Swedish LGBT Writer Demands Mosques Welcome and Include Homosexuals

[Vastator]

I doubt if any Muslem sect is interested in what a depraved faggot thinks it should teach and practice; any more than any faithful Christian sect would be.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I think it's a good idea. Western nations have passed anti-discrimination laws based on their own social and cultural standards. They should make religious organizations abide by the laws of the country they are incorporated in.

So, you want government to have that power to dictate doctrine and practices to churches?

Fortunately, here in the U.S., our First Amendment explicitly forbids that.

 

[martybegan]

I think it's a good idea. Western nations have passed anti-discrimination laws based on their own social and cultural standards. They should make religious organizations abide by the laws of the country they are incorporated in.

No one is forcing Muslims to build mosques in Sweden, and if they think the country is immoral for not discriminating against gays, there are plenty of places in the world they can go that would be more to their liking. The country they came from comes to mind...

Personally I don't give a crap about someone's sexual preferences. If it makes them happy and it doesn't infringe on me, it's none of my business and I have more important things to worry about.

Evidently you harbor a grudge against religious people.

 

[BackAgain]

1. It ain’t gonna happen. Ever.

2. It wouldn’t work out too well for the gay Muslim membership even it it were to happen.

 

[para bellum]

So, you want government to have that power to dictate doctrine and practices to churches?

Fortunately, here in the U.S., our First Amendment explicitly forbids that.

Can churches in the US deny people from entering for being gay? I don't think so?

Businesses sure can't.

Churches are still corporations, they just enjoy non-profit status. They can't enact restrictions that violate the laws passed by the legislatures any more than a for-profit corporation can.

This is why you can't create enclaves that are ruled by Sharia law, for example. You can give them some autonomy in the grey areas, but they still have to follow the laws.

The appropriate legislative processes were followed and gay people were given legal protections similar to other classes that suffered discrimination in the past. That's the law and everyone has to get along with it.

I'm not advocating for the LGBT agenda, or saying the wokeness and weirdness going on is not ridiculous and taken to the extreme. It obviously is off the rails, when you see a US official who is a man wearing a dress in an official capacity. It makes me cringe from embarrassment.

I also know that guy is not representative of the LGBT population, he's a poster child for a radical agenda. So I try to keep them separate in my thinking.

FWIW.

 

[marvin martian]

Swedish writer Jonas Gardell has demanded that mosques welcome and include members of the LGBT community and examine their attitudes toward homosexuals following the Oslo gay pub shooting.

Jonas Gardell, who self-identifies as gay, stated that after two people were killed in last month’s Oslo shooting at a well-known gay pub ahead of the city’s Pride festivities, mosques should be more inclusive toward the LGBT community.

The main suspect in the Oslo attack, Iranian national Zaniar Matapour, is said to have been linked to radical Islamic extremists who were also linked to the Islamic State terrorist group.

“Of course, the vast majority of Muslims are not extremists but reject violence. But damn it, everyone has a responsibility, a responsibility for how the religion they belong to views gay and transgender people, an obligation to defend and include LGBTQ people in their congregations, to receive us in their mosques as loved by God, just as we are,” he wrote in an opinion article for newspaper Expressen.

Swedish LGBT Writer Demands Mosques Welcome Homosexuals

Swedish writer Jonas Gardell has demanded mosques welcome members of the LGBT community and re-examine attitudes following the Oslo shooting.

www.breitbart.com

Dead man walking

I dont think they have that Lil grenade problem under control either

This should be interesting...

Curious to see how our lefties come down on this issue.

 

[para bellum]

Evidently you harbor a grudge against religious people.

Not at all. I thought the closing of churches during the pandemic was a gross violation of the First Amendment. I have no problems with religious people, most of the people I know and most of my family members are church goers.

I sometimes go myself, not very often though- I'm not what you'd call "devout". I follow the Christian moral code as best I can (sorry about the lust part, God) because I think it's a net positive for society.

