bad research and the dangers of groupthink
Recently there was much outrage over the alleged anti-homosexuality law in Uganda, but if you read the actual law it was speaking of forced sexual contact with minors with the intent to give them aids. (Insanitybytes)
I’m all for putting our thoughts out there. On any topic. I don’t feel I need to be an expert. But I do like to take a little time to verify most of my assumptions with some casual googles. I even take time to verify what I’ve read other people say by looking for evidence – if I can find an original source it’s best, but any kind of academic publication or even a reputable media source or two, just to make sure I’m not simply making things up.
It’s easy, takes five minutes, and makes me feel more prepared for disagreement when it arises.
So imagine my surprise when Pink accused one of my blogging buddies of spurring on hate crimes with lies. I don’t agree with a lot of what Insanitybytes has to say, but I do enjoy her writing and respect her ability to defend her point of view.
However, the misinformation she published in the post linked to above is reprehensible. It cannot be excused by mere ignorance, or a misunderstanding.
Anyone who takes five minutes to research what has been going in Uganda can find reference to the full law condemning all homosexual activity, they can find stories of murder, repression, and lives ruined. Earlier drafts of the law proposed the death penalty and to make it a crime to not report homosexual activity. The intent behind the changes were beyond contempt and encompassed every aspect of existence as a gay person. The conflation of homosexuality with paedophilia in some parts of the law, only made it more disgusting. But to suggest that’s what the law was about is ignorance itself.
And of course, the horror of all horrors in this story, is that the moves to tighten the already atrocious conditions for homosexuals under Ugandan law were led by American evangelicals.
Insanity, where did you get your information on this story? Please read all the links here. And check your sources next time. Your particular brand of groupthink is dangerously ignorant. To so brazenly spread such dangerous lies is to reduce the value of life for people suffering under this kind of repression, and to encourage the kind of behaviour that leads to mindless hate crimes.
I really hate how pervasive Christian doctrines like gender roles are – because they base their ‘origin’ in creation, then it forces all cultures to view marriage as between one man and one woman only. We had missionaries from Uganda visit my church and they didn’t mention what was going on – too busy giving the ‘give us money’ pitch, I guess. I talked with a woman from Malawi who talked about the joys of submission. I spoke with a South African about the nature of complementarianism. In all of this, Christian Evangelicals from America are fueling the flames of hatred all over the African continent because we feel justified in telling other people how to live. I don’t even know how get my fellow Christians to open their eyes to the harm they’re doing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I don’t even know how get my fellow Christians to open their eyes to the harm they’re doing.”
It’s particularly difficult if they refuse to properly examine the readily available facts, and are happy to accept any half-truths or lies circulated within their group. I’m really shocked that Insanity first of all published such a harmful lie, and secondly seems to be refusing to read the clear facts or give any kind of retraction. It must be especially difficult for you mingling with that kind of blinkered approach to issues in real life – at least I only have to be shocked by computer.
LikeLike
In keeping with the metaphor, some churches are like hypnotist acts – actively trying to get people to shut their eyes … “don’t feed the poor, that’s entitlement – just tell them to go get jobs” or “ignore the homeless and they’ll go away” etc. I think that’s what we’re seeing here, carefully selecting which facts to show to prove their ideas and selecting which facts to hide to keep people from questioning them giving believers a false impression of what is true. I read just the other day about a celebrity pastor who was accused of plagiarism … twice. Few things are more inconvenient than citing a source and if our leaders can’t and won’t, then the people who follow in their footsteps will be just the same way. I really believe that if i had remained in my old church and it’s denomination than I would have never questioned what they teach or why and I would be just as hypnotized as the rest. So for me the hardest thing is making sure that I keep my own eyes open to the truth. But I’m reminded of my favorite Stargate SG-1 quotes from Adria: “Truth is elusive to those who refuse to see it with both eyes wide.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you, Violet, and to Clare also. So, you two Internet avengers are still at it, huh?
LikeLike
Hi Jim, how lovely to see you! Happy New Year to you too. How things going? I’ve had a few extended breaks but keep coming back for more. Are you not tempted? 🙂
LikeLike
Things are great. I’m sleeping well now and feel wonderful. Yes, I’m tempted. I should start a sleep apnea blog. I’ve had most of the surgeries for that condition and may be able to help others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good to hear the sleep apnea was completely sorted. You should definitely blog about it. Or be a nasty evangelical preacher type? 😀
LikeLike
The problem is that for a certain kind of Christian, condemning homosexuality has become the touchstone of belief. Credo in unum deum, patrem omnipotentem, qui damnat homosexuales. The idea seems to be that if you do not condemn homosexuality you do not respect the Bible. So wicked rubbish like Insanitybytes’ post, trying to find reasons why homosexuality would be contrary to secular morality. They will come round in time. They don’t support slavery any more, and pretend that the Bible does not either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey claire-
Christians are supposed to have the mind of Christ, that is, to love what He loves, and to detest what He detests. Tis a poor thing to promote the ‘Readers’s digest ‘ version of the scriptures, that is, the ‘condensed’ version or salad bar type where inconvenient truths are avoided, and the more palatable truths digested.
Examples? Uh, yep.
Lying- not good
Stealing your neighbors cow-not good
Gluttony- not good
Removing boundary markers on private property-not good
The 613 commandments were given to Israel, do we get this small detail? Most people don’t. Laws reveal wickedness. But a righteous man needs not be told that it is wrong to steal his neighbors chicken. Love your neighbor kind of thing.
And a good man knows it is wrong to eat to his glutton. What you fail to see, is homosexuality is gluttony, and therefore wrong. It is an insatiable desire gone sideways. You can argue all day long, but you are fighting against God, not other believers. It’s His word, and a pretty good one.
LikeLike
David and Jonathan.
In twenty years only the most extreme evangelical will be against God’s will accepting gay people. Deal with it. The more you say now, the more foolish you will appear later.
LikeLike
Nice try there claire. Many have traveled that route with you only to end up in the sea of shame. Suggesting David and his friend were somehow………..
Uh, scripture reveals our hearts, and the account was presented to show the soul knit affinity that men had having had better things in common, ie, the living God. The wiles of Saul, the loyalty of Jonathan, and the love that David had for truth and authority was the context in how he spared the kings life, and also how Jonathan became a trusted friend.
Paul- Timothy (his own son in the faith)
Paul-Silas (brothers)
There is a friend who sticketh closer than a brother………David and Jonathan. I suppose you have never seen men who loved each other as simple friends. It is you who constructs your reality to justify a certain lifestyle. And you can do that, but please do not change the reality of scripture that clearly delineates right from wrong..
David loved Jonathan (brothers); there are men I love in the faith who I would not dream of touching. There are bloggers I love. If love is of God, it is always contained in the banks of truth. Always.
Anything else is infatuation. Have a nice day though.
LikeLike
Centurion’s pais. The best translation is “boy”, which when possessed- clearly not his “son”- has much the same meaning in English.
Do not ascribe your attitude to gay people to God. It is of the devil. Read your Bible!
LikeLike
As i said, nice try claire.
Yeah, I seem to recall a certain person has issues with ‘Adam and Eve,’ a ‘flood,’ a tower,’ probably a ‘whale’ and a ‘lion in the den,’ and who knows, maybe even a literal bodily resurrection from among the dead, yep, but it is I who need to read. Maybe so, but perhaps some need to understand what they read.
You should handle sharp objects carefully, as the two edged sword cuts to the quick. Groupthink. Just say no to what is popular, and take the road less traveled.
LikeLike
Blah, blah. As I said, you will feel very foolish in twenty years’ time. Turn to Christ!
