I don't know whether it's the more "devout", Him, or just a certain type of devout people.

I think that, post 9/11, it became clearer that the religious mainstream had pretty much faded away (certainly in terms of Christian attendance etc in the UK. Perhaps a vacuum in that part of religious life in the country has then allowed the more extremist or fundamentalist types to move into that space and effectively become much more mainstream? Perhaps it was also partly a defensive reaction to the extremism highlighted by 9/11, and the widespread response to that?

I'd also throw into the mix that perhaps there's also an element of the general state of affairs in the world/country leaving people feeling that things are so bad they need an alternative – and this is perhaps particularly true when, for a long time, we have little in the way of a serious mainstream political alternative.

It's an analysis I've heard of what happened in Middle Eastern countries after the death of Nasser seemed to herald an end to any meaningful, secular opposition to Western-style capitalist exploitation and power. It helped to boost an extremist form of Islam that was or became bound up with nationalism.

I wonder if there's an element of that going on here, because although the mainstream has declined, more fundamentalist groups and churches are growing.

I think that the Vatican certainly saw the gap – perhaps in terms of suiting its hierarchy as to wanting to take the church back to more 'traditionalist' attitudes. You see this in a number of things, but it includes the reintroduction of some older liturgy by the current pope.

The Anglican church is in a different situation, with opposites almost pulling apart the Anglican communion.

But perhaps there's also an element of prudery in the general population that gives the religious an easier time of it. Just look at rlthisrl. But even non-religious people have difficulty with the issue – and indeed, often come down on similar lines as the religious, for a whole range of reasons, including an absolute terror of the idea of child sexuality (and there's a religious undercurrent, in seeing sexuality as something only for adults that remains essentially a bit naughty). So the religious get to have an easy run at things like this.

Yet we know that poor sex education – including abstinence-only sex education – produce poor results. There are reasons that the Netherlands has lower rates of teenage pregnancy and single parenthood than anywhere else in western Europe (and the US). It has very good sex education – and also a lower age of consent.

But religion is also about control. And I do wonder how many of the politicians of the last 20 years, who have sucked up to religion, actually share those beliefs or just mouth the correct platitudes.

Actually, I wonder how many people do that in general – calling for the plebs to be more religious in order to be better behaved (obviously not them, because they don't need religion to be good – see Dally and Titan)?

Well, anyway – just a few thoughts.

Quite a few, I reckon.
There does seem to be a view out there that one cannot have a moral compass or decide for oneself what is right or wrong without the word of a deity to provide the rules.
I guess, once someone has accepted that the men (rarely women) who wrote it down were given the words direct from a deity, then it's not possible within the framework of their belief to accept a moral code that doesn't have that stamp of divine approval.
Hence, it's pointless arguing that issue with those who have that belief.

Nonetheless, despite my being an atheist, I do reckon that Jesus' philosophy was a decent one.
It doesn't actually matter whether it was god's word, Jesus' word or someone else's word written years later ...what matters to me is the validity of the philosophy and whether the rules seem right.
And, in general, they do.
Would that Christians would abide by them.

But to free thinking individuals no idea is rubbish otherwise it should be rephrased to 'any person that holds views and beliefs that do not contradict my own'. Most religions do not consider those things a sin. Apart from the pork thing (certain vegetarians and pig lovers aside) most secular societies consider drunken behaviour, homosexuality and adultery unacceptable social behaviour; so they are not exclusive beliefs to religion.

A common misconception promoted by people who don't understand what free thought or having an open mind actually means. For clarity, being a free thinker does not mean automatic acceptance of any and all world views.


Really? I'd like to see some evidence backing that claim up.

Likewise why would you choose to be part of a society which demonises your sexuality? Religion has in general been tolerant of homosexuality. The way certain factions within given religions developed negative attitudes towards homosexuality was mostly cultural and social not religious. Prior to the Romans arriving in UK women regularly held positions of power and influence. Importing the new religion of greece and rome led to women losing influence and being suppressed. Religious attitudes to homosexuality before this new religion were very liberal. Religions in south east Asia have often been tolerant to homosexuality also. Look at the ancient Greek and Roman religions plenty of tales of deities chasing around young boys.

