Turkey: Editor of gay magazine to stand trial

What was Umut thinking? Everybody knows how it's done in Dar al Islam. For his crime of forthrightness, he should be senteced to 90 days of litter patrol in the alley ways of Islamabad.

Then he'll see.

Given Turkey's attitude to press freedom in general this can hardly come as a surprise to any of us. However, it is not all bad news for gay people and others in Turkey - see:

http://www.bianet.org/2006/10/01_eng/news86363.htm

Rights for gays and others have been upheld in that case.

The interesting point about this article is, to my mind, in Robert's introduction to it where he writes "...homosexual activists in the West are concentrating on a threat they think is much more serious: that of the "Christian Right," ..."

Precisely. Just like so many other people in the west the LGBT people in our societies seem hell-bent on ignoring the very real threat that mohammedanism poses to the continuation of the freedoms which we all enjoy. Why? I wish I knew.

I know that I am not the only gay person to post here so at least some of us are awake, but why so pitifully few of us? One would think that gay people would be over-conscious about threats to freedom given the many fights for our rights we have had to undertake in the past (but that doesn't seem to be the case) and, therefore, perhaps would be over-represented on such a site as this. Obviously that is not the situation. I cannot help but wonder why so few gay people seem to care about freedom - their own as well as that of others.

Dominic.

By-the-way, there is slightly more information about this article at:

http://news.kaosgl.com/item/2006/12/26/lawsuit-against-the-turkish-lgbt-magazine-s-publisher

Dominic.

Dominic, my gay friends seem to insist on solidarity with the oppressed Palestinans and are opposed to the evil Israelis. I'm sure I don't need to point out that they would have full rights in Israel and be killed in Palestine. They insist on ignoring this.

Oh, and Turkey is, by a long way, the most tolerant Islamic country for gays. In every other islamic country, they would be in prison or dead.

Here's how they treat gays in Iran.

http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/wp-content/images/islamhomosexuals.jpg

As a Bisexual, I find the Islamic stance on homosexuality to little more than hatemongering. While it is true that some branches of Christianity still don't accept it, it is also true that they aren't treading upon the rights of others. I am disgusted to find out that very few homosexuals are willing to speak out against Islam.

Christianity is not the enemy, Islam is.

Falwell and Robertson have not openly called for the imprisonment of gays.. but that does not mean that they wouldn't if they could.. unfortunately for them, they live, along with gays, in a secular society that is built on the laws of men.. not the laws of some god.. like Islam, or like what Robertson et al would like them to be...

However underlying everything in the so called Christian Right, (an abomination of faith if there ever was one)..is the teachings, ideology, druthers of Dominionism or Christian Reconstructionism, which the Falwells, Robertsons, Dobsons embrace, without uttering the name or word Dominionism or Christian Reconstructionism.. and this ideology calls for the stoning of gays, adulterers, juvenile delinquents, less than faithful Christians.. etc

Lewis Loflin, a Deist, a defender of Israel has a lot of material at his website including The Royal Race of the Redeemed, Christian NAZIsm exposed

I am quite sure that Mr Spencer and others are not at all familiar with this movement (Dominionism), as he and others have devoted their lives and time to exposing Islam, but it wouldn't hurt to look at what else is going on in the environment, and that would save them from making silly and erroneous statements about the Robertsons, Falwells, Dobsons.

And better yet if they understood (as the gays, liberals, etc) did what underpines the ideology of these peoples, and how their druthers, agenda and ideology pose an IMMEDIATE threat to the civil rights, liberties and well beings of gays, feminists and liberals.. then maybe they would understand why the likes of Rosie ODonnell PERCEIVE that the Christian Right is a greater (IMMEDIATE) threat than the Islamists.

If Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Perkins et al, want the help of ALL the citizens in the battle for civilization with Islam, then they should re evalute their agenda, priorities and rhetoric, rather than rallying the "base" to turn out and demonize gays by voting against them, or preaching damnation of them from the pulpit.

