A van has slammed into people gathered for Berlin’s famed LGBTQ+ event, killing one person, injuring at least 16 others and prompting police to call off the celebrations and a concert in the German capital hours after they had begun.
Even though colleague A said people are free to do whatever they please, following it up with “homosexuality is a sin” arguably exposes his feigned tolerance. […]
is a non-sequitur argument. Or at least it has an unspoken premise, of what it means for something to be a sin.
People are usually free to commit sins, and other religious people tolerate their sinning. As long as they’re the socially accepted kind of sins in that religious community, like drinking alcohol, hitting your children, coveting your neighbours wife, you name it.
Hypocrisy is an integral element of any religious community I know.
But the hypocrisy here is not, that homesexuality is called a sin. It is, that it is usually regarded as a graver sin than all the others that are happily tolerated.
I think I have to disagree, but I understand where you’re coming from, hence the “arguably”. Believing something is a sin indeed doesn’t equal taking someone’s freedom to do so. However, his revulsion was uttered with such conviction and certain facial expressions that it signaled if he had free rein, he would not tolerate homosexuality at all, i.e., would prohibit it.
Not gonna defend religion or anything, but this
is a non-sequitur argument. Or at least it has an unspoken premise, of what it means for something to be a sin.
People are usually free to commit sins, and other religious people tolerate their sinning. As long as they’re the socially accepted kind of sins in that religious community, like drinking alcohol, hitting your children, coveting your neighbours wife, you name it. Hypocrisy is an integral element of any religious community I know.
But the hypocrisy here is not, that homesexuality is called a sin. It is, that it is usually regarded as a graver sin than all the others that are happily tolerated.
I think I have to disagree, but I understand where you’re coming from, hence the “arguably”. Believing something is a sin indeed doesn’t equal taking someone’s freedom to do so. However, his revulsion was uttered with such conviction and certain facial expressions that it signaled if he had free rein, he would not tolerate homosexuality at all, i.e., would prohibit it.