I know Kosh has already covered this, but you're miles wide of the mark. Free-thinking is the ability to consider ideas and assess them critically, without the mental straitjacket of religious belief.



The poster you responded to said 'drinking', not 'drunken behaviour'. The two are quite different.



'Secular societies' do not consider homosexuality to be socially unacceptable, bigoted s do.

Erm, no. No it hasn't.

Oh, and homosexuality doesn't require tolerance. It requires acceptance.

Do not confuse "free thinking" with relativism. The two are not the same.

Dr. Feelgood dismissed an idea without reasoning simply that he considered the view wrong providing no argument to support his her view. That is the opposite of free thinking.



Most religions have not considered homosexuality objectionable to their associated deities, if anything homosexual acts were often considered positively and encouraged including being active part of religious ritual. This was particularly the case in the various middle eastern cults. The religions of ancient Greece followed suit in this practice. Even earlyish Christian groups openly practiced homosexual activities this continued into the early medieval period. The campaign against homosexual practices occurred centuries after the religion was strongly established. The first real large scale move against homosexuality came from Rome in the sixth century. The biggest reason for homoseuality being a sin in Judaic texts appears to be as much about worshipping false gods as it is about the act itself. Most major religions in Asia have traditionally no problem with homosexuality, branches of Japanese Buddhism actively encouraged it, similar thing happened with Taoism in parts of China but to a lesser degree. Hinduism was largely accepting of homosexuality, Sikhism itself has no real issue with homosexuality.

Likewise most anti-homosexual laws put in place did not come from religious organisations, if they did there would be a plethora of sacred texts forbidding such practices.

Yes it has as I have already mentioned homosexual practices in religion was established a long time ago, most religions and their various factions have not persecuted people based on their sexuality.

Tolerance/acceptance, you are being pedantic. Context is very important, you are ignoring the context.

I was not confusing them. Dr Feelgood is clearly not a free thinking person.

You said: "to free thinking individuals no idea is rubbish".

That's relativism.

Nice summary, but not the evidence that most [isecular[/i societies consider homosexuality to be socially unacceptable that I requested.

All Abrahamic religions consider homosexuality to be a sin, and have done since the earliest forms of their religious texts. Hinduism and Buddhism are largely accepting or at least neutral. Sikhism is formally against homosexuality although this stance is not popular with large numbers of Sikhs. Confucianism and Taoism don't really have a position on it one way or the other. After that we're into the territory of minor religions and cults. Given the numbers of active worshippers in each faith it's fair to say that the majority of believers belong to religions that proscribe homosexual behaviour. I sincerely doubt the same can be said of secular societies.

rlAs Michael Gove backs more religious schoolrl, rlothers deny girls protection against cancer on religious grounds.rl

Thoth, I would disagree with your statement that I am not free thinking. I went to church schools all my life and was taught in science about evidence that totally went against what was being taught in RE. I took in both points of view and came to the point of view that the bible was bull as there was no proof for creationism and that there was evidence that tended to disprove it. I subsequently embarked on a career in science gaining qualifications upto PhD level. Every day I have to "think outside the box" to overcome technical problems. I am constantly reading of new theories and discoveries in my chosen field in academic literature, some of which I believe, some I don't. Over the years science advances as researchers find evidence supporting or disproving various theories they come up with. To a religious person the bible/koran/torah cannot be proven to be untrue as it is the word of their god and as such must be undeniably true, even without any proof. I believe that religious stories, used in the right context, can be very good at teaching children how to behave in a civilised society, in much the same way as Aesops fables, but Genesis, for example , should not be portrayed as an accurate description of the creation of our planet.

Although I am no expert on the bible I do know that there is something in there about it being an abomination for a man to lie with another man as he does his wife. This is where all the bigotry stems from. Personally I'm not gay and as I said earlier cannot understand why anyone who is gay would want to be in a religion that demonised their sexuality. Equally I cannot understand why a religion would condem homosexuality.