Head of Russian Orthodox Church blames the rise of Isis on the 'godless' world's acceptance of homosexuality

[CopyBoy]

The head of the Russian Orthodox Church has partially blamed an increased acceptance of homosexuality for the rise of Isis.

Patriarch Kirill claimed he was not surprised that some Muslims are flocking to Isis’ quasi-religious state as a way of escaping the “godless civilization” that celebrates events such as Gay Pride.

In an interview published on the Church’s official website, Kirill said: “[Isis] is creating a civilization that is new by comparison to the established one that is godless, secular and even radical in its secularism.”

“We can have parades for the sexual minorities - that is supported - but a million French Christian protestors defending family values are broken up by police,” he added.

independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/head-of-russian-orthodox-church-blames-the-rise-of-isis-on-the-godless-worlds-acceptance-of-a6818826.html

 

[kozlosap]

This guy fits in very well with the Westboro nuts and the Falwell types that blamed 9/11 on LGBTQ individuals gaining acceptance in the Western World.

 

[Rohzek]

This guy fits in very well with the Westboro nuts and the Falwell types that blamed 9/11 on LGBTQ individuals gaining acceptance in the Western World.

Kirill is perhaps one of the most mentally dull leaders of all the autocephalous churches within Orthodoxy.

 

[7_Sorrows]

This guy fits in very well with the Westboro nuts and the Falwell types that blamed 9/11 on LGBTQ individuals gaining acceptance in the Western World.

He is orthodox. He is simply saying ISIS is trying to establish a community that abides by the tenets of their faith. It is a little different than saying a city was destroyed by a flood or hurricane because of the acceptance of homosexuality. Don’t get me wrong. I do not like ISIS, but Islam says homosexuality is wrong and the lifestyles the West embraces is at odds with Islam and they want to create a Caliphate based on their belief system.

 

[youkokun]

Does anyone else see a Cold War dynamic here? Back then, the US endorsed capitalism, personal liberty and religious tolerance as goods in and of themselves, while the USSR supported idealistic socialism, collective stability and rigid materialism. Now the West’s value of religious tolerance has become freedom FROM religion and worship of the individual’s directionless conscience, no inhibitions in personal choice. ISIS is an advantageous enemy for atheist-advocate secularists, who can claim that oppression and massive violence spring from religion.

As a history major, I’m not supposed to settle for dichotomies if I can help it, but I can’t help seeing the hundreds of Internet comments extolling the “live and let live” mantra UNLESS you happen to hold convictions.

Is it wrong of me to say I really admire Russian leaders’ distaste for homosexuality? Gosh, and I’m in a state with a high Russian population. I wish I could learn the language, but I don’t have the right skin for it. (I could learn, but Russians are racist. )

 

[Peter_J]

Hmmm, what to say here … I guess it’s no worse than Clinton-Obama blaming the rise of Isis on Republicans.

 

[Padres1969]

Kirill is perhaps one of the most mentally dull leaders of all the autocephalous churches within Orthodoxy.

Well he’s playing his designated roll within Putin’s Russia. Putin has made homosexuals into the “blame them” group in Russia. It fits that he’d have the head of the Russian church extend that notion as well.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Patriarch Kirill is certainly right at least in that such things as the promotion of “gay marriage” in the west makes it easier for radical Islamists to recruit. Actually I think his statement is right all the way around.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

This guy fits in very well with the Westboro nuts and the Falwell types that blamed 9/11 on LGBTQ individuals gaining acceptance in the Western World.

I read the article, and I did not see him blame ISIS on homosexuals. Rather, he has stated that our current world has seen the entrenchment of a mentality and culture that is at its core godless. He mentions the normalisation of homosexuality as a prominent symptom of this godless society, of course. The key here is that it is a symptom. The greater issue is the underlying worldview that produces this symptom. This worldview is hostile to the idea of any meaningful role of God in society and is quite antagonistic to religious traditions. I believe His Holiness’ primary point was that it was inevitable that an emerging worldview that is radically contrary/antithetical to traditional religious sentiments would provoke a hardline and reactionary religious response that is as radically theocratic as modern Western culture is radically secular.

If you ignore the misleading/sensationalist headline and focus on the quotations of his actual statements in the article, then you may see a certain logic in his statement. He wasn’t acting like a Westboro member or Falwell. Of course, you still may not agree with his logic. I simply want to show that we have to be care of headlines. That headline puts a certain assumption in our heads, and if we read the article with that assumption in the back of our minds, then it can colour our perceptions of His Holiness’ words. Read the article objectively, without the assertions of the headline in mind, and he comes across very differently.

Anyway, that is just my :twocents:

 

[7_Sorrows]

I read the article, and I did not see him blame ISIS on homosexuals. Rather, he has stated that our current world has seen the entrenchment of a mentality and culture that is at its core godless. He mentions the normalisation of homosexuality as a prominent symptom of this godless society, of course. The key here is that it is a symptom. The greater issue is the underlying worldview that produces this symptom. This worldview is hostile to the idea of any meaningful role of God in society and is quite antagonistic to religious traditions. I believe His Holiness’ primary point was that it was inevitable that an emerging worldview that is radically contrary/antithetical to traditional religious sentiments would provoke a hardline and reactionary religious response that is as radically theocratic as modern Western culture is radically secular.

If you ignore the misleading/sensationalist headline and focus on the quotations of his actual statements in the article, then you may see a certain logic in his statement. He wasn’t acting like a Westboro member or Falwell. Of course, you still may not agree with his logic. I simply want to show that we have to be care of headlines. That headline puts a certain assumption in our heads, and if we read the article with that assumption in the back of our minds, then it can colour our perceptions of His Holiness’ words. Read the article objectively, without the assertions of the headline in mind, and he comes across very differently.

Anyway, that is just my :twocents: