prisonchaplain

Are LGBT Activists Religious Bigots?

Recommended Posts

Guest
10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

According to the dictionary definitions I reviewed, yes. You are bigoted against cookies and ice cream!

The Ben and Jerry's lobby will be seeing him in court soon to secure the rights of children everywhere to enjoy cookies and ice cream whenever they wish.  It's a civil right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

...Further, should someone like that do so, and then during the meeting say something like, "Hey, I'm not a quitter. I was born liking alcohol. Why should anyone try to change who we are?" would the AA leaders not politely ask that person to leave?

Those who consume large amounts of alcohol may be in denial of their alcoholism. So I would have to say No, the person would not be asked to leave. Spouses of alcoholics are welcome to AA meetings.

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree that quantity makes an alcoholic. Some drink once or twice a month, but their drinking leads to problems. Others drink much more often, but are simply heavy drinkers. They know their limits, do not drive under the influence, and live and associate with people who are not troubled by it. Personally, I don't drink. It has been an -ism in my family tree. Further, I do believe that some are born with a predisposition to alcoholism. With all that said, AA is for those who wish to quit drinking. It would not be a welcome place to those who embrace drinking, and believe it's wrong to try to change people's natural born drinking disposition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I disagree that quantity makes an alcoholic....

Then you would be wrong.

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) describes alcohol use disorder as "problem drinking that becomes severe."

A person with this condition does not know when or how to stop drinking. They spend a lot of time thinking about alcohol, and they cannot control how much they consume, even if it is causing serious problems at home, work, and financially.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/157163.php

Quote

Some drink once or twice a month, but their drinking leads to problems.

I would be interested in seeing some references that might make this true. If you're referring to binge drinking, that still involves a lot of alcohol in a short period of time. And people can have problems in their lives without alcohol involvement.

Quote

Others drink much more often, but are simply heavy drinkers. They know their limits, do not drive under the influence, and live and associate with people who are not troubled by it.

Yes, there are people who can be described as functioning alcoholics. They can hold a job, have good family and friend relationships but still abuse alcohol.

Quote

With all that said, AA is for those who wish to quit drinking. It would not be a welcome place to those who embrace drinking, and believe it's wrong to try to change people's natural born drinking disposition.

I checked the webpage of AA in my city and it says that if a person wants to become a member they would have to want to stop drinking, but if a person who knows they have a drinking problem wishes to attend a meeting, they would be welcomed.

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Maureen I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. If somebody drinks say 6-8 drinks a day, never drives under the influence, hangs with buddies that enjoy drinking with him, and he never misses work or family expectations, then he's not alcoholic. If he drinks 6-8- drinks one Saturday a month, but then tends to get in fights, drives afterward, his wife stays home worried every time it happens, etc.,  then this person is alcoholic. The key is that the drinking is problematic. He comes to realize it and wants to quit. AA is there for him.

So, guy #1 enjoys his drinking and thinks that people who are pressured to quit should not be. In fact, he thinks AA, Celebrate Recovery, and other such support groups are kill-joys, and loves to go to such groups just to stir up trouble with his "Jesus turned water into wine" refrains.

Such a person would not be welcomed at an AA group--especially a closed one--certainly not more than once.  The first step is admitting the problem. If someone goes and will not do so, and instead argues against the whole concept of recovery--s/he'll not remain welcomed.

AA spared the latter life of one in my family line. Another went through a residential faith-based rehab. Both knew and admitted they had a problem. Another one would not do so, and died of end-stage liver disease. This last one might fit a medical definition of "alcoholic," but there was no hope of recovery without self-recognition.

Edited by prisonchaplain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

@Maureen I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. If somebody drinks say 6-8 drinks a day, never drives under the influence, hangs with buddies that enjoy drinking with him, and he never misses work or family expectations, then he's not alcoholic....

Sorry, you're wrong. 8 drinks per day, means 56 per week, that is an alcoholic. He can function just fine in everyday life, but if he can't stop drinking large amounts of alcohol each day, he is an alcoholic.

Quote

 If he drinks 6-8- drinks one Saturday a month, but then tends to get in fights, drives afterward, his wife stays home worried every time it happens, etc.,  then this person is alcoholic.

