribleness exists.

It isn't all the fault of religion, people can just be unpleasant sometimes.

Sorry Trent, I never intended to upset you this morning. 

[Bubbles]

If religion disappeared tomorrow, I don't think human nastiness to each other would go away.

There are always those "non conformists" who would carry it on.

That's why I don't blame religion for it, although they don't help.

It's possible to be a non conformist, hate sections of society, and have a total atheistic attitude.

The problem i think, is that non conformists will always be with us, even without religion.

Perhaps it's one of those survival things, a small percentage are non conformists and resist whatever attitudes most people adopt.

Maybe the answer is to recognise this about ourselves as a society, rather than blame it all on religion.

Getting rid of religion, won't get rid of non conformists.

It's a simplistic answer that blames it all on religion and religious figures.

I'm sorry if my posts upset anyone, it's just I can't blame homophobia just on religious people.

Strangely enough  non conformists can also be quite nationalistic people.

Perhaps nationalism replaces religion in their ideology ............

Ideologies and religion can both have destructive outcomes.

[Rhiannon]

I've never understood the tendency to excuse one form of bigotry by pointing out that other forms exist too.

[Bubbles]

I've never understood the tendency to excuse one form of bigotry by pointing out that other forms exist too.

That's because one originator of bigotry ( religion ) is being exposed and religious people vilified for being the sole source of that bigotry when actually they are not.
Bigotry in that case is homophobia.
My link with the women was to show bigotry can exist without religion of any sort, which IMO is self evident, until you discuss homophobia.

For some reason people seem to want to believe homophobia only has one source- religion.

If you look at Trents post even he says.....in effect.... " no they can't really be atheists, Well it all leads back to the bible.... They must be religious"..... I'm saying .... "No not necessarily...."


It's the assumption that Christianity is the sole source of homophobia that I am challenging.

The link between awful attitudes towards women and gays often comes from the same group, because they are very macho.

Women and gays don't fit into the macho world of some individuals.

[Nearly Sane]

Is there an assumption stated anywhere here that Christianity is the sole source of homophobia?

[Bubbles]

Is there an assumption stated anywhere here that Christianity is the sole source of homophobia?

Post 61 Trent.

[Nearly Sane]

Post 61 Trent.

Nope, it doesn't say that.

[Bubbles]

Nope, it doesn't say that.

It implies that.

There is an attitude generally that atheists cannot be guilty of homophobia.

I've noticed it.

To show you I haven't made it up I've googled it, and found a blog where someone has also noticed it.

This week, the rights of women and LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) people have been a big topic of discussion in the atheist blogosphere—with some asking whether or not homophobic or sexist atheists actually exist.

- See more at: http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/03/10/atheists-can-homophobic-sexist/#sthash.tO8vQ6K0.dpuf

http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/03/10/atheists-can-homophobic-sexist/


Yes it's just a blog, but it does show that it exists in as much someone else has bothered to blog on it.

It isn't totally in my imagination and as an attitude exists.

Trents post pretty much denied someone who was homophobic could be an atheist.

With his first sentence too.

[Nearly Sane]

It implies that.

There is an attitude generally that atheists cannot be guilty of homophobia.

I've noticed it.

To show you I haven't made it up I've googled it, and found a blog where someone has also noticed it.

http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/03/10/atheists-can-homophobic-sexist/


Yes it's just a blog, but it does show that it exists in as much someone else has bothered to blog on it.

It isn't totally in my imagination and as an attitude exists.

Trents post pretty much denied someone who was homophobic could be an atheist.

With his first sentence too.

No, his post was in reply to your post where you asserted that most bigotry was from atheists as regards homophobia. That's what his first sentence covers. I suggest you reread it, without making assumptions about what is being said.

[Rhiannon]

It implies that.

There is an attitude generally that atheists cannot be guilty of homophobia.

I've noticed it.

To show you I haven't made it up I've googled it, and found a blog where someone has also noticed it.

http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/03/10/atheists-can-homophobic-sexist/


Yes it's just a blog, but it does show that it exists in as much someone else has bothered to blog on it.

It isn't totally in my imagination and as an attitude exists.

Trents post pretty much denied someone who was homophobic could be an atheist.

With his first sentence too.

Of course he doesn't.

[Bubbles]

No, his post was in reply to your post where you asserted that most bigotry was from atheists as regards homophobia. That's what his first sentence covers. I suggest you reread it, without making assumptions about what is being said.

I didn't state that, so you need to re read my post.

I was posting about small macho groups in society who were homophobic and I said "I'd say most of them are atheist and have absolutely nothing to do with religion at all.
" 

To which Trent replied that he didn't think they were atheist.

I never said most bigotry was from atheists ( generally) , read it again.

( I was thinking for example of A few MC clubs where some of them are very macho orientated. )

You just don't see them sat on pews on a Sunday 

[Rhiannon]

Most of the people who are a part of the 'macho' sub culture you describe haven't thought about theism at all, or the lack of it. Trent's point is that atheism means no more to them than Christianity does. Although atheism is an absence of belief it is still a considered point of view.