And if Mr Spencer walked five miles in the sandals of gays, he might understand perhaps why the feel, speak and act the way they do.

I've been preaching forever on this website.. stop making enemies of natural allies, but Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Perkins, Coulter et al.. just don't get it, or don't care.. they may not imprison or execute gays, but the gays and liberals know that the only reason that is the case is because they don't yet have the total power and control that they want and need.

I've been preaching forever on this website.. stop making enemies of natural allies...

The gay community has alienated itself by wearing its preference on its sleeve so as to garner prerogative through a victimhood that doesn't exist.

What kind of ally against Islam does a victimist make?

A agree with Nariz. Should the Gay community should be worried about Islamists? Long term thinking yes, but not short term. The "Christian Right" has far greater influence on policy than Islamic groups. Falwell, certainly not openly admitted wanting members of teh Gay community incarcerated, but I wouldnt be surprised if they shared that goal in their hearts.

Who has greater influence over state and federal government? The Christian right or Muslim communities? The former. Bush's realtionship with teh Christian right is well noted and documented.

The Gay community can certainly be concerned with both. But the Muslim threat, at the moment is not imminent in the US. It is the Christian right movement that is hell bent (and in a position of policy influence) on denying the Gay community basic human rights.

Nariz

But what if the Islamic community join up with the christian community and join forces to get total power and control over what they want, such as making homosexuality illegal?

'Nuff said.

Be interesting to hear the EU position on this

Nariz:

Christian fundamentalism (and Jewish for that matter) is growing as a result of this Islamism around the world. It is as if the extreme elements of the world are feeding off of each other. Admittedly, Christian and Jewsih fundamentalists tend to be more benign that their Moslem counterparts, but that is due to a variety of reasons.

As for gays, they are attacking the "devil" they know.

I personally have dedicated myself to exposing Islam to gays. It has not won me any love among my gay friends who are far more obsessed with Christians.

Feed up? End religion now. There is no silly god.

I've been preaching forever on this website.. stop making enemies of natural allies...

The gay community has alienated itself by wearing its preference on its sleeve so as to garner prerogative through a victimhood that doesn't exist.

What kind of ally against Islam does a victimist make?

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 27, 2006 02:25 PM

I can't really improve on this post. APF is right on.

Those you site NARIZ, are simply against giving "special rights" to gays that have never been given in the history of our nation--really most nations until the last 20-30 years in liberal Europe. These preachers are not doing what dar islam calls for--your execution. They call adultery sin too--I never hear people who shack up going ape over their preaching? But so many of you guys can't take it.

Quit crying "victim!" The Bible calls it a sin--what are they supposed to do--say it is just fine? Don't call me a homophobe--because I'm not. I'm just sick of you guys going out of the way to complain against biblical Christianity. Your beef is with the Bible--and really the G-d of the Bible. BTW--He does still love you!

I am the brother of a long time liberal/anti-war protester who believes that George Bush is the personal devil. Two years ago he realized that he was gay, quit drinking and otherwise turned his life around. God bless him.

He still believes that George Bush is the personal devil, that the only reason Islam is a problem is because George Bush is the personal devil and as soon as George Bush is no longer president all our problems with Islam will go away.

I sent him a link to this post. I don't expect it to do much good, but I had to try. He's my brother.

Alarmed Pig Farmer/

"The gay community has alienated itself by wearing its preference on its sleeve so as to garner prerogative through a victimhood that doesn't exist."

I doubt that we wear our prefernce on our sleeves any more than straights do, but you are half wrong about 'a victimhood that doesn't exist'. Legal progress on equal rights is being made (and, in some places such as the UK, rapidly and deeply) but, despite that, living in the civilised west I daily read stories in my newspapers about people who have been attacked for no better reason than that they were assumed to be gay; people denied jobs and access to health care and other facilities for no better reason than they are assumed to be gay; people being hounded out of their homes by others who presume them to be gay; people too frightened to let out any details of their private life to their work colleagues because they themselves are gay and their colleagues have made it perfectly clear what they think of LGBT people.

