Toronto neighbourhood confronts religious harrassment

104 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W
Toronto neighbourhood confronts religious harrassment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHpiXmPWPwk

According to the poster this church group had for seven years gathered regularly to read the bible loudly in front of a couple's home.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I think that, in a legal sense, you can't force them to leave because they are on public property - however, there are usually bylaws about noise and general disturbance.  Perhaps those could be put to use?

The last time I had a proselytizer on my doorstep, I informed her that I support her constitutional right to practice her religion, but only up to the point where she set foot onto my property to interfere with mine.

6079_Smith_W

@ Timebandit

I think a lot of them just aren't used to being stood up to politely but firmly. I am sure if they got a welcome like that every time they showed up they would go and find other people to bother. They don't seem to have quite the same stormtrooper mentality as the Westboro Baptists.

Though there are ways to get at them too:

http://twitpic.com/17f5e4

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Timebandit wrote:

I think that, in a legal sense, you can't force them to leave because they are on public property - however, there are usually bylaws about noise and general disturbance.  Perhaps those could be put to use?

Really? The courts are always issuing injunctions against protestors from other community organizations to prevent them from inconveniencing the general public -- for example, picket lines.

6079_Smith_W

A year or so ago the Westboro cult were threatening to come and disrupt the funeral of that man who was beheaded near Winnipeg.

THey were barred at the border, but some of them apparently snuck over. They never showed up at the funeral though. There had been some coverage in the paper and CBC about public anger, and people determined to protect the family from them. The last story I read quoted one of their spokespeople complaining about Canada's refusal to protect their free speech and their right to protest. That was their excuse for not showing up.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Cueball wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

I think that, in a legal sense, you can't force them to leave because they are on public property - however, there are usually bylaws about noise and general disturbance.  Perhaps those could be put to use?

Really? The courts are always issuing injunctions against protestors from other community organizations to prevent them from inconveniencing the general public -- for example, picket lines.

I'm sure they do on occasion.  However, I've participated in a picket line on public property over a period of several weeks and we were not prevented from doing so.  But this is off topic - I was thinking about what recourse the people who live on that street might have.

Cueball Cueball's picture

The point is that the "right to freedom of speech" on public property is routinely limited by the courts through injunction. For example, the courts often order limits on the number of picketers at a Union picket line. They also will on occassion completely ban protest in certain areas. There is no need to appeal to noise by-laws or any such thing.

milo204

rent a PA from the local music store and blast heavy metal at them till either they leave or the cops show up.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Well, an injunction would be a good idea, if they could get it.  I wonder if the couple whose house they were shouting in front of over 7 years tried to get one. 

ETA:  I think it might be trickier in this situation because you've got freedom of speech, but also freedom to practice your religion involved. 

Papal Bull

milo204 wrote:

rent a PA from the local music store and blast heavy metal at them till either they leave or the cops show up.

 

They're churchies, not Manuel Noriega. Wink

Slumberjack

Across and down the street a little ways from where I once lived, a pentecostal group would gather every Saturday in a vacant parking lot to hear the music of god, which in their case was a couple of people playing guitar and singing to the top of their lungs through a wretched PA sound system.  The faithful would drive up in their cars, roll down the windows and sit back to take it in, similar to a drive in theatre.  This went on for hours every Saturday afternoon.  I asked politely if they could turn it down a notch or two on several occasions, however in the end they left me with little choice I'm afraid.  In the place of window screens in my house I placed two large speakers attached to a high powered amp.  The music was Metallica, the volume deafening.  I had to run a few errands that day.  Next weekend I noticed they had lowered the volume on their PA system.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Finally... I found some background on what the heck is going on with this story. It took quite a while going through the comments on the posted video, but I did find this linked story from something called 680News. It would have been useful had the individual who originally posted the video on youtube to have put in some sort of explanation in their originating comments - instead all they wrote was this:

Quote:
This is a group from a church at the end of my street. Apparently they have been grouping in front of a couple's house and reading their bible loudly for the past 7 years. They may have also driven another couple from the area as well by doing the same thing. Tonight most of our neighbours came out and were successful in getting them to leave. The people who go to that church don't even live in our area! Police came by shortly thereafter.

