Religion and the LGBTQ community.

[Petrolheadia]

No, to explictly religious symbols.

For war memorials, I don't see why a cross is more respectful to the dead than a statue or cenotaph.

More people gave their lives to previous wars than Christians, including Hindus, Jewish people and Sikhs. It diminishes their sacrifice for them all to be buried under the cross, implying to casual onlookers that only Christians gave their lives.

But I think this might be off-topic.

Can't say it better myself.

[Aellex]

For war memorials, I don't see why a cross is more respectful to the dead than a statue or cenotaph.

More people gave their lives to previous wars than Christians, including Hindus, Jewish people and Sikhs. It diminishes their sacrifice for them all to be buried under the cross, implying to casual onlookers that only Christians gave their lives.

But I think this might be off-topic.

And yet the majority who bled and died were Christians so it only makes sense than to leave alone a memorial that concern 99.9% of the victims rather than desecrate it for the sake of showing how "respectful of diversity" and "so very progressive" we are.

[The Free Joy State]

For war memorials, I don't see why a cross is more respectful to the dead than a statue or cenotaph.

More people gave their lives to previous wars than Christians, including Hindus, Jewish people and Sikhs. It diminishes their sacrifice for them all to be buried under the cross, implying to casual onlookers that only Christians gave their lives.

But I think this might be off-topic.

And yet the majority who bled and died were Christians so it only makes sense than to leave alone a memorial that concern 99.9% of the victims rather than desecrate it for the sake of showing how "respectful of diversity" and "so very progressive" we are.

Up to 400,000 Muslims fought for Britain in WWI, along with 100,000 Sikhs and up to 800,000 Hindus. Many Jewish refugees joined the British Army to fight the Nazis in WWII, for example. It wasn't a tiny percentage.

I say, as a Christian, that a cross is not more respectful than a cenotaph.

And, again, off topic.

[United Imperial Systems]

For war memorials, I don't see why a cross is more respectful to the dead than a statue or cenotaph.

More people gave their lives to previous wars than Christians, including Hindus, Jewish people and Sikhs. It diminishes their sacrifice for them all to be buried under the cross, implying to casual onlookers that only Christians gave their lives.

But I think this might be off-topic.

And yet the majority who bled and died were Christians so it only makes sense than to leave alone a memorial that concern 99.9% of the victims rather than desecrate it for the sake of showing how "respectful of diversity" and "so very progressive" we are.

99.9 percent? You're over-fucking-exaggerating.
Just because something is a majority doesn't mean it's the only thing that's suppose to represent something, what's your problem with also including non-christian Americans who died either to disease or to the combat of WW1? Why the fuck should EVERYTHING be presented as "Christian"? What's the problem with inclusiveness? Does it hurt you? Does it disrespect the soldiers?

[Vassenor]

For war memorials, I don't see why a cross is more respectful to the dead than a statue or cenotaph.

More people gave their lives to previous wars than Christians, including Hindus, Jewish people and Sikhs. It diminishes their sacrifice for them all to be buried under the cross, implying to casual onlookers that only Christians gave their lives.

But I think this might be off-topic.

And yet the majority who bled and died were Christians so it only makes sense than to leave alone a memorial that concern 99.9% of the victims rather than desecrate it for the sake of showing how "respectful of diversity" and "so very progressive" we are.

That wasn't very Laïcité of you.

[The South Falls]

For war memorials, I don't see why a cross is more respectful to the dead than a statue or cenotaph.

More people gave their lives to previous wars than Christians, including Hindus, Jewish people and Sikhs. It diminishes their sacrifice for them all to be buried under the cross, implying to casual onlookers that only Christians gave their lives.

But I think this might be off-topic.

And yet the majority who bled and died were Christians so it only makes sense than to leave alone a memorial that concern 99.9% of the victims rather than desecrate it for the sake of showing how "respectful of diversity" and "so very progressive" we are.

No, mate. We're not doing that. Just because a majority was Christian, doesn't justify leaving behind the millions of troops that weren't.

[The Free Joy State]

Dragging it back to topic, with some degree of determination, I found some interesting statistics by Pew about the acceptance of homosexuality by religion:

>Buddhists: 88% believe it should be accepted; 10% think it shouldn't; 1% said either; the rest don't know
>Catholic: 70% said it should be accepted; 23% said it shouldn't; 4% said either; the rest don't know
>Evangelical Protestants: 36% said it should be accepted; 55% said it shouldn't; 5% said either; the rest don't know
> Hindus: 71% said it should be accepted; 22% said it shouldn't; 5% said either; the rest don't know
> Historically Black Protestant: 55% said it should be accepted; 40% said it shouldn't (eithers' and don't knows are taking too long)
> Jehovah's Witness: 16% said it should be accepted; 76% said it shouldn't
> Jewish: 81% said it should be accepted; 16% said it shouldn't
> Mainline Protestant: 66% said it should be accepted; 21% said it shouldn't
> LDS: 36% said it should be accepted; 57% said it shouldn't
>Muslim: 45% said it should be accepted; 47% said it shouldn't
> Orthodox Christian: 62% said it should be accepted; 32% said it shouldn't
>Unaffiliated religious: 83% said it should be accepted; 12% said it shouldn't

Is anyone surprised by these results? Are there any religions that are more, or less, accepting than people thought?

