Amazing. Let us get down on our knees and give thanks to religion for hardly solving the problem it created.

And:

100 preachers don't even make a small dent in anything having to do with religion in Tennessee. Have you spent any time in that state at all?

The legislators will simply toss that statement.

Do you know what a small percentage 100 is of all the preachers in that state? Do you think they will change minds in TN?

They won't. They're trying, and that's nice, but it won't work. What might is some federal laws with teeth.

As I said, for a few here, the perfect is always the enemy of the good.

And since this is a good thing, good news, some must trash what does not conform to the preferred narrative.

12 Disciples changed history.

If the proposed legistation fails to pass, it will not be because of 100 fringe god-botherers. It will be because millions of Tennesseans are better at humaning than their pastors.

They will fail because so many other "religious leaders" are in the anti-LGBTQ camp. Think powers of 10 more.

That's why I asked if you had been to Tennessee or are familiar with that state in some way. Of course, you never answered that question. Tennessee is part of the Bible Belt, and is dominated by evangelical and fundamentalist churches. All of those support treating LGBTQ people as second class citizens at best.

Once again, religionnews.com is not a reliable source of actual news. It is a heavily biased source of stories, from which you select some of the least reliable ones. Then, you post minor excerpts from those stories here and expect people to congratulate you.

There is no "perfect" in your story. It is a story about a tiny minority of religious leaders taking a position that is not held by most people in that state. Even that tiny minority is not "perfect." It's not good news, really, if you look at actual numbers of people in TN. As you will see, if you continue to follow this issue, their efforts will produce no good effect on the TN legislature, which doesn't care what those preachers say.

The only preferred narrative is the truth. Only armed with the truth can people make change.

Who rejected Christianity but kept many of its prejudices.

Please.

We all know that humans are intolerant. Some apparently prefer to see non-theists as exceptional, and lacking the intolerance that exists in every society.

So the examples of extreme intolerance coming from a country like China, a country run by atheists, runs counter to this belief that somehow by removing religion from society, society will be better.

It will not. It will just be a society of non-religious people who otherwise exhibit all of the same behaviors.

Let's not paint with too broad a brush again.

That should be interesting.

The article provides information generally lending support to my position. If you have some other evidence show it. I know you don't, and you probably won't try to track down the scholarly disputes from the original scholars to make a fully informed opinion. Just like you didn't track down the history of geopolitics in Central Asia to better inform yourself about the complex interactions there. And I can't point you to anything on the internet because my knowledge of Central Asia didn't come from the Internet. But I don't have a similar background in the history of homosexuality in China. I do know that the pattern has been reported in many parts of the world. Wherever Christian, Islamic, or Western (until recently) influence went, tolerant attitudes towards homosexuals turned intolerant.

But there are many non-Abrahamic religions that are much older.

So either theism is to blame, or it is not.

There is not, so far as I know, any similar prohibition in any other culture of the Ancient Near East. We know that the Canaanites had male and female temple prostitutes. It's possible the prohibition was intended to discourage Canaanite practices that were not part of the Israelite religion.

I say what I have always said. I have no problem with theism. I only have a problem with certain forms of it, mainly conservative or fundamentalist forms. In this cause we have a particular ancient theistic prohibition that has caused much harm. We kept the prohibition long after the original reason was forgotten. This is a feature of conservative theism. It preserves moralities that either never should have been or have long outlived their usefulness.

To 3,000 years of the death penalty for homosexuals, with not one person objecting prior to the Enlightenment, and even then it was still a crime and it took another 200 years to make it actually acceptable.

Religion wants credit for the problems religion caused.

Humans cause the problem, and as the example of China shows, LGBTQ discrimination is not restricted to theists.

And that explains the discomfort the China posts cause for some here.

That a hundred religious leaders are opposing?

Seems far fetched.

But high marks for imaginative reframing.

When we're talking about the United States.

The ones that MM keeps asking about?

Why do you think that I post about the many ways that the Chinese leaders treat theists with such intolerance?

And we've had discussions about it. But to restate whataboutism, motte-and-bailey, reframing, false-equalivance, and more like that.