Further down in the comments, someone claiming to be the homeowner observed:

Quote:
We appreciate the action of our neighbours .THX. Although we were not present at the time we feel the need to clear up a possible misunderstanding. We have lived on the street for 13 years. Though we don't align with the outdoor sermon it has never been directly targeted towards us. They have conducted these sermons on our street numerous years prior to us moving here. We just want to ensure the focus of this is public church sermons (not targeting a gay couple) .

While I am not suggesting that this is an inappropriate forum for this thread, I am beginning to think that the real issue here is one of religious groups confusing their actual rights with the arrogant assumption they have the prerogative to monopolize any and all public spaces at any time they choose... I am glad to see the people residing on the street challenge this assumption.

I think it is a worthwhile to discuss the limits of religious freedoms... especially in light of all the anecdotal evidence about how such groups think that their "religious" nature grants them license to act however they damn please, without going through the regulatory process that governs use of public space.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I wonder if the privileged white hipsters who were behind this courageous action would have been so courageous if the proselytizers weren't persons of colour who spoke with non-normative Canadian accents.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Are they "shouting bible verses up and down the street," Timebandit? I didn't get that impression from the limited information offered.

I suppose I wonder why this needed to be YouTubed at all, why it is lauded as heroic action, and why it was picked up on fb pages, twitter feeds and here on babble. Jehovahs Witnesses, who are generally white, usually earn the disdain of folk preferring to be left alone, but I haven't seen any YouTube videos mentioned in new thread topics around here. And I haven't heard of any neighbourhoods banding together and throwing them out (not that it doesn't happen, but it doesn't get circulated like this story did, all puffed up and, apparently, patently false).

ETA. Wow, I don't see why you need to get your back up about this, Timebandit.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

So they should only object to people shouting bible verses up and down their street if they're all white?  I did notice that some of the proselytizers were white males.  Should they have only spoken to them?

What course of action would you suggest, Catchfire?

ETA:  Or maybe the priveleged white hipsters had enough liberal guilt going on that they didn't do anything for 7 freaking years because gawd knows, as soon as they say something about wanting a little peace and quiet, they're probably raving racists.

Snert Snert's picture

Why not just exercise some more free speech.

Gather right beside them and loudly discuss the merits of fucking.  Fist fucking, ass fucking, toy fucking, fucking in the shower, fucking on the kitchen floor, fucking while watching television.  Men fucking men, women fucking women.  Men fucking women fucking men.  Just some good old fucking.

I'm betting they instantly understand the merits in having good boundaries.

edited to add:  I'd bet my next fuck that it would work just fine on white churchies too.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

It seemed clear from the video that people living in the neighborhood were objecting to non-residents standing out in the street shouting.  I can see that being irritating on day one, and after 7 years?  Come on.  And the JWs don't tend to stand out there making noise - although, again, I have firmly objected, a la my earlier post, to them coming to my door.  I consider both actions anti-social and a nuisance.  After 7 years of being a nuisance, I think these people probably deserved to be told to shove off, whether the initial source of their disturbance was focused on one household or not.  And it's satisfying to anyone who has been pestered by proselytizers to see that happen.

It's a little harder to mobilize everyone at the same time over doorbell pushers than people creating a disturbance in the middle of the street, which may account for some of the differnce in approach.

I just find the jump to the conclusion that these people, who have been harassed over a long period of time, must be racist to have gotten together to say, "Enough is enough" kind of disturbing.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Did I call anyone racist? Where did you conjure up these spectres from?

Actually, it's not clear from the video or the information offered that these people have been doing this for "seven" years--he seems to say "seventy" years, to which a neighbour responds "well let's hope it's not seventy-one." Ha ha. Anyway, I can't tell what they are in fact doing, but I don't have a problem with a neighbourhood getting together and letting them know they are not welcome. I was questioning the presentation of this "story" as some sort of act of heroism on the part of the brook-no-nonsense neighbours who were "standing up" to, what, exactly? We don't know, but probably just some form of nuisance. Yet this act of banality circulates on liberal discussion boards and facebook pages as an example to activists everywhere. I simply think there's more at play than that. But perhaps I'm just ruining your fun.

ETA. It's really an extension of Cueball's point, which is that so-called "public" space is not public at all. Some spaces are more public than others.

farnival

Catchfire wrote:

Are they "shouting bible verses up and down the street," Timebandit? I didn't get that impression from the limited information offered.

