Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Homosexuality and bullying derail thread
Jason
God EmperorArrakis Moderator
This discussion was created from comments split from: Homosexuality and bullying.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
will go in the other direction. Robertson? Well he cannot say what he believes without
being fired -now that is real bullying. But Christians are frequently put down pretty hard
without no comparable recoil. Like slavery which is a horrible stain on man. The 14th amendment made us all equal under the law and we pretty much worked out our shortcomings-rightly so. But slavery is still extant in much of the Muslim world and even free women are treated like property. Where is the outrage? In China, most all of the people are in a state of virtual slavery.
What I'm saying is freedom of speech should flow in all directions. Fear (of Islam for instance) should not cause us to hold our tongue while we openly attack Christians because we know they will not strike back. Buddhists, like Christians also suffer from a one sided abuse. So, by all means speak up but speak up bravely and honestly and stand up for right conduct as you see it. Bow not that brave head.
but it is also unacceptable to persecute say Christians and Buddhists. I suspect the lack of horror at the persecution of Buddhists and Christians (especially Christians in this country) is that they have a moral code which they stand up for and the US press abhors anyone with a moral code. Pedefilers are not so bad once you get to know them-right?
So, it is okay to cheat, steal etc. but horror of horrors don't condemn anyone or you will not only get condemned you will get fired.
I am not a Christian and I have never watched Duck dynasty-don't watch any nasty soap operas, but if you two socialists want to stand up for people who knowingly hurt others-like Lenin, but rail against anyone brave enough to complain. Well go right ahead. Buddhism is the science of causes and conditions-GS Buddha. If you create evil conditions in your life you will experience evil conditions in your life. So, go ahead and condemn me.
I'm up for it. Be brave. stand up and say what you see to be right. That is your karma.
I am certainly going to continue to follow my advice.
Although the US government is a secular institution, and the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli states that the US "is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," it can't be denied that our nation, and the culture that shaped it, was predominately Western European and heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs and values. All the founders were of Western European ancestry, and most were Christians and/or Deists, and Christianity itself has played a major role in American history since the arrival of the first English settlers in the early 1600s.
Christianity has dominated modern American politics for decades, as well. For example, the bill that legally establishes the National Day of Prayer was a blatant attack on atheists and political free speech, as evidenced by Sen. Absalom Robertson's (Pat Robertson's father) comment when introducing the bill in the Senate in 1952 as a measure against "the corrosive forces of communism which seek simultaneously to destroy our democratic way of life and the faith in an Almighty God on which it is based."
It should also come as no surprise that the Fellowship, also known as the Family, is one of the most well-connected and politically powerful organizations in the US. And then there's the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, Moral Majority, and a host of other influential Christian organizations that are also involved in national politics and seeking to push religiously-based political agendas. Being atheist is damn near political suicide in this country.
And as we speak, many conservative Christians are 'bullying' Muslims, the LGBT community, and women, both at the pulpit and in state legislatures.
So what do you want. Is this a Promote Islam and Socialism site or is this a Buddhist site? I would like to know what you think.
Getting rid of him will cost them greatly-of course. Touting the opposite is just ill informed. They will probably have him back soon or lose millions of watchers.
It is their political philosophy that caused this A and E, I mean. Just as it is your political philosophy and not your Buddhist philosophy which is promoting your bullying of me.
OK by me but let's get everything out in the open.
I am standing up because that is what I was taught is part of the first Paramita.
The Buddha didn't teach Socialism or Buddhism. How come you are doing so on the Buddhist site. If you deny this it is a simple matter to look at the dozens of comments which do just that. Seems like a perversion of Buddhism to me. Therefore a violation of the first Paramita which enjoins us to correct wrong teachings.
As for the rest, it's true that my political beliefs influence my spiritual beliefs and vice versa, but I've never said that the Buddha taught socialism. That's what they call a straw man.
