Ghana’s anti-LGBT+ bill seeks 10-year jail term for activists(africafeeds.com)
africafeeds.com
Ghana’s anti-LGBT+ bill seeks 10-year jail term for activists
https://africafeeds.com/2021/07/23/ghanas-anti-lgbt-bill-seeks-10-year-jail-term-for-activists/
168 comments
That’s what happens when the society fails to get religious extremists - in this case Christian fundamentalists - under control.
> when the society fails to get religious extremists
I have a difficult time disentangling chicken and egg. Would a society in Ghana's state wind up with similarly-hateful policies absent religion? That is, does the situation create the calling to which religion happened to be proximate this time, but, in its absence, some other organized majority (e.g. nationalists) would rise? (More practically: is targeting the religion the most efficient way to solve the problem.)
The irony of all this being such policies promot the situation. Such laws encourage brain drain. They de facto bar many foreign firms from investing or even letting their employees visit. They also add friction to every foreign aid talk.
I have a difficult time disentangling chicken and egg. Would a society in Ghana's state wind up with similarly-hateful policies absent religion? That is, does the situation create the calling to which religion happened to be proximate this time, but, in its absence, some other organized majority (e.g. nationalists) would rise? (More practically: is targeting the religion the most efficient way to solve the problem.)
The irony of all this being such policies promot the situation. Such laws encourage brain drain. They de facto bar many foreign firms from investing or even letting their employees visit. They also add friction to every foreign aid talk.
Not “absent religion”, but with a non-homophobic religion. I’d you look at the history of Catholic Church (I like this particular example, because I know it much better than any other religion), you’ll see that it’s a repeating pattern of:
1. “The law, given to us by Christ themselves, requires us to condemn and fight against <insert any of the Human Rights>“
2. Eventually the society forces the Church to stop this nonsense
3. “The Church has always been a proponent of <that same human right>“
4. GOTO 1
This is a slow process, so people no longer remember the Church was against eg woman voting rights, or against freedom of thought or freedom of religion. Same way in a hundred years nobody will remember it used to be homophobic.
1. “The law, given to us by Christ themselves, requires us to condemn and fight against <insert any of the Human Rights>“
2. Eventually the society forces the Church to stop this nonsense
3. “The Church has always been a proponent of <that same human right>“
4. GOTO 1
This is a slow process, so people no longer remember the Church was against eg woman voting rights, or against freedom of thought or freedom of religion. Same way in a hundred years nobody will remember it used to be homophobic.
Actually, this has never happened.
Women voting rights was never doctrinal - no Catholic was bound to believe women should or should not be able to vote, it was just a popular opinion among the laity with room for disagreement.
"Freedom of thought" - the Catholic Church, was, is, and remains against certain types of thought. You can't be a Satanist for example. However, other types of thought are once again not doctrinal, so it is a matter of personal opinion again.
"Freedom of religion" - the Catholic Church once again does not put this in doctrine and has not edited doctrine, but once again there is a popular opinion that may change, but nobody is obligated to have an opinion on it.
The opinions of it's members are changing, but the doctrines (the things you must believe) remain unchanged, even when unpopular. The Church's ban on birth control is very unpopular among the laity but hasn't moved.
Women voting rights was never doctrinal - no Catholic was bound to believe women should or should not be able to vote, it was just a popular opinion among the laity with room for disagreement.
"Freedom of thought" - the Catholic Church, was, is, and remains against certain types of thought. You can't be a Satanist for example. However, other types of thought are once again not doctrinal, so it is a matter of personal opinion again.
"Freedom of religion" - the Catholic Church once again does not put this in doctrine and has not edited doctrine, but once again there is a popular opinion that may change, but nobody is obligated to have an opinion on it.
The opinions of it's members are changing, but the doctrines (the things you must believe) remain unchanged, even when unpopular. The Church's ban on birth control is very unpopular among the laity but hasn't moved.
Of course Catholics were bound to be against woman rights - the pope himself told them so.
Your problem here is you seem to believe anyone cares about the (largely made up) distinction between doctrinal vs non-doctrinal, which in real life doesn’t matter at all.
Your problem here is you seem to believe anyone cares about the (largely made up) distinction between doctrinal vs non-doctrinal, which in real life doesn’t matter at all.