We do not campaign for special status - just for equality before the law and the right to live our lives in peace (after all, we're tax-payers, too). Now tell me, when has that demand ever been special status for anyone in a western country?

You wrote "The gay community has alienated itself by wearing its preference on its sleeve so as to garner prerogative through a victimhood that doesn't exist." but you could just as easily substitute the name of any minority group for the second word in that sentence - 'single mothers' or 'widowers with young children' or 'blacks' or 'females' or 'white middle aged males' or 'farmers' or 'Christians' or 'mohammedans' or 'teenagers' - each group would have some sort of preference about something and someone somewhere will be prepared to deny them rights simply because of what they are and what they prefer.

The sentence you wrote and I have quoted from your post is just an intolerant put down of a minority group which, perhaps, you don't happen to like too much. That's your prerogative but let's get one thing straight shall we - being gay in almost all barbarian islamic countries is impossible but it still isn't that easy in the civilised west. Walk a mile or two in our shoes before you talk about us in such a disparaging and offensive way.

Go on. Go somewhere where you are not known and make it obvious that you are gay. Mostly the reactions will be good but you will have to put up with some deeply offensive remarks and many threats of violence. Sometimes these are translated into action and when they are you stand a less than a two percent chance that the police will bother to investigate such a crime against you properly - after all, to them, you would be just another fag who got what he deserved. You try living in that sort of world. Go on, I dare you!

This feels strange because I usually agree with most of what you post!

Dominic.

The sentence you wrote and I have quoted from your post is just an intolerant put down of a minority group which, perhaps, you don't happen to like too much.

This adroit bit of turnspeak is of course entirely empty of content.

Go on. Go somewhere where you are not known and make it obvious that you are gay. Mostly the reactions will be good but you will have to put up with some deeply offensive remarks and many threats of violence.

You sound so... well, so Moslem. Homosexuals lead perfectly fine lives in the West. But, seeing the prizes and front-of-line status won by Afro-Americans after the end of Jim Crow, something at least partially deserved for some temporary period of time, gays and other groups also dove into the victimism business to get their share... for no good reason.

Go on. Go somewhere where you aer not known and make it obvious you are a victimist. You'll get paid and wept at and adored and prerogated. Meanwhile, as a blue-eyed white heterosexual I too will endure the occassional deeply offensive remark and threat of violence.

But please, can the homosexual whining be taken to another blog, one specializing in such tiresome fantastic exercise?

I'm really happy that so many posters here are for gay rights! Things seem to have improved over the last couple of months, when I quit posting because I was getting too much anti-liberal flack.

My gay friends aren't bad on the islam issue: they do recognise the threat.

BTW, I've read very impressive studies on what the bible really says about homosexuality: virtually nothing. I seem to recall that the 'Sodom and Gomorrah' story is about punishment for the breached principle of hospitality.

How about simply applying the golden rule: do unto others... Imagine not being able to marry the person you love. People despised, even attacked for loving them.

Heterosexual men seem to find it incredibly difficult to imaging being gay. (Probably because we women are so fascinating, the reason why women don't find it so hard to imagine being attracted to other women).

Something is wrong with my browser. I keep clicking on refresh...the title bar says Dhimmi Watch, but this seems to be a forum about gay issues.

Seriously, guys/gals/gays/lesbians, does this not seem like a bit of tu quoque to anybody else? An editor goes on trial for what should be a cut and dry free speech issue, and here we have squealing about "Christian Reconstructionists would be killing gays if they had the power, don't let them get the power!!!!"

Puhleeeze. Does our society always have to be the focus of attention, merely for not being perfect? I mean they KILL homosexuals in Islamic countries. KILL! Not want to, not might, they DO KILL THEM (besides Christianophobic Nariz doesn't know his eschatology, and has latched on to some broad brush hate site as his latest attack on the "Christianity" from which he claims to be "recovering". Last I checked, most of those guys are pre-mill, pre-trib).