The bullying comes in when you follow me around on other threads and two or more agree to disagree with something that was really not very disagreeable. Since you are continuing I will break this off for now. I will provide the quotes I promised. about the Treatment of women in Islam and the Slavery like treatment of citizens in China. Isn't that the real problem you have with me? You haven't said a thing about my Buddhist comments.
I have been pretty much sticking to the threads and promoting Buddhism. It's true I don't agree with slavery or mass murder and don't think Lenin was a Bohdisattva.
I will endeavor to make my point with quotes from now on. Of course you can simply remove me. I will understand.
This might be one of those situations where you see something not intended. I'll speak for myself, I don't see 'bullying' happening here; that said, I'm totally willing to see it if it is there, and the heat in your reaction (and possibly the pain in it) are important to recognize and care about.
I think you bring up a good point, about free speech going both ways. It's where you go with the next consecutive idea that is not logical to me, anyway.
I haven't seen the actual Phil Robertson idiocy in action, I am constitutionally incapable of watching a TV show that glorifies fooling ducks so you can kill them easier. But the internet is atwitter, and since I have Facebook, the feed is has educated me far beyond my intelligence about what Phil Robertson said and all the political and media drama around it. Whether or not one believes in a Kingdom to inherit, or what's a sin and what isn't, the condemnation of a group of people is very painful. Add to that my daughter, married to another woman who was born male and my nephew, who was born female, not to mention countless friends over the years, I am witness to the pain and psychological damage inflicted.
Phil Robertson's "Christianity" is NOT THE POINT, and is only relevant as an excuse for his hateful words. He's not an idiot because he's a Christian; he's an idiot because he gives himself permission to say what he did KNOWING FULL WELL what our media would do with it, how the public would respond, and how many people would feel that all-to-familiar stab of rejection.
I get what you mean about 'neither should Christians (et al) be bullied/censored/silenced'. Absolutely, they should not be. I agree with you that *most* folks ranting and raving at Phil Robertson are saying disgusting things and behaving just exactly like what they are complaining about. They are blind to it, and when you point it out to them, you'll get both barrels aimed at YOU.
Anyway . . . this kind of event is great for the purposes of exposing oneself to oneself, you know? Anyone feeling personally singled out in this little debate going on here will do themselves a favor by loosening their grip on their position. It's a learning experience, not a soapbox or some 'who's right' competition.
Gassho
Similar things are usually put in the contracts of public school educators, as well.
There was an interesting article on Politico just the other day about atheism being one of the last minefields for politicians running for office.
Focus On The Family is headquartered here in Colorado Springs, a few miles from where I live. At least locally, they have become pretty quiet. Thank goodness. And ironically -- although probably not accidentally -- right next to the sign along the interstate for Focus On The Family is another sign that the local LGBT group cleans up along that section of the highway.
I seriously hope that you're not comparing gay people to pedophiles, because that'll most certainly result in 'being fired.'
No I was pointing out that to the main stream press which has swung so far awry, pedefilers (note the spelling) are not as bad as Christians who stand up for their moral code. Not nearly so bad.
And as we speak, many conservative Christians are 'bullying' Muslims, the LGBT community, and women, both at the pulpit and in state legislatures.
You think so, you should try living in Iran. Homosexuals are hung, Women are property, and Christians are murdered. Your standards are so inconsistent they are laughable. America is probably the most enlightened country in the world on those subjects. Let me hear you say that Lenin wasn't A Bodhi or that Islam should reform their atrocities. You whine here where you are safe from persecution or obviously even censure as Mr. Robertson just proved. This is not courage you are showing you and Betaboy and...are simply censuring the guy who is saying this is a Buddhist site and shouldn't be perverted into a forum for moral stupidity. By censure I mean: You and Betaboy come onto a thread where you have not made any comments and immediately following my comment you both agree that I was off topic. Well the thread is still there it was called. Homosexuality and bullying by riverflow.
People in other countries don't know how different things are here-how free and safe.