I personally see it as a good sign that people, and practitioners of religion are becoming more tolerant overall (though I know that people's definition of acceptance varies).

EDIT: Although, the question used by Pew was "Homosexuality should be accepted by society", which gives little wiggle room for weird interpretations.

[Aellex]

That wasn't very Laïcité of you.

Laïcité doesn't ask you to destroy crosses and spite on the deads for nothing more than political reasons and petty evilness.

[Aellex]

No, mate. We're not doing that. Just because a majority was Christian, doesn't justify leaving behind the millions of troops that weren't.

>monument for 49 deads soldiers from a specific corp who were all Christians
>"BUT DEM MILLIONS NON-CHRISTIAAAAAANS!!!!"

That's just downright stupid.

[United Imperial Systems]

That wasn't very Laïcité of you.

Laïcité doesn't ask you to destroy crosses and spite on the deads for nothing more than political reasons and petty evilness.

Evilness? Including others is evil?

[Aellex]

Evilness? Including others is evil?

Desecrating graves and monuments on honor of fallen soldiers for the sake of showing how "progressive" and "inclusive" you are is, indeed. There is no way around that.
Leave the dead to rest in peace.

[Vassenor]

That wasn't very Laïcité of you.

Laïcité doesn't ask you to destroy crosses and spite on the deads for nothing more than political reasons and petty evilness.

So how does a secular memorial spit on the dead?

[United Imperial Systems]

Evilness? Including others is evil?

Desecrating graves and monuments on honor of fallen soldiers for the sake of showing how "progressive" and "inclusive" you are is, indeed. There is no way around that.
Leave the dead to rest in peace.

So replacing a cross with something else is evil.
with something else to include people who do not belong to the cross is evil.
Well, I can turn this around.
Not including people who are not christian, and just saying "Muh christianity, don't care about others" and putting a cross instead of something else is evil.
Very evil indeed.

[Vassenor]

Desecrating graves and monuments on honor of fallen soldiers for the sake of showing how "progressive" and "inclusive" you are is, indeed. There is no way around that.
Leave the dead to rest in peace.

So replacing a cross with something else is evil.
with something else to include people who do not belong to the cross is evil.
Well, I can turn this around.
Not including people who are not christian, and just saying "Muh christianity, don't care about others" and putting a cross instead of something else is evil.
Very evil indeed.

Clearly the greatest insult to the dead in history, it seems.

[Vassenor]

Dragging it back to topic, with some degree of determination, I found some interesting statistics by Pew about the acceptance of homosexuality by religion:

>Buddhists: 88% believe it should be accepted; 10% think it shouldn't; 1% said either; the rest don't know
>Catholic: 70% said it should be accepted; 23% said it shouldn't; 4% said either; the rest don't know
>Evangelical Protestants: 36% said it should be accepted; 55% said it shouldn't; 5% said either; the rest don't know
> Hindus: 71% said it should be accepted; 22% said it shouldn't; 5% said either; the rest don't know
> Historically Black Protestant: 55% said it should be accepted; 40% said it shouldn't (eithers' and don't knows are taking too long)
> Jehovah's Witness: 16% said it should be accepted; 76% said it shouldn't
> Jewish: 81% said it should be accepted; 16% said it shouldn't
> Mainline Protestant: 66% said it should be accepted; 21% said it shouldn't
> LDS: 36% said it should be accepted; 57% said it shouldn't
>Muslim: 45% said it should be accepted; 47% said it shouldn't
> Orthodox Christian: 62% said it should be accepted; 32% said it shouldn't
>Unaffiliated religious: 83% said it should be accepted; 12% said it shouldn't

Is anyone surprised by these results? Are there any religions that are more, or less, accepting than people thought?

I personally see it as a good sign that people, and practitioners of religion are becoming more tolerant overall (though I know that people's definition of acceptance varies).

EDIT: Although, the question used by Pew was "Homosexuality should be accepted by society", which gives little wiggle room for weird interpretations.

Kind of, given that it keeps being hammered into us that every single Muslim is homophobic as hell and would throw a given homosexual off the nearest rooftop given the opportunity.