LikeLike
Claire:
You mean the Christ that spoke of Jonah? The Christ that spoke of Adam? The Christ that spoke of Noah and the flood, or is THIS Christ a liar?? The Christ who spoke of Daniel the prophet? Or perhaps you have in mind another christ, which is simply the buddha of christendom, adored by so many……..
Because if we were talking about the Lord Jesus Christ, David’s greater son, then we would agree, for the Spirit guides into ALL truth……..
Btw, your blah blah blah comment is more directed at the scriptures than myself, just so you know.
And yes, you will have no answer to this, even though you may send a few words 😉
LikeLike
Blaahhhh.
Jesus was a poet and story-teller, not a clod-hopping literalist like you. Jesus and I would laugh, if you weren’t so sad.
LikeLike
As I said, there are many voices in the air clair, and it appears by your own mouth, you have chosen the buddha of christendom.
As for literalism, uh, yeah, it’s called reading with understanding. Try it.
But do tell all your friends here, what ‘jesus’ are you speaking of?
Hint, saying there was no Jonah for instance, no whale for instance, no belly for instance, to name just one, is yes in fact, calling the Lord Jesus Christ, ahem, a liar.
For you see, He knows all about whales, and He knows all about being dead for three days.
LikeLike
Not a liar, ColorStorm, but a stand-up comedian. The jokes are everywhere: the blind men falling in the ditch, for example.
Come, ColorStorm! Dance with Jesus!
LikeLike
hey clair/
Don’t pretend to have the drop on scripture. Your hands must be bloody from holding the sharpness of God’s word…………
He went to Golgotha’s hill. Eh, poetry I suppose, nice story, but never happened.
Cana of Galilee, a wedding, eh, poetry, never happened.
Raised Jairus from the dead, more poetry, eh, never happened.
Ascended into heaven? eh, poetry, nice story, never happened.
Seated at the right hand of God as ahem, David’s (not Jonathans) greater son.eh, poetry, never happened.
Stop embarrassing yourself further claire before a world wide audience by pretending to believe the scriptures.
LikeLike
Oh, ColorStorm!
Jonah visiting Nineveh! Poetry- or satire, or an extended metaphor- Jonah. Poetry. Never happened.
Have you read Job? Do you think Bildad and Elihu made those long speeches as recorded therein?
LikeLike
As for literalism, uh, yeah, it’s called reading with understanding. Try it.
Where does Jesus say carry a gun for killing people at all times, Colourstorm?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let’s get it straight first there jz, WHAT jesus are you talking about?
The fabricated one by they who think He is no more relevant than buddha, muhammed, or you, or is He the Lord Jesus Christ of heaven and earth, who currently sits at the right hand of God?
LikeLike
Please show me where Jesus said to carry a gun to kill people at all times.
You do carry a gun to kill people, don’t you, Colourstorm?
LikeLike
Nice diversion jzande. Was my question demanding the proper context too difficult?
You do not deserve an answer until the jewel is in its proper setting.
WHAT jesus are you talking about that encapsulates your attention?
LikeLike
Your Jesus, Colourstorm… Where does he urge you to carry a gun to kill people?
LikeLike
I’m sorry john, your questions are always laced with arsenic. Do you ever read what you write taking into consideration every word and how its framed? Even the Huffington Post would fault your veiled thinness, well, maybe not..
Your snare of new, original, babies burning, is water wet…… etc, are seen yet again in this query, which has the most simple of answers………….but I’ll allow you to seethe in your eternal wandering.
LikeLike
OK, thanks Colourstorm. You, the bible literalist, can’t show me where Jesus urges you to carry a gun to kill people.
Any particular reason, then, why you carry a gun?
LikeLike
I hope your friends can see the futility of your vanity there jz.
But tkx for the compliment, they are rare in these parts.
LikeLike
Be sure to get back to me when you can square your open-carry gun with Jesus’ teachings, OK.
LikeLike
Sure john, when you come to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ exists………..
c ya
LikeLike
You better hope he doesn’t, CS, or he’s sending you to hell
LikeLike
Sorry john, we all choose our vacation spots with tickets purchased today.
The owner of the airport shows no favoritism.
LikeLike
@CS
Truly, you are certifiable.
The blogosphere is awash with religious idiots , but you, sir are one of the worst farking examples of oxygen breathing detritus I have come across.
You should be actively discouraged from entering the gene pool – even in the shallow end.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hey little stone god, how the heck are ya?
I did happen to notice that you failed to address one issue that I mentioned, yet you persist in adding your brand of junk mail to the mix.
Scripture as I presented, is perfectly adequate to squash your petty gripes. It is God and His word with whom you have to do, hey, you have no claim with me, I am just agreeing with what is clear as a bell.
Or perhaps you should get your concerns met by claire, for like you, she does not believe the scriptures either. 😉 She has chosen a god in her image, not too smart.
LikeLike
I did? Oh I am so dreadfully sorry.
I must have missed it.
Please, refresh my memory and I promise I shall address any and all concerns.
Thanks CS.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Christians are supposed to have the mind of Christ, that is, to love what He loves…And a good man knows it is wrong to eat to his glutton. What you fail to see, is homosexuality is gluttony, and therefore wrong. It is an insatiable desire gone sideways.”
So do you think Jesus, based on the teachings in his life, wants gay people to be oppressed, murdered and imprisoned? Do you think Uganda is the Christ-like utopia for homosexuals? Colorstorm, you don’t have the mind of Christ if you defend any moves to criminalise homosexuality in any country. Even if you refuse to acknowledge he never mentioned it was a sin, even if you refuse to acknowledge that the centurion’s pais was clearly his gay lover. There is no justification based on the life of Jesus for Christians to support any kind of oppression or state-driven repercussions for anyone based on any perceived sexual sin among consenting adults.
LikeLike
It just appears violet you must admit, that those folks take their sexual sins very seriously, to go so far as to make laws.
Would I put someone in jail for homosexual acts between adults? No, but it’s not my country.
If a child was involved? Yep, but it’s not my country.
However, the grace of God is always the more excellent way, but sadly neglected when people do not admit their sinnership.
And your ‘gay’ centurion thing. Ugh.
LikeLike
I find it odd, Colorstorm that you have such an apparent aversion to homosexuality when it is quite clear that there was at least one ”special” disciple with whom Jesus likely had a pederastic relationship – was fucking, in other words.
Jesus’ sexuality has been questioned since almost forever and some scholars speculate that he may even have have been bi-sexual.
But his homosexuality was more than likely responsible for him never marrying, an almost unheard of scenario for heterosexual males of this time.
Imagine the bigotry he would have suffered. My god!
Remember John 19:26-28? Jesus is described as seeing an unidentified man: “the disciple standing by, whom he loved.” Again this particular disciple is identified as “the” disciple who Jesus loved. Again, not the common love he had for all of his disciples but a very special love.
I realise this is hard to swallow – something the young man Jesus was having a sexual relationship with would probably have felt as well – but the evidence certainly leans this way.
Yeshua Ben Joseph – Jesus to you and me, was, in all likelihood, gay.
Sweet, don’t you think?
🙂
LikeLike
“And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan” (Secret Gospel of Mark)
That’s about as gay as it gets.
LikeLike
Or, as Howard Wallowitz of Big Bang fame once said … ”Choke on that, sucker.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey ark, aka little stone god
Thank you for this, as it serves a useful purpose. Perhaps some of your friends here will be so embarrassed by you to silence their mouths, while you seethe in such depths of willful ignorance.
I’m thinking quite a few may rethink the void of the atheistic mind, as represented by such depravity.
Tkx again, really.
LikeLike
Hey CS, you great big old mange-ridden pussy.