They hear this constant laughably twisted rancor and they think it somehow reflects the truth on the ground. It doesn't. You Can't compare America to any Muslim country or any Socialist country. From now on I will provide quotes from reputable sources. No need to take my word.
And his views about socialism -- which I disagree with vehemently -- have nothing at all to do with this thread. You are simply trying to confuse the issue by throwing everything you can at the person with whom you are debating, and hoping that something sticks.
Also, who's censuring who? I'm not censuring you, I'm disagreeing with you. There's a difference. You don't seem to realize that you're doing exactly what you accuse me off, i.e., every time I disagree with you, you accuse me of bullying you, as if I spend all day following you around this site just to harass you, never mind all the other threads you've commented on that I haven't. The truth is, you don't want me to disagree with you or debate you; you either want me to agree with your views or say nothing. I, on the other hand, am simply trying to have a lively discussion.
:om:
I have to strongly disagree with that ^.
There is no disgrace in not tolerating those who bully, shame or hate others.
To equate someone "fighting against" those who promote and/or speak hate and injustice to the very haters themselves- is unfair and frankly, ridiculous.
Personally, I don't "hate" anyone.
But I can certainly say in all honestly that there are some people I don't like because I despise their ACTIONS and BULLYING of others.
And yes! I will speak out. I will call them on it.
I will defend those who are bullied and treated unfairly and denied respect and civil rights.
It doesn't matter to me one freakin' bit if someone's bigotry and bullying is rooted in their "Christianity" - or any other religion. If that is the case, then there is something inherently wrong with that religion!
It is far too easy to blur the line between the doer, and the action. The thing is, when we hate people, we are keeping the momentum of hatred towards people going. We are of the same mind as a person who commits these atrocities. They too hate their victims. They too are indifferent to their plight.
Hate for fellow beings is at the root of all of the behaviors we abhor, but we insist that hatred for fellow beings is the antidote. The antidote, in Buddhist teachings, is compassion. I have found this to be true.
"It's harmful to support the demonization of LBGT..." -- "LOOK!! Slavery in China!"
:orange:
Phil Robertson lives in the United States, not Iran, nor China.
Being criticized for ideas one endorses is hardly the same thing as being demonized for who you are. I can choose my beliefs. I cannot choose my sex, my race, my sexual orientation.
Phil Robertson is fair game (pun intended) because he's a public figure who made a public statement. Any public figure who openly states an opinion is going to open a floodgate of criticism, both pro and con. No government is telling him he can't promote his bigotry. But the people he works for do have the right (via the contract he signed with them) to suspend him. This isn't complicated.
I didn't know I knew so many people-- friends too-- who are full of murder, envy, strife, hatred, insolent, arrogant, God-haters, heartless, faithless, senseless, ruthless-- and that they invent ways of doing evil.
Those are Phil Robertson's words:
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/duck-dynasty-phil-robertsons-quotes-gq-interview/story?id=21278832
That's hardly the same thing as saying "I think your beliefs are untenable and/or harmful."
It disturbs me that there are a lot of people (many whom I know personally) who don't see the distinction.
Not too long ago, the kinds of comments made by Patterson would either be vocally supported or else quietly accepted by the vast majority of the population. Few would have dared to challenge them for fear of being 'pro-gay,' which is why I'm glad that there are now so many voice willing to denounce such hateful ideas, ideas that have made being anything other than 'not straight' extremely difficult, and not so long ago, even criminal. What appears to you as bullying is really just a changing societal attitude.
Moreover, his words and the things they have justified over the years are every much as bullying as the public outcry over those words, even more so, in my opinion. Sadly, people have been conditioned for a long, long time to only accept certain gender stereotypes as being socially acceptable, which has made it hard for a lot of people to express themselves or be who they want to be without being ridiculed, marginalized, or the victims of violence. But I definitely think those kinds of attitudes are changing, especially with younger generations being more accepting and open about these kinds of things.
