Trevor Phillips On Race, What Muslims Think And Getting Support From The Far Right

“I don’t think I’m saying anything that shocking or particularly that new,” says Trevor Phillips, the self-described ‘Prophet Of Doom’ on race and integration in Britain. Middle class people like him are not affected by the dangers he is warning about, he says. The only way an unprecedented level of immigration impacts them is “it’s probably easier to find a Brazilian cleaner than it used to be.”

The former Labour politician, Equality and Human Rights Commission chair and television journalist published last month his essay on diversity Race and Faith: The Deafening Silence, arguing the country was “sleepwalking into catastrophe” while we “hum to the music of liberal self-delusion” by not confronting the “dark side of the diverse society”. The son of immigrants from Guyana argued that the scale of immigration and the hostility to liberal values of some arrivals meant we could not simply expect them to integrate on their own. Unless we adopt a more proactive approach to integration, he wrote, we tolerate a level of ethnic segregation that will “set community against community, endorse sexist aggression, suppress freedom of expression, reverse hard-won civil liberties, and undermine the liberal democracy that has served this country so well for so long”. The essay followed two incendiary Channel 4 programmes he presented: What Muslims Really Think in April and The Things You Can’t Say About Race last year. In the latter, he argued multi-culturalism had become a “racket” exploited by people to entrench segregation.

When he meets me in the Highgate offices of the production company he works with, Ofcom has just decided not to investigate complaints that What Muslims Really Think “increased Islamophobia“. The programme was based on polling that said, among other things, just 18% of British Muslims thought homosexuality should be legal. By comparison, Phillips cites YouGov polling of devout Christians that showed nearly half of them supported homosexuality being legal. As well complaints to Channel 4 and Ofcom, some criticised the polling for focussing on areas with larger Muslim populations, likely to be home to more new arrivals from more conservative countries. Phillips dismisses this as “complete crap” from “people who can’t add up”. “Polls are re-weighted anyway, so the sample reflects the census-derived demographics. It reflects the whole group of Muslims,” he says.

Race And Faith‘s argument in a nutshell:

• Politicians refuse to acknowledge the downsides multi-culturalism brings, even though stories about it provoke “muttering in the pub, or grumbling at the school gate”
  
  
• A failure to address the minority of arrivals who have illiberal attitudes to sexuality, the family and politics will potentially mean our liberal democracy
  
  
• We need ‘active integration’ in which we oblige schools and other institutions to promote integration and establish England as the standard working language
  
  
• We need to understand race, not as colour but as ‘the different sets of values and behaviours prevalent in some ethnocultural communities’ and realise how these can obstruct integration
  

He is particularly angry that people tried to argue that the poll sample of 1,000 could not reflect the views of three million Muslims. Phillips, a scientist by academic background who went into journalism and then politics, says “anyone with three weeks of statistics” knows this is a representative sample size. “I was irritated by that not because it was critical because it was so ignorant,” the 62-year-old tells me. “The truth is people would not make that kind of argument if it was about anything else. But because they so desperately don’t want to deal with the fact British Muslims, overall, have a rather different way of viewing the world and significant minority [has] views that are hostile to the mainstream views on key questions.”

He cites a conversation with a journalist as an example of the “elite conversation” wealthy people have on the issue. “A very distinguished newspaper columnist, he’s one of our most respected columnists, I’ve known him for years, said to me: ‘Well this really can’t be true because, I have quite a lot of Muslim friends and they don’t believe homosexuality is wrong’. I said to him: ‘Had it occurred to you that the Muslim friends you have might not be entirely typical of people who live in Burnley or Dewsbury or in Tower Hamlets?’ His next response - this is important point about this class - ‘well I grew up a Catholic and when I was young, Catholics would’ve said the same about homosexuality but of course we’ve changed.’ That’s just not true.”

