Faith Government & Politics LGBT Faith Opinion

What binds Muslims to the Democratic Party?

Attorney Tahirah Amatul-Wadud, left, who is challenging incumbent U.S. Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., greets residents of an apartment complex while campaigning in Springfield, Mass., on June 18, 2018. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)

(RNS) — Last year, a minor controversy erupted at the Islamic Society of North America’s annual convention in Chicago. ISNA had allowed two activist groups, the Human Rights Campaign and Muslims for Progressive Values, to co-sponsor a booth.

But when convention organizers saw what kind of content was being distributed, they shut the booth down.

As it turned out, organizers deemed objectionable items like HRC’s “Coming Home to Islam and Self” booklet and a Muslims for Progressive Values brochure advocating LGBT-inclusive prayer spaces. The latter group’s #ImamsForShe campaign, advocating for equality for Muslim women, felt out of step with what was supposed to be “a religious, private, and family-oriented event.”

This seemingly isolated event is symptomatic of a larger anomaly: the “strange bedfellows” dynamic between American Muslims and the progressive political establishment.

The pairing of Muslims and progressives is everywhere in evidence in the current midterm congressional election cycle. In July, New York congressional candidate and progressive darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appeared at a “My Muslim Vote” event with Rashida Tlaib, who is a near lock to replace Michigan Congressman John Conyers and become the first Muslim woman in Congress.

In western Massachusetts, the hijab-wearing Tahirah Amatul-Wadud is running against a moderate Democrat in the Sept. 4 party primary. She has been endorsed by the Progressive Democrats of America and Indivisible National.

How is it that Muslims, who tend to be more socially conservative, have such an easy political affiliation with the Democratic Party? What accounts for Muslims’ ability to accept serious differences in ways that other religious groups often cannot? And is there more tension to this partnership than we know about?

A 2015 Pew survey shows Muslims have a higher intensity of belief and higher frequency of prayer than most Americans. They also showed lower support for a range of progressive values such as women working outside the home, abortion and same-sex marriage. This led Peter Beinart of The Atlantic to conclude, “In their religious devotion and attitudes toward gender and sexuality, American Muslims resemble evangelical Christians and traditional Catholics far more than they resemble secular progressives.”

One possible explanation is that Muslims are able to abide a political coalition with divergent values in ways that conservative white Protestants and Catholics simply cannot. It’s not that Muslims don’t see the disconnect with some parts of the Democratic political platform; they may simply feel little imperative to use government to promote those values. As a minority, they might not expect to make their values normative for everyone.

Thus, it may be tenable for Muslims to embrace traditional attitudes in their own homes and families while still tolerating a permissive society with an expansive view of individual rights and sexual liberation.

Frank Parmir, the Muslims for Progressive Values associate who was kicked out of the ISNA convention, explained it this way: “(T)hey are very uncomfortable with MPV’s advocacy of gender equality or LGBTQ inclusion.” But, he said, “They are glad to affirm HRC’s advocacy of legal rights for sexual minorities.”

This is a marked contrast from conservative Christians, who want law and policy to defend and promote their vision and get fussy when the Republican Party deviates from their social agenda at all.

Another explanation is more tribal. In the present political environment, Muslims seem to be offered two stark choices: one party that is ever more hostile to them, and one party that affectionately welcomes them.

Perhaps Muslims plant their flag in the Democratic Party coalition not because of shared beliefs about LGBT rights (or the ideal top marginal tax rate), but rather due to a shared embrace of a browner, more pluralistic society. You play for the team that wants you, not the team that hates you.

The current alignment has not always been the case — before 9/11 Muslims were about evenly split between the two parties. Since the cataclysm, growing GOP hostility to migrants and ever more blatant white-nativist appeals mean that Muslims have nowhere else to go in American politics.

But Democrats should not welcome Muslims into the party while requiring them to leave their beliefs about marriage and sexuality at the door.

Some argue that’s exactly what has happened. There is a real concern that accepting Muslims as a minority — for their brownness, as it were — deforms Islam into an ethnic identity that accords with a victim ideology acceptable to the social-justice left.