I'll also admit that I'm questioning my previous belief that all speech, including hate speech, should be tolerated. It's interesting to note, for example, that despite the First Amendment, free speech is already limited under our current bourgeois political form by things like the fighting words doctrine, which, established by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, holds that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
Even though subsequent Supreme Court rulings have since narrowed what's considered 'fighting words' (e.g., Street v. New York, Cohen v. California, etc.), and concluded that "the mere abstract teaching of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action" (Brandenburg v. Ohio), it can't be ignored that a constitutional line has been drawn between free speech and non-protected speech, e.g., speech that's intended to, and will likely cause, immediate breach of the peace (acts of violence). And I think that advocates of censorship, at least in certain instances, have more ground to stand on, intellectually as well as legally, than many free-speech advocate are willing to admit.
The real question, in my opinion, is whether this is due to the vagueness of the line drawn by the Supreme Court or some kind of inherent weakness in the institution of constitutionally protected free speech itself. In other words, is there an inherently repressive aspect to liberal ideas of, and basis for, free speech rights (as some coming from a Marxist perspective might argue, for example), or is this repressiveness (i.e., grounds for censorship) simply due to conflicts in the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment?
Or even more provocatively, does America's institution of free speech allow dominant ideas and forms of expression (i.e., those sanctioned by the state and/or ruling class) to create a background in which progressive (or one could even say radical) ideas are limited "even before the courts create whatever explicit limitations they devise," as the authors of Codes of Silence suggest Herbert Marcuse argues in Repressive Tolerance?
To phrase it yet another way and add another dimension to the discussion, does censorship = (or lead to) freedom in certain contexts, or is this simply Orwellian doublespeak for a possibly well-meaning but ultimately repressive attitude towards tolerance? Should tolerance extend to all things equally (as some die-hard free-speech advocates would argue), or should a distinction be made between what Marcuse called "liberating tolerance," which enlarges "the range and content of freedom" and is "intolerant toward the protagonists of the repressive status quo," and "indiscriminate [or repressive] tolerance," which, under the current societal structure, allows "the expression of 'false words and wrong deeds' to work against the attainment of 'liberation' and of true 'freedom and happiness'" and becomes "an instrument for the continuation of servitude" by those in power?
To use an extreme example, take the Nazi's racist ideology, which made being Jewish dangerous and ultimately a death sentence in Germany: Should their expression of anti-Semitism be defended on free speech grounds, or would it better (and more moral) to oppose and actively attempt to suppress such ideas? Should Hitler's Mein Kampf be defended, or should it, too, be opposed and suppressed, or at the very least, strongly denounced?
In essence, does being unequivocally pro-free speech mean sometimes being placed in a seemingly contradictory position, such as defending the Nazi's right to promote their racist ideology and rhetoric of violence against the Jews, which helped turn German society against Jews and make the Holocaust possible, while at the same time supporting military violence against them for the consequences that arose out of supporting a situation where such ideas became dominant in the first place?
A legitimate question emerges, I think: Is it ever justifiable (at least in certain situations) to suppress free speech, or should we always be tolerant of everything? For me, it's still an open question, but I'm definitely leaning more towards the position that certain kinds of speech should be suppressed. Is speech that oppresses really free? Free for whom? The oppressed or the oppressor?
But what kind of 'suppression'? That's the crux of the issue. In this case, for example, I don't think Patterson should be forcibly prevented from speaking his mind. I don't think he should be jailed or physically attacked. But I do think, and fully support, people speaking out against the things he's said, loudly, publicly, and ridiculingly. It should be noted that these ideas have formed the basis for the oppression and discrimination of the LGBT community for hundreds of years, and I think it's about time we stopped passively tolerating them. And our voices helping do just that.
Some random thoughts:
To me, on the face of it, conceptually it's reasonable to occasionally restrict free speech. But when you get down to specific cases, once you open the door to restriction, do you then begin to restrict evolutionary societal improvements by the same mechanism. Once you have the power to restrict, that power will be abused.