I ask whether Islam is the most sensitive issue in the debate about multi-culturalism to Britain. He concedes it is the “most difficult” for many people but not for him. As chair of the EHCR, he prosecuted people who share his ethnic heritage for discriminating against gay people. “I had to go to court, people who are black lost their jobs. I think that is equally sensitive,” he says. “I don’t have any particular thing about Muslims.”

Phillips says view that Muslims will abandon social conservatism encapsulates a “profound disrespect” for religious minorities. “Underlying it is the elite view that ‘we left all that business of faith behind with our childhood’ and Muslims when they grow up, they’ll also leave it all behind them’.” Phillips argues more Muslims will not integrate on their own in the way earlier immigrants did. Firstly, he says, the religion has less experience flourishing in societies where it is a minority. Secondly, the modern world allows immigrants to keep much better in touch with the old country and customs. Jews arriving in Britain a century ago would never go home, he says, and for Phillips’ parents, coming to Britain was a big choice. Phillips claims that 270,000 people travel from Britain to Pakistan a year and people can easily visit several times a year.
“The idea that you let go of the old country, that isn’t going to happen,” he says. “Even if you don’t go there, you can actually watch your crops on the family farm grow on the internet. Yesterday, I talked to three members of my family in New York, Toronto and tonight I will talk to one of my school friends in Georgetown ... Immigrants don’t have the same cut off they used to have.” Thirdly, he argues changes in Britain have stopped forcing people to step outside their comfort zones. His father worked on the railways and at the Post Office, where he had to interact with people of different backgrounds. But “great workplaces” like textile mills don’t exist anymore and people work in smaller businesses alongside people no different to them, Phillips says.

The Social Integration Commission published a report in 2014 warning that segregation by race, age and class was prevalent in Britain. Its findings disputed a widely-accepted belief about London, saying the capital is less integrated than the rest of the country. “That really surprised even me, who’s a Prophet of Doom on these things,” Phillips says. “The orthodox view is that London is this big melting pot and we all love each other, what is truer is London is a zone of co-existence ... When left to their own devices, people tend not to mix with people who are not like themselves.”

Phillips has been saying this for more than a decade. He first called for us to “assert a core of Britishness” in 2004, while chairing what was then the Commission for Racial Equality. He says the questions he is raising are now becoming irresistible in the face of demographic change in Britain. “By 2040, at least a third of our population will be people of colour,” he says. After 7/7, Phillips’ warning about segregation was shot down by a then relatively unknown minister, David Miliband, who called it alarmist and the argument “fatuous”. “It’d be interesting to see if he said that now,” Phillips says.

In his essay, Phillips writes about Enoch Powell’s infamous 1968 speech that warned mass immigration would lead to “rivers of blood”. This effectively ended Powell’s career in the Conservative Party and made politicians only say “anodyne and platitudinous” things about race, religion and diversity, Phillips wrote. “Rome may not yet be in flames, but I think I can smell the smouldering,” he wrote in the essay. When I suggest this warning draws a parallel between Powell’s assertions and his own, Phillips dismisses this.

Until now, Phillips’ arguments have been well rehearsed and honed in the way you’d expect of a broadcast journalist, ex-London Assembly member and former head of a major public body. But he seems slightly flustered at the prospect of commenting on Powell, a politician now the subject of near universal condemnation. “I don’t think of it. I don’t want to be drawn on it,” he says when I ask whether he thinks Powell was right. “I think Enoch Powell and attitudes to Enoch Powell have defined race relations in this country for far too long. He’s dead. My children’s generation have no idea who he was and don’t care. I don’t even really want to get into it.”

Phillips’ comments have earned him comparisons to - and occasionally endorsement from - members of the Far Right. When he warned of racial segregation in 2006, then London Mayor Ken Livingstone suggested Phillips could soon be “joining the BNP” because he was “pandering to the right”.This is ironic given his argument that doing more to integrate minorities would diminish the appeal of groups like the BNP. But the headlines Phillips’ comments generate can make them sound similar to what parts of the Far Right say. “Divisions sparked by mass immigration could lead to CATASTROPHE,” was one in the Daily Express. After his essay was published last month, one Tweeter who identified as a “Nationalist”, said: “Trevor Phillips now accepting that we were right all along.”