There could be many reasons why this person is an a**hole. The alcohol could effect his personality, he could have mental health issues, or maybe he is just a really nasty person. But because he drinks a minimal amount of alcohol per week, he is not an alcoholic.

Quote

 

So, guy #1 enjoys his drinking and thinks that people who are pressured to quit should not be. In fact, he thinks AA, Celebrate Recovery, and other such support groups are kill-joys, and loves to go to such groups just to stir up trouble with his "Jesus turned water into wine" refrains.

Such a person would not be welcomed at an AA group--especially a closed one--certainly not more than once.  The first step is admitting the problem. If someone goes and will not do so, and instead argues against the whole concept of recovery--s/he'll not remain welcomed.

 

This guy will not be welcomed, not because he's an alcoholic who can't admit it yet, but because he's causing a disruption with the meeting. Anyone doing that, no matter what their problems are, would not be welcomed.

Quote

...Another one would not do so, and died of end-stage liver disease....

His liver was diseased due to the amount of alcohol he drank daily.

M.

Edited by Maureen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Sorry, you're wrong. 8 drinks per day, means 56 per week, that is an alcoholic. He can function just fine in everyday life, but if he can't stop drinking large amounts of alcohol each day, he is an alcoholic.

It's the "can't stop" that makes someone an alcoholic, not the quantity they drink.  Alcoholism or addictions are a function of lost agency, not a measure of activity.  This is why people in recovery are alcoholics, even if they haven't touched a drop in twenty years.  This is why you can have 'dry drunks', who don't drink any more, but still have the destructive behaviors.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

It's the "can't stop" that makes someone an alcoholic, not the quantity they drink.  Alcoholism or addictions are a function of lost agency, not a measure of activity.  This is why people in recovery are alcoholics, even if they haven't touched a drop in twenty years.  This is why you can have 'dry drunks', who don't drink any more, but still have the destructive behaviors.

The "can't stop" and quantity go hand in hand. That's what causes the large quantity consumption, the inability to stop drinking at a minimal amount.

And I had mentioned in an earlier post that alcoholics who are able to stop drinking still identify as an alcoholic.

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Maureen said:

The "can't stop" and quantity go hand in hand. That's what causes the large quantity consumption, the inability to stop drinking at a minimal amount.

And I had mentioned in an earlier post that alcoholics who are able to stop drinking still identify as an alcoholic.

I'm not understanding.

Maureen's claims:
- Someone drinks huge amounts, but it's a choice and they can stop: This person doesn't exist.  Anyone who drinks lots cannot stop.  So says Maureen.
- Someone drinks huge amounts, can't stop: Alcoholic.
- Alcoholic = large quantities.
- Someone drinks small amounts across a year or two, just inebriated enough to lose their job, their house, their spouse, then they go to AA = not alcoholic, because not large amounts, even though they couldn't stop.
- Someone who doesn't drink alcohol = not an alcoholic, because they don't drink huge amounts, but they can "identify" as one, but they're really not.

Do I have your definition correctly identified in these cases?

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm not understanding.

Maureen's claims:
- Someone drinks huge amounts, but it's a choice and they can stop: This person doesn't exist.  Anyone who drinks lots cannot stop.  So says Maureen.
- Someone drinks huge amounts, can't stop: Alcoholic.
- Alcoholic = large quantities.
- Someone drinks small amounts across a year or two, just inebriated enough to lose their job, their house, their spouse, then they go to AA = not alcoholic, because not large amounts, even though they couldn't stop.
- Someone who doesn't drink alcohol = not an alcoholic, because they don't drink huge amounts, but they can "identify" as one, but they're really not.

Do I have your definition correctly identified in these cases?

Those are not my claims, those are your weird interpretations of what I've posted.

Bottom line:

Alcoholism is indeed about alcohol abuse and dependence (drinking too much daily).

Alcoholism is NOT about being a jerk after drinking moderately. People can be jerks without alcohol too.

Alcoholism cannot be cured but it can be treated. There is the potential for an alcoholic to relapse after stopping the habitual drinking. So even after stopping, an alcoholic is still an alcoholic.