Actually, if you enter Catholic spheres (which I have to examine their thinking), they argue about doctrine and non-doctrinal all the freaking time. Constantly. They argue whether they need to follow the Pope on something or not and their internal Canon Law requirements without stop.
However, there is no dispute about what is doctrinal. There is instead dispute about how that doctrine is put in practice. Such as can a Pope do Action A without being doctrinally not Pope anymore, and what non-doctrinal process would need to follow.
However, there is no dispute about what is doctrinal. There is instead dispute about how that doctrine is put in practice. Such as can a Pope do Action A without being doctrinally not Pope anymore, and what non-doctrinal process would need to follow.
To expand on this, the whole canonical-non-canonical meme in pop culture is a derivative, approximation and dilution of the Catholic tradition.
The theologians discuss that, because that’s their job, but it doesn’t matter to anyone else. The difference has no consequences, but also has no real reasoning behind it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
fortran77(4)
Either LGBTQ Rights will be more important than Religious rights, or Religious rights will be more important than LGBTQ rights.
You can't have both, it's a fight over which one is more important.
You can't have both, it's a fight over which one is more important.
LGBT rights. Religious rights should be at the absolute bottom of the barrel when they come in contention with any other civil rights.
Anybody can make up whatever bullshit they want and call it a religious belief, and when that doesn’t violate someone else’s rights, then fine, you do you. But just because you believe some bullshit or another doesn’t mean you have the right to trample my civil rights.
Anybody can make up whatever bullshit they want and call it a religious belief, and when that doesn’t violate someone else’s rights, then fine, you do you. But just because you believe some bullshit or another doesn’t mean you have the right to trample my civil rights.
> You can't have both, it's a fight over which one is more important
Of course you can. Most religious people the world over are tolerant and accepting in their beliefs.
Of course you can. Most religious people the world over are tolerant and accepting in their beliefs.
Except that if you check what Catholics, many Christians, and Islamic texts teach about LGBTQ behavior, you'll find that what the Churches/Mosques teach is very different than what the majority of people in those churches follow.
The "tolerant and accepting" ones are the ones the churches would call "apostate" or "heretical."
The "tolerant and accepting" ones are the ones the churches would call "apostate" or "heretical."
> if you check what Catholics, many Christians, and Islamic texts teach about LGBTQ behavior, you'll find that what the Churches/Mosques teach is very different than what the majority of people in those churches follow
One, most of those texts have been translated and transliterated many times over. Two, it's no shock that every religion heavily editorialists its scripture. Three, the only people calling out heretics and apostates among their flock are, almost by definition, the extremists.
TL; DR You can be well received in the eyes of your God(s) without having to promote or support the murder and oppression of your fellow human beings.
One, most of those texts have been translated and transliterated many times over. Two, it's no shock that every religion heavily editorialists its scripture. Three, the only people calling out heretics and apostates among their flock are, almost by definition, the extremists.
TL; DR You can be well received in the eyes of your God(s) without having to promote or support the murder and oppression of your fellow human beings.
You are drawing a straw man. Outside of Islam (which Sharia law, I believe, calls for death by stoning for Gay sex), most Christian religions do not call for the death of LGBTQ people. They oppose the agenda and oppose adoption, that's very different than supporting "murder."
Second, the claim "You can be well received in the eyes of your God" is a religious statement, because you don't know what my God is.
Third, "heretics and apostates among their flock are, almost by definition, the extremists." Maybe religion itself is "extreme" and most of its followers are lax, not that the followers are tolerant and there are a few extreme and intolerant members.
Second, the claim "You can be well received in the eyes of your God" is a religious statement, because you don't know what my God is.
Third, "heretics and apostates among their flock are, almost by definition, the extremists." Maybe religion itself is "extreme" and most of its followers are lax, not that the followers are tolerant and there are a few extreme and intolerant members.
> oppose the agenda and oppose adoption
"Oppose the agenda" is opposition to their right to exist as equal members of society. (In places like Ghana, the "agenda" is survival.)
> maybe religion itself is "extreme" and most of its followers are lax
This is a hypothesis. It's falsified by the observation of numerous tolerant and religious societies.
"Oppose the agenda" is opposition to their right to exist as equal members of society. (In places like Ghana, the "agenda" is survival.)