The purpose it serves is to illuminate the ignorance of the majority of christians and show that the evidence is there in literature and freely available for anyone with the balls to pick up a book and read.
That you abhor the truth is further evidence of your complete ignorance of the history of the text and the blatant indoctrination you suffer from.
And what should it matter one iota that Jesus of Nazareth was a homosexual or even bi-sexual?
Really who cares about the man’s sexual preference? He’s never going to fuck you, now is he?
Besides, if he was the personification of love, good luck to him.
Or is it perhaps that now you have got over the initial shock that Jesus was gay are you just a tad jealous that you never had the chance of a ”Divine Blowjob”?
LikeLike
To the readers of Violetwisp:
Are you happy with the great intellect that pretends to know so much apart from God?
Well played ark, and see my previous comment, apparently right on cue and on time.
LikeLike
Now don’t get all pissy, CS.
Jesus still loves you, even though you hate gays.
Perhaps he’ll let you be his rentboy when you get to heaven?
LikeLike
“Insanitybytes’ post, trying to find reasons why homosexuality would be contrary to secular morality” And being so desperate she has to resort to lies disguised as facts. It clearly shows thet have no argument.
LikeLike
Oh, and- the law was declared unconstitutional, because not voted on by a quorum in parliament; and has not yet been re-enacted, as some threatened; but there is pre-existing law against gay people in Uganda, and the effect is that homophobic violence is condoned by the State.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Where does she get her information?
LikeLike
She’s being really cagey about where she got her information, and the document she shared lists homosexuality between consenting adults as punishable with life imprisonment, so she clearly hasn’t even read it. I reckon she got some kind of ignorant spam meme on social media and is just parroting it – and is too embarrassed to admit that she doesn’t actually research anything she publishes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I only hope she can pinpoint Uganda on a world map. Such ignorance is really bad
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: spurring on hate crimes with lies? | See, there's this thing called biology...
Thanks for that. I sincerely appreciate your stance. It means a lot to me that you were listening.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Of course I listen. 🙂 Doesn’t mean I find your comment to Insanity on the previous post to be worthy of entering a discussion. You just reduce the conversation to pointless ridicule. Thanks for drawing it to my attention anyway, I think I forgot how misled she is generally. I still think she means well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hope she does mean well, but as you know I’ve made that presumption before and I was wrong.
In my hopes of building a bridge and creating some sort of dialogue I ended up in a position where I was de-facto accommodating prejudices and allowing someone to continue spreading an anti-lgbt message. I could rationalize it and tell myself what she said were just words- but words can go a very long way as evidenced by the rise in anti-gay crimes in Greece, Russia, Uganda and even in France last year.
LikeLike
I think Bigot and Insanity are quite different. Bigot tries to project a message of love and acceptance with a truly cruel and potentially devastating sucker punch. She also wraps her message in a false blanket of ‘expertise’ because part of her childhood was with lesbian parents. She’s a really nasty, twisted piece of work with a chip on her shoulder.
Insanity is a bit more ‘what you see is what you get’. She doesn’t hide behind anything or a project a false image. She also has a genuinely quirky way of looking at the world and at issues. I think she’s an interesting and thought-provoking writer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t object to that; but I really don’t understand why, having an actual copy of the Ugandan law, she won’t recognize her interpretation was simply (and completely) incorrect.
LikeLike
I’m just reading her response post. She’s ignored what she originally wrote and is defending that a ‘large portion’ of the law is to protect children. Goal post shifting, yet continual reluctance to see the bigger picture, or be accurate about portions in changing them …
LikeLiked by 1 person
In both Uganda and Nigeria they have arrested men for simply texting ” I love you” to another man. And for having pictures on their phones, not even nude pictures, of two men in a loving embrace. The worst parts of the law and this is in Nigeria I believe, is that it is a crime for failing to report! If you know people who are gay it is a crime not to turn them in. Disgusting. I give ya’ll credit for taking on the Bible Thumpers, I used to but have lost my patience. I focus on exposing bad sociological research, it is a lot less maddening. There is practically no way to change anyone’s opinion who has been literally brainwashed with religion. The only thing that ever changes them is when a close friend or family member comes out gay, then they realize all their perceptions were wrong.
LikeLike
Thanks for joining the discussion here. I saw that they attempting to introduce it as a crime not to report gay sex in Uganda, but it didn’t make it through, thankfully. That’s awful it’s a crime in Nigeria.
“There is practically no way to change anyone’s opinion who has been literally brainwashed with religion. The only thing that ever changes them is when a close friend or family member comes out gay, then they realize all their perceptions were wrong.”
I agree with you, I’ve seen it happen. Until they’ve seen someone they truly love and respect go through a Christian struggle with homosexual feelings, they can’t see anything ‘normal’ about gay relationships, and the harsh passages in the Bible about promiscuous gay sex make sense to them. Although it doesn’t happen in all cases, if they already have a chip on their shoulder about the gay person they know, they can use their ‘gayness’ to cement the bigotry.
Do you have a blog or just Twitter? I’d like to follow you but I don’t use Twitter, not enough hours in the day …
LikeLike
Here Violet, the original bill which did not pass due to all the outrage, was called the “Aggravated Homosexuality Bill. ”
What is aggravated homosexuality?
“A person commits the act of aggravated homosexuality where the person the offense is committed against is under 18, offender is a person living with HIV, offender is the parent or guardian, victim of the offense has a disability, or the offender administers a drug with the intent to stupify or over power them…”
Aggravated homosexuality would be more appropriately termed “rape of a child.”
LikeLike
Did you read through it? It prohibits/criminalizes any sexual relationships between people of the same sex. Did you miss that part?
LikeLike
Under item 1.1 The principle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pink, who authored the law? I’m assuming he’s Christian? Do you know how many gays have been killed and/or imprisoned in the Christian part of the country since the law’s passing?
LikeLike
David Bahati was the author. The number on hate crimes is hard to narrow down. LGBT individuals are persecuted as a matter of fact in Uganda at the moment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A Roman Catholic I see, but that’s Uganda. What about Nigeria’s anti-gay law?
LikeLike
Am I supposed to be a specialist in African anti-gay studies? 😛
LikeLike
Well, yes 😉
LikeLike
Not quite. But if you want another master painting identified, I’m probably your guy 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good to know
LikeLike
If you don’t mind…
LikeLike
All I know about Nigeria is they have a whole lot of ministers and princesses who send me emails offering me millions of euros if I help them with inheritance problems 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
The 76 crimes blog is a useful source.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Clare
LikeLike
Hi Insanity, I don’t have much time today but I don’t want to leave this sitting. You’ve linked to the 2009 law. I gave a link to the 2014 proposal that sparked the ‘outrage’ you are specifically referring to in your post. The link is both on your original post and here – please don’t tell me you still haven’t read it??
The ‘aggravated homosexuality’ is a separate offence from the general offence of homosexuality. Why are you not admitting you were wrong? You’re compounding your error by not simply holding up your hands and apologising or at the very least admitting you didn’t do the appropriate research before posting.
Two very important points about the act:
1. homosexuality in general is presented as a crime – it’s not confusing, it’s clear as day. Can you see it? Tell me if you can’t read it for some reason. I’ll paste it here:
2. The ‘aggravated’ section has no business being in an act called “anti-homosexuality” bill, as it would be relevant to crime of any sexuality. It’s about committing sexual crimes against children, people with disabilities or knowingly giving people HIV. These would be heterosexual crimes as much as homosexual crimes – they are sexual crimes.
LikeLike
“Why are you not admitting you were wrong?”
