ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Cuba issues , Cuba politics , evangelicals , gay rights issues , homophobia

Reply
Old 6th October 2018, 04:35 AM   #1
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,056
Evangelical Homophobia in Cuba

I don’t know if it comes as a surprise to anybody, but Cuba is on the verge of recognizing the right to same-sex marriage.
Homophobia is prevalent in much of the Caribbean, and revolutionary Cuba was no exception, but homosexuality was made legal in 1979, and things really started to change in the 1980s, which became apparent in the movie Strawberry and Chocolate (1990).
The struggle against homophobia has been pretty consistent ever since, in spite of Cuba’s friendship with countries where LGBT persons are persecuted. Conditions in the neighboring island nation Jamaica, for instance, are very different: Homophobia is widespread and encouraged in both Christian and Rastafarian circles, and in Haiti, many Haitians blamed the 2010 earthquake on gays.
Now, I’m not at all surprised that Evangelical Churches in Cuba, supported by the Churches in the USA that they are affiliated with, are trying to prevent same-sex marriage from being made legal in Cuba, but what does surprise me is their argument:

Quote:
The denominations' leaders said the ideology of gender had 'no relationship at all' with Communist countries, citing the former Soviet Union, China, Vietnam and North Korea, in none of which same-sex marriage is legal. Methodist Bishop Ricardo Pereira Diaz said: 'You can't just pick from capitalism what's convenient to you. If the country is Communist, then let it be Communist.
Cuban evangelicals gear up to fight gay marriage (Christian Today, July 9, 2018)

Could this be one the reasons why Trump’s Evangelical supporters don’t seem to mind his ties to Russia? Would they prefer a Russian-style form of state in the USA if only it will help them stamp out any chance that gay sexuality is ever recognized as natural and legit?

By the way, in both Cuba and Haiti, most Afro-inspired religions are much more accommodating to gays: Santería and Voodoo.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2018, 07:26 PM   #2
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,819
I’ve mentioned this on another thread, but it seems relevant here - I once heard a radio “pastor” say that one of their hopes was that they might spread fundamental Christianity to a country such as China, get large enough that they could turn the country into a fundamental Christian theocracy, and then hope that country would invade and take over the USA. At which point they would force the US under their theocracy. It’s a bat crap crazy plan, but then we seem to be living in a crazy time so who knows?

To answer your question, yes, anything is preferable to them to what we have now, because they don’t see themselves suffering under it. They are only suffering now, because they are being denied their god given right to stone the abominations of the world.
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

- Professional Wastrel
sylvan8798 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2018, 11:16 PM   #3
Lambchops
Muse
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 648
Buh... Buht... But atheist marxist China!
__________________
Remember what Ol' Dirty said.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2018, 01:08 AM   #4
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,265
Originally Posted by dann View Post
Could this be one the reasons why Trump’s Evangelical supporters don’t seem to mind his ties to Russia? Would they prefer a Russian-style form of state in the USA if only it will help them stamp out any chance that gay sexuality is ever recognized as natural and legit?
Yeah, they actually like totalitarianism, as long as their "kind" (racially, in terms of sexual orientation, etc) is close to the top of the ruling class. They are fantastically authoritarian people.

Orwell thought Jack London was actually "like that":

Quote:
In an intellectual way London accepted the conclusions of Marxism, and he imagined that the ‘contradictions’ of capitalism, the unconsumable surplus and so forth, would persist even after the capitalist class had organized themselves into a single corporate body. But temperamentally he was very different from the majority of Marxists. With his love of violence and physical strength, his belief in ‘natural aristocracy’, his animal-worship and exaltation of the primitive, he had in him what some might fairly call a Fascist strain. This probably helped him to understand just how the possessing class would behave when once they were seriously menaced.
There's a free ebook on the psychology of authoritarians here. It's excellent, not too long, and very "readable" in spite of being "academic".

https://www.theauthoritarians.org/op...ting-the-book/
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2018, 02:54 AM   #5
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,056
I think that the only thing that saved Jack London from becoming an actual fascist was his premature death. I remember reading one of his last non-fiction texts where he writes something along the lines of the working class having disappointed him because it had turned out be much too weak to make a revolution and consequently wasn't destined to survive.
I think that the article/letter/essay (whatever) was published in Earle Labor's anthology of Jack London texts, The Portable Jack London.
If he had lived a couple of years more, I suspect that he might have become a fan of either Mussolini or the Russian Revolution. It could have gone either way, I think.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2018, 03:20 AM   #6
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,265
Originally Posted by dann View Post
I think that the only thing that saved Jack London from becoming an actual fascist was his premature death. I remember reading one of his last non-fiction texts where he writes something along the lines of the working class having disappointed him because it had turned out be much too weak to make a revolution and consequently wasn't destined to survive.
I think that the article/letter/essay (whatever) was published in Earle Labor's anthology of Jack London texts, The Portable Jack London.
If he had lived a couple of years more, I suspect that he might have become a fan of either Mussolini or the Russian Revolution. It could have gone either way, I think.
I imagine London being one of the people talking US business owners into funding Franko in Spain.