> maybe religion itself is "extreme" and most of its followers are lax
This is a hypothesis. It's falsified by the observation of numerous tolerant and religious societies.
The only reason Christians no longer call for killing gays is because they have been convinced to stop doing this - often using force.
Like when? Like when has force ever been used outside of, say, lawsuits?
The first major step towards making Church civilized was probably the Great Revolution. But it required many, many more sacrifices over the next few centuries.
The texts largely don’t matter, Catholicism for example has very little to do with what’s there in the Bible.
A Catholic will firmly disagree with that belief.
Only the illiterate one.
Wrong. Here's a Catholic's Biblical Guide to Homosexuality and why it is not acceptable. They can read. They also can quote the original Greek.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-bible-on...
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-bible-on...
There are similar writings on women and children and animals, all now ignored. You don’t get a multi-millennia institution out of static principles.
It's addressed in the article. They've clearly thought about it even though we may disagree.
I’m sorry, but it’s a Christian equivalent of Flat Earth. There’s too much bullshit there to even start untangling it.
Or maybe it disagrees with your worldview, you can't wrap your head around other people's beliefs and refuse to even try to understand where they may be coming from (making you a de-facto bigot), and you call it a name because you don't care to understand it or unwrap it.
It’s not about the worldview, it’s about understanding what’s written and realizing it’s all bullshit. In this particular case it’s about a fake criterium, which was only invented after deciding “shellfish good, gays bad” to provide an excuse.
I think you're kind of missing the point here that "LGBTQ" rights are just human rights. If the regime you live under doesn't respect individual autonomy then everyone is gonna have a bad time.
What happens when they force you to bake the cake? No respect for the baker's autonomy there.
As an LGBT, I agree its a difficult situation. On the one hand, as you likely do, I feel strongly about private business owners having the freedom to run their businesses the way they see fit, including being able to choose their customers. If someone told me they don't want to sell to LGBT, I would accept that decision without complaint because I respect their autonomy (in fact, I would be happy I avoided giving them money). On the other hand, what happens when everyone in an area decides that LGBT, or black people, or Muslims, or anyone else universally aren't welcome. Those people basically get shut out of society, and that doesn't seem like something we want to encourage at a societal level either.
Finally, as much as it pains me to say it, there is also the matter of logical consistency: Many Christians would go absolutely ape shit if they were stopped in a store while wearing a cross and told "hey, your kind isn't wanted here"; yet because their preferred exclusion is noted in an old book (which of course, they wrote) that is suddenly perfectly acceptable.
Finally, as much as it pains me to say it, there is also the matter of logical consistency: Many Christians would go absolutely ape shit if they were stopped in a store while wearing a cross and told "hey, your kind isn't wanted here"; yet because their preferred exclusion is noted in an old book (which of course, they wrote) that is suddenly perfectly acceptable.
> On the other hand, what happens when everyone in an area decides that LGBT, or black people, or Muslims, or anyone else universally aren't welcome.
It doesn't need to be everyone to have a chilling effect on the quality of life for people in the targeted group. I'm all for freedom of expression in general but treating someone badly because of how they were born is just mean.
It doesn't need to be everyone to have a chilling effect on the quality of life for people in the targeted group. I'm all for freedom of expression in general but treating someone badly because of how they were born is just mean.
Now consider the cake. The baker, contrary to headlines, didn't object to selling them a cake. If they wanted a generic cake like the dozens on his shelves, or wanted to buy bottled water or any other of his creations, he would have sold it to them immediately.
He objected to making them a personalized cake that endorsed their relationship on it, which would require his creativity to be poured into something explicitly endorsing the issue. And his argument is that if he can be forced to write something endorsing their relationship, why couldn't, say, a racist come in demanding he write something racist on a cake?
I don't really object to that balance. If it's something generic and impersonal, sell it, and if it's something very personal, have the right to object. That's not significant exclusion from society. Are you truly significantly excluded from society when you can get the same service from a 7 minute walk to Walmart (as the court case declared), or buy some icing and do it yourself?
He objected to making them a personalized cake that endorsed their relationship on it, which would require his creativity to be poured into something explicitly endorsing the issue. And his argument is that if he can be forced to write something endorsing their relationship, why couldn't, say, a racist come in demanding he write something racist on a cake?