I also have no problem with my niece if she wants to have a girlfriend. I'm not under any obligation to inflict my morals and biases on anyone else. That's what laws are for. Live and let live.

 

[para bellum]

It wouldn’t work out too well for the gay Muslim membership even it it were to happen.

Or maybe some Muslims would look at Europe as a less attractive place to emigrate to, leaving the more tolerant ones to enjoy a more inclusive version of Islam that was maybe a little less radical?

 

[martybegan]

Not at all. I thought the closing of churches during the pandemic was a gross violation of the First Amendment. I have no problems with religious people, most of the people I know and most of my family members are church goers.

I sometimes go myself, not very often though- I'm not what you'd call "devout". I follow the Christian moral code as best I can (sorry about the lust part, God) because I think it's a net positive for society.

I also have no problem with my niece if she wants to have a girlfriend. I'm not under any obligation to inflict my morals and biases on anyone else. That's what laws are for. Live and let live.

Then why force churches to follow secular viewpoints not allowed in their own scriptures?

 

[para bellum]

Then why force churches to follow secular viewpoints not allowed in their own scriptures?

Because scripture does not overrule the laws passed by the legislatures.

You can't have human sacrifices either if some scripture calls for it, right?

If someone goes to a church and all he hears is how terrible he is, I expect he would find another church anyway. But if he wants to show up every Sunday and listen to it, that's also his First Amendment right.

 

[martybegan]

Because scripture does not overrule the laws passed by the legislatures.

You can't have human sacrifices either if some scripture calls for it, right?

If someone goes to a church and all he hears is how terrible he is, I expect he would find another church anyway. But if he wants to show up every Sunday and listen to it, that's also his First Amendment right.

In the US the 1st amendment says government can't make laws or rules that infringe on free exercise in the first place.

You really went argumentum ad absurdum right off the bat with human sacrifice?

Not wanting to hold a same sex wedding ceremony or sign off on the license is not the same as a blood sacrifice, not even the same ballpark.

So you are saying a gay couple should be able to force a Catholic Priest and Church to officiate and hold a same sex wedding ceremony?

 

[Polishprince]

Can churches in the US deny people from entering for being gay? I don't think so?

Businesses sure can't.

Churches can ban anyone from their premises for any reason, or no reason.

Example given, our Mormon friends ban non-mormons from their temples and even fellow Mormons who they opine aren't considered worthy.

The Congressional Black Israelites screen out honkies and others who they see as literal devils.

The Roman Catholic Church excommunicates people for all kinds of reasons, telling them to vamoose.

 

[Circe]

Swedish writer Jonas Gardell has demanded that mosques welcome and include members of the LGBT community and examine their attitudes toward homosexuals following the Oslo gay pub shooting.

Demands are fun to make. I demand that Jonas Gardell stop doing the dirty with other men.

I wonder which demand will get fulfilled first?

 

[para bellum]

So you are saying a gay couple should be able to force a Catholic Priest and Church to officiate and hold a same sex wedding ceremony?

I'm not the legislature or the court. They say where the boundaries are, not me and not the church. Should the church refuse to marry a black couple?

How is that different in the eyes of the law?

I don't think the Catholic Church should be able to exclude someone for being gay, and still retain a non-profit status. If you want to be exclusive, you should be a private club. Even there you are subject to some scrutiny.

 

[martybegan]

I'm not the legislature or the court. They say where the boundaries are, not me and not the church. Should the church refuse to marry a black couple?

How is that different in the eyes of the law?

I don't think the Catholic Church should be able to exclude someone for being gay, and still retain a non-profit status. If you want to be exclusive, you should be a private club. Even there you are subject to some scrutiny.

because no race is condemned in the bible, but homosexuality is?

Race and sexuality are not the same thing, despite efforts to the contrary.

Luckily we have the 1st amendment in this country to prevent your type of "thinking" becoming reality.

 

[Circe]

You really went argumentum ad absurdum right off the bat with human sacrifice?

Not wanting to hold a same sex wedding ceremony or sign off on the license is not the same as a blood sacrifice, not even the same ballpark.