[Aellex]

So how does a secular memorial spit on the dead?

You're breaking a memorial made for the 49 peoples who're laying there and who were all Christians and replacing it with one they wouldn't have approved of just for the sake of furthering your politics.
Again, there is no real way around it.

So replacing a cross with something else is evil.
with something else to include people who do not belong to the cross is evil.
Well, I can turn this around.
Not including people who are not christian, and just saying "Muh christianity, don't care about others" and putting a cross instead of something else is evil.
Very evil indeed.

What you're saying is quite retarded, the people this monument is for were all Christians so your argument just fall flat, unsurprisingly.

[The Free Joy State]

Dragging it back to topic, with some degree of determination, I found some interesting statistics by Pew about the acceptance of homosexuality by religion:

>Buddhists: 88% believe it should be accepted; 10% think it shouldn't; 1% said either; the rest don't know
>Catholic: 70% said it should be accepted; 23% said it shouldn't; 4% said either; the rest don't know
>Evangelical Protestants: 36% said it should be accepted; 55% said it shouldn't; 5% said either; the rest don't know
> Hindus: 71% said it should be accepted; 22% said it shouldn't; 5% said either; the rest don't know
> Historically Black Protestant: 55% said it should be accepted; 40% said it shouldn't (eithers' and don't knows are taking too long)
> Jehovah's Witness: 16% said it should be accepted; 76% said it shouldn't
> Jewish: 81% said it should be accepted; 16% said it shouldn't
> Mainline Protestant: 66% said it should be accepted; 21% said it shouldn't
> LDS: 36% said it should be accepted; 57% said it shouldn't
>Muslim: 45% said it should be accepted; 47% said it shouldn't
> Orthodox Christian: 62% said it should be accepted; 32% said it shouldn't
>Unaffiliated religious: 83% said it should be accepted; 12% said it shouldn't

Is anyone surprised by these results? Are there any religions that are more, or less, accepting than people thought?

I personally see it as a good sign that people, and practitioners of religion are becoming more tolerant overall (though I know that people's definition of acceptance varies).

EDIT: Although, the question used by Pew was "Homosexuality should be accepted by society", which gives little wiggle room for weird interpretations.

Kind of, given that it keeps being hammered into us that every single Muslim is homophobic as hell and would throw a given homosexual off the nearest rooftop given the opportunity.

Sadly, the figures for Evangelical Protestants isn't surprising. When you think of all the people chanting that god hates everything and everyone, they're usually evangelical Protestants.

But I was pleasantly surprised by the figures for Catholics, though. Because Catholics aren't usually thought of as accepting on the whole, and the church is still quite strongly anti-LGBT.

EDIT I have actually known some liberal Muslims, IRL, so I wasn't too shocked by the figures for Muslims.

[United Imperial Systems]

So how does a secular memorial spit on the dead?

You're breaking a memorial made for the 49 peoples who're laying there and who were all Christians and replacing it with one they wouldn't have approved of just for the sake of furthering your politics.
Again, there is no real way around it.

So replacing a cross with something else is evil.
with something else to include people who do not belong to the cross is evil.
Well, I can turn this around.
Not including people who are not christian, and just saying "Muh christianity, don't care about others" and putting a cross instead of something else is evil.
Very evil indeed.

What you're saying is quite retarded, the people this monument is for were all Christians so your argument just fall flat, unsurprisingly.

Even if the squad was all christian, fuck, even if a corp was entirely christian, what is the problem with replacing it with a more secular monument?
That monument is meant to include all deaths of WW1, even if it's placed for a specific squad, army, corp, said soldiers still fought side by side with other non-christian soldiers, they died side by side with them, and said non-christians died along side said squads.
So your entire point is just "Let's forget about the non-christian because POLITICS, and let's only remember the christian deaths, let's maintain the status que, let's never change anything, who needs change? Who needs inclusivness? We're christian!"
You honestly make me so fucking sick, I despise you as a human being.

[Aellex]

Clearly the greatest insult to the dead in history, it seems.

>mfw you're forced to be so deliberately obtuse as to purposefully try and equate using a normal stone instead of a cross to begin with to removing a cross and replacing it with a stone
And despite that, you still can't even manage to get your shitty strawman right because the stones were put there to differentiate the British soldiers from the French with a cross being the center of the memorial as a whole.
The fact that you're forced to lie and purposefully use a bad angle is just showing how desperate you're getting, mate. :^)

[Aellex]

Even if the squad was all christian, fuck, even if a corp was entirely christian, what is the problem with replacing it with a more secular monument?

It's insulting the dead and troubling their rest.