For example, if you can restrict people from speaking out about the gay life style, then the same people in control can restrict people from speaking out in favor of allowing the gay life style. This has actually been demonstrated very well -- oddly enough -- by FOX News commentators who alternately want to restrict or protect freedom of speech, depending on who is saying what.
There was an interesting legal case in the education field some years back. And it had to do with the wearing of t-shirts with a message. And, sometimes students were suspended for wearing t-shirts (or other clothing) with a message that was deemed as being disruptive to the learning environment. Traditionally, courts have given public schools wide leeway in defining such issues (and other issues, as well). But this time the courts restricted schools' actions in such cases by saying that you can't base such a suspension on such a t-shirt message could be disruptive to the learning environment; you have to be able to show that it was actually disruptive to the learning environment. And my point here is that depending on who is "in charge", the restriction on rights can swing different ways...and that is a risk to freedom.
I don't have a problem with someone speaking out against the gay life style. I believe it's their right, even when I find it insulting. What I have a problem with is someone speaking out against the gay life style and attempting to abridge a gay person's rights while doing so. Saying, "I believe that homosexuality is immoral", is fine with me. Saying, "I believe that homosexuality is immoral and it should be illegal for gay people to be teachers", is not all right with me.
I do think that as a society we need to return to a more restrictive definition of bullying, and this came up in our school every once in a while. For example, we've evolved from bullying (in my childhood) as being defined as physical bullying, to today bullying defined as saying something unpleasant. For example, the parent who came to my office complaining because her daughter was being "bullied" because another child said, "I don't like you." Or another time when a parent had a similar complaint because a group of girls chose to associate with other children, but not her daughter. Unpleasantness does not equal bullying.
I remember watching Welcome to the Dollhouse in horror because, while the main character was a girl, I remembered many incidents very similar to it in my own school days.
In the march towards a more egalitarian society (a progressive march that's arguably presupposed by the underlying philosophy of our country's founding contained in the following line from the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"), things in society (including attitudes) which restrict the freedoms and rights of segments of the population must eventually give way. Heh, I was one of those kids. But you make a good point. There's no perfect system, and everyone's fighting for what they think is right. But in this case, the rhetoric and attempts to abridge a segment of society's rights often go hand-in-hand (not to mention fostering a culture of violence against said segment of the population); and people in very high positions (e.g., many prominent legislators, Supreme Court Justices like Anthony Scalia, etc.) often utilize these very same religious prejudices to justify restrictive and arguably discriminatory laws, so there's not always as sharp of a dividing line between speech and its consequences as we may like. And as I said, things which restrict the freedoms and rights of segments of the population must eventually give way.
He can build his own soapbox, nobody is stopping him. Of course, others may want to voice their opposition to such views and they have the same right.
For example: Martin Bashir likewise was fired from MSNBC for his unprofessional comments regarding Sarah Palin. That was just a couple weeks ago. Sarah Palin, without noticing the irony, has gotten upset about A&E's mere suspension (not firing) of Robertson.
(1) To claim Phil Robertson's (or Martin Bashir's) right to free speech is being curtailed shows a lack of understanding basic civics
and
(2) The discussion of free speech in this context is pure distraction from the issue at hand here.
I think most supporters of Robertson aren't stupid-- they know this really isn't a free speech issue. So if they are defending Phil Robertson, what exactly is it they are defending?
If somebody wants the right to be intolerant, they must recognize others right not to tolerate them, plain and simple.
Bye-bye Robertson.
Why bring up Iran? We're not talking about Iran, and I never compared Iran to the US. You're the one who brought that up. I was talking about Muslims in the US, but now that you mention it, the ones we're killing in Afghanistan, Yemen, etc. also qualify.
I said I am going to answer with quotes. When I defended the Buddhists in Burma (Wiartha?) There were objections of smearing Muslims. I am saying why keep so busy attacking America when there is real evil in the world which you apparently don't mind. Here is the quote. Next I am going to show quotes of Socialist slave state activities.