I suppose I wonder why this needed to be YouTubed at all, why it is lauded as heroic action, and why it was picked up on fb pages, twitter feeds and here on babble. Jehovahs Witnesses, who are generally white, usually earn the disdain of folk preferring to be left alone, but I haven't seen any YouTube videos mentioned in new thread topics around here. And I haven't heard of any neighbourhoods banding together and throwing them out (not that it doesn't happen, but it doesn't get circulated like this story did, all puffed up and, apparently, patently false).

ETA. Wow, I don't see why you need to get your back up about this, Timebandit.

catchfire, your post above has to be the most baiting bullshit i have read in ages.  "white hipsters" targeting the church members because they are black and have accents? They are residents of their street.  Something i'm guessing the members of that church at the bottom of the same street would be hard pressed to be able to say.   What planet do you live on? give your head a shake.  this is my neighbourhood.  Highfield is right in the middle of the Gerrard India Bazzar and is composed of a wide variety of incomes, ethnicities, and ages and has many churches that don't feel the need to bother people in the neighbourhood.

and if you watch the video, you should be able to make out one of your "white hipsters" respond to the church member who says they have been doing this for 7 years , that they've hated it the whole time.  is that "limited" enough for you?

As for your reference to Jehhova's Witnesses, or any other proselytizers that may knock on doors in our neighbourhood, i have yet to meet any that weren't polite and had the decency to walk away when asked to, unlike this thickheaded bunch.

 

6079_Smith_W

@ Catchfire

Sorry, but that is a red herring. I have told enough lily white Mormons and JWs to get the fuck off my front step. If discrimination is wrong for my people then is is wrong for theirs too.

Or is there an argument to suggest that that sort of harrassment is in order?

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I have no doubt that you have, 6079. Did you videotape it, put it up on YouTube and distribute it to all your fb friends so they could admire your courage? Or did you just get on with your day?

janew

I live across the street from this church and they are a pain in the neck.  I don't know if they target same sex couples but I know they're obnoxious.  I asked them not to post a sign right outside my front window and they insulted me about not caring about children because I objected to the biblical quotation on the sign. ( I can't remember which one it was now, but it was unfriendly.)  I support my neighbours asking these people to not harass us by preaching on the street.

 

6079_Smith_W

@ Catchfire

Have you seen the documentary "Jesus Camp"?  Or "Hell House"?

White guys, almost exclusively. Plus, it looks like the ringleader in that youtube video was an old white guy.

I know that the schism in some churches (Anglicans, for instance) is a split between congregations in the developed world who support reform and some in other countries which oppose abortion and gay rights.

Sorry, but I'm not willing to use race as a foil for discrimination, and I won't give anyone a pass on that sort of harrassment. Near as I can see it's just wrong, unless there is an agrument as to why we should let them continue doing that.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Catchfire wrote:

ETA. Wow, I don't see why you need to get your back up about this, Timebandit.

Perhaps because, in point of fact, had I been in the shoes of the residents, I would have been more hesitant to approach this group for the very differences you point out for fear of the very implication you made - and I feel that the implication of racism and the derision you have for the residents is abundantly clear.

ripvanwinkle

I believe that, legally, the church group (or any other group of whatever political/religious/ethical/cultural/whatever stripe) has a right to stand on public property and preach their message, even if it's one that the neighbours disagree with or are offended by -- as long as the message does not cross over into hate speech (as that is legally understood). Of course, the neighbours have a right to stand next to the preachers and tell them that they aren't welcome, and the preachers have a right to remain and continue to preach despite their unwelcome status. (Just because I'm not welcome on your street doesn't mean that you have any legal right to keep me off of it. You can invite me to leave, of course; and I can remain despite your invitation to leave.) As Snert pointed out, the neighbours can even start their own preaching if they wish. If the preacher group's behaviour is illegal -- if, for example, they are engaged in hate speech, or if their behaviour fits the legal definition of harassment -- then concerned neighbours should gather evidence and call the police. Finally, even if the preacher group's behaviour is otherwise legal, the neighbours could seek an injunction against the behaviour -- as Cueball correctly points out, "the "right to freedom of speech" on public property is routinely limited by the courts through injunction". But, without an injunction, I don't see that the neighbours have any legal means to force the preachers off their street or out of their neigbhourhood.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
 I asked them not to post a sign right outside my front window and they insulted me about not caring about children because I objected to the biblical quotation on the sign. ( I can't remember which one it was now, but it was unfriendly.) 