Alarmed Pig Farmer/

"But please, can the homosexual whining be taken to another blog, one specializing in such tiresome fantastic exercise?"

But please, can the heterosexual whining be taken to another blog, one specializing in such [a] tiresome[,] fantastic exercise?

Dominic.

Concerned Citizen/

"I mean they KILL homosexuals in Islamic countries..."

Precisely. So I refer you to my original post (above). I wrote "I cannot help but wonder why so few gay people seem to care about freedom - their own as well as that of others."

You wrote - "Something is wrong with my browser. I keep clicking on refresh...the title bar says Dhimmi Watch, but this seems to be a forum about gay issues."

But hang on a bit; the head article of this thread, posted by Robert, is about gay issues and rights in Turkey. It is inevitable that the conversation will broaden out a bit. After all, it does so on every other thread. Do you mean to say that it should not do so when the issue under discussion is about LGBT issues but that it can broaden out on any other issue? Seems a bit unfair to me.

Dominic.

Alarmed Pig Farmer/

Homosexuals lead perfectly fine lives in the West."

Hmmm! As I said, walk a mile or two in our shoes. You still haven't done that, nor have you addressed the central issues, nor have you answered the muted questions which I inadvertently posed. All that you have done is restated your opinion, which, as I have already said, you are entitled to.

Further, all that you have implied (but not written: merely implied) in addition is the Candide-like statement - 'Everything is for the best in this the best of all possible worlds'. I didn't have you down as a Voltarian (perhaps Liebnitzean) meliorist but as a rational, Christian realist. My mistake.

Dominic.

Dominic,

The problem is not with the discussion broadening.

The problem is the focus shifting from nightmare state sanctioned violent hell-hole conditions in Islamic countries to verbal unpleasantries and illegal acts by individuals and organized non-state sponsored hate groups within Western societies. Gays are better off here than they are there. This is not on a comparative scale; casual comparison trivializes the horror they endure over there.

Granted, Robert did seed the discussion by musing about how ludicrous it is that gays see Western Christianity as enemy #1. But some here didn't see the irony.

Dominic,

Further, would you not agree, that time and energy spent championing LGBT issues could globally be more effective and have a higher profile (while serving a dual purpose), by illuminating the treatment of those under Islamic rule? By focusing worldwide on the worst Bogeyman?

Or is it just easier to fight an enemy that one does not respect and perceives as weak?

Especially when the benefits are local.

Concerned Citizen/

I agree. However, leaving aside LGBT issues (whilst at the same time including them, and many others, in freedoms and rights issues), I still wonder why many LGBT people simply don't see the threat from mohammedanism to the fundamental freedoms which all of us (regardless of religious orientation or sexual orientation) have won for ourselves.

I mean, even if Alarmed Pig Farmer and I met face to face in a bar somewhere I know, instinctively from everything which he has ever posted, that the worst that could happen between us is that we would bore each other witless (and, hopefully, get rather drunk together) and pour each other into our respective taxis at the end of the evening. What is it about western society that makes us debate in a civilised fashion - that '...makes gays better off here than they are there.'

The answer, obviously, is islam. But why? Once upon a time, centuries ago, Christianity was just as intolerant. What happened in the west that hasn't yet happened in the east and can it ever happen in the east?

'...casual comparison trivializes the horror they endure over there.' Yes, I know. All I am saying is that 'victimhood', as defined by alarmed pig farmer (love that tag name - so apt), still has some little validity in the west and if you want to know how then just ask us about our day-to-day lives. Don't tell us that everything is perfect for us here which, to be fair, you don't. None-the-less, I take your point; everything in the west for LGBT people is almost infinitely better than anything we experience in the barbarian islamic world.

D**n, I'm arguing about nothing. I agree with your last post.

Dominic.