-------
from The Mail:
Gays should be tortured and hanged, says Iranian minister meeting British MPs
Homosexuals deserve to be tortured and executed an Iranian leader told British MPs during a private meeting at a peace conference, it emerged today.
Mohsen Yahyavi is the highest-ranked politician to admit that Iran believes in the death penalty for homosexuality following recent reports that gay youths were being hanged.
President Ahmadinejad, questioned by students in New York two months ago about the executions, dodged the issue by suggesting that there were no gays in his country.
Scroll down for more...
{3}
The apparent executions, including those of two underage boys whose public hanging was posted on the internet, has alarmed human rights campaigners.
Gay rights groups in Britain, such as Outrage!, accuse Iran of cloaking executions for homosexuality with bogus charges for more serious crimes.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, the FCO released papers to The Times about the death penalty being used in Iran for homosexuality, adultery and sex outside marriage.
Minutes taken by an official describe a meeting between British and Iranian MPs at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, a peace body, in May.
When the Britons raised the hangings of Asqari and Marhouni, the leader of the Iranian delegation, Mr Yahyavi, a member of his parliament's energy committee, was unflinching.
He explained that according to Islam gays and lesbianism were not permitted, the record states.
------------
Legal status[edit]
Since the 1979 Iranian revolution, the legal code has been based on Islamic Shari'a law. All sexual relations that occur outside a traditional, heterosexual marriage (i.e. sodomy or adultery) are illegal and no legal distinction is made between consensual or non-consensual sodomy. Homosexual relations that occur between consenting adults in private are a crime and carry a maximum punishment of death (though not generally implemented) Forced homosexual relations (rape) often results in execution. The death penalty is legal for those above 18, and if a murder was committed, legal at the age of 15. (see Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni whose ages were raised to 19 in court transcripts). Approved by the Iranian Parliament on July 30, 1991 and finally ratified by the Guardian Council on November 28, 1991, articles 108 through 140 distinctly talk about homosexuality and its punishments in detail:[citation needed]
Male homosexuality[edit]
Sodomy (lavat) can in certain circumstances be a crime for which both partners can in theory be punished by death. If the participants are adults, of sound mind and consenting; the method of execution is for the judge to decide. If one person is non-consenting (ex. a rape), the punishment would only apply to the rapist. A non-adult who engages in consensual sodomy is subject to a punishment of 74 lashes. (Articles 108 to 113) Sodomy is proved either if a person confesses four times to having committed sodomy or by the testimony of four righteous men. Testimony of women alone or together with a man does not prove sodomy, not out of any prejudice toward women, but to narrow down the list of possible death sentences handed down. (Articles 114 to 119). "If sodomy, or the lesser crimes referred to above, are proved by confession, and the person concerned repents, the Shari'a judge may request that he be pardoned. If a person who has committed the lesser crimes referred to above repents before the giving of testimony by the witnesses, the punishment is quashed. (Articles 125 and 126). The judge may punish the person for lesser crimes at his discretion.
Female homosexuality[edit]
The punishment for lesbianism (mosahegheh) involving persons who are mature, of sound mind, and consenting, is 50 lashes. If the act is repeated three times and punishment is enforced each time, the death sentence will apply on the fourth occasion. (Articles 127, 129, 130) The ways of proving lesbianism in court are the same as for male homosexuality. (Article 128) Non-Muslim and Muslim alike are subject to punishment (Article 130) The rules for the quashing of sentences, or for pardoning, are the same as for the lesser male homosexual offences (Articles 132 and 133) Women who "stand naked under one cover without necessity" and are not relatives may receive a punishment of 50 lashes. (Article 134)
Application of laws[edit]
At the discretion of the Iranian court, fines, prison sentences, and corporal punishment are usually carried out rather than the death penalty (unless the crime was a rape).