Debates will continue about how Muslims negotiate tensions between faith and politics. Perhaps one day the GOP will meaningfully compete for Muslim votes again. Or maybe Islam in America will take the path of liberal Protestantism, finding in the Democratic Party platform the ultimate political expression of its aims.

Until then, this fascinating puzzle challenges Americans of all faiths and none to reflect critically on what we value and how our deepest beliefs come to be promoted and defended in the public square.

About the author

Jacob Lupfer


Click here to post a comment

  • The author apparently does not realize that Muslims are following the same trend that Christians in the US did. American Muslims are becoming more secular, attending religious services less, drinking alcohol more and rejecting conservative religious pronouncements. More Muslims are becoming “Nones” — a perfect fit for a secular party.

    Religious minorities are better off in a secular society — otherwise the religious majority will try to suppress them.

    Some good news for the Republicans…the social views of the Muslim Salafists and Taliban supporters matches Republican social conservatism. So perhaps appealing to that segment of Islamic population, the Salafi sect, may bring more Muslims to the Republican side.

  • It’s a delicate dance for us liberals to welcome Muslims into the Dem tent. We are delighted to have their votes against Modern American Political Conservatism, OF COURSE. We are delighted with the idea of tolerance and religious diversity. But we have this need to inform the Muslims that we never agree with what happens in Muslim-majority places——any more than we would agree to the kind of theocracy favored by the Ted Cruz types. Are Muslims happy with us if we insist to them that secularism, not Islam, is to rule public affairs forever?

  • And the great big white (or should I say orange?) elephant in the room the author conveniently fails to mention – DONALD J. TRUMP, who began his presidential campaign by saying,

    I, Donald J. Trump, am calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.

    Gee, you’d think the author might have mentioned that. When the President of the United States comes out and says you’re not wanted in this country it might, just might, stand to reason that Muslims would stand with the other party, no matter what their party platform says about “social issues.”

  • The author’s apparent bewilderment is similar to how conservatives make up excuses for why minority groups overwhelmingly support Democrats.

    Despite many of them having sizable conservative beliefs, they dive for cover when Republicans target them with bigoted rhetoric, attacks under color of law and appeals to Christian white supremacy.

  • I don’t know, Jacob, but my guess would be ANTI MUSLIM RHETORIC flowing like sewage from the mouths of the GOP.

  • Not all, certainly. Maybe even not most. But the Republican electorate nominated a blatantly racist and anti-Muslim presidential candidate in their primaries, and he is now president. Even if Republican voters aren’t racist bigots themselves, they clearly tolerate someone who is.

  • I doubt American Muslims have much expectation that Islam is will ever be in a position to rule public affairs in this county, at least not in the lifetimes of anyone alive today. Christians can delude themselves into thinking they can make a theocracy or pseudo-theocracy by virtues of numbers, but no other religious group can do the same. A secular government that tolerates and provides space for religion is a goal both liberals and religious minorities can get behind.
    Whether liberals will sour that relationship by holding American Muslims responsible for anything that happens in Muslim-majority countries remains to be seen. We’ve avoided holding American Jews responsible for what Israel does or American Christians responsible for what a group like the IRA does, so we might be fine. But then again, who can really predict what will set off some of our more fringe members?

  • I’m not anti-Muslim, because none of them have ever tried to blow me up personally or tried to insist that I am subject to the sayings of Muhammad. If any ever had, I might become a “fringe member” (or something).

    I want to be a kindly tolerant sort, not subject to the notions of Franklin Graham, Paula White, Jerry Falwell, Jr.——-and——not in league with or subject to the sayings of Muhammad either. If I said all that to real Muslims, I have no idea how various individuals of them might react. Does it work with a Muslim to maintain that OF COURSE I want to be kind to you as a person, and no, (like with Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons ringing the doorbell), I cannot and will not ever be sold on your belief system?

  • I’ve had a few in-person conversations with Muslims about practices of their religion and never felt anything remotely resembling evangelism from them. It’s not much of a sampling, and I’m sure there are Muslims who evangelize, but I’ve never gotten that impression from them. I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood, and got the same impression from my Muslim acquaintances that I have from my Jewish ones: it’s their way, and they know it’s not yours. They don’t care if you don’t practice it as long as you give them space for their beliefs.