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Maureen said:

Sorry, you're wrong. 8 drinks per day, means 56 per week, that is an alcoholic. He can function just fine in everyday life, but if he can't stop drinking large amounts of alcohol each day, he is an alcoholic.

There could be many reasons why this person is an a**hole. The alcohol could effect his personality, he could have mental health issues, or maybe he is just a really nasty person. But because he drinks a minimal amount of alcohol per week, he is not an alcoholic.

This guy will not be welcomed, not because he's an alcoholic who can't admit it yet, but because he's causing a disruption with the meeting. Anyone doing that, no matter what their problems are, would not be welcomed.

His liver was diseased due to the amount of alcohol he drank daily.

M.

Perhaps I am wrong. It's what I was taught in 9th-grade Health class, way back in the day. The teacher emphasized problem-drinking vs. using quantities to determine if help was needed. I can accept that at a certain # of fluids per day the problem is obvious. So, to the analogy: Alcoholism and same sex attraction (as well as gender dysphoria) have parallels. Both sex and alcohol have social and religious boundaries. Excessive alcohol consumptions is sanctioned religiously and by society. Efforts to turn abusers completely away from consumption are lauded by both faith communities and the culture. Until recently, the same was true for same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria. Psychology's DSM-V still has a chapter on gender dysphoria. The APA approved the Sexual Identity Framework (Yarhouse & Throckmorton) that guides therapists working with faith-motivated homosexuals attempting to live celibate. Yet, society is now diverging from the dominant view in faith communities. Gender dysphoria is now transgenderism, and, in some settings it is illegal not to use preferred pronouns for such folk. Likewise, using professional therapy skills to help homosexuals curb and abstain from their desires is illegal in a few states, now. 

Society will do what it will do. However, if abstinence works for alcoholism, why would governments prohibit faith-motivated individuals and therapists from striving for celibacy? The questions gains more force when the therapy in question already has professional approval. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: alcoholism. My FIL is a functional alcoholic. He is a retired Marine who currently has a very well-paying job as a government contractor and has never been anything but exceptional in his professional life. In his personal life, he has been known to be abrasive and very rarely sober. He often drinks until he passes out after work, and on weekends will sometimes start the day with a bloody mary "to take the edge off". He has on multiple occasions engaged in verbal altercations with family members that he has no recollection of the next day. 

I drink a lot. I have been selling beer for a living for the last 7 years. Some of that time was spent in the Army Reserves, where I had contracted medical professionals tell me I had a drinking problem because I had more than one drink daily. But I very rarely drank to the point of legal intoxication (and still don't), never drove drunk (and still don't) and have never allowed drinking to affect my personal life. Meanwhile, I know people outside of my industry who barely touch alcohol during the week, but will drink themselves into oblivion every weekend. You tell me who's the irresponsible one. 

Re: Pence. Personally, I don't care what religious groups he and his wife affiliate with. Seems like most of the criticism is rooted in the idea that, as the second-highest ranking official in the country, he should be seen to represent all Americans rather than playing favorites with anti-LGBT groups. I see the logic in that, but ultimately I think even the vice president (and his wife) should be free to support whatever organizations they choose. And if a time comes when he ever runs for public office again, the voters will respond accordingly.

What I take issue with, and frankly always will, is the idea that Pence and his wife are somehow being persecuted because of their faith. They are being criticized. That's not the same as persecution. An LDS senator this morning actually had the nerve to say that religious freedom is under attack. I guess he hasn't taken the time to study the history of his own religion. Christians who think their way of life is under attack should spend a day in a Muslim-American's shoes. Or heck, even an atheist's, though we tend to be far less visible unless we make very deliberate attempts to be seen. Christians have gotten too accustomed to being an unchallenged majority in this country and think that they're now under attack because marginalized groups are starting to stand up to them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Godless I get that Christians, as the majority religion in the U.S., don't seem to be under attack in the way minority faiths (or non-belief) are. However, the tide is turning, and many of us sense it. Justice Barrett was grilled about her Catholicism--by a fellow Catholic, when she was nominated for a higher position. Her membership in a Catholic lay-organization was presented as evidence of her being unfit. Likewise, more recently with a Trump nominee for his affiliation with the Knights of Columbus. It's not rank hatred against religion--but rather the idea that if one is a member of a faith then they will vote/rule in particular political ways. Instead of attacking the politics, though, they go after the religion.