Concerned Citizen/

"Further, would you not agree, that time and energy spent championing LGBT issues could globally be more effective and have a higher profile (while serving a dual purpose), by illuminating the treatment of those under Islamic rule? By focusing worldwide on the worst Bogeyman? Or is it just easier to fight an enemy that one does not respect and perceives as weak. Especially when the benefits are local."

Of course. But we must also pay attention, all of us, to what is happening in our own societies. We cannot simply ignore our responsibilities as citizens to our own societies simply because there is a huge and dangerous monster lurking in the closet. We have to do both - we have to highlight the deeply inhuman injustice of islam whilst maintaining the freedom of our own societies. Difficult, granted. But we have to do it to the best of our abilities.

We have to cry foul not just about islam but also about anything we perceive to be wrong at home. Else, what are we fighting for.

Dominic.

Concerned Citizen/

Incidentally, and totally by-the way, I, and many other gay people, don't see Christianity as the enemy. I daresay that you have read many of my previous posts on other threads as I have read many of yours. You will, therefore, be aware that I consider myself to be a Christian - albeit, a liberal (with a decidedly lower case 'l'), Anglican Christian.

I must admit that I was given some little pause by Nariz's comments (above) and that I will check into what he/she has written. I daresay that there may be some truth in that which she/he posted.

Dominic.

Dominic, I am quite familiar with your faith and positions. I repost below what I believe was our first exchange:

"Do you want me to keep on being the voice of reason vis-a-vis islam in each of those three communities or do I, and, I must presume, others here, offend you so much that you just want us to f**k off."
Posted by Dominic

Speaking as a Christian, conservative, right-wing, hetero:

By all means, stay, please.

I've certainly felt I had to defend my faith here, and have occasionally regretted being acerbic myself. Hugh ripped me a new one just yesterday for a shallow response. Don't take things too personally here, but do expect if you press a "hot button", you may get a "hot" response. We've all got to learn to work together (me included).

My worst complaint with those from the "left" is that I know so many that say they support the right of free speech (or any other "right"), but that can't recognize that the someone with a real plan of ending their speech is a real ideological enemy and potentially a real physical enemy. You don't seem to be of this variety.

Have you read "While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within", by Bruce Bawer. He's gay. Steve Emerson says of his book, “Bruce Bawer has produced a book that is at once riveting, disturbing, fascinating, chilling, and shocking. It is required reading for anyone who wants to understand how militant Islam has insinuated itself into the heart of the West.” Inclusive enough for you?

If you don't refer to me as a "breeder", I won't call you anything unsavory either, we'll get along fine, and we can both try to help figure out how to keep Islam from caving a wall in on you and beheading me.

Speaking of books, I've already ordered my copy of Robert's new book, plan to buy more for gifts. Come on guys, this needs to be on the best seller list before the release date. Stock up!! Straights, gays, Christians, Jews, Atheists, liberals, conservatives UNITE!! BUY! BUY! BUY!

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 19, 2006 01:01 AM

Once upon a time, centuries ago, Christianity was just as intolerant. What happened in the west that hasn't yet happened in the east and can it ever happen in the east?

we have to highlight the deeply inhuman injustice of islam whilst maintaining the freedom of our own societies

Just a thought: The Bogeyman perhaps is the same one.

Christianity was "just as intolerant" when its Machiavellian "leaders felt it could be successful as a political system, which it was not. That is why "Christendom" failed. For the same reason, should that recrudesce, it will fail again, Reconstructionism not withstanding (the real post-millenial triumphalistic ones, not the Nariz-smeared ones).

Islam, however, IS a political system. "What happened in the west" can't happen in the east, without ripping the tunic of Islam's political power. Can this be done, and Islam remain Islam? I doubt it.

State religion is a bad idea. Individual bigots feeling empowered by their beliefs to commit atrocities is the same animal, just in a different skin and size. Islam still has more of them, hands down.