  • Perhaps you might want to consider getting to know more people of different faiths. Muslims come from a wide variety of countries and cultures. Muslims are no more monolithic than Christians or Jews. Just like the various branches of Christians have disagreements with each other, so do the various branches of Islam. To suppose that all Muslims would evangelize is just as wrongheaded as to suppose that all Christians would.

    Over the past 25 years, I have known many Muslims. Not a single one has ever come close to suggesting that I espouse their beliefs. For many more than 25 years, many Christian have told me that I am not a “real” Christian, since I am Catholic, and I have had a troubling number of Roman Catholics inform me that I need to change over to the Latin rite to become a “real” Catholic. There has been a significant number of those whom I call the “Catholic police” inform me that my beliefs were insufficiently Catholic.

  • I’m not sure how one tolerates such a blatant bigot, unless one is not somewhat bigoted oneself.

  • What binds Muslims to the Democratic Party?

    The answer is obvious. Republicans want nothing to do with them.

    Any port in a storm.

  • Fine with me—-here in the good ole USA (where we grew up on freedom of/from religion, so far). Like I said, I want to be kind to every person I meet, of every faith, as long as I can get away with it——ideally all the way to death, since I’m kinda old now. It is hard for me to forget that anywhere a religion enjoys majority status, however, the mess is on. Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, and Somalia, and Libya, and Yemen, and Syria, and Afghanistan, and many others are real-life places which happen to share something which causes big, big problems. That something is not just okey-dokey, even though many of the people in each place are undoubtedly wonderful folks.

  • You are correct that people of a religion can become bold to the point of obnoxious when they are in a place where theirs is dominant, and that problem spans all religions. You are also correct that people of minority-status religions in any given place tend to be nicer. I’d be for keeping them all in minority status in every place and forever. Whether Muslim theology shares that point of view with me is an open question. If you run into an Imam or a Mullah who thinks you might quote him, what does he have permission from Allah or from Muhammad to say about how great it would be for Islam to never be in civic control of anything anywhere? I don’t know the answer to that, but I suspect the answer is different if given in Iran or Saudi Arabia than if given in Murfreesboro, Tennessee (a mid-America town with a significant mosque.)

  • That kind of talk isn’t productive. If you really want to know what conservatives are thinking, try talking to some without demonizing.

  • Demonizing is inherent here. We have a president and supporters who demonize as a matter of course. But they expect civility from those who criticize them or call them out on it.

    No, they should be demonized and shamed for tacitly supporting bad behavior as a matter of course.Some things are not worth being civil to or polite about.

  • I’m very explicitly talking about the American Muslim population. These are the people who either left these Muslim majority countries behind or who never had anything to do with them in the first place.
    You may not realize it, but your continual linking of American Muslims to the practices of these other countries is beginning to sound racist. I’m sure you don’t intend it to come out that way, but that’s kinda how it sounds.
    The Democratic coalition has many Chinese Americans. That doesn’t mean we need to do some delicate dance when condemning Chinese censorship. I’m sure a number of Korean Americans are Democrats as well. That doesn’t keep us from calling Kim Jong Un a dictator. We don’t treat these Americans any different because of the politics of where they came from. I think Muslim Americans would appreciate the same respect and not be linked to the practices in other countries that do not reflect who they are.

  • You would be correct if we were talking about normal people.

    but what does one say to people who demonize other people for a living, or because they think that god loves them all the better for their demonizing?

  • We “liberals” regularly are “demonized” because we don’t demonize muslims.
    One of the standard things I have heard far too many times from so-called Christians when they are busy demonizing me and mine is…
    At least we aren’t as bad as the muslims”.
    And my response is always: not any more.

  • My husband works with lots of muslims. As far as we know, to a man or to a woman, they are very supportive of us as a couple. I hear far more vitriolic garbage– they call it witnessing and righteousness– from so called Christians.

  • I will, actually, ask around, to see what an imam might say about wha you are asking. However, I will not be phrasing it as you did.
    I am puzzled as to why you consider Muslims to be such a threat. Extremists are always a threat, but most Muslims are not extremists. I have much more concern, here in the US, about the influence of Christian religious zealots than I do about Muslims. From my perspective, based on what I have read over time (Karen Armstrong’s writing has been particularly instructive regarding the religious aspects if Islam), much of the radicalism in many Muslim-majority countries has been spawned by the authoritarian regimes of those parts of the world. Authoritarian regimes, when they suppress hard enough and long enough, often spawn extreme reactions. Any oppressed group will eventually react to its oppression.