 

Was it "Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13-14)?

6079_Smith_W

@ ripvanwinkle

Force? Surely not.

But there is no reason why we don't have an equal right to get in their faces and let them know that they are not welcome. If they want to run that gauntlet and stick around good for them. My experience has been that outside of Abortion clinic protesters, who need legal boundaries, most of these well-meaning people fuck off when they are told to do so. 

Now try and quit the mormon church when they think you are one of theirs, That is another story entirely.

ripvanwinkle

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ ripvanwinkle

Force? Surely not.

But there is no reason why we don't have an equal right to get in their faces and let them know that they are not welcome.

I agree 100%. Quoting from my favourite babbler: "Of course, the neighbours have a right to stand next to the preachers and tell them that they aren't welcome . . . As Snert pointed out, the neighbours can even start their own preaching if they wish."

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I have no derision for the people in the video, Timebandit. That, again, is a spectre of your own creation. In point of fact, I am a privileged white hipster myself.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Have you seen the documentary "Jesus Camp"?  Or "Hell House"?

Yes, I have seen both these films, which are about fundamentalist communities and not about neighbourhoods in conflict with outsiders. They both have a very neutral lens, and nowhere do communities stand up and heroically oust the fundamentalists. But they're not really in the same genre as this clip, are they, both in terms of content and form?

Again, and these seem to be the words that aren't getting heard, I wouldn't want anyone preaching on my street either. And (again),

Catchfire wrote:
I don't have a problem with a neighbourhood getting together and letting them know they are not welcome.

What I was simply pointing out--a fairly elementary point which is causing a disproportionate amount of anger--is that the narrative ascribed to the scene in the video was a very attractive one to a certain demographic; and when that narrative turned out to be factually incorrect, that demographic just invented a new one. I inferred that race, as usual, probably had a role to play in how this episode was presented and digested. For some reason, that stuck in the throat of a few babblers. It even had the spectacular effect of conjuring ghosts out of thin air.

Slumberjack

Timebandit wrote:
....and I feel that the implication of racism and the derision you have for the residents is abundantly clear.

There exists more than enough knowledge of 'not in my neighborhood' campaigns targeting the disenfranchised.  In this instance, there is no harm in asking why this particular action is occurring at this time, and nothing wrong that I can see at least in presenting opinions based on reasonable suspicion of well worn trends that may or may not arise whenever individuals, primarily from the dominant society, decide to cooperate in the interests of mutual protection.  But yes, sadly the questions still need to be asked.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

And I suppose I should move this thread to central canada.

milo204

while it's possible that race might have played into this, it's just as likely that it didn't.

my feeling is that if this was my street and a bunch of people decided they wanted to camp out there and sing and basically disturb the people who live there, they have every right to ask them to leave.  

noone is teling them they can't sing and whatever, but there are obviously better places to do that than a residential street.  try a public park, a church, a community hall, their own backyard.  

but as much as there is a history of persecuting minorities, there is a history of religious wackos ramming their fairy tales down everyone's throats in public displays of god worship.   

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Catchfire wrote:

I have no derision for the people in the video, Timebandit. That, again, is a spectre of your own creation. In point of fact, I am a privileged white hipster myself.

Bullshit.

"Hipster" isn't usually applied in a positive way, for one thing - connotations of being something of a poser.  If you're a self-admitted poser, bully for you - but I wouldn't make the assumption about the people in the video one way or another.  So I don't think I'm creating spectres.

Secondly, you did imply a racist motive to the residents in the video.  You said quite clearly that you didn't think the residents of the street would have confronted a group that wasn't made up of POC, if I understood your post correctly.  I think you may be creating spectres of your own - what I see is the much more probable motive that the noise from the street preaching has been a long-term nuisance that they are trying to deal with assertively. 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Do you have room for irony in your fortress of self-righteousness, Timebandit? Or is everything as simple as racist/not-racist, evangelical/atheist? If not, back to your regular scheduled program: Ha ha. Stupid fundamentalists. They got theirs.