When I raise this, Phillips quotes Livingstone, with whom he had frosty relations while he was on the London Assembly, as if mentally rolling his eyes. He adds: “My grandmother used to say: ‘Just because the devil picks up a good tune doesn’t make it a bad tune’. I think that’s exactly how you give the Far Right power - you surrender all the ground to them because they claim that they agree with you.” What follows is his first verbal slip up so far: “[The Far Right] can claim what the shit - excuse me, they can claim whatever they like.” Regaining himself, he continues: “The question is: Is our analysis correct? It obviously isn’t going to take us to the same place as them.”

Phillips then says he doesn’t want to “dodge” the question. His delivery changes to be more emphatic. Emphasising each syllable as if it were a separate word, he says: “The only reason these people get any mileage with people who are not themselves, a bit psycho, is because, they appear to be the only people who will recognise the world that ordinary working people are living in.” Phillips says Ukip - which he stresses he doesn’t regard as far right - owes its successes to its ability to say parties on the Left are “studiously ignoring the lived experience of ordinary people”, he says. “We let them get away with it because we’ve become so prissy about the idea that something one of us says might be taken out of context,” he says. Phillips notes Jeremy Corbyn has tried to address anxieties about immigration but sighs: “Tell that to Ken Livingstone.”

Phillips admiringly cites the Germans who have spent billions of euros on a programme to pro-actively integrate the million refugees who arrived last year. That is, Phillips says, an example of “thinking about this seriously”. He recalls a study by the ECHR into the UK meatpacking industry that found migrant workers were being placed on shifts based on their nationality, as managers wanted to overcome language barriers. Phillips says: “Is that actually the type of society we want to live in? If you don’t make a conscious decision that that is not what you want, that is what you are going to get. The same thing will happen in schools, in neighbourhoods.” He says: “Diversity in our society is now inevitable and better for our society but that won’t come by accident. We have to plan for it. It’s not going to happen just by accident. We can’t be complacent about this.”

I ask Phillips what Britain will become if we do not follow his advice. He answers without hesitation: “America.” “Why do people think there’s a thing called Black Lives Matter [in America]?” he asks. “Most of White America think black lives don’t matter because they don’t meet any. At 6 o’clock they go home to a street that is full of other white people. They will never really experience what it’s like to be black or Hispanic. Their children may mix but I bet you they’re not going to the same birthday parties.”

The elite Phillips accuses of being “squeamish” about race are predominantly white, he says. Does the fact he’s black make them squeamish about criticising him? “Quite the reverse,” he says. “I know people say: ‘Only a black person can say this’ and all the rest of it but actually when I said, 12 years ago, that I thought we ought to think again about how we use the word multiculturalism. Everybody was all over it.” He says a lot of his critics at the time actually relished the fact he was black. “They were able to say ‘how dare he say this? And isn’t it absolutely shocking that a black person can say this kind of thing because most black people will disagree with him’. I don’t think my colour has discouraged anyone at all. In fact, it made it worse. It made some people feel quite liberated to find a black person they could disagree with on race.”
The recent reaction to his essay has been more positive and devoid of the “usual” criticism that he is saying these things for self-publicity. “It’s quite nice not to be sneered at,” he says.

After our interview finishes, Phillips walks with me to Kentish Town tube station, still speaking and making his case. He asks why The Huffington Post is interested in speaking to him, as the left-leaning media “hate me”, he says. Then he says something that makes me produce my dictaphone and get him to repeat. “I think I’m probably not right about quite a lot of things,” he says. “But the way for me to prove I’m not right is with more evidence. As with most scientists, What I think is: Let me put a hypothesis based on the evidence I know. I hope, most of the time, I’m 50% or 60% right. But I have no objection if somebody comes along with a better piece of evidence and says: 20% of you’d just told is just junk and here’s the evidence’. I will change my mind but, come with the evidence man.”