Coming kind of full circle, I see a similar trajectory in the evolution of Christopher Hitchens becoming a war-loving, torture-defending neoconservative over time. Because...sanctions against Cuba worked, so he just sort of gave up on all things "left".
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2018, 01:40 AM   #7
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,232
You know, there's one thing I don't get about christian gay-bashing.

Supposedly Jebus fulfilled the OT, so now you don't have to keep THAT set of rules any more. And they have the NT basis for that too. I mean, you even have Paul ranting about it, and even berating Peter for still keeping those rules.

And sure enough they don't keep most of the rules from the OT any more. You don't see them avoiding cheese burgers or mixed fibre jeans or anything. Hell, they even break at least one of the ten commandments: the interdiction to work on the 7th day. You don't see them wanting to shut down police and emergency services one day a week, do you? (Now that would be The Purge taken literally, and once a week to boot.)

But when it comes to gay bashing -- or for that matter masturbation and a few other things -- oh noes, suddenly THAT part of the OT totally applies.

And I really don't get what's the biblical justification for that kind of cherrypicking. Gays aren't even mentioned in the NT except in passing by Paul, and only to basically say that God made the Romans gay as punishment for their idolatry. (Seems fair to me: worship another god, get a dick up the ass as punishment)

Other stuff like masturbation isn't even mentioned AT ALL in the NT. Hell, it's not actually a commandment even in the OT, it's just mentioned that ONE guy was punished by God for spilling his seed on the ground instead of getting his sister in law pregnant. If anything, the actual rule that that bit is trying to give is that you totally should bone your brother's widow. (And if you have to spill your seed, I guess, don't make a mess on the floor. That thing is hard to get out of the carpet. Come on her tits)

And the reason I bring masturbation into this is actually to make a point: they have no problem cherrypicking the NT even within the same sentence. I mean, it's not even deciding that this paragraph applies, and the other one doesn't. It's literally deciding that the first half of a sentence totally doesn't apply any more, but the second half -- thus taken out of context -- totally still applies.

WTH?

Where exactly did Paul or Peter say you have the authority to just make your own mixtape of what God REALLY meant, and what was there just to make you aware that you're a sinner deserving death unless Christ saves you? Because it seems to me like Paul ACTUALLY said that the WHOLE of it is the latter.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 8th October 2018 at 01:43 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2018, 06:47 PM   #8
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,819
^I have a theory about all these things basically being about power. The most obvious type of power is power over others. Since gays in America were, historically, fairly closeted, it was easy to marginalize them as some “other” that one didn’t even know. Not eating shellfish is a choice which impacts you personally. Nor does it provide an identifiable target group.

You need “other” groups or people to have power over and to show that you are in power. Think about how the Taliban showed they were in power in Afghanistan. You also need a group or groups on which to focus your supporters attention. Remember Anita Bryant? She was all about “they’re coming for your children”. Who wouldn’t want to defend their children against the gay menace and thus put her backers in power?
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

- Professional Wastrel
sylvan8798 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2018, 11:01 PM   #9
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
^I have a theory about all these things basically being about power. The most obvious type of power is power over others. Since gays in America were, historically, fairly closeted, it was easy to marginalize them as some “other” that one didn’t even know. Not eating shellfish is a choice which impacts you personally. Nor does it provide an identifiable target group.

You need “other” groups or people to have power over and to show that you are in power. Think about how the Taliban showed they were in power in Afghanistan. You also need a group or groups on which to focus your supporters attention. Remember Anita Bryant? She was all about “they’re coming for your children”. Who wouldn’t want to defend their children against the gay menace and thus put her backers in power?
And because gay sex is icky and gross and no true red-blooded manly american christian man would ever think such thoughts.
Now excuse them, they need to watch manly movies like Spartacus and the original Ben Hur to cleanse their minds.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:48 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.