6079_Smith_W

The fact is when most people here think of fundamentalist Christians we think of conservative white people, even though there are a good many who are not. I remember going to protest a Bob Larson rally about 20 years ago and realizing that many of the faithful were not white, and probably not born here in Canada. Despite that gap between our perception and the new reality I don't think anyone is saving up their wrath for visible minorities because they think they are an easier target.

Catchfire, I think you raise a good point, because of course people might be a bit more inclined to let loose on an outsider (someone who comes into a neighbourhood to grind an axe) because of his or her ethnicity. That said, if I had people attacking me by praising Jesus out front of my door I would tell them to fuck off too. I don't care where they come from. I take your point, but in terms of whether to act or not, I think it is a red herring. After all, it seems like these annoying people got several years to proselytize. It was clearly time for them to be given the bum's rush.

 

writer writer's picture

You don't take his point at all. The issue raised very clearly by Catchfire had nothing to do with whether to act or not. It has to do with the *traction* this action has. This *counterpoint* is the red herring.

6079_Smith_W

@ writer

Please explain what you mean, 'cause I'm not sure I understand (the friendly part)

and don't presume to tell me what I think. (the slightly offended part)

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Catchfire wrote:

Do you have room for irony in your fortress of self-righteousness, Timebandit? Or is everything as simple as racist/not-racist, evangelical/atheist? If not, back to your regular scheduled program: Ha ha. Stupid fundamentalists. They got theirs.

Sorry?

You're baiting and putting words in my mouth.  Of course nothing is that simple, nor have I implied that it was.  But I think the self-righteousness here is more yours than mine.  You seem pretty unwilling to give the benefit of the doubt or to explain much about where your assumption that these people = "hipsters" or that their motivations are anything other than irritation at the nuisance of having the gospel shouted at them.

You don't have to be atheist for that sort of thing to grate - not that I suggested anyone was atheist or not.  Spectre of your own creation, perhaps?

Cueball Cueball's picture

I thought the people in that video defended themselves quite well, and after a short debate the evangelicals also accorded them the respect they deserved by leaving.

Problem solved.

Unionist

I have two thoughts:

1. The posters in this thread, who are all on the same side of our struggle for justice and equality, should take a deep breath and apologize to each other.

2. Organized religion - and I mean every fucking single one of them (whew, sorry for shouting) - gives its adherents the crackpot delusion that they have a right and duty to bother other people - ignore other people - humiliate other people - dehumanize other people - butcher and rape and slaughter other people. Those in the ascendancy of political power just sometimes act a little more polite than others.

And no, religion is not the origin of the problem. Oppression and exploitation of people by people is. But my goodness, the fucking evil vicious "gods" people invent certainly come in handy when it comes to perpetuating that oppression.

Thanks for providing me with a forum where I can vent and tell the Truth.

 

6079_Smith_W

Oh Jesus Christ.

Frankly I thought only slightly about the race of the people involved when I first posted it, but I just went back and did a head count.

From what I can see, five of the annoying people are white, and six are not. Does that make a difference?

Had they pulled that shit outside of my house I would have still told them to fuck off.

writer writer's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ writer

Please explain what you mean, 'cause I'm not sure I understand (the friendly part)

and don't presume to tell me what I think. (the slightly offended part)

Sorry, not meaning to offend. I'm just surprised. You indicate that you "take [his] point" — a point I feel Catchfire himself made very clearly. You then seem to indicate that his point (which you seem to have missed entirely) "in terms of whether to act or not, I think it is a red herring." Well, you've missed the main point. Catchfire's main point has nothing to do with whether to act or not, though it raises questions about the dynamics at play in the act.

I think it best to let Catchfire explain:

- [W]hy [did] this need.. to be YouTubed at all?

- [W]hy [is it] lauded as heroic action[?]

- [W]hy [was it] picked up on fb pages, twitter feeds and here on babble?

- Jehovahs Witnesses, who are generally white, usually earn the disdain of folk preferring to be left alone, but I haven't seen any YouTube videos mentioned in new thread topics around here.

- I haven't heard of any neighbourhoods banding together and throwing them out (not that it doesn't happen, but it doesn't get circulated like this story did, all puffed up and, apparently, patently false).