A human response.

Something that theists and atheists share.

You make a ridiculous claim, then retreat to some basic thing to seem reasonable, then when the other relents you come back out to the ridiculous claim again.

You don't actually care about China, you are using as a convenient club.

Religious leaders is such a vague term.

I call it Waitsism. We read from Bukowski before communion, only Waitists don't use bread and wine. We use whiskey and cigarettes.

So I'm a religious leader now.

However, I noticed the article said nothing about the number of religious leaders who are on record as supporting this legislation. Do you have any idea where we could find that information, Gil? It seems relevant, if we're to decide whether religion has had a positive effect or a negative effect in relation to this issue.

But I did post information about that non-theistic paradise called China, and that information shows that in the non-theistic paradise, there are very high levels of intolerance for LGBTQ people.

What does that show about the nature of intolerance directed at LGBTQ people?

Sure, the government is officially atheist, but the people?

China, once officially atheist, now booming with religion

[https://religionnews.com/2017/05/17/china-once-officially-atheist-now-booming-with-religion/

China on course to become 'world's most Christian nation' within 15 years

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.Html

China, officially atheist, could have more Christians than the U.S. by 2030

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/China-officially-atheist-could-have-more-12633079.php

But, if this officially atheist Government is losing the battle to make China religion free, what does that say about the belief that theism is slowly dying out?

Have you found out how many religious leaders in Tennessee have publicly supported this legislation? Is that number higher or lower than the "more than 100" this article is crowing about?

It was an attempt at diversion from the post. An attempt to "prove" that the perfect is the enemy of the good.

And your earlier response does raise questions about this supposed evolution from theism to what some see as the more rational choice.

so I guess we should praise the GOP as well?

That's a much higher percentage of Republicans than the percentage of religious leaders in Tennessee who oppose this hate legislation.

they still vote for Republicans.

I lived in Memphis for about 25 years — there are ~800 churches in Memphis proper and roughly 2,000 in the Memphis metropolitan area. Going by the numbers I found here, I added up all the churches in Tennessee and there are a whopping 10,354 churches in the state.

I mean, yeah, good for the 126 for signing it, but if you subtract the number of retired leaders who signed it the number drops to 119 or 1.1% of all church leaders in the state.

Many of those 10,354 churches have more than one pastor, which raises the number of "religious leaders" available to hold opinions.

But, in any case, a 1% minority opinion on any topic can be easily ignored as irrelevant. Such is the case in Tennessee with regard to LGBTQ issues. Again, while it's nice that slightly more than 100 religious leaders are in support of LGBTQ rights in Tennessee, but that will not change that state's overall attitudes, nor make those discriminatory bills go away.

There were six churches within a two-mile radius of my house, and the Southern Baptist megachurch (Bellevue Baptist Church) near my old place currently has 14 pastors and 19 ministers. Its three satellite locations' staffs include four pastors and two ministers.

With 30,000 members they're obviously not representative of all churches in Tennessee, but that's a helluva lot of pastors and ministers employed by just one church. Given that it's a Southern Baptist church with a well-known history of homophobia, I'd be willing to bet that none of their pastors or ministers would ever dream of signing the kind of letter referenced in the OP, either.

but there is also a smaller church on just about every other street corner in many towns.

1% or so of "religious leaders" is no more significant that 1% of anything. $99 will buy a lot more groceries than $1, which won't buy more than one item in most stores, if even that.

That's the trouble with using numbers without any reference to the whole. It might sound impressive if you don't think about it at all, but the moment you compare a number to what it actually represents, the picture is clearer.

Now, I'm very happy that 100+ ministers or pastors are supportive of LGBTQ rights in Tennessee, but I recognize that is an insignificant number in terms of effectiveness toward that goal.

religionnews.com often publishes news stories like this that do not include any perspective to help readers understand what the story really is. I'd never post such a story here. I'd be too embarrassed. There are too many people here who see right through unrepresentative numbers and understand that there is really no story there.

It upsets him. You'll get an earful about China now.