Seculars against ultra-leftist religious dogmatism.
Naive ultra-liberal dogmatism is highly present in the following de facto branches of the religion known as Stonewall: American Atheists; Atheism Plus; Unitarian Universalism; Council for Secular Humanism; Center For Inquiry, Atheists of Utah, and so-called naturalists and humanists.
Since when did being human or natural mean we have to accept 100% of the gay agenda? Inherently non-reproductive sex? By default a petty dead end narcissistic lifestyle? Perhaps concern about homosexuality is natural? How's that?
Most recently the LGBTQPZ community became very upset with the New York City St. Patrick's Day Parade.
Found this on American Atheists' facebook page:
Generally speaking the American Atheists group, located in Cranford, New Jersey, is in my view yet another branch of the liberal dogmatic religion known as Stonewall, as are all of the other groups I mentioned above.
My response to the social-justice oh so righteous warriors on the ultra left, who want to fly the gay flag at every possible event:
Not every parade needs to be a gay pride one. The boycotts are stupid IMO. The parade organizers get to decide who's in their parade. If the Stonewall place in NYC wants to have their own parade, they can. But they shouldn't demand to hijack the regular parade for their own agenda. Liberal dogma can be a de facto religion. Whatever American Atheists or the advocates for atheism plus happen to say isn't automatically on my own list of important agenda items.
The quintessential struggle of our time is not the promotion of the ultra-liberal agenda. Rather, it's just general advocacy for science, survival, and a prudent amount of hawkishness so as to curtail the actions of world-stage bullies. That's my view...
As for the rest, you can put me on a heresy trial if you wish, but if you do so you'll be just acting in yet another religion, just one with a new name.
I'm not a member of your church, nor do I wish to be.
Related post I generally agree with:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1467403400144168&id=293011477509961
Quotes from the post of the group Seculars Against Same Sex "Marriage:"
---end of quoteJust as black pride, brown pride, feminist pride, etc cannot be emphasized at the Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade; the same applies to gay pride groups as well. The parade and day has nothing to do with any of the causes mentioned above. Blacks, Hispanics, Feminists, and Gays can still be in the parade, but just not promoting their own identity politics.
*"In their defence, parade organisers claim that gay people are not prohibited from marching, just not allowed to march under gay-themed banners. In Boston, organisers point to the fact that gay people this year joined a ‘diversity’ float that represented a South Boston neighbourhood.
*According to Boston’s lead parade organiser, Philip Wuschke: ‘We don’t ban gay people. We ban groups that are trying to make a statement.’ He notes that they have rejected a variety of groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, Irish heterosexual pride and an anti-abortion organisation, among others...
* Or you might ask, why do gay activists insist on joining a parade that isn’t about their cause and, in the case of Boston and New York, doesn’t want them there as a separately identified group?
*The notoriously anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church probably doesn’t expect to be able to join a gay pride march, and gay pride organisers wouldn’t let them in if they tried (in fact, St Patrick’s Day organisers in Boston say they turned down an application from Westboro, which is anti-Catholic as well as anti-gay, to join the parade)...
*This is the top-down, elite-led politics of name and shame, rather than a properly liberal campaign that draw upon popular support.
*What we are witnessing is an attack on those who don’t share today’s pro-gay outlook. Some may not want to opt out of this Culture War, but the war increasingly won’t allow there to be any bystanders. Instead, there is pressure to conform. Even if it does not spill over into the political or legal world, such conformism is problematic for the free flow of ideas.
*The sky will not fall if gays and lesbians are allowed to march in the Boston and New York St Patrick’s Day parades. But we will create a conformist, intolerant and unfree society if we do not allow space for the expression of different views, including traditional religious teachings about homosexuality and same-sex marriage."
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/who-are-the-real-bigots-in-the-st-pats-spat/14797#.UycY1PldWaR
Related posts:
Listening to the NARTH guy - issues more complex than either side says
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/03/listening-to-narth-guy-issues-more.html
A high abundance of angel readers and other nutjobs within the gay "lifestyle"
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-high-abundance-of-angel-readers-and.html
Again from http://www.naturalism.org/sexualit.htm
"...Since there are no objective harms of being or acting gay, there are no reasons to withhold any constitutional right from homosexuals, including marriage..."
But there IS objective harm! The naive liberal just doesn't know. It's par for the course.
And I am reminded of:
1. My gay uncle who died of aids leaving his straight family with no kids.
2. My gay nephew who leads a petty, shallow, dead-end type of life.
3. However and also: gay people I know who spend their lives helping others, in service oriented lives.
4. Gay people like Stephen Fry, who I largely admire.
5. The crappy crazy warped & perverse sexual morality in Mormonism & Catholicism.
In any case, I don't wish to be annexed by either side. Just because I think there may be problems with the petty selfish lifestyle present in homosexual culture doesn't mean I believe we should shame children for masturbation, for example, or teach children that masturbation automatically leads to homosexuality, which of course it does not.
Religion basically fucks up people's built-in sexuality. It can fuck it up so much that you can go WAY to far over to the other side. So in my view gays are ALSO being abused by religion, by being pushed away from normal productive human relations by the extreme anger on the issue present in conservative religion. So this is not a simple issue.
Hoffman’s actions were no better than that of a crack mother in my view. He had three kids. He very much WAS responsible for his actions. Irresponsible. Abusive. Retrograde. And so on.
more thoughts:
------------
Someone then replied with mention of Jesus. Here's my reply to them - Comment 2:
1. Do abusers have a choice? Yes. Do they have free will? Yes, in the compatibilist sense that Daniel Dennett talks about & which I very much agree with. The level of choice, and the ability to make what could reasonably be stated to be good choices, varies depending on the individual. Regardless though dangerous people should be locked up. And non-violent druggies should be forced into treatment & mandatory rehab programs by the law (not into prison).
2. Mention of Jesus has little sway with me as I'm not a believer in him. The Biblical Jesus judged plenty of people, as do many of his followers in spite of the admonition to not judge. In fact for the past 2000 years they've done >nothing but< judge others, and in many cases to kill others for their lack of belief in Jesus.
But, we should judge people, reasonably. And we should be judged, in reasonable ways. We are judged by our peers all the time. That's how human society works. We're social animals. And cheaters, rightly, get called out for cheating. And dangerous outliers are locked up - and that's a good thing.
3. Rather than devote time to prayer, may I suggest devoting time to real things that will help. Intervention into the lives of people who're virtually drowning is one good task. More people should have intervened in the life of Phillip Seymour Hoffman. His neighbors. The police. A judge could have ordered him into treatment.
Who failed Hoffman? His sycophantic admirers, his fellow Hollywood druggie friends, and the press. Also the probably underpaid police for not catching him earlier. 70 bags of heroin is a lot. Rich & poor should be treated equally I agree - not prison. Instead all non-dealers should be routed to mandatory treatment & mandatory follow ups. Also mandatory inspections of the living quarters of affected people. It takes some tax money. Jesus isn't enough. Real flesh & blood in person people need to be there to do the work. But it's cheaper in the long run to pay for in person intervention than to pay for prison or to pay for the loss of someone.