LGBT issues and morality

[Top Cats Hat]

15 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

They're a champion of both but in some cases they're incompatible.

The left don’t champion any religion as they see all of them as reactionary and anti-working class.

[WiseOwl182]

29 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

The left don’t champion any religion as they see all of them as reactionary and anti-working class.

They do. As long as the religion isn't Christianity or Judaism.

[Top Cats Hat]

36 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

They do. As long as the religion isn't Christianity or Judaism.

Really? Let's see some evidence then.

 

Every single left wing socialist that I have ever met has not only been an atheist but has also been opposed to every religion given that they are all right wing, reactionary and anti-working class which prop up the rich and powerful. You can't believe in equality and then support a philosophy which has inequality at its heart.

 

Let us not forget what Lenin said.

[Halibut]

10 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

This issue highlights the incredible juxtaposition the left find themselves in. LGBTQ+abcdefg rights Vs Any religion other than Christianity. They're a champion of both but in some cases they're incompatible.

Bit a bizarre piece of thinking.

[janie48]

14 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Really? Let's see some evidence then.

 

Every single left wing socialist that I have ever met has not only been an atheist but has also been opposed to every religion given that they are all right wing, reactionary and anti-working class which prop up the rich and powerful. You can't believe in equality and then support a philosophy which has inequality at its heart.

 

Let us not forget what Lenin said.

You need to get some of your facts right. 

 

Plenty of religious people are socialists and some would be considered left-wing, and that position has applied since the foundation of the early Labour Party, when so many Labour  Party politicians and supporters of the party were practicing Christians.

 

Lenin was a Communist, there's a difference. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by janie48

[Top Cats Hat]

29 minutes ago, janie48 said:

 the early Labour Party, when so many Labour  Party politicians and supporters of the party were practicing Christians.

 

Lenin was a Communist, there's a difference. 

Those were very different times. Many early socialists in the Labour movement even believed in the monarchy despite the position being illogical.

 

I  don’t know a single socialist who would call themselves left wing who sees religion as anything other than a useful tool to keep people in their place.

 

Most of them would defend a person’s right to believe what they choose, however deluded, but they certainly would never ‘champion’ any religion as the poster was trying to claim.

[Cyclone]

On 30/03/2019 at 18:24, K1Machine said:

Is it morally right to teach kids that some people are gay and have relationships?

Its a no brainer, of course it is. It should be taught along side traditional relationships in schools.

Should it be from the age of 5?

No, not really. Let kids be kids and start teaching them about relationships/sex when they are mature enough to process this kind of information. Id say 10 years old upwards.

You've lost me. What's funny?

They aren't teaching them about sex though, they're teaching them about inclusivity.

On 30/03/2019 at 21:00, Penistone999 said:

No, it is not right to teach LGBT issues in schools , no matter what age the children are . The same as it is not right to teach any form of religion in school. If parents want to speak to their kids about these issues at home, then fair enough, but it should not be force fed children in schools. 

 

I agree with those parents in Brimingham on this issue. 

Teaching children ABOUT religion is very different to teaching them to follow a religion.  It's entirely appropriate that schools teach children about religion and about the various forms that families exist in.

[Cyclone]

16 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

They do. As long as the religion isn't Christianity or Judaism.

They don't.  They support religious freedom and feel obliged to argue against those who stereotype entire religions.

It's entirely consistent to believe that all religions are nonsense and ultimately harmful, whilst also supporting freedom of religion and arguing against reactionary anti-xxx elements (be that anti-christian, anti-muslim, anti-shintoist or whatever).

[janie48]

1 hour ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Those were very different times. Many early socialists in the Labour movement even believed in the monarchy despite the position being illogical.

 

I  don’t know a single socialist who would call themselves left wing who sees religion as anything other than a useful tool to keep people in their place.

 

Most of them would defend a person’s right to believe what they choose, however deluded, but they certainly would never ‘champion’ any religion as the poster was trying to claim.

What was so different?  the Labour Party hasn't changed that  much over the years. 

 

And what about the Christian Left movement, some attached to the Labour Party. 

 

It irratates me the way people generalise religous groups, when the truth is people of all beliefs or none have different political affiliations. 

 

You can be a monarchist and still have some socialist values, and you can be religious and still have some issues of difference with  the religion you follow. 

[Top Cats Hat]

16 minutes ago, janie48 said:

You can be a monarchist and still have some socialist values, 

I think George Orwell dealt with that definition of equality in Animal Farm!