Evangelicals like Insanity and Colourstorm are incapable of admitting they’re wrong. The pantomime world they live in can’t stand up against scrutiny, they know this, and they also know if they start admitting they’ve made errors and their view is incorrect then they fear the whole flimsy deck of cards will collapse. And it will… so don’t hold your breath thinking she’s about say, “Oh, damn, you’re right, Violet. I apologise and will adjust my thinking accordingly.” Aint going to happen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for posting this. It is clear from that document, the first page, that the Bill’s purpose was “to protect the traditional family” by prohibiting same sex sexual activity, and the “promotion” of same sex relations. That page mentions child abuse, but conflates it with child-rearing by gay people, or publication of gay people’s stories on the internet.
In your post you mention “child rape”, which anyone would agree was child abuse. Were you confused by Bahati’s use of the term “child abuse” to imagine that he meant rape, rather than child-rearing? Do you believe child rearing by gay people is per se abuse?
I am a Christian. I am desperate for you, as a Christian, not to be exposed as a moral imbecile, incapable of seeing what is right, for the disgust and derision of these atheists. I beg you, please show at least that you are capable of reading comprehension!
LikeLike
Can you at least have the decency to respond to serious questions? Did you read and understand either your document or the one I linked to? They both propose to give life imprisonment to any consenting adults having any kind of same sex sexual contact. Read the actual law (as you say in your post) and tell me if you still you think you are correct, or if you think you are wrong and the decent thing to do would be to issue an apology and correction.
LikeLike
Crickets…..
It is not going to happen. The pantomime has to be protected.
LikeLike
I’d hate to think you’re right John. Perhaps she’s not as cool as I thought she was. 😉
LikeLike
Yes Violet, I read and understood both the document I linked to and the one you linked to. Neither one “proposed to give life imprisonment to any consenting adults having any kind of same sex sexual contact.” Those penalties were specifically related to “aggravated homosexuality,” rape of a child.
Whether the bill was good or bad, whether or not it presented homosexuals in a favorable light, whether or not it would have targeted “any consenting adults having any kind of same sex sexual contact,” does not erase the nature of the bill, the contents within it, or the intent behind it.
The fact that some people are uncomfortable with the truth of what “aggravated homosexuality” really is, does not change the nature of the issues the bill was attempting to address.
LikeLike
Insanity, people have shown you that this is nothing but a lie!
CPaca laid it before you. He copied the bill for you to READ… So, why are you lying?
I have provided a link to the bill and to their rewrites on several occasions. What no one seems to want to look at are the words “aggravated homosexuality,” and the definitions therein.
Whether one likes it or not, one simply cannot read the words “aggravated homosexuality” and the definitions therein and ignore them as if they don’t even exist. I assure you they are quite real, so I cannot be lying about something that has been written and rewritten as plain as day. You may not like what is said there, you may chose to not address it, but it still sits there like a giant elephant in the room.
LikeLike
“Neither one “proposed to give life imprisonment to any consenting adults having any kind of same sex sexual contact.””
Read on your own link, page 5, item 2, which I posted in the comment. In fact, why don’t I post it again, so you can explain why that isn’t a proposal for life imprisonment for consenting adults having same sex sexual contact. I’d really appreciate insight into how the lies go through the cogs in your head.
“What no one seems to want to look at are the words “aggravated homosexuality,” and the definitions therein.”
Can you answer me three simple questions?
1. Do you truly believe this bill was only about “aggravated homosexuality” or are you able to see the whole section on any homosexuality?
2. Do you truly believe that gay people exclusively commit sexual crimes and that sexual crimes for the population at large aren’t simply sexual crimes requiring laws about sex crimes that are committed regardless of the gender or perceived sexual orientation of the either the perpetrator or the victim?
3. Do you think Jesus would be happy gay people were put in prison? Would he be mocking the outrage?
LikeLike
Violet, your questions are laced with hyperbole and heavily tainted with your assumption, “I’d really appreciate insight into how the lies go through the cogs in your head.” Those 3 questions have absolutely nothing to do with the simple truth and reality of what was written into the bill and the obvious outrage that comes from simply speaking of it.
LikeLike
Sorry I’ve left this for so long, been really busy the last week. I’m disappointed to see you’ve closed comments on your response post (or am I banned?). I’ve been thinking about the comment you made and your subsequent clarification, and wondered if you see a difference between this sentence and what you wrote.
You said:
“Recently there was much outrage over the alleged anti-homosexuality law in Uganda, but if you read the actual law it was speaking of forced sexual contact with minors with the intent to give them aids.”
The truth would be:
“Recently there was much outrage over the Anti-homosexuality Act in Uganda, but if you read the actual law, part of it was speaking of forced sexual contact with minors with the intent to given them AIDS, a crime which I believe only needs to be addressed with regards to gay adults.”
If you’d written that, I would have argued it’s not true. I would have argued that children need to be protected from paedophiles, not gay people, and that child sexual abuse knows no adult sexuality delineations. I would also have argued that the outrage over the main part of the law, criminalising all homosexual sexual activity and attempting to introduce even more severe punishment was worthy of outrage. I wouldn’t have called you a liar. Can you see the difference? Or does it all look the same to you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I closed the thread because I got tired of the abuse.
You’re playing a semantics game, Violet. You wouldn’t have called me a liar if I had added on, “a crime which I believe only needs to be addressed with regards to gay adults?”
What I believe, how I feel about a particular thing, has no bearing on whether or not it is true.
LikeLike
Sorry, you’re right, what I should have written was:
“Recently there was much outrage over the Anti-homosexuality Act in Uganda, but if you read the actual law, part of it was speaking of forced sexual contact with minors with the intent to given them AIDS by same sex adults”
Can you see the difference between that and your original statement? Or does it all look the same to you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Does it matter? You’ve already decided I am dangerous, a victim of group think, bad research, and a liar.
You and your friends had a knee jerk emotional response and leapt to false conclusions.
Fortunately no one has seen fit to waterboard me or anything for being so dangerous, but I think you have clearly shown the dangers of enforced politically correct thinking that seeks to dehumanize others who don’t toe your particular desired meme.
LikeLike
Curious Insanity… Why did you call it the “Alleged” anti-homosexuality bill when it was, in fact, titled: The Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014″?
LikeLike
It does matter. Can you see the difference?
LikeLike
I had finally given up, there. I had nothing more to say.
You see, Insanity and ColaDrizzle, Liz and Becky, believe gay sex is sinful, and that their feelings of disgust are natural and right. They believe gay people are more likely to rape children than straights. They imagine they are moral, and resent the growing realisation that their Christianity makes them bad people. So she supports the Act, and imagines that persecuting gay people is a good way to protect children from rape.
LikeLike
Is this a response to Inanity’s post, or did this come first?
LikeLike
I assume you got an answer to this? The quote from her post above is from 2014, Pink just drew it to my attention last week. I think she’s since published a response to this one, which I’ve not read yet. Maybe she apologises there. 😀
LikeLike
Does it bother you that homosexuality is illegal in 78 other countries too?
How is Uganda special, exactly?
It isn’t more “illegal” there than elsewhere.
On the contrary, in ten other countries (Muslim countries) homosexuality is a capital crime.
LikeLike
Hi Liz, thanks for popping by to comment. Yes, it does bother me that homosexuals are oppressed in other countries as well.
This post is about people publishing badly researched ‘facts’ that turn out to be lies, and Uganda is mentioned because Insanity published a blatant lie about a proposed change to the already anti-homosexual laws in Uganda, which included life imprisoned for any kind of homosexual activity, and the death penalty in some cases. She claimed it was only for child abuse, but if she’d read the law she would have known that is a lie.
LikeLike
The bill does not include life imprisonment for “any kind of homosexual activity” but for aggravated homosexuality offenses (listed). If it included life imprisonment for any kind of homosexual activity they would not have needed to define aggravated homosexuality nor single it out in the bill.