I don't really object to that balance. If it's something generic and impersonal, sell it, and if it's something very personal, have the right to object. That's not significant exclusion from society. Are you truly significantly excluded from society when you can get the same service from a 7 minute walk to Walmart (as the court case declared), or buy some icing and do it yourself?
In this specific case, I agree with you and the courts. You shouldn't be able to compel speech (i.e. their writing) and you shouldn't be able to compel custom work. I'm speaking more broadly about regional discrimination. If there is only one grocery store in twenty miles, you don't have a car, and you're told you can't do business there, that's a problem. However, this is not the context here and you clearly imply that such behavior would not be ok.
A liberal state is not capable of granting religious freedom. All it can offer are religious rights, which means that you are allowed to imagine that you are Christian (or whatever other religious affiliation), and you may dress up in funny costumes and participate in funny symbolic rituals, but as soon as you attempt to exercise your religion in a way that contradicts the economic logic of our society, then the state has to crush you as ruthlessly as any political enemy.
To ask the liberal state to do otherwise is nonsense. If you want to exercise your religion in a way that exceeds the bounds that are set for you by the state, you have to step outside of your fantasy and engage directly in politics to convince the rest of society that your religion should have greater authority than the state. If you actually believe that your religion is greater than all others, then you should be able to prove it in the political realm.
To ask the liberal state to do otherwise is nonsense. If you want to exercise your religion in a way that exceeds the bounds that are set for you by the state, you have to step outside of your fantasy and engage directly in politics to convince the rest of society that your religion should have greater authority than the state. If you actually believe that your religion is greater than all others, then you should be able to prove it in the political realm.
> If you actually believe that your religion is greater than all others, then you should be able to prove it in the political realm.
Wow, well put!
Wow, well put!
"you should be able to prove it in the political realm."
Well, you've got Saudi Arabia, and countless Arab nations. You've got Israel, and there's also Vatican City (which is a nation inside Italy, albeit a small one).
However they aren't exactly popular in liberal society...
Well, you've got Saudi Arabia, and countless Arab nations. You've got Israel, and there's also Vatican City (which is a nation inside Italy, albeit a small one).
However they aren't exactly popular in liberal society...
Vatican isn’t a nation. It’s a country, created by Mussolini. It was never a real nation, only a bribe to convince the Church to not interfere with “fight against communism”.
Actually, the Vatican City is a remnant of the Papal States, a nominal nation that encompassed significant parts of Italy for much of the Middle Ages. And the Papal States were a descendant of the "Holy Roman Empire," which encompassed massive parts of Europe during the Middle Ages. Vatican City is the smallest that it's been in over a thousand years.
What on Earth could be next? The government is gonna force your publicly advertised shop to serve <insert racial epithet>?
But this has been the case ever since the civil rights act, hasn't it?
The supreme court sided with the baker
In the narrowest ruling possible, for that one time only on a technicality, which means that baker is currently being sued again. And it doesn't change most LGBTQ activists want him to lose, with their agenda triumphing over his autonomy.
Religion is a human right. Not only that, it's inherent in humans to believe in the One Creator.
Only as long as it doesn’t hurt other people. When it does, it becomes just yet another hate-fueled crime.
Hurting others: spreading homosexuality and lgbt agenda hurts society and will cause its decline and collapse: https://www.kirkdurston.com/blog/unwin
Is the implication here that being a Christian requires making homosexuality illegal?
Well, ask any Christian who considers themselves devout, and they'll happily remind you about Sodom and Gamorrah, Biblical cities which were destroyed by fire falling from heaven for homosexuality.
> Well, ask any Christian who considers themselves devout, and they'll happily remind you about Sodom and Gamorrah, Biblical cities which were destroyed by fire falling from heaven for homosexuality.
Actually, as a lifelong Christian, that's...disputed. A very common interpretation is that they were destroyed for violating the obligations of hospitality to guests. Even assuming an absence of translation error in the phrase translated as indicating a desire to use the guests sexually (itself a point of intense debate), the offense isn't “gay sex” but “demanding to have guests turned over to be gang-raped”.
I think most people would agree that there is a giant moral gulf between the morality of consensual sex and the morality of demanding someone turn over guests to a rape mob.