  • I often find myself encountering the type of reactions you are having to my rhetoric about Islam and Muslims, even though I try to be very, very careful with what I say. You speak of the American Muslim population as though it does not have the same theological underpinning as Islam in all other places. No matter how “nice” a person appears to be, with American Muslims we are always talking about people who choose (choose, because they CAN here) to follow the teachings of Muhammad above all other schools of thought. That is a red flag to me, period, because those teachings include plenty which is anti-democratic, anti-liberal, anti-free thought, compromising with respect to women, and anti-LGBT. Why (WHY) would you suggest I might be racist for questioning the clear teachings of a religion? Islam requires its adherents to claim that “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his Prophet”, literally meaning that the sayings of Muhammad must supersede everything else in human thought. That has nothing whatever to do with race—–blacks, browns and whites are all required to subscribe to that statement.

    I don’t, can’t and won’t. I consider it complete baloney. The chances that Muslims are mad at me for declaring such freedom from dogma are much greater than that I am mad at them. Seriously, ISIS, Taliban, Boko Haram and the governments of both Iran and Saudi Arabia would punish me severely (if not kill me) for talking like this in their public places. We lefties need to be realistic about this stuff. It’s not tiddlywinks.

  • The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
    -Edmund Burke

    …or are being overly polite. 🙂

  • Ben, I am talking about normal people. I’m not talking about the Trump administration. I’m talking about half the country. Dismissing all of them as bigots is what made it easy for them to vote for Trump in the first place.

  • Nevermind what I said earlier. You’re being perfectly intentional about your anti-Muslim bias. You’d make a Trump supporter proud.

  • I have an anti-Islam bias, clearly explained, because I actually do know what Islam is. I take the time to find out, to understand, to evaluate, to be fair-minded. Trump is not my friend and Muhammad is not either. I wish you were, but as Ricky Nelson discovered and sang in his Garden Party decades ago, one can’t please everybody.

  • How about if we went like this? I really do consider those in America who insist that every word of the Bible is literally true to be just as bad in their threat to freedom as any who might consider all the sayings of Muhammad in Quran and Hadith to be literally true and worthy to be followed. Why can’t we lefties say, “Hey, the scriptures at the root are a problem for us”?

    My understanding of Islam is that it asks its adherents to approve of Islam ruling civic affairs wherever it can assemble the majorities to make it happen. I don’t want that to happen anywhere. Do you? If so, why?

  • What binds muslims to the Democratic Party?

    Not a difficult question: Welfare, free stuff.

    The average liberal should go to a social security/gov’t benefits office and spend two days, quietly observing.

  • Your attitude may be clearer to understand if you could split your posts in two parts. Cover Islam US in one part; cover Islam in some ally of US, say, Israel, in the other part. The reason I make this request is this: the Muslim population in the US is microscopic. The Muslim population in Israel is not microscope.

  • I have no problem with Muslim candidate Rashida Tlaib winning John Conyers’ seat. (Shoot, I was so tired of Conyers’ mess that I would have endorsed YOU to take his seat!) Islam is a religion, not a scarlet letter.

    But there are some complications around here that Americans of ALL labels, are concerned about.
    The current New Mexico tragedy, involving Muslims, is a good example:

  • My little quibble with the first part of what you wrote is that, for me, it’s not the scriptures, but the interpretation of the scriptures. 🙂

    There is a wide variety of interpretations of Islam. Certainly, there are those who want theocracies, but I think that there are many who see the “umma” as community, rather than as a political entity. There are many Muslims who believe that the rule of Islam ought to guide their personal behavior and relationship with others. They have no desire to impose it on any group of people.