Look, the Bible says my propensity to a bad temper is sin, and I need to check it with God's help--lest something really, really worse happen. It also says that homosexuality is a sin, and those who are prey to it need to fight it, too.

Islam is a despicable religion--not least of all because it takes so many of the ugly things I see in myself and of which I repent and declares them good--a violent streak (jihad!); temptations to various heterosexual sins such as lust and polygamy (Khadija, Mariam, Aisha, etc.); the temptation to make the other guy's goods mine without a fair transaction (jizya!); self-righteousness; a quickness to blame the other guy. Perhaps the only great sin of the Muslim world with which I personally DON'T have much of a struggle is homosexuality (if I saw a young boy's peach-shaped buttocks, as the Afghan folksong goes, I'd tell their owner he ought to be ashamed to be seen so in public, and go and put some pants on).

But why do I say these are ugly things? It is because the Bible tells me that they are sins and helped drive the nails into my Saviour's hands; and I respond by saying that God the Holy Spirit is right when I and lots of others are wrong. That's what repentence is all about--and it's why I simply cannot affirm gay pride as an ally against the jihad.

Kepha, I think that your propensity to having a bad temper is not a sin, but a problem to be solved.

A bad temper, and homosexuality are two different things.

"and it's why I simply cannot affirm gay pride as an ally against the jihad."
Posted above.

From a Christian perspective, many things are sinful.

Rejection of the existence of God is sinful, so atheism is wrong. Goodbye Hugh.
Rejection of Jesus as the Messiah is sinful, so Judaism is wrong. Goodbye Biorabbi.
Not believing that the Bible is inspired is sinful. Goodbye citycat.
Being an a__hole is sinful. Goodbye Nariz.
And so on, and so on.

Living in a gay lifestyle... well let's not go there just yet.

Speaking to Christians here, when Jesus healed the lepers, the blind, etc., did all have saving faith when they were healed? Did he eat, sleep, laugh, walk, talk with and teach only those who had saving faith? Did you have saving faith when you were first convicted/enlightened? Were you already healed from your sins before you came to faith? Have you committed any since? Does he still speak to you? Why? Can you imagine how disgusting you were before? How disgusting the things you still do are since?

It is not an affirmation of "____ pride" to seek allies, share information and rations, and huddle to weather the storm of war with those who are not your ideological clones.

If you believe someone is in error, you cannot witness to or counsel them if they are dead. Or if you are dead. If witnessing/counseling is important, then it would be most effective if you were both alive, no matter who helped whom. Then perhaps, with trust gained, discussion could move to more personal matters, deeply ingrained private personal matters. Face-to-face, one-on-one, not slinging barbs anonymously over the internet. Or at least at a site like this, not designed for such.

So, without stating my actual position on homosexuality, I can say

Thank God for Dominic.

Just as I can say

Thank God for Hugh.
Thank God for Biorabbi.
Thank God for citycat.
Thank God for Nariz.
Etc.

BTW, I've read very impressive studies on what the bible really says about homosexuality: virtually nothing. I seem to recall that the 'Sodom and Gomorrah' story is about punishment for the breached principle of hospitality.

Then I suggest you re-read the original documents including the original Tyndale Translation of The New Testament. Those sections in the OT in Leviticus are also the only place in The Bible which define the nature of a professional priesthood...............nowhere else does The Bible suggest priests should be full-time and paid by the congregation.............that is also an interesting notion for The Church to ponder.

Anyway, if you look at The Bible Adultery is also a sin which people seem to forget about. There should be neither adulterous nor gay priests, they are supposed to be nearer to God and leading their congregation. The nearer they are to ordinary men the further they are from God and less deserving of special status and funding by the congregation.

Adultery is the sin that is rarely commented on nowadays and yet 60 years ago it would have been

im a celibate (old) gay & i detest slami

many young gays are still ritually trying to kill their dads & are so blind in their rage that they spite their dads by insulting them w. islamophilia. how can one expect rationality from such people