Gays don't go to Heaven

[Steve T.]

I realize that this is an old topic, but I hope no one minds if I resurrect it.  

I remember reading the "Joe-My-God" article about Steve King.  Personally, I think he's a buffoon who doesn't belong in Congress.  He's an embarrassment to the state of Iowa and he does nothing but drag down the, at present, meager reputation of Congress as a whole.  Ted Yoho from Florida and Minnesota's former representative, Michelle Bachmann also fit into that category.

I am a gladly lapsed Catholic.  In fact, at this point in my life, I have no use for organized religion at all.  I believe the harm religions have caused far outweigh any benefits they provide.  I'm not sure that I'd call myself an atheist, but I doubt that there even IS a "heaven."  It boggles my mind that some folks NEED the promise of a reward (heaven) or eternal punishment (hell) in order to be a good person.  I just do not buy the claim by some that ALL morality comes from religion, and that atheists are incapable of establishing a sense of morality without some guy in a goofy hat telling them what to do.  So, Steve King may be right.  There may be no gays in heaven.  But there won't be anyone else there either since it doesn't exist.  I'd like to believe that where we are right now is our heaven or hell, depending on what we make of it.

As for Republicans, the last one I voted for was Reagan, but in my defense, I was young and my votes reflected the "guidance" I was getting from those around me.  It wasn't until I was in the Army, and experiencing the world outside my little piece of the planet, that I started to see things from a different perspective.  I started to realize that Republican policies of enriching the wealthy, which would then benefit the rest of us, were nothing but a horrible fallacy.  It was a lie in the 1980's, and it's still a lie now, 35 years later.  The only vote I've ever cast that I regretted was the second one for Reagan.  

Several posters here have stated that they are Republicans but they don't accept the "rap" they get about being anti-gay or racist.  That may very well be true, and I applaud your open-minded positions, but those elected officials, and those R's running for office very often do.  As someone who is looking at the Republican party from the outside, those seem to be the folks who are currently running the party, namely Tea Party "patriots" and Evangelical Christians.  I think these people have WAY too much power, and the party, as a whole, will not recover until they lose the bulk of this influence.  I believe Eric Aune said much the same thing.  But, these people seem to be in charge, and one look at the Republican party platform for the last few election cycles proves not only their opposition to gay rights, but their animus toward the LGBT community as a whole.  Some of you folks here may not hold those biased views, but those you vote for, in fact, do.

Some Republicans will say that just because they want to "protect traditional marriage" doesn't mean that they're anti-gay.  Well, yes it does.  The result is the same.  By fighting against gays and lesbians realizing all of the benefits and responsibilities of marriage, they are sentencing them, and their families, to a second class citizenship.  And this resistence mostly seems to stem from a few lines in a book that has been translated and "interpreted" (read bastardized) multiple times to fit the ideology of men in the search for power.  The word "homosexual" didn't even exist until the 1870's when it was coined by, I believe, a German psychiatrist or psychologist.  I recently had a "discussion" with a religious zealot who was steadfast in his assertion that the word appears in his King James version of the bible which he says was written in 1671.  How could a word that didn't exist appear in something written 200 years prior to its coming into existence?  So, if this bible has been manipulated to serve someone else's agenda, isn't it possible that nothing in there should be taken as the literal word of "God?"

And that brings us back to the Republicans.  This current gaggle of Republican presidential "contenders" is chock full of zealots and theocrats who slyly imply that they would govern not by the secular documents that founded this country, but by that book of questionable heritage.

I hope I've not offended anyone as that is not my intention, but I would welcome any comments.

[denis_p]

  (clap)    

[D'Artagnon]

I have to be a bit honest here.  I don't want to go to heaven.  Every visual depiction or written description of it seems to be mostly about clouds, laying about doing nothing, gentle harp music and broad stroke pastel colors.  And while I do like the works of the impressionists, everything being pure light and pure cloud and pure tone (musical) seems enormously boring.  Experience isn't all comatose and peaceful.  My afterlife needs to have some excitement, some motion, some music with balls and power (yes, even classical).

 

Granted, depictions of hell aren't all Club Med, despite some of the activities directors shown.  I just find it hard to believe that anyone who's been to one or both of those places would come back with travel brochures.  Which makes you wonder, are the heaven and hell references in the bible (few that they are by comparison to the rest of the text) placed there to inspire with peace or threaten with fear in order to make people who don't "enjoy" thinking for themselves fall into line, do as told.

 

Religion should be a comfort in times of pain, a balm to those in need and an affirmation of what it means to be human.  And some religions people do espouse the virtues of compassion, charity and acceptance.  My mother comes to mind.  Sadly, organized religion has been turned into a method of division, control, a method of acquiring massive wealth, and a reason to carry out atrocities of epic scale.  And I don't single out just Christians and Muslims in this.  Romans and Greeks have done it.  There is evidence that the Egyptians did so.  The Persians were known for it.  My understanding of Eastern religions is not as complete as this analogy would require, but it would not surprise me to learn the same happened there as well.

 

So, yeah, I don't think gays go to "Heaven" nor do we jump the express freight elevator to "Hell" either.  More likely, we go to places like Provincetown, Massachusetts, or San Fransisco or South Beach Miami.  Maybe to the Caribbean.  Possibly to the Greek Isles.

 

I wont get started on politics, but the religion thing... yeah, I'm pretty much done with it.  Unless someone wants to make a new one that embraces humanity as being sacred and precious, encourages diversity and honors the dignity of folks no matter who they love/sleep with.  In that case, sign me up.

[Steve T.]

 ...but the religion thing... yeah, I'm pretty much done with it.  Unless someone wants to make a new one that embraces humanity as being sacred and precious, encourages diversity and honors the dignity of folks no matter who they love/sleep with.  In that case, sign me up.

 

Damn!  Wouldn't that be something?  I might even give it another go if I could find a religion like that.

[D'Artagnon]

Closest ancient religious practices I think I could go with would be the Apollonians, who worshiped Apollo, god of the sun, he who brought culture to man, and Eros, the Greek god of love and young warriors, they who strive mightily against great odds.  Of course, I could go for some Baccus and Pan action too, lol