How does lgbtq+ support as well as other progressive ways of thought co-exist in religious people while their religious text proclaim it as a sin?
I have seen these seemingly contradictory views particularly from Muslim comrades. However, this is not limited to them.
This post is a genuine question not a rant, so please treat it as such.
Plenty of religious people contradict the blatant teachings of their religions, Abrahamic religions most of all. Love, compassionate, selfless service to those in need, destruction of oppressors to liberate the oppressed, these are all themes in Abrahamic religious texts that are often ignored today.
The story of Lod is the reference that Abrahamic religions use to bash queer people but queer scholars would point out that the story of Lod is not at all about queer people and is about people doing sex crimes and assault. Religious people misinterpreting and misusing religious texts to justify their personal positions is pretty common, and it is no different here. We live in an age of war and hyper capitalism, and have suffered centuries of colonialism which has enforced very specific ways of thinking on the whole world. People being ignorant and wrong about things is to be expected
I haven't heard that viewpoint before. As you mentioned, usually when the story is told, there's a huge emphasis on the queer part which in their eyes usually justifies homophobia. I'll re-read the tale and try to look at it from that angle.
I just found this and didn't read it all but it looks like it covers what I've seen a gay imam discuss on another video that I can't find right now because the search engines are only showing me AI slop videos
https://reformationproject.org/was-homosexuality-the-sin-of-sodom-and-gomorrah/
Edit: here's a different gay imam than the one I was trying to find talking about it: https://www.gaytimes.com/life/as-a-gay-imam-i-know-that-islam-is-not-anti-lgbtq/
I believe it's because there's a fundamental difference between a personal, lived spirituality and a politicized, ideological weaponization of religion (co-optation by ruling classes throughout history) - which itself contradicts the core teachings of Abrahamic religions, such as Islam, which do not teach hatred. The point is not to force a literalist, often revisionist, interpretation of ancient texts onto everyone else, but to find personal meaning and community within a faith tradition while upholding universal human rights.
The goal is to criticize said interpretations, specifically the politicized, fundamentalist interpretations that exist in all faiths which are used to justify bigotry and violence (and the inverse - these being presented by bourgeois media as the "defaults" to justify dehumanization and imperialist wars against adherents). The goal is not to vilify the religion itself or its billions of peaceful adherents who are on their own spiritual journeys. Whether religious or not, bigotry like LGBT-phobia often exists due to lack of experience and engagement with these people (or other marginalized groups) and common internalized taboos that really are not limited to religion. By far most people are able to open their minds once they become acquainted with and actually learn about LGBTQ+ in the first place, and realize that there is no difference in our humanity whatsoever and that we are one - no matter what our genders, sexualities or identities are. I live in a Muslim majority country, and there are LGBTQ+ venues here and an emerging community expressing itself, for example.
And as Marxists, religious or not, we know that the very origin of widespread bigotry of all kinds is not something that is internalized out of the blue or to blindly be "accepted", but something that arose from now ~7000+ years of class society.
That's a great view of religion. I believe most anti-religious discussion stems from a lack of understanding of the different interpretations of religious text, instead solely concentrating on the literary meaning as well as the predominant interpretation as a representative of the religion as a whole. You answered my question as well as many others on religion in an excellent manner. I also live in a predominately Muslim nation, but here in Lebanon I sadly haven't seen such growth in community. If you don't mind me asking, where have you seen the growth? Also, since we're talking about interpretation, we have evidence of evolution and the big bang severely contradicting the religious explanation. Do you always take it in the sense of interpretation there?
Glad it was of some use!
If you don’t mind me asking, where have you seen the growth
I should clarify that it doesn't exist on a massive scale, but it's still noticeable where I live despite lots of people still being bigots and homophobes ofc. Some neighborhoods around here with significant amounts of left-leaning young people here are quite accepting of LGBTQ+ ideas or at least open-minded, and the phenomenon of emerging LGBTQ+ acceptance barely is different from anywhere else in world (exposure to the ideas whether in person or online, gradual rejection of dogmatic thought, etc).
In typical Marxist fashion, we would say it's in the superstructure of class society, i.e. how culture, religion, politics, social relations relate to and are shaped by the "base" (the mode of production, property relations, etc) and vice versa. I believe that one of only reasons that, for instance, Western society is able to sell a facade of progressiveness in regards to LGBTQ+ rights, is because it can be co-opted by capitalists, often monopolizing firms, and gain a new consumer base to expand profits through marketing itself with tokenism of these groups. This means an artificial imposition of these "LGBTQ+ rights" which don't do away with the reason they are marginalized and discriminated against in the first place, as evident by many Westerners still being highly reactionary regarding the cause like anywhere else, only exception kind of being the so-called gen z and millenial generations (the age groups most disillusioned with late stage capitalism and the dogmatic thought that supports it, mind you).
What we need to do away with is the fundamental cause for all forms of bigotry in the first place, which results from private property and class relations to the mode of production - in our period of history, it's capitalism that leverages bigotry to divide the proletariat and prevents them from uniting against the bourgeoisie, the ruling class, by scapegoating eachother. It's a trick, because hatred towards any minority or marginalized group will not pay rent, will not preserve your savings, will not eliminate inflation, will not give you infrastructure, healthcare, education, sovereignty, etc. and will not improve your life in general. Basically, when we change the "base", through a socialist mode of production and eventually communism, we erode the fundamental dynamics of society which pave the way for bigotry and division to begin with. Cuba's recent progressive LGBTQ+ legistlation (family code) is brilliant example of this, gaining support among the majority of Cubans voting in the referendum. To simply claim that "religion inherently causes x", or "culture inherently causes x", and so on, is to use idealist analysis (or lack thereof) as opposed to dialectical and historical materialism.
Also, since we’re talking about interpretation, we have evidence of evolution and the big bang severely contradicting the religious explanation. Do you always take it in the sense of interpretation there?
I can't really say tbh, since I'm not religious myself. I suppose it can vary greatly, and religion isn't necessarily a dogma after all, otherwise we would not have syncretic Islamic sects, or for example Christian denominations which all differ greatly (many of which blend indigenous folk religions together with Abrahamic teachings, Alevism comes to mind). It's so much more than just an answer to the great "why", but an entire set of culture, traditions and moral codes tied to anthropology, but again it all depends on what religion means to an adherent I'd say.
Am Muslim, I don't even know LMAO I think it's just how you're brought up?
I have plenty of gay / trans friends, I know a lot of Hijabi women who also have gay / trans friends.
There is still a lot of work that can be done in my community, particularly with Muslim men, as there is a lot of discrimination. But even then there are strides being made. An old childhood friend of mine used to be extremely homophobic and I distanced myself from him, caught up with him about a year ago and he's a completely changed person. Still has some "I don't understand why..." questions but is getting better at asking questions on things instead of just denouncing them vehemently.
My own father was standing, arms linked, with a tall goth trans mommy waving the trans flag at a Palestine protest.
I think a lot of it comes down to just receiving exposure of someone who is LGBTQ+ and realizing they're normal people lol.
Yea, the material circumstances surely are at play. My material circumstances is Lebanon where pretty much any sexuality not heterosexual is criminalized and highly unaccepted. From conversations had, it's way easier to get through the less religious types. I come from a Muslim upbringing, but excluding most of my mom's family, those that aren't secular hold non-sectarian beliefs in the sense of a God and some Islamic-focused beliefs even though they would call themselves Muslim. Discussions with these types of believers will very quickly result in "What's next, a dog?" or something like that, but after some very basic education they get a more neutral view and maybe later on, if they're younger, a more accepting view. That's not to say there aren't any accepting Muslims from homophobic countries, they're just very rare.
Okay how would you feel if a close friend who was also Muslim confesses to you that they were gay or trans.
Someone who was close and tight knit in your Muslim community, a fellow practitioner of the faith.
I wouldn't personally care. I don't go to the mosque as much as I used to, it'd be silly of me to criticize somebody else because of the "rules" they break while I am living with my partner even though we aren't married lol.
I see plenty of muslims who drink alcohol, listen to music, have premarital sex, use credit cards, smoke weed, smoke tobacco, wear gold, etc., but get butthurt at someone offering them pepperoni pizza lol.
Idk, humans in general tend to rationalize their own sins while belittling others for whatever "sins" they commit. How many dudes named something like "Abdul Rahman Aziz Mohammed Al Mohtahab" are working for Lockheed Martin.
I've ended relationships with a lot of Muslims who work in industries that manufacture death and destruction that target people in their home countries. Funny how all of them have conservative views when it comes to women or LGBT though. I'm sure God would send a profiteer of genocide to hell before a gay person but what do I know
For many people, religious/spiritual community is the only intact community in their lives outside of work and the only place remotely removed from the general toil. Being able to access that space and the power of collective prayer & belonging is far more important for many than any particular theological statement.
Most religious people (in the West) are more like naive anarchists than trots; it's about the immanent act of worship and communion and not some mental masturbation about the texts.
The way I see it. Religions are tools to be used. There is no such thing as a pure religion, the ruling class always co-opt religion to serve their purposes, and imperialist forces always co-opt religions to create conflicts. And when the working class become the ruling class, it will be no different, except that now it would be a tool to serve the common good.
Religious beliefs are to be inferior to laws, religious institutions are to be managed by socialist institutions. Beliefs, customs, and practices that no longer fit the new context are to be discouraged or even condemned. However, we must not rely on force to do so. The primary means are education and propaganda, consistent and persistent. The Chinese has a saying: 水滴石穿 (Water drips, stone wears away).
Disclamers:
As a former evangelical Christian, I can only talk to the Christian side of things, and will leave other religious texts alone.
The Bible has a few things relevant to this discussion:
(1) Many Christians view the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross as a fulfillment of the old law--essentially invalidating strict adherence obligations to what's laid out in Leviticus. This brought in a new covenant which (though there are other rules mentioned throughout the new testament) essentially boils down to "love god and love others." Paul even describes the situation as "all things are lawful, but not all things are edifying (good)." With this view it's easy to say that God has freed us from moralistic obligations (such as refraining from same sex relationships) as long as we love everyone and direct people to God.
(2) The Bible tells a story of 2 cities being destroyed by god for their wickedness. One of his friends actually bartered with God to save one if something like 5 righteous people could be found in the city, but that quota wasn't met. Prior to their destruction, however, God sends some masc presenting angels to warn one of his followers to gtfo so he doesn't die. Upon seeing these sexy new hunks in their city the townsfolk demand the follower of god let them fuck the angels. Instead the follower of god let's the townsfolk fuck his daughters (women were property, so this substitution protected his new friends at the cost of basically breaking an expensive dish). Some view this as a story of god wiping out the cities for their homosexual tendencies, but it's more accurately a story of god wiping them out for their practices of sexual domination as an act of humiliation.
(3) The Bible says god created man and woman. Some view this as an affirmation of a strict gender binary. The Bible does not, however, list everything God created with specific detail and it doesn't draw a distinction between trans and cis folk.
(4) Modern English translations say that a man shouldn't lie with another man as one lies with a woman. This is viewed by some as an overt condemnation of same sex relationships; however, this can also be interpreted as a condemnation of sexual domination (a la number #2) or a criticism of the ongoing practice of pederasty, when an older man fucks a younger man in an act of manipulation or exploitation. This is embedded in a longer passage about lust and idolatry.
(5) The recognition of marriage as a holy covenant endorsed and before God is reflected in the idea that a man will leave his father and mother and become one flesh with his new bride (a de facto woman). This is used as an example of god's love for his followers. There's no condemnation of same sex relationships in this passage, merely a passing statement reflecting the social norms at the time regarding marriage.
(6) There's the idea in the Bible that all sin is abhorrent to God equally, and that all mankind has sinned and betrayed God equally. That is why the sacrifice arc of Jesus is in the story--a way to redeem the fallen and unify people with God. If same sex relationships are wrong and so is getting drunk, lying, or overeating, than who are we to condemn that practice so long as it doesn't hurt other people?
There's a few other comments about the circumstances and practices of the Bible without direct passages.
(1) The Bible is a disparate collection of letters and books written of an age and people for that age and people. It does contain some passages that provide useful advice that's not necessarily supposed to be taken as divinely inspired doctrine. This is a blatantly heretical take from an evangelical perspective, but is clearly borne out in writings attributed to Paul. His letters were to specific churches to help them deal with specific issues they were dealing with at the time and are obviously not intended to be a governing cannon for all god's people. He even admits at times that he's interjecting his own thoughts and not those inspired by god. He is providing good life advice from a position of respect, not of divine authority.
(2) There are countless instances of polygamy and concubines in the Bible that are not strictly condemned aside from optics (like "what'll people think if the king is a removed?"). Many of god's favorite people kept harems. There's also no condemnation of lesbians. King Solomon had 1000 women--you telling me he never once got sucked off while watching some girls go down on each other?
All in all, if the Bible is viewed not as a strict literal list of commands (which reflects the diversity of the text and the circumstances of its creation) there's sparse condemnation if any.
I was raised in a Christian cult. I was reading the Bible, and Paul explicitly said the following was his opinion, not inspired by God. Meanwhile, the cult was telling us he was just being humble, and it was indeed the word of God.
It was pretty confusing from a literal-minded, autistic kid perspective
I sorta left it to fulfill my life purpose as a dirty, heretic commie, I guess? Still got close family members trapped in it, sadly.
Edit: Original comment was meant to be a reply to OP, I just tapped the wrong button, sorry.
Fascinating. From responses, I've realized it's more of an interpretation matter rather than a strict bigotted message. If you don't mind me asking, why did you leave evangelical Christianity and into what? I come from an already pretty secular upbringing, so I lack the experience of being in a religion to begin with.
I'm an agnostic atheist.
I saw a lot of pain and hurt caused by the church. People raped by their pastor father and grandfather hiding behind religion. Pastors covering up heinous acts in their own churches and being elevated to positions of power. Constant pedantic infighting, subjugation of women, shunning of others, etc.
None of these instances are necessarily reflexive of errant doctrine rather than evil people, but it did open my eyes to look a little deeper. That reveals things like traditional missions work being used, not for spreading the gospel, but for self aggrandizement/pity and with the effect of westernization rather then genuine converts; biblical inconsistencies calling into question the belief of intrinsic inerrancy; the use of biblical writings as a cudgel rather than a guidebook for ones own life; and the purposeful, blatant misinterpretation of scripture to "prove" preconceived notions (i.e. 1 Corinthians 6:19 being used to mean smoking is a sin rather than as a justification for why one should not sleep with a prostitute as it actually means).
So what do you do when so many people around you who claim to believe in the literal interpretation of scripture don't actually act like they do? You start finding out about the world.
At some point you have a choice, accept all the evidence before you that the world is old and life evolved over a very long time and religion evolved along with people and society, or you reject the evidence of your eyes and the opinion of experts who know more than you and bury your head in the sand. I couldn't reject what was provably and evidently true and that was that.
Former indoctrinated Christian here.
Yeah, how exactly do you coexist with people who think their beliefs are above people's right to existence and autonomy?
They don't. They hold a double standard for people inside their religion and those outside it.
Do you see many trans or gay Muslim women or men?
People outside their religion they barely care about what they do. People inside their religion they pressure and oppress and shame into not being outwardly lgbtq+
This gives off the illusion of being progressive to those on the outside.
Its the same with modern cults. Its all cults. Religion is just a cult who's leader has died.
Our party is popular among Muslims and it is popular within the LGBTQ+ community. The uniting force between them is combatting the primary contradictions within our society. We both face the problems of housing, healthcare, education, poverty, racism, etc. We recognize that ik eachother. And that makes it easy to put aside some of the different viewpoint in order to organise.
We also have a lot of LGBTQ+ people from the Muslim community themselves. And ultimately I think that is the 'easiest' way to change: from within. The Muslim community also has to face their own contradiction s and they need to find their own way forward. External pressure like we see so often is only, in my opinion, going to strengthen reactionary views.
This does not mean you have to tolerate homophobic viewpoints as a party btw. Because we do not and if it happens we make sure to have a conversation with the person uttering them.