Milo Yiannopoulos is a hypocrite - our government is based on the enlightenment, not religion.
Secular Talk's host, Kyle Kulinski, made a marvelous video deconstructing Milo's discussion with Joe Rogan about religion and homosexuality a while back:
I thought I would continue this, and show why Milo is 100% incorrect in his assertions (which he did not provide evidence for). As I edit this article, it appears I unintentionally listed many of the same issues that Christianity has faced through its history, that Kyle listed in his video. Great minds must think alike.
Milo, it is fine to be homosexual. I feel like nobody must have told you this since you literally think it is "better" to be straight. Maybe it is easier, but easier doesn't equate to "better" necessarily. (Hell, "better" is a nebulous word - you probably should've defined that better.) Granted, even straight people who act like you, with your flamboyance and attitude, get mocked on the daily; but homosexuality itself is not a "bad" thing. If it is a bad thing and you're so "religious," fucking stop it. Clearly you're disobeying your deity and clearly you think it's bad, so go ahead and stop, otherwise you're just being a hypocrite and trying to play the crowd (or lying to yourself.)
Christian culture is not superior to shit. The enlightenment, which is what our culture is actually based on, sought to get away from raw theocracy and theocratic dogma, and base morals, worldviews, and ethics, on evidence and reason and debate - which is carried out in the entire western hemisphere (with varying degrees of success) to this day. Go read up on Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, and actually there is a popular book written about Jefferson that perhaps you should read.
Go back hundreds or thousands of years when "Christian" culture really was one of the most dominant force in geopolitics and social understanding of morals and values. Raw, unadulterated Christianity. Do you know what people did back then, Milo?
Christianity and Judaism used to stone homosexuals - and I ain't talking about that blueberry kush either.
They burned "witches." Ever hear of Salem, Milo? Religions have a bad track record of finding scapegoats to blame their problems on. Should we burn people that seem to have magic powers?
|You're a wizard, Harry.|
Christianity led crusades (the idea of the crusade itself was not anything extraordinary - it was essentially a counterattack against an invading force - but do you know what kind of fucked up shit the crusaders did on their way to Jerusalem? Cannibalism and genocide are two pretty popular choices from that bag.)
The Inquisitions in particular were a brutal series of events starting in the mid 12th century, which were initially under Papal control but later under control of Monarchs, which essentially deemed many people heretics or apostates, and tortured or executed them. This is similar to Islam's current practice in many areas of the Near East or Middle East, where apostasy is a punishable offense - sometimes by death. This barbarism is Christian as much as it is Muslim, it is simply fortunate that Christianity no longer practices the inquisitions anymore (but nevertheless, for hundreds of years they were performed, and they influenced the course of the religion.)
Executing and/or punishing "heretics" which includes, in many cases throughout history, atheists like myself, extended beyond just the Inquisitions. Even the famous philosopher and author Thomas Hobbes had to take great care in avoiding such persecution, and he lived in the 1600's, at the dawn of the enlightenment, in England.
Let's not forget groups like the Westboro Baptist Church, which is a modern-day group, or the Mormons, who in the 1830's in Jackson County, Missouri, basically tried to create voting blocs and then resort to warfare when they were rejected from the community for being fucking lunatics. (Cue the massive amount of violence against and by Mormonism here...)
How about slavery that was justified in the 19th century United States using Christianity? That was arguably the largest influence Christianity had on our culture and it was, shall we say, not moral.
Please tell me how Christianity is what we're based on? We have a secular constitution, we do not derive power from the divine but from the people that the government purports to rule over. We are definitively not based on Christianity. If we were, we would likely be ruled by a pope or patriarch, or some kind of ecumenical council would make the decisions by arguing about theology instead of politics.
Iran is a state based on a religion, and that is a fucked up place right now. North Korea is a place based on a secular personality cult (which can be argued to be similar to a religion,) and it is arguably the MOST fucked up place in the world right now.
Do you really want to make the claim that religion, and not reason or debate, are where we get our society and ethics from? Start dating a nice woman then, Milo, and stop being a lying hypocrite when it comes to sexuality and religion. As noted here in Wikipedia, in Christianity homosexuality is often taught to be immoral - and in the Old Testament in particular, homosexuals were often stoned.
I do think it worthwhile to include this video however, in which Milo discusses conversion therapy and claims it has worked for "plenty of people," without going much into it. He says he will even try conversion therapy for himself as a "journalistic experiment," though knowing Milo he may just say it works even though it doesn't, to try and annoy people even further. I am, shall we say, skeptical of his unsourced claims of conversion therapy:
We'll wait with baited breath on that "conversion therapy" Milo. I also wonder - regardless of whether or not it works, is it moral to endorse a therapy which purports to change people's sexuality and mindsets in such a major way? Aren't we basing our moral decisions on tradition in this instance, not reason and discussion? Maybe we should also endorse de-conversion therapy, which causes people to lose their faith in religions. I'd endorse that.