What you are seeing here is the anatomy of a canard. The population of Uganda is in favor of this bill (if memory serves, something like 96 percent, that’s virtually unanimous, certainly more than we typically see for any bill here). That gives you insight into the pulse of the public opinion at large. It’s no surprise there are hate crimes against homosexuals in Uganda, but those are not related to the proposed legislation.
LikeLike
Really?
2. The offence of homosexuality.
(1) A person commits the offence of homosexuality if—
(a) he penetrates the anus or mouth of another person of the
same sex with his penis or any other sexual contraption;
(b) he or she uses any object or sexual contraption to penetrate
or stimulate sexual organ of a person of the same sex;
(c) he or she touches another person with the intention of
committing the act of homosexuality.
(2) A person who commits an offence under this section shall be
liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for life.
LikeLike
Found a statistic on this for you: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/12/uganda-anti-gay-law-rise-attacks
LikeLike
Good man, thank you.
Weren’t you going to send me an email, or something?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Getting there… Basically, think fundamentalist site that goes after fundamentalists with fundamentalism 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apparently Conservapedia is having a devil of a time distinguishing between real contributors and parodic contributors. Seems they’re so batshit insane they can’t quite tell who’s being serious and who’s not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Precisely.
LikeLike
“Found a statistic on this for you”
That is fair. I went to the actual site where those statistics came from (I always do, I don’t trust secondary sources at all, and primary sources I still raise an eyebrow at, but in this case I see no reason to doubt those claims, so I stand corrected)
Click to access SMUG-From-Torment-to-Tyranny.pdf
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, homosexuality is described. It is also currently an “offense”. What this litigation does is define what homosexuality is and then state what “aggravated homosexuality” is, to make this distinction clear.
LikeLike
Forgot to add: “A person who commits an offence under this section shall be
liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for life.”
Yes, UNDER mean below. UNDER this section that describes and defines what homosexuality is, there is the section on AGGRAVATED homosexuality and what that is, which is the offense punishable as described.
LikeLike
Sorry Liz, I don’t know if you’re not familiar with legal documents or if you’re just simply intellectually challenged like Insanity, but Section 2 is a section – the penalty for the crime under that particular section. I understand that you may think it simply means ‘below’ if you’ve never seen any kind of legal document in your life and haven’t read much of anything outside of badly researched blogs, and I’m sorry for that. But if you’d care to read on to Section 3 “Aggravated homosexuality” (2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated
homosexuality shall be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for life.” And if you’d like to properly read through the links on the original post you’ll see that they tried to make this death, which you’ll probably support, but that’s another matter.
Please do read through the whole document I link to above, you’ll see that consenting adults even attempting to make any kind of homosexual sexual contact were to go to prison for seven years:
“A person who attempts to commit the offence of homosexuality commits a felony and is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for seven years”
If you have any questions (things flying way over your head, for example) please do ask anyone here and we’ll be happy to help. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
I realize that the penalty for homosexuality in that document is seven years. I don’t know if this is a change in policy. This wasn’t your stated claim, however. You stated it, “included life imprisoned for any kind of homosexual activity”. Do you now rescind this claim? We can debate homosexual policy in Uganda in general if you’d like, but according to you (earlier) that wasn’t what you wanted.
LikeLike
Just to add more for clarity…Homosexuality was already a crime in Uganda. That’s why is is described as an “offense”. This legislation would further criminalize aggravated homosexuality.
LikeLike
Thank you. I don’t think anyone was confused that it was already a crime in Uganda as it was in most of the rest of the world until recent decades. These proposed changes to the law were to further criminalise ALL homosexuality. Again, please read all the links in the post above before you attempt to clarify with yet more invented errors. It’s frustrating doing a post about bad research and groupthink, only to be met with more comments that are based on NOTHING. At least provide links for where you vacuously sucked up the nonsense so it can be thoroughly trounced with facts.
LikeLike
It would seem, from my perspective, that nothing short of “group think” would isolate Uganda as a special case.
Just sayin’.
LikeLike
Once again, please see the context for the post. I’m not sure why you think this is relevant.
LikeLike
Who are we to impose our ultra modern views on homosexuality upon the indigenous peoples of the African continent?
Sounds a bit British, n’est ce pas?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The hatred of gay people across the UK’s former African colonies comes from British made law against gay people. The homophobic attitudes were imposed by the colonial power.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This would be a separate point SOM. My post is addressing the dangers of people publishing blatant lies with the authority of fact. What do you think about that? Did you read the proposed bill?
You haven’t replied to Clare’s comment about the origins of the irrational hatred. You could also read the link I give in the post above about how American evangelicals have been whipping up this hatred, and the proposed changes to the laws came as a direct result of their interference. Sounds a bit American, no te parece?
LikeLike
IB’s statement:
“Recently there was much outrage over the alleged anti-homosexuality law in Uganda, but if you read the actual law it was speaking of forced sexual contact with minors with the intent to give them aids.”
Upon reading the actual law
http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/act/2015/2014
It is speaking of “Aggravated homosexuality” which includes both what IB mentioned. So IB would have been more correct to say:
“Recently there was much outrage over the alleged anti-homosexuality law in Uganda, but if you read the actual law it was speaking of aggravated homosexuality”
Aggravated homosexuality is described in the bill. This law does not appear to change anything for homosexuals in general (except for those engaged in aggravated assault as described in the bill). So, if IB is doing “bad research” and “lying” it seems you are doing the same in your interpretation.
LikeLike
Your analysis is wrong.
If you take the other representations she was making about the law into account, she was trying to portray the section on aggravated homosexuality as the prime focus of the law. She ignored the section above it, which places life imprisonment on any person who engages in a homosexual act. She ignored the section dealing with attempts to commit homosexuality. She ignored the carte blanche to commit crimes against homosexuals given in §5(1):
“(1) A victim of homosexuality shall not be penalized for any
crime committed as a direct result of his or her involvement in
homosexuality.”
The bill itself had 4 parts and 15 sections. She would have been accurate if she’d at least admitted that the bill talked about something else in her posts. It took getting into the comments of her post and the post here to actually get her to clarify what she was talking about.
LikeLike
“She ignored the section dealing with attempts to commit homosexuality. She ignored the carte blanche to commit crimes against homosexuals given in §5(1):
“(1) A victim of homosexuality shall not be penalized for any
crime committed as a direct result of his or her involvement in
homosexuality.”
I’m not sure how you could interpret this as a carte blanche to commit crimes against homosexuals, but I do find it interesting.
If homosexuality is a crime in Uganda, this passage would seem more intended to offer exculpatory evidence on the victim’s behalf. Notice the words direct result there?
Subsequent crimes against homosexuals would not be a direct result of involvement, those would be indirect.
LikeLike
Yeah I noticed the words. They do have significant legal meaning. However, based on the definitions in §1, all a person needs to do is prove that he or she was involved in same gender sexual contact against his or her will. Once that’s met, and the violence is done to stop the sexual contact, there’s no penalty.
A very real scenario is luring gay people out to a secluded place, letting them touch one’s genitals, and then killing them. According to the above section, murder is a crime, and the murder was perpetrated to stop the homosexual act. It doesn’t matter that the victim of homosexuality might have lured the person out there; the only other witness is dead. Congratulations, the person can get away with murder just by calling witnesses who will testify as to the deceased’s sexual orientation.
LikeLike
I see what you’re saying.
I think the legislation needs to be worded differently to make the distinction clear.
It doesn’t seem to me that it was intended to be interpreted in a way that would legalize murder. And if it were we shouldn’t have to go through hypothetical scenarios to reach a situation that fits as described.
LikeLike
So you haven’t done a lot of real research, have you? Most African countries had variations of colonial era sodomy laws based on the British and French originals (Uganda’s dates back to 1902); the thing is those laws lived in relative obscurity and weren’t enforced before the anti-gay movement spread from the US to Africa.
The law and the movement attempted to revive prejudices and hatred by reframing sodomy laws in terms of homosexuality alone- and succeeded in doing so. In 2014 a newspaper published a list of 200 alleged lgbt individuals, a number of who were harassed, attacked and even murdered.
Please don’t play word games because it’s disingenuous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“So you haven’t done a lot of real research, have you? Most African countries had variations of colonial era sodomy laws based on the British and French originals (Uganda’s dates back to 1902); the thing is those laws lived in relative obscurity and weren’t enforced before the anti-gay movement spread from the US to Africa.”
Well, it’s pretty obvious by looking at the FAR MORE draconian laws in Northern Africa in particular that the anti-gay movement isn’t just a throwback from colonial era laws in 1902.
Per other places where the “colonial legacy” is more likely to live on, I’m no expert on African law but if what you say is true it is strange that Africans themselves don’t seem to agree with you.
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/development-policy/schulz-cut-aid-african-countries-anti-gay-laws-301261
“One Ugandan MP queried how the EU would respond if the African Union tried to condition relations on extending practices of polygamy which were “good for Africa” to Europe. “We need to make sure each continent can have its values without necessarily affecting the other,” he said.
“Homosexuality, while its part of your culture is in most of our countries – if not all – abominable,” said another parliamentarian.”
LikeLike
Part of the anti-gay propaganda played on the ruse that homosexuality was being “imposed from the west.”
Funny you should mention Northern Africa because a few decades ago there were a number of gay “hotspots” in those countries. Morocco, where Yves Saint Laurent and his gay partner bought a stunning home, was a gay haven. It’s where gay European aristocrats took up residence to live in peace during much of the 20h century (knowing full well archaic anti-gay laws were not enforced.) Even including a certain member of the Churchill family.
Everything you’ve cited is post-anti-gay-evangelical-campaign.
So again, I suggest you do better and more thorough research before commenting with such forcefulness to defend a position that incites hatred and violence.
LikeLike
“Part of the anti-gay propaganda played on the ruse that homosexuality was being “imposed from the west.”
I guess those Africans don’t know their own history as well as you do? Furthermore, if homosexuality is being imposed from the west how on earth does that square with your assertion just above that the west has spread the anti-homosexual movement? Seems contradictory.
“Funny you should mention Northern Africa because a few decades ago there were a number of gay “hotspots” in those countries.”
You mean when it was westernized by all those (ostensibly) homosexual-hating westerners? How about now that Islam is taking over?
LikeLike
Sorry, but I can’t explain the history of African colonialism and the developments of the 20th century to you in a single comment- but let me try to simplify the timeline/events:
1. Africa had a multitude of tribal cultures in pre-colonial times. Uganda alone had over 60. Acceptance of homosexuality was varied, but existed (notable historical examples in most African countries)
2. The colonial era introduced derivative “buggery laws” based on European versions (this also happened in India and Latin America).This happened between the 16th and early 20th century.
3. Respect for those laws varied between cultures and countries. In various countries, like Morocco, Tunisia, or Egypt, they were simply not enforced.
4. There’s an explosion of evangelical christianity in Africa following the AIDS crisis. A number of US groups lay roots in Africa. When the anti-gay “culture wars” rage in America, those groups decide to take their campaign there. This coincides chronologically with the rise of Islamic extremism in a number of regions.
If you’re genuinely interested in the topic, here’s a very detailed paper on the topic which is thoroughly annotated: http://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/4815/1/14Jiuuko.pdf
And yes, I do know more about this than a whole lot of people- and being a Ugandan MP is not a qualification of neither knowledge nor accuracy.
LikeLike
“And yes, I do know more about this than a whole lot of people- and being a Ugandan MP is not a qualification of neither knowledge nor accuracy.”
I doubt you know more about Ugandan culture than the Ugandan prime minister. That’s quite a claim. But thanks for the link.
I’ll think on it over some peyote, after chanting over a fire and eating my dead Uncle, as is the custom of my native culture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ugandan “everyday” culture isn’t what we’re discussing; we’re discussing history- and that’s something people have to study specifically.
Just try reading the information- then get back to me. The paper I recommended was by an African academic, btw.
LikeLike
Thanks for the link Liz, it’s useful to have an official one.
Apart from that, let’s paste the bits that you and Insanity and anyone who things homosexuals should be in prison seem to be completely blind to (I don’t want to suggest you’re simply lying or stupid):
I realize that the penalty for homosexuality in that document is seven years. I haven’t made any statements (with the exception of comparing laws in other states, which you told me you don’t wish to do) supporting the imprisonment of homosexuals in general.
I could explain the differences between cost to gains equations in indigent countries versus cost to gains equations in developed first world countries if you’d like. But since you indicated above you weren’t going for comparisons didn’t see much point.
That would offer context though.
I think context is important and we can note that in 1990 thirty percent of Uganda had HIV whereas after all those horrifying Christian values changed things in 14 short years the HIV rate in Uganda went down to around 6 percent. That’s pretty impressive.
By contrast other surrounding countries (those with British colonial baggage in particular, which some folks here seem to view with such distain are really comparatively westernized as far as sexual issues are concerned…take South Africa, which doesn’t have only a legacy but the British actually stayed. Think it’s the only country that accepts same sex marriage…it also, however, has double digit HIV rates as does Botswana the other more comparatively British colony).
LikeLike
“(I don’t want to suggest you’re simply lying or stupid)”
Of course you wouldn’t since you already suggested this earlier it would be redundant. I’ll give a story that will probably make everyone angry at me. You’re welcome in advance. Then, I won’t post again because I dont’ see much point. But don’t pretend you’re the one who isn’t engaging in groupthink here. It couldn’t be more clear. But, like all ideological myopathy I’ve seen it before and it usually ends with insults so we’re already there.
Here is a tale of two societies (if you are still reading):
We’ll use an indigent society (S1), and an affluent society (S2)
S2 had a guy named…hm, let’s say Thomas Edison. He invented a lot of great things. He coined the phrase “Genius is 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration”, and it was sound and smart and we all know the rest of the story.
S1 had a guy named…Smith who was Edison’s equivalent. He dreamt all day about neat new stuff he’d invent if he had time but he was always working and trying to eek out an existence just so his family could eat. One day, Smith said, “dagnabbit, I’m just going to work in a makeshift lab and the rest of my family will have to take up my slack. But when I make something cool everyone will know I was right!”
Well, Smith’s family starved along with some of the village while he was thinking up cool stuff and the village he lived in came up with an equal but opposite Edison quote about sacrificing a village over one man’s dream. No one was so foolish ever again.
That’s a small example of a difference in cost to gains equation, depending on the society the costs are different. We can thumb our noses at people over in other parts of the world and feel superior but we only do so because we have that luxury.
LikeLike
Just to add (and yes, I promise I’m done after this)
Have you considered what it actually takes for a person to go over to Africa and aid people? I havne’t done it, but I know folks who have (my nephews, and brother in law have been o missionaries to Africa for many years) It’s beyond philanthropic. I wonder if the folks who go on hate screeds claiming Christians enjoy homicides and child burnings and so forth have ever ventured outside of their computer network and actually tried to help these people IN REAL LIFE? No one does this to persecute others. These are very good people by comparison to most.
LikeLike
First. I live in South Africa and I can tell you for a fact that the majority of HIV/AIDS cases are heterosexual.
As for your rather stupid ” ….horrifying christian values” comment ….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Uganda
The scope of Uganda’s success has come under scrutiny from new research. Research published in The Lancet medical journal in 2002 questions the dramatic decline reported. It is claimed statistics have been distorted through the inaccurate extrapolation of data from small urban clinics to the entire population, nearly 90% of whom live in rural areas.[15] Also, recent trials of the HIV drug nevirapine have come under intense scrutiny and criticism.[16]
US-sponsored abstinence promotions have received recent criticism from observers for denying young people information about any method of HIV prevention other than sexual abstinence until marriage. Human Rights Watch says that such programmes “leave Uganda’s children at risk of HIV”.[17] Alternatively, the Roman Catholic organization Human Life International says that “condoms are adding to the problem, not solving it” and that “The government of Uganda believes its people have the human capacity to change their risky behaviors.”[18]
Good old Catholic Church, right? F*** the Christians.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Interesting how you’re shifting the discussion elsewhere. None of the considerations (much less the anti-gay campaign) are based in actual science. Africa’s major problem today is female rape and often the accompanying STI’s. Uganda’s law proposal ignores that FACT.
Brazil managed to massively decrease STI contagion without ever persecuting a minority-much less making the persecution part of the law. And yes, I know exactly how things work in those places because my family’s foundation opened a number of free women’s health clinics in Latin America, and I grew up visiting them. Speaking to people, seeing first hand what life is like for people living in difficult conditions, sometimes without running water or electricity.
So good try, but your arguments just aren’t withstanding scrutiny.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pingback: bad research and the dangers of groupthink | violetwisp | Just Merveilleux
IB is moderating me over on her site now, so I’ll drop my comment here. It was in reply to the reply she sent you in your last comment, VW:
“Actually IB, considering how much information has been provided to you on this matter, you’re at the least being willfully blind. Really, that’s okay, because other than extremist Christians, you’re not going to get much agreement elsewhere. Personally, I think it’s great that you’re writing this stuff. You’re making the best case for why people don’t want to be religiously affiliated anymore, crystal clear, in black and white.
Keep up the great work!”
LikeLike
Hey business-
You worried about moderating? Ha, some people have been banned on seven continents, you should feel privileged………….then again, some people need moderating.
Oh the games people play, and the baseless complaints. Wake up to your share of hypocrisy.
LikeLike
Wow, you’re still angry about that?
I was worried about moderating because my comments yesterday were not held in moderation. The one I posted today was. You do the math.
And unlike you, I actually had rules associated with posting comments on my blog. I never arbitrarily edited comments, deleted comments without prior notification, or engaged in any of the other lies of omission that you have.
So please, tell us all about how much of an expert on disingenuous silencing of contrary voices you are.
LikeLike
Sigh mr business-
Where is the ANGER? (emphasis only) It is this incessant misunderstanding of your reading that gets you into trouble, as you incorrectly interpret words. If anything, it was humorous.
Btw, any impartial person must agree that there was no anger in my comment, and it would be great for someone else to point it out to you.
just sayin.
LikeLike
“Wake up to your share of hypocrisy.”
Yeah, there’s no anger there at all. You know, my comment to IB also applies to you, right? Y’all have a really nice echo chamber for the angry soldiers of Christ.
It positively screams, “There is no God.”
LikeLike
Please biziness, do not attribute to me your own projection.
There is zero anger, and I am confident you know it. I presented a statement of fact, and while you may neither like it or believe it, it is emotion free much do your consternation.
For once would I appreciate someone agreeing with common sense. (And I can say with full assurance, you have never seen me angry)
LikeLike
CS, better minds than you have tried trolling me. I’m not projecting anything other than an honest assessment of what you’ve said.
What you have presented are not facts. Instead, you’ve focused one thing, claimed misunderstanding, and harped on that. You’ve ignored the more pressing issues I’ve raised.
That’s perfectly okay with me. It just lets you sound the call away from Jesus louder and stronger than ever before. For that, I should thank you. You’re way better at showing Christians why their faith is misplaced than anyone else.
Kudos to you!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Flattery does not suit me sb. I find it distasting, but tkx for the vote of confidence in my upholding of scripture.
You on the other hand, have zero credibility in speaking of a God or The Monarch of Books that you have no use for.
just sayin.
LikeLike
Oh, well it seems that you’ve misread what I wrote.
You’re not upholding your scripture at all. I mean, yeah, you’re quoting from it, and you’re using it to denounce others, but you’ve no idea what any of it even means. That’s great, because your ignorance is showing, and people are starting to realize they don’t have to buy what you’re selling.
As far as credibility goes, I can say earnestly that I’ve forgotten more about the Christian faith than you’ve even learned. You have no perspective, CS. You are the blind leading the blind.
Please, keep going with your fabricated facts, your silly accusations, and your sanctimonious piety. Every word you write pushes more people away from your bloody cross.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is so true. Colourstorm is a wonderful, potent repulsive force 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
He’s better than Dawkins when it comes to providing reasons not to believe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Better still, to be repulsed by it. To be embarrassed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Once more mr bizness,
You have read with misunderstanding, for the obvious sarcasm escaped you.
As an aside, as to your allegation……….allegation…….that you ‘have forgotten…….more than what I’ve ever learned……..’
Seems quite odd, knowing that you have no clue as to my accumulated wealth………so better to allow you to enjoy your proverbial slip.
LikeLike
I do hope you’ll forgive me for missing something that wasn’t there.
As far as your wealth is concerned, you can keep it. What is your faith, when it is necessary to ridicule that which you don’t understand in order to keep it? Boy, your spiritual bankroll is astounding.
That’s the crux of Violet’s post above. When it all comes down to it, should people really believe that love means misreading things and gladly warping the truth to their own ends?
It’s the truth that brings you back to this conversation, CS. Like it or not, hate cannot be mistaken for love nowadays. You cannot burn, drown, crucify, or banish those who will not bend. All that is left is to become the example of why what you offer is a bitter poison.
And you oblige, as always.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s unbelievable, isn’t it? They claim they are reading the links, reading the law, and they come back with such nonsense. There really are only three possibilities:
1. They are intellectually challenged.
2. They are lying.
I try my best not to be personal or rude – but these people are really pushing my limits. We’re not talking about opinions or interpretation, it’s all clearly there in black and white.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wish it was unbelievable. At least IB is having to clarify her remarks to indicate she’s only talking about §3 of the statute. The worst thing about all of this is that she could have made her point without misrepresenting what that law stated.
“One section of the law is trying to protect children from contracting HIV and being assaulted by adults.” Congratulations, her problem is solved. She can then go on and talk about that at length and not have to worry about having to clarify her remarks.
LikeLike
I wonder, if it is this inability to actually understand the written word, that inhibits the fundamentalists from seeing the real world as it is? It does not seem like the religious fundies were deliberately lying, more like they sincerely are simply mistaken. Or is the inability self inflicted, in an attempt to protect the blind faith, by wich they enjoy a sensation of safety in the face of the real world? After all it is the fundies who tell each others, not to read upon the works of science. Yet, even if they did, would they only end up misunderstanding the text? Teaching literacy might be more important, than even teaching science.
Since the posting of this topic and my response to it, Insanitybytes22 has in the comments repeatedly proven unable to realize what the law in Uganda was all about. This is baffling, especially since the law is not so far from what many, if not by far most of the fundies even in western countries would seem to prefer – as it is closer to the book, that alledgedly is the written down demands to humanity by the Middle-Eastern god they worship.
If they only wish to stop child abuse, why on earth would it be necessary or even remotely significant to specify wether if the abuse was by a homosexual, or by a heterosexual? Does it not seem obvious to anyone sane, that the child abuse is especially mentioned in the law to ban all homosexuality, only because it is an excuse to an unfair, but religiously (read superstitiously) motivated law?