Actually, as a lifelong Christian, that's...disputed. A very common interpretation is that they were destroyed for violating the obligations of hospitality to guests. Even assuming an absence of translation error in the phrase translated as indicating a desire to use the guests sexually (itself a point of intense debate), the offense isn't “gay sex” but “demanding to have guests turned over to be gang-raped”.
I think most people would agree that there is a giant moral gulf between the morality of consensual sex and the morality of demanding someone turn over guests to a rape mob.
Leviticus is pretty clear, though. So ... why not mention that?
Sure, a much stronger argument can be made from Leviticus than S&G, but S&G features showing divine judgement and doesn't invite pointing out the way the way OT rules are cherry-picked by Christians (even if it is canonical cherry-picking, since it is specified in the NT.)
Leviticus is pretty clear about many things, starting from shellfish.
Yeah, but most of that (with explicit exceptions, which include rules sexual morality) was explicitly deemed to be Jewish ceremonial disciplines not applicable to Gentile Christians (and, by implication, other non-Jews). See, generally, Acts 15.
So while that works with some of the arguments people sometimes make from Leviticus, it doesn’t help with the rules on sexual morality.
So while that works with some of the arguments people sometimes make from Leviticus, it doesn’t help with the rules on sexual morality.
It was only “deemed” as such afterwards, to provide an excuse for hating gays and not shellfish.
Why are you afraid to admit that your religion prohibits homosexuality? I'm Muslim, and we're not scared to say it.
> Why are you afraid to admit that your religion prohibits homosexuality?
Christianity doesn't have a single unitary rule of sexuality and not all forms of Christianity prohibit homosexuality, even in terms of thr general doctrine of organized groups. And even within organized groups whose official doctrine says one thing, there are dissenters on various points, and homosexuality is a common one.
Moreover, I’ve been responding to points about arguments from what the Bible says, which is a distinct thing from what (any form of) Christianity says. Christians (both organized groups and, within them, individuals) have a variety of approaches to the role of the Bible and its interpretation. There's no strong, general reason to comment about the doctrine of my religion (personally or organizationally) in a discussion of the content of the Bible.
Why are you so eager to jump into a subthread where it is irrelevant and point out that your religion prohibits homosexuality?
Christianity doesn't have a single unitary rule of sexuality and not all forms of Christianity prohibit homosexuality, even in terms of thr general doctrine of organized groups. And even within organized groups whose official doctrine says one thing, there are dissenters on various points, and homosexuality is a common one.
Moreover, I’ve been responding to points about arguments from what the Bible says, which is a distinct thing from what (any form of) Christianity says. Christians (both organized groups and, within them, individuals) have a variety of approaches to the role of the Bible and its interpretation. There's no strong, general reason to comment about the doctrine of my religion (personally or organizationally) in a discussion of the content of the Bible.
Why are you so eager to jump into a subthread where it is irrelevant and point out that your religion prohibits homosexuality?
Because homosexuality is prohibited in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. We take pride that Islam is the only one with the courage to stick to its roots without appeasing the latest fad of the day. This is a testament that it has not undergone corruption.
> Because homosexuality is prohibited in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.
This is simply false as a generalization of Judaism and Christianity. For that matter, it seems to be untrue as a generalization of Islam, as well, as their are organized Islamic groups that deny that the anti-gay stance is doctrinally valid, juat as there are in the other two groups.
In all three there is a historical nominal prohibition of homosexuality, in at least Islam and Christianity that got treated a lot more seriously than it was for moat of history sometime in the last couple centuries, and in all three there are modern movements, and both organized groups with distinct clergy that reject the traditional prohibition and movements within organized groups that still uphold the prohibition which nevertheless reject it.
None can claim to be the only one to stick universally to the prohibition without playing No True Scotsman (which, to be fair, religious groups historically do a lot of.)
This is simply false as a generalization of Judaism and Christianity. For that matter, it seems to be untrue as a generalization of Islam, as well, as their are organized Islamic groups that deny that the anti-gay stance is doctrinally valid, juat as there are in the other two groups.
