The first goddamn stone

A Nebraska woman is suing gays on behalf of God and Jesus, proclaiming that homosexuality violates "religious and moral law", because it is a sin. That is the word that can justify almost any belief in the mind of a theistsin. If it is a sin, God is against it, so it must be bad. Right?

No, that's not right. A supernatural being taking a stance on an issue does not make that stance the correct one (especially not when the supernatural being is make-believe). The belief that "God" can "objectively" decide what is moral and immoral is dangerous. By using the label of "sin", this belief can easily create and pass on prejudiced opinions; some theists feel they need not say more than "it is a sin" to justify their bigotry, as if bigoted views are okay if God holds them, as well. All of this then leads to the oppression of groups of people, like LGBT, women, atheists, people of the wrong faith, foreigners, fellow believers with the wrong values, and... well, most people.

Many Christians selectively follow the Old Testament about homosexuality, but not much else, and ignore the parts of the New Testament one might actually find somewhat enlightened (though derivative): treat others as you want them to treat you and do not throw the first goddamn stone. It seems they should either follow all of it or none of it and instead use their common sense. That is not how it works, however; God's objective morals have changed over the course of history, which would mean they are not so objective, after all, although there is no reason why a supernatural being's morals are the ultimate truth of how everything must be, anyway.

What I find strange is that many progressive theists do think in the same way as their conservative counterparts; they do think God makes the rules and his word is law. The difference is that their opinions on God's opinions differ, so liberal theists refuse to think God would be against equality and such. The problematic belief that God's word is law, however, remains.

For all the love that supposedly exists in religions like Christianity and Islam, both of those religions and many of their subscribers are quick to judge and push down people over arbitrary and/or harmless differences, and it does not take long for the first stone to be thrown, even from a crowd of sinful bigots. And yet, both of these religions enjoy an armor of protection; religions have a privileged status in society: people do not seem to care whether religions are actually true or even influence the way people think; religions should be respected because "that is someone's faith," people say, as if that means anything at all.

Religions are ancient superstitions that deserve no more respect than the idea that the Earth is flat. An idea should not be respected more because more people believe in it and hold it more dearly. And to say that whatever religion is "someone's faith" is neither a valid counterargument to criticism nor an argument for why more religious freedom is due, such as the right to deny homosexuals equal rights. People should have the right to believe whatever they want (though belief is not a choice), but they should not have the right to do whatever they like by claiming it is within their religious rights.

To say a Christian who will not sell wedding cakes to homosexuals is not a homophobe because it is his faith is to say his faith is homophobic.  It is homophobic to have a homophobic belief. It is misogynistic to have a misogynistic belief. It is racist to have a racist belief. It is bigoted to act on one's faith if one's faith is bigoted. Religion has enjoyed its protected seat on the pedestal long enough, and "you can't insult someone's faith" should no longer be a valid counterargument to criticism. Too many people have been hit by too many stones.