Okay, it's not persecution. It's not full-on marginalization. However, it is malignant, and there are many incidences of intentional dismissals of faith based upon perceived political correlations. Calling that out is right, and shouldn't be offensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Maureen said:

Those are not my claims, those are your weird interpretations of what I've posted.

Bottom line:

Ok, fair enough.  I'll stick to my understanding of alcoholism if that's ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Godless said:

Re: alcoholism. My FIL is a functional alcoholic. He is a retired Marine who currently has a very well-paying job as a government contractor and has never been anything but exceptional in his professional life. In his personal life, he has been known to be abrasive and very rarely sober. He often drinks until he passes out after work, and on weekends will sometimes start the day with a bloody mary "to take the edge off". He has on multiple occasions engaged in verbal altercations with family members that he has no recollection of the next day. 

I drink a lot. I have been selling beer for a living for the last 7 years. Some of that time was spent in the Army Reserves, where I had contracted medical professionals tell me I had a drinking problem because I had more than one drink daily. But I very rarely drank to the point of legal intoxication (and still don't), never drove drunk (and still don't) and have never allowed drinking to affect my personal life. Meanwhile, I know people outside of my industry who barely touch alcohol during the week, but will drink themselves into oblivion every weekend. You tell me who's the irresponsible one. 

Re: Pence. Personally, I don't care what religious groups he and his wife affiliate with. Seems like most of the criticism is rooted in the idea that, as the second-highest ranking official in the country, he should be seen to represent all Americans rather than playing favorites with anti-LGBT groups. I see the logic in that, but ultimately I think even the vice president (and his wife) should be free to support whatever organizations they choose. And if a time comes when he ever runs for public office again, the voters will respond accordingly.

What I take issue with, and frankly always will, is the idea that Pence and his wife are somehow being persecuted because of their faith. They are being criticized. That's not the same as persecution. An LDS senator this morning actually had the nerve to say that religious freedom is under attack. I guess he hasn't taken the time to study the history of his own religion. Christians who think their way of life is under attack should spend a day in a Muslim-American's shoes. Or heck, even an atheist's, though we tend to be far less visible unless we make very deliberate attempts to be seen. Christians have gotten too accustomed to being an unchallenged majority in this country and think that they're now under attack because marginalized groups are starting to stand up to them. 

I think this post will be unpopular.

The  vice president-Biden, Pence, Gore, Cheney-whoever-can't represent all Americans because we all believe different things. If he was an atheist and spoke at a school that denies that God exists, then he wouldn't represent all people in America either. In fairness, I'm not sure many atheists would say "Hey, he's not speaking for all Americans" if an atheist vice president spoke at an atheist convention. They'd praise him for his courage. 


In America you can basically believe anything you want without being under attack. That goes for Islam, Atheists, Gays, Jews, Christians, etc. Can you find evidence of religious bigotry and worse, religious violence? Yes, but in fairness it's pretty rare. In fact, that the supreme court last year said that a Christian baker had his rights violated should show that you can believe whatever you'd like in America and you'll be good. And I know of no organization outside of churches that asks "Hey, are you an atheist?" before you get a job/buy a house, etc. 

I think everyone -Atheists-Muslims-Christians-Jews-Hindus-whatever likes to play the persecution card sometimes.  It makes them feel noble. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 1:10 AM, Godless said:

Re: Pence. Personally, I don't care what religious groups he and his wife affiliate with. Seems like most of the criticism is rooted in the idea that, as the second-highest ranking official in the country, he should be seen to represent all Americans rather than playing favorites with anti-LGBT groups. I see the logic in that, but ultimately I think even the vice president (and his wife) should be free to support whatever organizations they choose. And if a time comes when he ever runs for public office again, the voters will respond accordingly.

I agree with all of this.