    I know that the Quran has violent and violence-promoting parts, but so does Christian scripture. From what I have personally encountered and from what I have read, there are those in each of the three Abrahamic religions who would like to impose theocracies. A significant number of Muslim-majority countries are theocracies, ruled by one or another particular sect of Islam which persecutes those Muslims who do not “get with the program”, so to speak. I have read commentary by Jews on the left who are worried about the intentions of some of the ultra-orthodox in Israel.
    I don’t want a theocracy of any kind. I believe that, here in the US, we could manage very well to let everyone practice their religion, or lack thereof, in peace. While I am wary of all religious extremists, from my experience, it is the “ultra-Christians” who pose the greatest threat to real freedom of religion in this country.

  • There are many conservatives who despise the positions of the orange menace.

    A good number of conservatives have disavowed him openly.

    I know conservatives who don’t tolerate him at all.
    I think that it is grossly inaccurate to portray those who support or tolerate him as “conservatives”.

    Sadly, there are bigots among all groups. So, yes, some conservatives are bigots. So are some liberals.
    Bigotry is evil. When one does not oppose an evil, one is permitting it to exist and grow. That makes one complicit in that evil.

  • I agree with you that the “ultra-Christians” pose the greatest threat at this time in the USA, because there were enough of them to swing an election into the darkness of Trumpism. In Israel, there are apparently enough ultra-Jewish people to make a mess with the “Jewish State” ideas recently adopted. In Egypt, an initial free election was held in 2011 and oops, they elected the Muslim Brotherhood. In Afghanistan, we can have a US military presence for 16 years and still have to speak of negotiating with Taliban fools because no one can either talk them down or get rid of them.

    I can agree with you about “interpretation” of scriptures, as well. That starts by stipulating that some of them at the OT root of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are simply false history. The problem is, many to most of the adherents simply won’t agree to stipulating even that much. Past the problematic old root, very few Muslims will buck anything reported to have been said by Muhammad.

    Where I live, there are few Muslims in apparent evidence. I can assure you that when I meet any here, I will do my utmost to be kind to them. Seriously, I always have and always will. But please don’t ask me to imagine that the religion of Islam is either true or okay. I’m a freedom-from-religion guy.

  • Jacob, the reason is simpler than you think. Pre-9/11, Muslims voted mostly for bush based on social values. Progressives were anomalies.

    Post-neo conservative America, liberals stopped hating Muslims as they did in the 90s and Muslims were willing to reach for any ally who wouldn’t use law enforcement to unjustly detain or coerce Muslims into various compromised positions.

  • OK, Friendly.
    You certainly have a right to be free from religion. I am not disputing that. As a matter of fact, I think that only when people are able to be free from religion is there actual freedom of religion.

    But what I don’t get is why you think that Islam is any worse than any other of the three Abrahamic religions. Extremists in any of the three are dangerous in that they are convinced that they are the sole possessors of the Truth. Jew don’t proselytize, but Christians certainly do. Many Christians believe that it is their duty to convert everyone to their faith, and that if people don’t convert, they will ultimately be destroyed by God. Some Christians do want to take over the world; some others are content to let unbelievers suffer eternal damnation.

    It seems that we will have to agree to disagree on some things. And that should be OK.
    I wish you a good night.

  • When the Muslim population becomes substantial enough to be a voting block, new insecurities could arise on various topics. These discussions don’t happen if the Muslim population is microscopically small, nor if the Muslim population is a majority.

    Here is a sampling from various countries:

    (a) What are the views of Muslims on secularism, if they now had agency?

    (b) What is burqa or the niqab a political statement of? Is it a political statement that Islam is under threat, and Muslims need a greater number of concessions or accommodations?

    (c) How should academia react if Muslims want to fund chairs in universities? Should they accept the funds? Or should they react that the proposed chair is code for Islamic fundamentalism? (There is a precedent. An American university refused to take funds from a Hindu foundation. The university said that the very name of the foundation was code for Hindu fundamentalism.)

    (d) Is there a demand for sharia law? (The UK has some sharia courts.)

    (e) Is the Muslims so high they they will become the majority in a few generations?

    (f) What sort of Islam should the country’s social social science textbooks, op-ed articles and movie scripts devote a lot of mind-share to? The Islam of Saudi Arabia? Or the Islam of Indonesia?

    (g) What is the career path of non-Muslim left-leaning liberal intellectuals going to be? At times, it seems that they are more royal than the king, i.e., more Islamic than Muslims.

