Sports Qatar 2022 World Cup

[Matski]

Ok so explain this to me.

If a country has a state religion, and that religion like Christianity prohibits homosexuality, where are they supposed to go from there?

Leave their beliefs to align with the modern world ? Do you understand how deeply routed the belief is in god for some people?

They should just for the sake of not being labeled homophobic just forgo all their beliefs ?

Similar to some priests in Sweden who agree to wed homosexual couples in the church…

Believe me I don’t want to keep any homosexuals from the wonders of marriage, but what kind of priest are you if you wed homosexual couples inside the church ?

Do you even understand the religion you claim to believe in / represent ?

Is everything up for debate now ? There are no set principles anymore ?

This is exactly why States should be secular. Having an official religion doesn't require the country to enshrine the teachings in law. The two things shouldn't be at odds. Qatar is non-secular. The UK's 'official' religion is Christianity, but we're a largely secular state.

It is wrong for Qatar to limit peoples freedoms in this manner solely because their religion says so. I'll be blunt - I don't think religion has any place in modern society at all. But the freedom to practice a religion (within secular laws) is as important as peoples freedom to be in a same sex relationship.

Accepting that religious interference in state law is wrong, it's a far better question how people rationalise it for themselves, or within the religious institutions, if they are believers and adherents.

A priest should absolutely have the right to decline to marry a same sex couple if it goes against the religion they represent. However, a non-religious marriage should be recognised at exactly the same level as a religious ones with no legal or statutory differences. If the adherent of that religion finds themselves being refused a religious ceremony because that ceremony goes against that religion - then really that person should be asking deeper questions about their belief.

Law defines peoples freedoms and liberties, religion should only offer guidance that a person can totally ignore.

Dude, all I said that was that the Infographics video implied that Qatar is a homophobic country, don't get mad at me. Get mad at the producers of that video. Go on and hit that dislike button on their video on Youtube.

Huh? Qatar may actually execute someone for having same sex intercourse, how the actual f#ck is that not homophobic?

 

[dalab]

States should be secular

My country is secular since it was founded (200+ years) and we have done very well like this, the interference of the church is obviously there but it does not decide anything, the majority professes Christianity, Christmas is the most celebrated celebration, but it is called "end of the year festivities" Holy Week is "tourism week" but beyond trivialities, everything works much more freely, the church is not decisive, it is just one more opinion, one with weight, but only one more

 

[Matski]

My country is secular since it was founded (200+ years) and we have done very well like this, the interference of the church is obviously there but it does not decide anything, the majority professes Christianity, Christmas is the most celebrated celebration, but it is called "end of the year festivities" Holy Week is "tourism week" but beyond trivialities, everything works much more freely, the church is not decisive, it is just one more opinion, one with weight, but only one more

Institutions older than 500 years (i.e. religions, older countries/governments, etc) were likely founded during a period which, for many, 'gods', and the like, were often unchallenged, or unchallengible methods for describing the world around us. Galileo was to burned at the stake for his proofs and discoveries that the Church considered heresy at the time, it was nearly 400 years before the contemporary Pope apologised for this... because it become blindingly obvious to modern society that the religious doctrine that's been clung to for so long is just wrong.

Institutions created since, or ones that have evolved since, do without this baggage of willful ignorance (though some do still choose to adopt it). The UK is an example of a society that has evolved more than some others, but still has a hangover because we're an 'old' nation and therefore we still have Lords Spiritual (of the Christian variety), scrutinising and modifying our laws. It also means that unlike other less free countries, the nature of our 'official' religion evolves more over time than one that is taught, and adhered to strictly for fear of prison, pain or death. It also allows for more people to question it, and in doing so we're seeing a fairly rapid decline in those that identify their religion as Christian - which obviously drives a lot of Islamophobia and racism here... but is otherwise fundamentally a good thing in my humble opinion.

For many the second religion here is obviously Football... we really need to pull our heads out of our arses and stop believing we're a world class footballing country! And that's my segue back onto the topic

 

[WBarnes]

...Yeah, but FIFA was still bribed though.

 

[WBarnes]

For many the second religion here is obviously Football... we really need to pull our heads out of our arses and stop believing we're a world class footballing country! And that's my segue back onto the topic

Technically 'world class' just means you qualified for the World Cup, and at the end of the day Saudi Arabia beat the World Champions 2-1 and England got as far as Brazil (the FIFA number 1s) and lost to the reigning champions so...

 

[LaArtist]

This is exactly why States should be secular. Having an official religion doesn't require the country to enshrine the teachings in law. The two things shouldn't be at odds. Qatar is non-secular. The UK's 'official' religion is Christianity, but we're a largely secular state.

It is wrong for Qatar to limit peoples freedoms in this manner solely because their religion says so. I'll be blunt - I don't think religion has any place in modern society at all. But the freedom to practice a religion (within secular laws) is as important as peoples freedom to be in a same sex relationship.