On ‎1‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 1:10 AM, Godless said:

What I take issue with, and frankly always will, is the idea that Pence and his wife are somehow being persecuted because of their faith. They are being criticized. That's not the same as persecution. An LDS senator this morning actually had the nerve to say that religious freedom is under attack. I guess he hasn't taken the time to study the history of his own religion. Christians who think their way of life is under attack should spend a day in a Muslim-American's shoes. Or heck, even an atheist's, though we tend to be far less visible unless we make very deliberate attempts to be seen. Christians have gotten too accustomed to being an unchallenged majority in this country and think that they're now under attack because marginalized groups are starting to stand up to them. 

While I agree that Christians have had it good in this country for prettmyuch all of its history, what's happening  now goes beyond criticism.  I think 'persecution' may be a bit strong a term, but not for much longer.  We're getting there.

Criticism is what you call it when someone says "Hey, that's not right because XYZ."  What's happening is beyond that.  We have people openly calling for punitive measures against Christians for being Christian.  You talk about how American Muslims are under attack, and I don't doubt that they are in some parts of the country, but let me ask you a couple of questions, and preface them by pointing out that morally, Islam and Christianity share many of the same views.

  • Given that Islam is no friendlier toward same sex marriage than Christianity is, why aren't any Muslims being targeted by lawsuits for refusing to bake wedding cakes or take wedding photographs for same sex marriages?  (And yes, they do refuse for the same reasons.)
  • Why is it that Christianity is often accused of antisemitism while one of our newly elected Congresswomen is a Muslim whose office has a world map with Israel covered with a sticky note that says 'Palestine?'

It goes way beyond simple criticism when there are calls for Christian churches to lose their tax exempt status for refusing to perform same sex marriages.

It goes way beyond simple criticism when Comedy Central is perfectly happy to censor out an image of Mohammed but is perfectly willing to show an animated Jesus bouncing around the screen and pooping.

It goes way beyond simple criticism when DC comics can release a book casting a humiliating light on Jesus Christ and any Christian who doesn't like it is told to shove it.  

It goes way beyond simple criticism when a mob gathered around the L.A. Temple after California passed Proposition 8 that was so violent the LAPD requested that the Temple staff allow them to park their police cruisers in the Temple parking lot because they'd be safe there behind the fence.

It goes way beyond simple criticism when Christian beliefs are now routinely referred to as "problematic" right before some media talking head calls for some kind of government force against Christianity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 1/19/2019 at 12:10 AM, Godless said:

What I take issue with, and frankly always will, is the idea that Pence and his wife are somehow being persecuted because of their faith. They are being criticized. That's not the same as persecution.

The difference being?  I'm not so sure anyone can state a strong, definitive line of when criticism becomes persecution.  Is it only when it gets physical?  OK.

What are legal measures that prohibit the free exercise of a religion?  And if you do practice it, you could face jail time, lose your job, or at least get fined or sued.  That's not persecution?  That is where we already are.

Physical?  Recently a Christian youth was outside of an abortion clinic and simply said,"God loves you."  He got punched in the face.  Blood was flowing.  That's not persecution?

The Covington kids were having death threats and being doxed.  That's not persecution? 

Sure you can say it wasn't because of their religion, but upon perceived injustice.  But what happened after they were cleared?  The media dug deeper to oust secrets to shame them further.  And they came up with . . . more lies.  That's not persecution?

Where do you draw the line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2019 at 8:06 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

“Bigot”, like “racist”, has degenerated into an epithet that is virtually meaningless; and in their heart of hearts most Americans know it.  As conservatives, we shouldn’t dignify those terms—or the people who use them against us—by seeking to turn them back on our accusers.  The best response is to a cool, unruffled “I don’t even know what that means”, and then stare them down like the intellectual dwarves that they are.

I know we shouldn't dignify such hateful words, but it still hurts my feelings to be called a bigot, racist, etc, etc, etc because I have conservative values and voted for Trump.

If I was called a bigot because I don't like or believe in same-sex marriage, or support the LGBT... agenda, than a bigot I will be and just shrug it off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lindy said:

I know we shouldn't dignify such hateful words, but it still hurts my feelings to be called a bigot, racist, etc, etc, etc because I have conservative values and voted for Trump.

If I was called a bigot because I don't like or believe in same-sex marriage, or support the LGBT... agenda, than a bigot I will be and just shrug it off. 

You aren't alone. I didn't vote for Trump but conservatives are called bigot/racist way too much. It's repulsive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now