  • There are no sharia courts in the UK. What exists are councils that arbitrate religious matters for believers, mostly divorces for Muslim women. These councils are not courts of law. That’s no different from the Beth Din of America, a rabbinical court (, which “serves the Jewish community of North America as a forum for arbitrating
    disputes through the din torah process, obtaining Jewish divorces, and
    confirming Jewish personal status issues”. Neither of the two organizations has any jurisdiction over people who are not members of the particular religious group.

  • Why. It sounds just like David Koresh.

    Or the church of wells.

    Or the House of Yahweh.

    Sandimonious calls the Mormons and the JW’s a cult.

  • I agree with you on this. Yet at the same time, I don’t think it made it easy to them. I think that is where they were already at.some people seem impervious to reality.

  • I have been fighting antigay bigots for the 47 years I’ve been out as a gay man. I long ago learned it is almost impossible to reach them, because they are poisoned, often irretrievably.

    I stopped trying to convince them of anything. They are not interested, as our resident bigots on these very pages demonstrate over and over and over.

    But there are a lot of people who even yet haven’t made up their minds. They are worth trying to reach.

    And I have. I know this.

  • Don’t care about changing minds. I care about what people think they can get away with. I have no desire to make bigotry the subject of polite genteel discussion, nor seek the respect of those who demonstrate it. I want them to know immediately it is not acceptable and not going to be treated lightly.

  • Those are some good points. People often talk about immigrant communities being insular and closed but young people of all groups want to be American. There was even a song about it first by Xavier Cugat later covered by Brian Setzer, “Americano.” As a social worker serving youth I often encountered the dynamic of ethnic families seeking to keep young folks tied down, especially girls. It didn’t matter what they were: Arabs, Indians, Jews, Thais, Hispanics, Amish, Fundamentalists, Nigerians, Appalachians, etc. – whatever they were the young people wanted to just be Americans. Most of the time they were able to rebel effectively against some form of parental authoriteh. That’s why I always encouraged them to get out from under their parents, especially the girls, as quickly as possible.

  • I have no desire to make bigotry the subject of polite genteel discussion, nor seek the respect of those who demonstrate it, either.

    That’s why I think making fun of you is appropriate.

  • She’s right; they are indeed theological cults. I do not try to pretend that these two religions are Christian, period. I really do want people to see the problems with their doctrines regarding God, Jesus, sin, salvation, etc. It’s not a small thing; people’s final destinies are at stake.

    At the same time, I’ve met some good, friendly people in both religions. We’ve spent time in extended inter-faith discussions. I remember that one of my cousins married a JW. So I always do my best to use phrases that reflect the good things that we all have in common.

    But there’s no sugar-coating the differences. When Mitt Romney ran for president, I did a blog about the controversy involving his religion. At the same time a friendly, prominent Mormon blogger — the same one at the the inter-faith meetings — was blogging at the same newspaper. As you would expect, her next column was a lengthy defense of Mormon beliefs.

  • “She’s right;” nope.

    “they are indeed theological cults” your opinion. They disagree.

    “I do not try to pretend that those two religions are Christian, period.” You should ask rabid Catholics what they think of Protestants.

    “I really do want people to see the problems with their doctrines regarding God, Jesus, sin, salvation, etc.”oh, the irony.

    “It’s not a small thing; people’s final destinies are at stake.” In your opinion. I’m always amazed that god discusses this sort of thing with the True Believers (TM). I guess he does it to assure them that they are better than other people. Otherwise, how would they know?

    “But I’ve met some good, friendly people in both religions.” Some of my best friends are…

    “We’ve spent time in extended inter-faith discussions.” Who was right? Did you present your evidence, your arguments, and finally agree?

    “I remember that one of my cousins married a JW. So I always use phrases that reflect the good things that we all have in common.” Except that you are dead wrong, and will suffer for it. Or they are. Or the Catholics are.

    “LDS and JW’s are not “David Koresh.” But they are all ending up in the same place, right? God let’s you know what their final destinations are, because you are just so damned important.

    “But there’s no sugar-coating the differences.” Not when you can use vitriol.