I ask what he thinks will happen next. “Well if I knew the answer to that, I probably would’ve been able to make it happen by now,” he answers. He refers back to his politics in the 1970s, which remind me that, whatever you think of Phillips’ arguments, he came to them from the Left, not the Right. “I started in politics as a student Maoist. I’m a great believer in struggle. I think this is the struggle of our age. You only know the result of the struggle after you’ve had it.”


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/trevor-phillips-on-race-what-Muslims-think-and-winning-support-from-the-far-right_uk_5756c208e4b0411d4de1f835?edition=uk&utm_hp_ref=uk

Tad of a misleading headline the way it says "getting" support from the Far Right.
When the far Right play off things he has said.
It does not mean they are on the same page at all, but that the Far right will capitalize on the evidence he has presented.
He made some very telling points again and its something that does need to be talked about and not brushed under the carpet

Bullshit dodge... when a white British says this they are demonised as 'far right' and being 'racist' and the arguments come thick and fast about everyone being the same except for skin colour which is irrelevant etc...


When a black/other non white says the same they are hailed as being brave and insightful and highlighting actual real issues that need addressing etc...

Tommy Monk wrote:Bullshit dodge... when a white British says this they are demonised as 'far right' and being 'racist' and the arguments come thick and fast about everyone being the same except for skin colour which is irrelevant etc...


When a black/other non white says the same they are hailed as being brave and insightful and highlighting actual real issues that need addressing etc...

There is a massive difference behind the motivation between the two where it is someone Far Right.
So its not bullshit and other white British people say things that are not motiovated by racism, xenophobia but want to help change problems
The difference is one group, the far Right plays off this to promote hate, the other to bring about change for the better.
You had to bring skin colour into this when it has no relevance.
Like he said

We need to understand race, not as colour but as ‘the different sets of values and behaviours prevalent in some ethnocultural communities’ and realise how these can obstruct integration.

I would go one further and drop the term race altogether, and base this on cultures and beliefs

It is others who bring in skin colour when it is a white brit making the points... as I explained... but when a non white makes exactly the same points then the skin colour being the motivation of person making points is never raised!

Tommy Monk wrote:It is others who bring in skin colour when it is a white brit making the points... as I explained... but when a non white makes exactly the same points then the skin colour being the motivation of person making points is never raised!

Absurd resoning again and you clearly did not read the article in full did you.
You also say white brits collectivelly as if there is no white Btits who are racist, when there certainly is that play off some of these views to promote hate. The fact you also are doing the same based off this very apsect on skin colour speaks volumes in itself.

I mean Trevor is what is classed black is he not?

Huffington Post wrote:When he meets me in the Highgate offices of the production company he works with, Ofcom has just decided not to investigate complaints that What Muslims Really Think “increased Islamophobia“

When he warned of racial segregation in 2006, then London Mayor Ken Livingstone suggested Phillips could soon be “joining the BNP” because he was “pandering to the right”

There is always some regressives who make matters worse and class all who are critical of an issue as racist, but to say that when white Brits do this, as you are insinuating they are not being racist is nothing short of bollocks, as a number of white Brits are racist and do play off said views to promote hate. There is White Brits who are not racist and challenge issues, hence the difference on the motivation between the two.
Agin though if you are claiming to me, that anyone that makes this argument are immediatelly exempt from being classed racist, when that person holds racist hateful views. Then you are really telling porkies

Right back to the second half

Dodge... ALL white Brits, who have ever said what Philips is saying, have been demonised in the ways I listed earlier!


I have been subject to exactly this myself for such things... and I have friends and family of various ethnic backgrounds!!!


And if Philips was a white Brit saying what he is saying... then you know as well as I do that he would be being demonised too!!!