So you are saying a gay couple should be able to force a Catholic Priest and Church to officiate and hold a same sex wedding ceremony?

No, that was correct: in ethical discussion, always go straight to the axe murderer: It saves time. Because it's just an issue of degree and quantity, not type.

Sure: the question of how much against their religion the state can force religious people to do is key: look at the nuns' charity having to pay for abortifacients and birth control pills when they don't want to. CAN homosexuals force a baker to bake a wedding cake for their dubious marriage?

The state now has jurisdiction it didn't used to have. Used to be, the Church could order the burning alive of anyone for anything, usually thought crimes. And THAT is certainly a human sacrifice for religious purposes, if you think about it.

So what is the balance between state power and religious power is the question. We just in the past 20 years have been dealing with exactly the same issue that got Thomas Becket murdered in the cathedral in 1170. Then they came down on the side of the church dealing with sex crimes and murders by its priests; now we insist finally on the state having jurisdiction.

 

[para bellum]

Churches can ban anyone from their premises for any reason, or no reason.

Example given, our Mormon friends ban non-mormons from their temples and even fellow Mormons who they opine aren't considered worthy.

The Congressional Black Israelites screen out honkies and others who they see as literal devils.

The Roman Catholic Church excommunicates people for all kinds of reasons, telling them to vamoose.

I don't deny all that, but there is a distinction made that excludes certain reasons for excluding someone as being legitimate reasons. We've seen the courts side with the individuals in many cases. Sometimes it gets reversed, sometimes it doesn't.

The fact that it's a current issue shows that it's not a simple problem. There are equities on both sides that are legitimate and have to be considered.

I have watched the world change around me over the years, and religions tend to be slow movers, but eventually they have to evolve.

 

[para bellum]

because no race is condemned in the bible, but homosexuality is?

Race and sexuality are not the same thing, despite efforts to the contrary.

Well, scripture still does not overrule law.

There are many laws that churches have to follow as places of public gathering. There are fire codes and occupancy limits and handicap ramps and all kinds of things.

They don't get to compare the laws against their holy books to see if they have to follow them. They either follow them, or they lose their special status. That's the difference between our representative republic, and theocracies.

Luckily we have the 1st amendment in this country to prevent your type of "thinking" becoming reality.

Yes, we have a law that protects the free exercise of religion, and that's a good law.

 

[martybegan]

No, that was correct: in ethical discussion, always go straight to the axe murderer: It saves time. Because it's just an issue of degree and quantity, not type.

Sure: the question of how much against their religion the state can force religious people to do is key: look at the nuns' charity having to pay for abortifacients and birth control pills when they don't want to. CAN homosexuals force a baker to bake a wedding cake for their dubious marriage?

The state now has jurisdiction it didn't used to have. Used to be, the Church could order the burning alive of anyone for anything. And THAT is certainly a human sacrifice for religious purposes, if you think about it.

So what is the balance between state power and religious power is the question. We just in the past 20 years have been dealing with exactly the same issue that got Thomas Becket murdered in the cathedral in 1170. Then they came down on the side of the church dealing with sex crimes and murders of its priests; now we insist finally on the state having jurisdiction.

The old render unto Caesar argument.

the thing is it's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Also considering the current LGBT+ belief structure really mimics a religion, this is a belief vs belief fight anyway.

 

[martybegan]

Well, scripture still does not overrule law.

There are many laws that churches have to follow as places of public gathering. There are fire codes and occupancy limits and handicap ramps and all kinds of things.

They don't get to compare the laws against their holy books to see if they have to follow them. They either follow them, or they lose their special status. That's the difference between our representative republic, and theocracies.

Yes, we have a law that protects the free exercise of religion, and that's a good law.

Fire codes and occupational limits don't impact any known scriptural rules on sexuality that I know of. SSM sure as hell does.

Actually they do, because laws that impact their free exercise are inherently unconstitutional unless a compelling government interest is found, and even then any remedy must be as limited as possible.

Their "special status" is enshrined in the Constitution.