    “When Mitt Romney ran for president, I did a blog about the controversy involving his religion. At the same time a friendly, prominent Mormon blogger — the same one at the the inter-faith meetings — was blogging at the same newspaper. As you would expect, her next column was a lengthy defense of Mormon beliefs.” So which one of you is going to hell? Oh, wait. Mormons don’t believe in hell, you don’t believe you get to be god of your own planet, and the rest of us have to wait until you, they, or we are dead to find out the exciting conclusion to this.

    But look on the bright side. You get to agree that gay people are the worst, and you are better. That’s the beauty of your kind of faith in your very small gods.

    That ought to be worth something.

  • “They disagree.”

    Yes and no.

    But unless we wish to erase the standard definitions, words actually do have meanings.

    For example, atheists don’t believe there is a deity. Calling an agnostic who says she or he doesn’t know whether there is a deity an “atheist” detriments communication.

    The standard definition of Christian involves belief in a triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

    Both the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints fail to meet this standard definition.

    Like the agnostic calling himself an atheist, they’re surely entitled to call themselves anything they wish, but there is no requirement that anyone else go along with them.

    “You should ask rabid Catholics what they think of Protestants.”

    They think they’re Christians.

    “Some of my best friends are…”


    “Except that you are dead wrong, and will suffer for it. Or they are. Or the Catholics are.”

    With some minor exceptions Christians don’t agree with you.

    “Not when you can use vitriol.”

    You’re in no position to kvetch.

    “But look on the bright side. You get to agree that gay people are the worst, and you are better. That’s the beauty of your kind of faith in your very small gods.”

    Actually very few religions believe “that gay people are the worst”.

    For example, the largest group of Christians state:

    “2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”

    Your complaint appears to be, rather, you have trouble getting an endorsement for your behavior.

  • Releasing that which binds with the Great Kibosh:

    Putting the kibosh on all religion in less than ten
    seconds: Priceless !!!

    As far as one knows or can ell, there was no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism,
    Christianity and Islam are non-existent.

    As far as one knows or can ell, there was no Moses i.e the pillars of Judaism,
    Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.

    There was no Gabriel i.e. slam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.

    There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.

    There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.

    Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.

    Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated/reborn Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on

    A constant cycle of reincarnation until enlightenment is reached and belief that various beings
    (angels?, tinkerbells? etc) exist that we, as mortals, cannot comprehend makes for a no on Sikhism.

    Added details available upon written request.

    A quick search will put the kibosh on any other groups
    calling themselves a religion.

    e.g. Taoism

    “The origins of Taoism are unclear. Traditionally,
    Lao-tzu who lived in the sixth century is regarded as its founder. Its early
    philosophic foundations and its later beliefs and rituals are two completely
    different ways of life. Today (1982) Taoism claims 31,286,000 followers.

    Legend says that Lao-tzu was immaculately conceived by a shooting star; carried in his mother’s womb for
    eighty-two years; and born a full grown wise old man. “

  • You do nothing but write nasty, homophobic posts, Your Blackness. There is no “gay plantation”, and conversion therapy is being outlawed for the sham that it is, one state at a time.

    Kiss my lily-white, genderqueer a$$.

  • Now Charlotte, we can’t be doing all this R-rated inter-racial sex-talk on a family-friendly RNS forum. Not sure what all is cooking in this “genderqueer” stew, but we can remain calm on it.

    Meanwhile, you and Ben seem determined to inject the gay thing into a post that didn’t discuss it. So okay, let’s discuss it. In 2014, LifeSite News did an excellent interview with the ex-gay Dean Bailey. LifeSite’s opening question was memorable, because it’s what the slaves really think about, (privately), when they want to escape Gay Goliath’s no-good plantation.

    “What happens to someone when they abandon a gay identity? Is the pain, the loss of friendships, and the total switching of inner gears worth it?” Think about it, folks. Here’s the interview:

  • Did Muslims vote overwhelming for George Bush? Did they vote overwhelmingly for John Mccain? How about Mitt Romney?

  • Just dont be surprised when you get the same thing in return. You know that whole do unto others thing.

  • Dumbazz, your crowd is the one demonizing people and falling in line with terrorist propaganda. Doing unto others has already been done by them.

    You just can’t handle being called out on it.

2019 NewsMatch Campaign: This Story Can't Wait! Donate.