... Again, what I see as his main point is that it is the *traction* of the action that Catchfire is flagging. Not the action itself. He writes:

I was questioning the presentation of this "story" as some sort of act of heroism on the part of the brook-no-nonsense neighbours who were "standing up" to, what, exactly? We don't know, but probably just some form of nuisance. Yet this act of banality circulates on liberal discussion boards and facebook pages as an example to activists everywhere. I simply think there's more at play than that.

He then writes, directly to you:

Did you videotape it, put it up on YouTube and distribute it to all your fb friends so they could admire your courage? Or did you just get on with your day?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

writer wrote:

You don't take his point at all. The issue raised very clearly by Catchfire had nothing to do with whether to act or not. It has to do with the *traction* this action has. This *counterpoint* is the red herring.

writer, here's where Catchfire started:

Catchfire wrote:

I wonder if the privileged white hipsters who were behind this courageous action would have been so courageous if the proselytizers weren't persons of colour who spoke with non-normative Canadian accents.

 

To me, this indicates that the residents actions and motivation, from speaking up to taking the video to posting it on Youtube are questioned in terms of race/ethnicity, not just the traction the video gained once it was posted.  Is that the reason for it gaining so much traction?  I couldn't say.  It's not impossible, but personally, I think it had more to do with antipathy toward being preached at against one's will.  Whatever, it's only an opinion and not a claim of infallibility.

If that's not what was intended, then I stand corrected - but that is how I read it.

Slumberjack

Still though, I'd probably fall back on my tried and true method of resolving situations such as this, as outlined at post #10 above.  Of course, I'd have to consult with the neighbors beforehand.

Slumberjack

Cueball wrote:
Like non-religious people are not homophobic, never deride gay people, use the word "faggot" or "gay" as a pejorative in casual conversation, or engage in gay bashing or oppose same sex marriage.

Yeah, but we rarely gather in groups for pep talks, or hand out pamphlets to emphasize all of those key elements in our program.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Unionist wrote:

I have two thoughts:

1. The posters in this thread, who are all on the same side of our struggle for justice and equality, should take a deep breath and apologize to each other.

2. Organized religion - and I mean every fucking single one of them (whew, sorry for shouting) - gives its adherents the crackpot delusion that they have a right and duty to bother other people - ignore other people - humiliate other people - dehumanize other people - butcher and rape and slaughter other people. Those in the ascendancy of political power just sometimes act a little more polite than others.

And no, religion is not the origin of the problem. Oppression and exploitation of people by people is. But my goodness, the fucking evil vicious "gods" people invent certainly come in handy when it comes to perpetuating that oppression.

Thanks for providing me with a forum where I can vent and tell the Truth.

 

Like non-religious people are not homophobic, never deride gay people, use the word "faggot" or "gay" as a pejorative in casual conversation, or engage in gay bashing or oppose same sex marriage. Fidel Castro once desfribed gayness as being a "bourgeois perversion". The reality is that people have a remarkable ability to find justifications for their prejudice and intollerance, even "sceince", so they can fulfill their desire to "humiliate other people - dehumanize other people - butcher and rape and slaughter other people".

Trying to pretend to yourself that this facility for justifying intollerance is peculiar to religious people is to delude yourself.

Slumberjack

Ahh, but Cueball, where does that conditioning predominately begin for the youngsters.  In the home I'd wager, and from there I'd also lay odds that the true origin of those thought processes can normally be found within a few blocks of most neighborhoods.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Really? Is that so? Indeed, I think that any openly gay person simply has to go to public school to be regularly derided by his peers regardless of their religious belief, on a daily basis. They merely have to sit in a coffee shop, and hear the term "faggot" and "gay" used in the pejorative negative on a regular basis.

I find, one of the most interesting things about being a white straight male, is how often all kinds of people will openly confess their bigotry against non-white, non-straight people.

Cueball Cueball's picture

There is no evidence that prejudice, or the outspoken expression of it is limited to religious people. That is my point.

Stargazer

I agree 100 percent with unionist. I abhor religion of all kinds.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Because they are often homophobic? Then you should hate all ideologies as well, because all ideologies have been used to justify opression of gay people at one time or another, and still are.

The Soviet Union, the most secular society in human history outlawed homosexuality in 1933 under article 121 -- punishable by 5 years in prison.

Pages

Topic locked