In all three there is a historical nominal prohibition of homosexuality, in at least Islam and Christianity that got treated a lot more seriously than it was for moat of history sometime in the last couple centuries, and in all three there are modern movements, and both organized groups with distinct clergy that reject the traditional prohibition and movements within organized groups that still uphold the prohibition which nevertheless reject it.
None can claim to be the only one to stick universally to the prohibition without playing No True Scotsman (which, to be fair, religious groups historically do a lot of.)
[deleted]
Two reasons: first, we know some religions do that, and we also know it can be got rid of and nothing bad happens. Second: because if your religion requires one to be a criminal, a civilized society will make sure it’s either fixed, or disappears.
Religion can be gotten rid off and nothing bad happens? I take it you haven't seen what the likes of Mao, Stalin, Lenin, and Hitler did.
No, we're here today because of religion. You owe many of the luxuries of modern life because of the Golden Age of Islam. Your definition of "criminal" just happens to follow the latest fad of the day. Read https://www.kirkdurston.com/blog/unwin for a very brief overview.
No, we're here today because of religion. You owe many of the luxuries of modern life because of the Golden Age of Islam. Your definition of "criminal" just happens to follow the latest fad of the day. Read https://www.kirkdurston.com/blog/unwin for a very brief overview.
> I take it you haven't seen what the likes of Mao, Stalin, Lenin, and Hitler did.
Hitler leveraged religion as a tool rather than getting rid of it, and did pretty much the same kind of things as the others (which is individually worse is debatable, though Hitler generally “wins” that competition), so he kind of pretty clearly demonstratee that “getting rid of religion” isn't the source of the problem.
Hitler leveraged religion as a tool rather than getting rid of it, and did pretty much the same kind of things as the others (which is individually worse is debatable, though Hitler generally “wins” that competition), so he kind of pretty clearly demonstratee that “getting rid of religion” isn't the source of the problem.
Oh yeah. Not a Christian myself, but I would prefer if someone would steelman the argument rather than the usual wishy-washy business about Sodom and Gomorrah, an area of general crappiness which probably called for smiting along a lot of axes.
The Catholics already answered the shellfish objection.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-bible-on...
You can disagree, but they aren't idiots, they've thought about things. They've had over 2,000 years to think about it. Homosexuality has been around since the Roman era and much earlier.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-bible-on...
You can disagree, but they aren't idiots, they've thought about things. They've had over 2,000 years to think about it. Homosexuality has been around since the Roman era and much earlier.
Of course they aren’t idiots, just liars. There are reasons why the rest of Christianity had to split off from compromised Church half a millennia ago.
> There are reasons why the rest of Christianity had to split off from compromised Church half a millennia ago.
You seem to be ignoring the parts that split with the Roman Catholics long before Protestantism was dreamed up (in the case of the Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East, more than 1000 years before.)
You seem to be ignoring the parts that split with the Roman Catholics long before Protestantism was dreamed up (in the case of the Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East, more than 1000 years before.)
> Homosexuality has been around since the Roman era
TIL that the Romans invented homosexuality.
TIL that the Romans invented homosexuality.
And much earlier. Mentioned though because that's when they started.
[deleted]
Ask any Christian who know anything about their religion and they’ll know that Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality; it’s just a translation error.
Ask any translator or Biblical Scholar and they'll say it's way less clear-cut than that.
“Biblical scholars” are often theologians: political officers rather than scientists, they are trained to lie about that. Amount the actual scholars, it’s pretty much the consensus at this point.
Define "actual scholar." If most scholars aren't actually scholars, you may be committing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Scholar, as in somebody doing science. Science follows certain rules. Catholic theology explicitly rejects those rules, thus it’s not a science.
There is a science researching those topics, it’s called Religious Studies. It is to theology what chemistry is to alchemy.
There is a science researching those topics, it’s called Religious Studies. It is to theology what chemistry is to alchemy.
Theology is study about religion. Science, by definition cannot apply to things such as determining whether spirits exist. But that doesn't mean that there aren't spirits floating around us, you can't prove that to be scientifically false either. Science also can't tell us if we have a soul, but that's a core element of almost all religions.
By definition, Science does not work on Religion, but that does not make the religion false (because you could have a soul even though science cannot prove it), but rather shows you are hitting the limits of what Science alone can achieve.
And it is not fair, in that case, to call a Bible Scholar not a Scholar because their field intrinsically cannot use what people call "Science."