Accepting that religious interference in state law is wrong, it's a far better question how people rationalise it for themselves, or within the religious institutions, if they are believers and adherents.

A priest should absolutely have the right to decline to marry a same sex couple if it goes against the religion they represent. However, a non-religious marriage should be recognised at exactly the same level as a religious ones with no legal or statutory differences. If the adherent of that religion finds themselves being refused a religious ceremony because that ceremony goes against that religion - then really that person should be asking deeper questions about their belief.

Law defines peoples freedoms and liberties, religion should only offer guidance that a person can totally ignore.



Huh? Qatar may actually execute someone for having same sex intercourse, how the actual f#ck is that not homophobic?

I do also think that states should be secular. But who are we to tell them how to conduct their business/ culture / lives.
This is a western world sickness, to impose our way of life on others.

Now that they are a Islamic state and Islam is pretty firm on homosexuality as the 2 other Abrahamitic religions it would just be plain hypocrisy to let it flourish and promote it.

Hypocrisy on western levels.

It takes some balls these days to not be a turn coat , to stand for something , to have some principles. You take a huge risk as a nation , or as an individual.

Funnily enough I read somewhere that there is a spike in religious activity amongst young people in the states.
You know young people they just want to do the opposite of what the grown ups are doing.

Back in the days you got a tattoo and listed to rock to be rebellious, now you go back to church cause every grown up around you is “politically correct” to the point of no principle.

Shit comes full circle ️

 

[Matski]

I do also think that states should be secular. But who are we to tell them how to conduct their business/ culture / lives.
This is a western world sickness, to impose our way of life on others.

Yes, and also no. Having the opinion that Qatar is homophobic because it can execute homosexuals isn't imposing our wife of life on them. It is judging them by our own standards. I personally have more tolerance for that because generally speaking western opinions on rights are derived from the idea of reciprocity and not from a religious text - though the short version of that sentiment does appear in many religions... "Do unto others as you would like them to do to you" or "As you would have people do to you, do to them, and what you dislike to be done to you, don't do to them". Imposing our way of life on to them would be, for instance, to dictate who they can and can't have sex with, and criminalise any contrary behaviour.

It takes some balls these days to not be a turn coat , to stand for something , to have some principles. You take a huge risk as a nation , or as an individual.

Again, yes, and no. Cracking down on gays is no more of a principle than saying, it's okay for people to have sex with another consenting person irrespective of whether it's cock on cock action or not. They're both principles. One interferes with other peoples rights, the other does not, so the underlying principle in your example is that the principled person doesn't believe in rights. Which makes them a dick.

Funnily enough I read somewhere that there is a spike in religious activity amongst young people in the states.
You know young people they just want to do the opposite of what the grown ups are doing.

Some truth to this I'm sure, but in the US it's perhaps easier to see division amongst religion on Party lines. If you're a MAGA type, you're more likely to follow Christian religions, where as the bulk of atheists, agnostics, "don't cares", are Democrat, therefore in some cases, if you're part of the 70 million that supported Trump, you're more likely to follow a religion, than someone that voted Biden. Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists are also more frequently Democrat, so I'm not suggesting this is a 1:1 correlation.

 

[LaArtist]

Yes, and also no. Having the opinion that Qatar is homophobic because it can execute homosexuals isn't imposing our wife of life on them. It is judging them by our own standards. I personally have more tolerance for that because generally speaking western opinions on rights are derived from the idea of reciprocity and not from a religious text - though the short version of that sentiment does appear in many religions... "Do unto others as you would like them to do to you" or "As you would have people do to you, do to them, and what you dislike to be done to you, don't do to them". Imposing our way of life on to them would be, for instance, to dictate who they can and can't have sex with, and criminalise any contrary behaviour.



Again, yes, and no. Cracking down on gays is no more of a principle than saying, it's okay for people to have sex with another consenting person irrespective of whether it's cock on cock action or not. They're both principles. One interferes with other peoples rights, the other does not, so the underlying principle in your example is that the principled person doesn't believe in rights. Which makes them a dick.



Some truth to this I'm sure, but in the US it's perhaps easier to see division amongst religion on Party lines. If you're a MAGA type, you're more likely to follow Christian religions, where as the bulk of atheists, agnostics, "don't cares", are Democrat, therefore in some cases, if you're part of the 70 million that supported Trump, you're more likely to follow a religion, than someone that voted Biden. Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists are also more frequently Democrat, so I'm not suggesting this is a 1:1 correlation.

Fyi

Sexual acts of male homosexuality are illegal in Qatar, with a punishment for all convicts of up to three years in prison and a fine, and for Muslims duly convicted in a court under sharia law the possibility of a judicially sanctioned capital punishment for homosexuality; however, there are no known cases where the death penalty was judicially enforced for homosexuality