That monument is meant to include all deaths of WW1, even if it's placed for a specific squad, army, corp, said soldiers still fought side by side with other non-christian soldiers, they died side by side with them, and said non-christians died along side said squads.

We have specifics monuments for the Tirailleurs from the colonies who died alongside their compatriots. Hell, we even built a fucking Mosque, the first in Western Europe in their honor!

So your entire point is just "Let's forget about the non-christian because POLITICS, and let's only remember the christian deaths, let's maintain the status que, let's never change anything, who needs change? Who needs inclusivness? We're christian!"

My entire point is let's not disrespect the dead for the sake of petty political reason and indeed evilness. If you want to have a monuments for the Muslims and Sihks who died, however fews they were, you're welcome to build some more of them even tho there are plenty of them already.
That doesn't mean you have the right to desecrate the grave of the Christians.

You honestly make me so fucking sick, I despise you as a human being.

I don't personally. Your opinions are quite stupid and extremist but you're just a young kid in your edgy phase so I don't particularly mind nor care about it, hopefully you'll grow out of it in a year or two and stop thinking your feelings should dictate the world and anyone not bowing to them is bad.
I do would advise you to edit that part out, tho, because that kind of thing could earn you a warning.

[Aellex]

Up to 400,000 Muslims fought for Britain in WWI, along with 100,000 Sikhs and up to 800,000 Hindus. Many Jewish refugees joined the British Army to fight the Nazis in WWII, for example. It wasn't a tiny percentage.

I say, as a Christian, that a cross is not more respectful than a cenotaph.

And, again, off topic.

How many of that 1.3 Million army was on the front? How many of them actually fought instead of just garrisoning their homeland? A very tiny percentage, indeed.

But yeah, let's close that off topic if you so wish.

[United Imperial Systems]

It's insulting the dead and troubling their rest.

That's dodging the question, "troubling their rest" would be digging them out and putting them in a different place, replacing a cross with something else is not "Insulting the dead".

We have specifics monuments for the Tirailleurs from the colonies who died alongside their compatriots. Hell, we even built a fucking Mosque, the first in Western Europe in their honor!

I've never said that we should replace only Christian monuments, Mosques and Churches aren't monuments.
How about instead of crosses we just start building churches?

My entire point is let's not disrespect the dead for the sake of petty political reason and indeed evilness. If you want to have a monuments for the Muslims and Sihks who died, however fews they were, you're welcome to build some more of them even tho there are plenty of them already.
That doesn't mean you have the right to desecrate the grave of the Christians.

How's secularisation and inclusivness evil? Building more of them is taking up valuable space, why not just replace something with something else that will respect the rest of the dead?

I don't personally. Your opinions are quite stupid and extremist but you're just a young kid in your edgy phase so I don't particularly mind nor care about it, hopefully you'll grow out of it in a year or two and stop thinking your feelings should dictate the world and anyone not bowing to them is bad.
I do would advise you to edit that part out, tho, because that kind of thing could earn you a warning.

I'm not editing it out, if the mods want to ban me, so be it, it's their job.

[Minoa]

There are many religions that are homophobic and transphobic towards members of the LGBTQ community saying that 'it's not god's will.' to them I say, 'was it's god's will for you to be hateful towards a large section of the human race?' God doesn't hate anyone, that's like, his thing.
I think that it's horrible that some people are so hateful.
what are your thoughts on this?

To answer the original question, the fact that some religious organisations are so hateful to the LGBT community (most notably ISIL and the Westboro Baptist Church) is partly why I currently do not have a positive view of religion in general, although there remains absolutely no excuse to assume that “all Muslims are evil” or similar.

However, it is obvious that education is important to try and build bridges between LGBT rights and the original principles of any given religion, which sadly I am not an expert on and I do not wish to suggest anything that might backfire terribly.

[The Archregimancy]

Back on topic now, or I lock this thread and start handing out warnings for the ongoing threadjack.

This is not a thread about religion and war memorials.

Thank you.


Edit:

And no more of this please:

You honestly make me so fucking sick, I despise you as a human being.

Attack the argument, not the poster.

[Salus Maior]

How's secularisation and inclusivness evil? Building more of them is taking up valuable space, why not just replace something with something else that will respect the rest of the dead?

There is nothing disrespectful of a cross in and of itself to non-Christians. It's a symbol of sacrifice at the very least, and if they want to take offense to it, that's their own fault.

So your entire point is just "Let's forget about the non-christian because POLITICS, and let's only remember the christian deaths, let's maintain the status que, let's never change anything, who needs change? Who needs inclusivness? We're christian!"

"Inclusiveness means not including Christians or any other religious group in particular no matter how important it is to people" :^))))

And again, there are many monuments to the non-Christian contributors to WWI, so they are included.