By definition, Science does not work on Religion, but that does not make the religion false (because you could have a soul even though science cannot prove it), but rather shows you are hitting the limits of what Science alone can achieve.
And it is not fair, in that case, to call a Bible Scholar not a Scholar because their field intrinsically cannot use what people call "Science."
Science can research religion just fine, like any other ideology and organization. No reason studying Catholicism would be any different from studying Communism, or just one of remaining thousands of religions and their gods.
And it’s perfectly fair to call out someone who is pretending to be a scholar, despite being just a propaganda officer, trained to only repeat, never question.
And it’s perfectly fair to call out someone who is pretending to be a scholar, despite being just a propaganda officer, trained to only repeat, never question.
Makes me wonder what actual problems Ghana is facing that are being blamed on minority sexualities as a distraction/scapegoat.
mlang23(1)
Homophobia in Ghana is largely the product of US-based Christian imperialists.
https://www.africaproactive.com/blog/releasethe21-the-lgbtq-...
https://www.africaproactive.com/blog/releasethe21-the-lgbtq-...
Upvoted. Similar in Eastern Europe. 90-00s were more tolerant than now, in large part due to american evangelical influence.
90s Russia: t.A.T.u and Army of Lovers fandom and Ruki Vverkh![1]
Russia 25 years later: This rainbow-colored ice cream is too gay.[2]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phxQFEH51SE
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-53319505
Russia 25 years later: This rainbow-colored ice cream is too gay.[2]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phxQFEH51SE
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-53319505
Why is this so downvoted? A number of other countries, Uganda for one, suffer from the same infection.
Because Western imperialism is very likely only a secondary cause, if any. You see strong condemnation of sodomy all across Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East and South Asia, with an extremely wide variety of religious and practical (STD prevention) underlying motivations, even in regions without any history of imperialist occupation, and such cultural norms are stronger in regions with higher birth rates, higher infectious disease death rates and lower hygiene standards.
legerdemain(3)
This is shitty.
I wonder if the intense population boom this part of the world is experiencing as well as these policies will lead to a rise of fake asylum claims in the west.
> will lead to a rise of fake asylum claims in the west
In what world would this be a source of fake asylum claims? The potential for actual persecution that meets the internationally recognized standard for asylum seems apparent in this case.
In what world would this be a source of fake asylum claims? The potential for actual persecution that meets the internationally recognized standard for asylum seems apparent in this case.
It's more common than you think!
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nigeria-refugee-homosexuality...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-lgbt-asylum-t...
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/attorneys-and-managers-...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nigeria-refugee-homosexuality...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-lgbt-asylum-t...
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/attorneys-and-managers-...
You have no idea how common I think it is.
What I do think is that the presence of immigration scams is as old as borders themselves, and that there's no particular reason to refocus an article that's about actual persecution onto handwringing about whether people will (quelle suprise) lie to obtain a better life for themselves and their loved ones.
What I do think is that the presence of immigration scams is as old as borders themselves, and that there's no particular reason to refocus an article that's about actual persecution onto handwringing about whether people will (quelle suprise) lie to obtain a better life for themselves and their loved ones.
Your links show it's much less common than I'd think. In all cases you cited the majority of asylum claims were legitimate.
> it's not uncommon for gay and lesbian Nigerians to get married simply to keep up appearances. When they come to Canada, they struggle to come to terms with their decision and assume they must be bisexual
...sounds like a good reason to leave and claim asylum.
Out of 2,055 Nigerians:
> a few lawyers were responsible for a "disproportionate" number of claims
...so a whole criminal enterprise is prepping fake asylum seekers but not even 15% of them are possibly fraudulent?
A whole 9!
Link 1:
> it's not uncommon for gay and lesbian Nigerians to get married simply to keep up appearances. When they come to Canada, they struggle to come to terms with their decision and assume they must be bisexual
...sounds like a good reason to leave and claim asylum.
Out of 2,055 Nigerians:
> a few lawyers were responsible for a "disproportionate" number of claims
Link 2:
...so a whole criminal enterprise is prepping fake asylum seekers but not even 15% of them are possibly fraudulent?
Link 3:
A whole 9!
I believe he's reimagining the plot of "I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry" but with asylum seekers?