But he's black... so the attack dogs don't respond as they would against a white Brit saying the same... because THEY are the real racists!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Dodge... ALL white Brits, who have ever said what Philips is saying, have been demonised in the ways I listed earlier! I have been subject to exactly this myself for such things... and I have friends and family of various ethnic backgrounds!!! And if Philips was a white Brit saying what he is saying... then you know as well as I do that he would be being demonised too!!! But he's black... so the attack dogs don't respond as they would against a white Brit saying the same... because THEY are the real racists!!!

I see you are just regurgitating the same bollocks Twatti. I see many articles daily make views for years now in the Telegraph, Mail, Express etc and where they do not get labelled racist written by white journalists. You have the likes of Douglas Murray make constant views on the subject and is not deemed racist. He is by some regressives, just as we see here where Livingston was baiscally calling Phillips racist to join the BNP. What you are pathetically trying to do is excuse those who are racist that play off these views to promote hate and it is not going to buy. Their motivation is racism and hate. They are plagerizing the views of others to promote their hate. So to claim people do not call Phillips racist is a crock of shit. So the bases of your argument is that some regressives label anyone racist, who views conflict with them, no matter if black or white. Which is rendered moot by the fact many white British people make views on thsi who are not deemed racist at all by many people. What youa re trying to do is pathetically excuse those who jump on the bandwagon of geuine criticism, to promote their hate

You have just confirmed my point by admitting that the journalist (you mentioned) has been demonised in the way I said...

Tommy Monk wrote:You have just confirmed my point by admitting that the journalist (you mentioned) has been demonised in the way I said...

Yes by some regressives who also call Trevor Phillips an islamophobe or tell him to join the BNP.
The BNP is a racist party, if you were not aware. Many people do not class Douglas as a racist.
Your argument is so absurd as its based of numeroeus opinons hld by a variety of people.
Again what you are trying to do is justify when a racist uses and plays off such arguments to promote their hate and that they should not be cast racist, when they are racist.
In other words you are being a racist apologist

Either the points raised are valid and non racist... or they aren't...

Tommy Monk wrote:Either the points raised are valid and non racist... or they aren't...

Again failing to understand the motivation behind the views made.
Anyone can copy arguments to further their racist cause.
Why is that sio difficult for you to grasp?

Except... I think you'll find that it is the ones who were making the points first who were then being demonised...


But now it is others who are making the same points...


And now it is them who are being demonised... if they are white Brits...


But Philips is just being told that he might as well join others who were previously demonised for saying the same...

Tommy Monk wrote:Except... I think you'll find that it is the ones who were making the points first who were then being demonised...
But now it is others who are making the same points...And now it is them who are being demonised... if they are white Brits...
But Philips is just being told that he might as well join others who were previously demonised for saying the same...

Racist apologist

Here lets put this to the test shall we.

A non-racist concerned at a society within a society of Muslims will say.

"There is a problem with Islamists within the Muslim communities, which we need to help those communities tackle"

The racist will say

"There are extremists Muzzies in the Muzzie communities, that are paeodo gangs, because Muhammad was a Paedo and we need to take back our land"


So basically all you can come up with is some regressives will label anyone a racist, neglecting that the vast majority of  people will not label people racist for views, unless they are racist and are using said views to promote their hate.

A leftie twat would say the first one... reluctantly... but then quickly follow it with waffle about how it's nothing to do with islam etc and islam is a religion of peace etc...


While also demonising anyone else who says anything about the problems... and after years of denying there were ever any problems and years of demonising anyone who said there was...

If Islam is the reason an adherent becomes an extremist, then all Muslims should be extremists. There would be literally no peaceful Muslims in the world. Or are you saying that all Muslims besides the extremists aren't real Muslims?

No, they're normal

If alcohol was the reason an adherent becomes an alcoholic then all drinkers should be alcoholics. There would be literally no non alcoholic drinkers in the world. Or are you saying that all drinkers beside the alcoholics aren't proper drinkers...?