The charges of homosexuality and Lavat (sodomy) have in a few occasions been used in political crimes. Other charges are had been paired with the Lavat crime, such as rape or acts against the state, and convictions are obtained in grossly flawed trials. On March 14, 1994, famous dissident writer Ali Akbar Saidi Sirjani was charged with offenses ranging from drug dealing to espionage to homosexuality. He died in prison under mysterious circumstances.[15]
Capital punishment[edit]
Main article: Capital punishment in Iran
According to The Boroumand Foundation,[16] there are records of at least 107 executions with charges related to homosexuality between 1979 and 1990.[17] According to Amnesty International, at least 5 people convicted of "homosexual tendencies", three men and two women, were executed in January 1990, as a result of the Iranian government's policy of calling for the execution of those who practice homosexuality.[18] In April 1992, Dr. Ali Mozafarian, a Sunni Muslim leader in the Fars province (Southern Iran), was executed in Shiraz after being convicted on charges of espionage, adultery, and sodomy. His videotaped confession was broadcast on television in Shiraz and in the streets of Kazerun and Lar.
On November 12, 1995, by the verdict of the eighth judicial branch of Hamadan and the confirmation of the Supreme Court of Iran, Mehdi Barazandeh, otherwise known as Safa Ali Shah Hamadani, was condemned to death. The judicial authorities announced that Barazandeh's crimes were repeated acts of adultery and "the obscene act of sodomy." The court's decree was carried out by stoning Barazandeh. Barazandeh belonged to the Khaksarieh Sect of Dervishes. (Islamic Republic Newspaper – November 14, 1995 + reported in Homan's magazine June 10, 1996).
In a November 2007 meeting with his British counterpart, Iranian member of parliament Mohsen Yahyavi admitted that Iran believes in the death penalty for homosexuality. According to Yahyavi, gays deserve to be tortured, executed, or both.[19]
On March 15, 2005, the daily newspaper Etemaad reported that the Tehran Criminal Court sentenced two men to death following the discovery of a video showing them engaged in homosexual acts. Another two men were allegedly hanged publicly in the northern town of Gorgan for sodomy in November 2005.[20] In July 2006 two youths were hanged for "sex crimes" in north-eastern Iran, probably consensual homosexual acts.[1] On November 16, 2006, the State-run news agency reported the public execution of man convicted of sodomy in the western city of Kermanshah.[21]
----------------
Why defend Islam and condemn America? Straining at a gnat seems like an agenda
other than Buddhist discussion. here is another. I'm just saying being even handed is part of Buddhist conduct.
-----------------
If you need an excuse not to deride a particular religion, this understanding is certainly a good one...you can't accurately hate something that is in such a constant flux and is vastly varied across people, cities, countries, continents.
In my support of the Burmese Buddhists I may have upset some on this site. Things have grown from there. I certainly don't hate Muslims. Destruction of other people or religions is something I do hate and that is what I am speaking out against. That is part of the first Paramita and my duty as I see it. The quotes are pertinent to another thread on persecution of Homosexuals in America. My view that America doesn't really persecute Homosexuals relatively speaking and that we should tried to be balanced. I think the idea is "Don't use the perfect as an enemy of the good. America is pretty unprejudiced. Probably the most unprejudiced nation in the world. QED my quotes.
But of course, to think that all the people "fighting against", never hate the ones they are fighting against, is not actually true. It's obvious there is hate on both sides. There are many people that do hate the people they are fighting against.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims_in_Burma
The final paragraph is particularly chilling. It says that boatloads of Muslim refugees have been towed to sea by the Thai authorities and cast adrift.
I would also like to say that the American justice system is not exactly envied by the rest of the developed world.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/incarceration-rate-per-capita_n_3745291.html
http://deathpenaltyusa.org/usa/date/2013.htm
This thread, however, which is already a derail from the OP, isn't about defending Islam or condemning America, it's about the treatment of gays in the US. Maybe you should try sticking to it rather than making even more irrelevant comments.