On the other hand, under the conversation of the original post by Insanitybytes22, your post refers to, we had an interresting conversation, in wich she told me she could recognize from the Bible wich parts of the book are by divine inspiration and wich are mere human reflection to a desperate situation. She refused to entertain my question of how does this happen. Why? I have hard time understanding the entire conceptual magic of the religious set-up, as it seems it is just fine to go around cherry picking from the book and still see oneself as a sort of a “fundamentalist”.
In the wider picture, it seems the conservative religious types, fundies and the likes seem to be squirming between blindly obeying what they agree for example about homosexuality with their quite tribal iron-age god and modern secular ethics, that they on some level know better resonate with their empathetic nature. Religions only appear as projections of what people want. The interpretations of religions are directly connected to how self centered and informed are their perceptions of reality. The less informed a person is and the more self centered they are, the more easy it seems for them to accept tribal authoritarianistic might makes right morals. But as authority provides security to the immature mind, it is somewhat understandable how it is difficult for some people to let go of the childish notions of gods and so people end up excusing their gods opinions on morals.
Really religious people seem to be divided into the fundies who mostly prefer to make the rest of the world to absolutely subservient to their favourite book and the moderates, who seem to prefer to lean on to make the book mostly just confirm to the observable reality exept for some specific special pleading points of blind faith.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hey raut-
Just this. You said :
‘But as authority provides security to the immature mind,………………’
You may want to rethink such an insane idea. You submit to authority all day long. And btw, the greatest example of people holding childish notions of gods…………(to borrow your own words to tighten the noose of your ignorance) is you clinging to the false god of atheism.
Your credibility is on the wane though regarding authority, so no sense addressing anything else.
But happpy holidays anyway.
LikeLike
Well, hello there ColorStorm. Thank you for your response, even though I am not quite sure what you mean.
Do you not think the authority of the parents provides security to the immature mind of the child? Certainly when I was a child the authority of my parents did provide me with a sense of security even beyond their capacity to protect me. Is this not something observable in common everyday lives of families? But long since have I outgrown of the imaginary and as such unverifiable notions of the security my parents could provide me. Have you not done the same? Have you, yourself, replaced that same child-like false sense of security by an unverifiable heavenly parent? Many people have, have they not? People we consider adults, despite they are unable to provide any evidence, none what so ever, for this heavenly parent, they expect to protect them and even save them from the final boogeyman of death.
Yes, I do respect the authority of some individuals and sources, and I have not said anything to contradict that. Have I? Such authority may even provide me some sense of security. However, authority has to be earned in relationships between adults. Divinities do not earn any authority, as they do not even present themselves anywhere at all. Do they? The least an author of a book to be taken as an authorative source for anything really, is to provide evidence, that the claims made in the book are true in some even remotely objective sense. Yes? But no gods are able to achieve this minimum. Or do you have an example of such?
What is the false “god of atheism”? I can hardly cling on to it, not having ever even heard of such.
Have a very merry Yuletide. 🙂 Or as we say here in Finland: Hauskaa joulua!
LikeLike
rautakky I have concluded that people of faith develop a sort of defensive way of interpreting the Bible whereby some verses are interpreted literally until it becomes too uncomfortable or inconvenient to do so when they are then instead interpreted figuratively.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Yes John. It also caused me to contemplate failed prophecy where the standard excuse is that it must refer to the second coming.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@raut-
Well wishes to you also.
Just one thing. The god of atheism is the golden calf of man. It is a self made image to replace the Divine. Simple really. Man ends up worshipping at the altar of himself with his collection of ‘learning.’
One reason this is so hard to believe…………..is the lens of pride makes it difficult, if not impossible to see.
LikeLike
And you would know all about pride as you are head of one.
LikeLike
@ColorStorm. You are once again speaking in riddles. Is that deliberate, or is this sort of magic-talk commonplace where you come from when engaging such human cultural phenomenons as religions in general? Or do you make a special case for your particular religion? Would that make you feel, like your religion was somehow special, or is there a nother reason for you to engage in such?
As I recall the story about the golden calf in the Bible was about how the alledged Jewish refugees from Egypt had adopted a very typical Baal image as the object of their worship while Moses was away for a few days. Yes? Such calf images have been found from some archaeological excavations in modern day Israel and Palestine and at least the one found in Akko was silver plated. It is a rather typical depiction of Baal wich in ancient Hebrew and most Semitic languages simply translates as: “my lord”. There were many Baals and Bels in the Cananite pantheon on wich the Biblical god has been established. This has absolutely nothing to do with atheism, even if we ever were to assume the Moses stories were actually based on historical characters. Has it?
If we simply try to look at the Story of the Calf as a metaphoric lesson, there is nothing about atheism there either, is there? For some reason the early Hebrew refugees of the story had not recieved ample evidence of the particular god Moses was telling them was the only god they were allowed to worship. Wich is as well. They had nothing to go on, exept the word of Moses. The many wonders they wittnessed during their journey and even before were not in any way established to any particular god, exept by Moses telling them so. Obviously when his personal charisma and influence was removed for a short while, the refugees became convinced that the miracles that saved them from Egypt, to become ragged nomads in Sinai for decades, may or may not have been the works of the particular god of Moses. Were they unhappy to be roming around a desert and did they think a new god might absolve them from such misery? Or did they still remain gratefull for having been able to escape the wrath of the Pharao, who was to them as much as to the rest of the people in Egypt a mighty, living, breathing son of god, but during the decades lost in the rather small desert, they had become to suspect, that Moses did not really, or no longer represent their god? Or is this a metaphor about the iconoclasm, that the Golden Clalf was indeed supposed to be the image of this god of Moses and he was merely aggravated because an image was made? Or was he angry at them because the image had been made in accordance to the conservative Cananite tradition?
I do not worship your god, nor do I worship Baal, or any other gods at all. I do not think there is anything to worship among all the alledged but hidden gods and I have not even found gods worthy of worship even if they existed. I think, that even if there one day would appear something divine, it would not require any worship and if that thing was benevolent, it would not expect any worhsip at all. I do not worship any men. I do not worship the “collection of learning” by men and I do not know anyone who does. I do not worship anything. Worship itself is silly and often degratory. So, it seems very much, that you are talking past me to some imaginary person I doubt even exists any more than your god does. Why would you do this?
You may call me proud. I am a proud man. I am proud of my own achievements and some of the finest achievements of humanity. Should I not be proud? Why? What is wrong with pride? Do you not have anything to be proud of?
However, if I have to choose between the “collection of learning” by humans and any of the various divinities, I choose the previous at any time and place. And I hope you do too in any really serious matter, like for example medical problems. People usually only revert to the divine when their own means have been expended, and as we know, the divine helps the human at exactly the same rate as pure chance. Or do you have an example to the contrary?
LikeLike
Just a merry Christmas, to ya, or happy holidays Violet, whichever you prefer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Happy New Year, Violet.
LikeLike
Happy New Year to you too! What do you do there? Late night balmy party in the huge garden? I didn’t even venture out on the balcony to watch the fireworks here, miserable. 🙂
LikeLike
You actually have fireworks up there north of the Wall, or are you just talking about lighting a box of restaurant matches and tossing them into the air?
LikeLike
We don’t do the party/fireworks thing any more. There really is no fun in gunpowder and hangovers.
My lot like to wander to the edge of the property and watch all the fireworks across the valley in the surrounding suburbs.
It bores the crap out of me and it scares the crap out of one of our dogs, Bobbi, so I usually stay ondoors with the pets and turn the telly up loud.
LikeLike