If food was the reason an adherent becomes a fatty then all eaters should be fatties. There would be literally no non fatty eaters in the world. Or are you saying that all eaters beside the fatties aren't proper eaters...?

Tommy, you're just proving my point over and over again. Obviously there is something besides Islam that is making these people extremists.

You don't become an alcoholic by drinking tea... and you don't become a fatty by eating salad...

Tommy Monk wrote:

You don't become an alcoholic by drinking tea... and you don't become a fatty by eating salad...

Everyone who drinks alcohol doesn't become an addict; not everyone who eats gets fat.

So what makes a drinker become an alcoholic, or an eater fat?

Ben_Reilly wrote:If Islam is the reason an adherent becomes an extremist, then all Muslims should be extremists. There would be literally no peaceful Muslims in the world. Or are you saying that all Muslims besides the extremists aren't real Muslims?

Not all Muslims become Islamist extremists...


Just like not all drinkers of alcohol become alcoholics...


And not all eaters of fat become fatties...




But by your reasoning... Islamists are nothing to do with islam... so alcoholics are nothing to do with alcohol... and fatties are nothing to do with fat...

Ben_Reilly wrote:If Islam is the reason an adherent becomes an extremist, then all Muslims should be extremists. There would be literally no peaceful Muslims in the world. Or are you saying that all Muslims besides the extremists aren't real Muslims?

That is a poor understanding of the situation.
There are many Christians all over the world, some are liberal, some secular, some evolutionists and some who neo conservative, who take a literal reading of the bible and that homosexuals should be punished, people who have abortions should be punished etc.
Would they view people this way without the Bible Ben?
The reality is this is how people have been taught within all the Abrahamic faiths for centuiries to view people.
Its the politicalized beliefs that re enshrined in law, that is and has always been the problem.
So to answer your question above, would there be any islamic extremist, if there was no Islam?

The answer would be, no there would not be any.
Its not just Islam of course, but its the central aspect that is the driving force behind actions and their justifications.
To deny, this when extremists constantly use islamic text to not only justify their acts, but even to recruit those to their cause.
You would not have any Muslims turn to extremism, if not there was verses that did justfiy such violence and hate.
I have said to you many times and its the same throughout history is that it is hate and a narative of hate that is the driving force that brings violoence in religion. This hate is already central in these faiths, by the simple view that those who do not belueve will be eternally punished. In other words, only those who believe are saved and those who do not are deemed judged, sentence and in some cases sentence carried out.


Now there is many good Muslims out there, but there is also a substancial out there that conflict with the well being and equality of people.
To ignore that, is just plain absurd and dangeroeus.

Religion is the excuse, not the reason.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Religion is the excuse, not the reason.

Then over 2,000 years of religious violence shows how wrong the above statement is.
If a view is held that an apsect is an absolute moral and that say for example it claims homosexuality is punishable by death and even commands that it should be. How thenm is that an excuse, when it is reasoned and commanded that they should be put to death?

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Religion is the excuse, not the reason.

Then over 2,000 years of religious violence shows how wrong the above statement is.
If a view is held that an apsect is an absolute moral and that say for example it claims homosexuality is punishable by death and even commands that it should be. How thenm is that an excuse, when it is reasoned and commanded that they should be put to death?

Are you so naive as to think people don't believe these things in the absence of religious indoctrination?

Of course they do. Religion is a man-made construct. People put their own hateful beliefs into it and attributed them to God. That’s how those ideas got into the religions in the first place.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


Then over 2,000 years of religious violence shows how wrong the above statement is.
If a view is held that an apsect is an absolute moral and that say for example it claims homosexuality is punishable by death and even commands that it should be. How thenm is that an excuse, when it is reasoned and commanded that they should be put to death?

Are you so naive as to think people don't believe these things in the absence of religious indoctrination?

Of course they do. Religion is a man-made construct. People put their own hateful beliefs into it and attributed them to God. That’s how those ideas got into the religions in the first place.

So now i am naive based on the view of some religious people, when you blatantly ignore again this is what has been taught for over 2,000 years and commanded and has seen countless homosexuals been executed.
So now the hateful attributes is now not from this deity, even though its claimed its commanded by God, and that people believe they are from God, the point you blatantly miss. That if they did not believe they were not from God, they simple then would not be literal believers and believe aspects were man made. The fact you simple cannot distinquish that it is a problem when it is literally belief and that these commands actually tell them to execute people.
So now you are excusing the violence from an athiest stand point, where it is viewed rightly as man made, which makes zero relevance to the literal believer who believes it is commanded by their deity

Think through what I wrote, you'll see I'm right. If religion was invented by man, then men put their own evil ideas into it. Thus, homophobes don't have to learn hate from religion - - it's already in them, and religion provides a great backup. Just like how the altruistic teachings in religion provide support for what good people were already inclined to do.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Think through what I wrote, you'll see I'm right. If religion was invented by man, then men put their own evil ideas into it. Thus, homophobes don't  have to learn hate from religion - - it's already in them, and religion provides a great backup. Just like how the altruistic teachings in religion provide support for what good people were already inclined to do.

Redundent point, because we know its man made, but the people who literally believe think it comes from their deity.
Again you are arguing from a point where "you" believe it is man made, ignoring the fact others disagree with you.
They will state it does come from God.
How you can simply over look this is just appalling and over 2000 years of religious violence has just been excused by you based off hindisght.
I am not denying there are aspects and good taught in religion, like for example many aspects of teachings of jesus, but you simply cannot just write off the doctrines that are believed to have come directly from this deity.
By default the abrahamic religions are born from a religious view of racis, that those who believe are saved and those who do not are condemned eternally and thus are inferior in their beliefs and treated as such throughout history. Where as you and I would treat all equally under the law, they would not and seek to punish people simply for being in love

They say it's from God because it agrees with how they feel!

Ben_Reilly wrote:They say it's from God because it agrees with how they feel!

Now they believe it is from God, because a book claims it is the word of God, and they place this word over that of their own families and the law of the land. Again, why would they do so, if not for the fact they believe this is the views of their deity.
There are people who do not execute homosexuals but believe that homosexuality is a sin and that its up to their deity to punish them.
That is the only difference, some believe they should punish them and other believe its down to their God.
They both believe homosexuality its wrong though and do so through belief.

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:They say it's from God because it agrees with how they feel!

Now they believe it is from God, because a book claims it is the word of God, and they place this word over that of their own families and the law of the land. Again, why would they do so, if not for the fact they believe this is the views of their deity.
There are people who do not execute homosexuals but believe that homosexuality is a sin and that its up to their deity to punish them.
That is the only difference, some believe they should punish them and other believe its down to their God.
They both believe homosexuality its wrong though and do so through belief.

No. People believe teachings that reflect what they feel, and homophobia (and many other societal ills) come from the bigots who espouse them.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


Now they believe it is from God, because a book claims it is the word of God, and they place this word over that of their own families and the law of the land. Again, why would they do so, if not for the fact they believe this is the views of their deity.
There are people who do not execute homosexuals but believe that homosexuality is a sin and that its up to their deity to punish them.
That is the only difference, some believe they should punish them and other believe its down to their God.
They both believe homosexuality its wrong though and do so through belief.

No. People believe teachings that reflect what they feel, and homophobia (and many other societal ills) come from the bigots who espouse them.

Really?
So if they grow up being taught the bible which states that homosexuality is wrongs its not down to the commands in the book but their feelings?
Sorry one word for that

Bullshit

I will add ben, tell that to all the homosexuals who have been ostracized by their religious parents.
That their parents feelings was responsible for disowning them

For fuck sake