Since I am gay, Anglican and British, I am more than disturbed to hear a priest in my own church and my own country concede that “the Ugandans, who are currently considering draconian legislation regarding homosexuality, might actually have a point.”
Writing on his blog today, the Reverend John Richardson points to the failure of a recent legal case to criticize Britain’s supposed lack of religious freedom and to suggest that Uganda has good reason to avoid following the West in “normalizing” homosexuality.
The case in question is that of Lillian Ladele, a Christian registrar who refused to carry out civil partnerships for same-sex couples. Note that we’re not talking about a priest or religious leader, or a church refusing to carry out a religious marriage ceremony. We’re talking about a public officer employed to undertake a public role, namely registering marriages and civil partnerships. Ladele claims that she was “bullied and harrassed” by her public employer because of her refusal. She initially won a case against them, but the ruling was overturned. And rightly so, it seems. Why should a public officer with public duties to fulfill be allowed to decide to fulfill only those duties she agrees with?
From this, Richardson takes the following unwarranted logical leap:
The outcome of this case, as it stands, means that traditionalist Christians could soon be excluded from all public office and employment. All that is needed is for applicants for any post to be asked their views on homosexuality —whether or not they accept it on an equal footing with heterosexuality. If the answer is ‘No’ (as it must be for the traditionalist Christian), then that may be deemed sufficient grounds for them to be unsuitable for such employment or to hold such an office.
This is fallacious. Ms Ladele was not dismissed simply because of her personal views, but because her personal views prevented her from carrying out the job she was employed to do. How will that lead to traditionalist Christians being fired from “all public office and employment,” as Richardson claims?
He laments the increasing tolerance of homosexuality since it was legalized in the UK in the 1960s (he supports the initial legalization, but detests its “unintended consequences”), and surmises that there is currently no possibility that “social normalization of homosexuality can co-exist with Christian morality.” He concludes:
At very least, this suggests that the Ugandans might look to our experience before making any decisions regarding their own situation, for the exercise of godly compassion in our case has clearly not resulted in a more godly society.
This is not the first time Richardson has seen fit to comment on African anti-homosexuality laws. In March, when many in the West condemned the Church of Nigeria for its metaphorical stone-throwing at homosexuals, the Reverend invoked the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery – but only to suggest that by holding the Church to account for its support of Nigerian anti-gay laws, liberal western Christians were the ones throwing stones.
Interestingly, this is the first comment Richardson has made on the Uganda situation.* First with Nigeria and now with Uganda, he has said little, breaking his silence only to sympathize with the oppressors.
Up until now, I had thought silence was the worst I could expect from fellow Christians in the Anglican Church. Cynical as I am, I never expected this much worse response – especially from my own nation and my own church. Frankly, it scares me.
___________________________________________________________
*Correction: Richardson did in fact address the Uganda situation in October, advising against the legislation.
All that is needed is for applicants for any post to be asked their views on homosexuality —whether or not they accept it on an equal footing with heterosexuality.
No. All that is needed is for the applicant to make it clear that they do not intend to fulfill the duties the job they are applying for entails. If I refused to work with computers, there’s no way I could possibly fulfill the duties of my job as a software engineer. If my employer refused to hire me or subsequently terminate my employment because of this and I tried to claim it was discrimination, any reasonable person would almost certainly think I’m being unreasonable and even ridiculous.
From this jerk’s comments, you owuld think that the only tenet of christian morality is that Gay Is BAD.
This man is a priest of Jesus? Oh, wait, so is weak-tea rowan williams.
David, just for the record, this is not the first comment I’ve made on the situation in Uganda, but you would have had to read the other blog I maintain to see what I said. Here it is in full:
(Ed: A quick ‘Google’ found this, which is apparently being tabled before the Ugandan Parliament. My immediate personal reaction -since someone is bound to ask -is that it is clearly extreme in places, most obviously in suggesting the death penalty for homosexual acts with an under-18 year old. Why not, I find myself asking, a similar death penalty for adulterers or fornicators?
I also cannot help wondering why this is felt necessary in Ugandan society, when there is already legislation in place. My personal inclination is that in any humanly-ordered society, criminal punishment is inappropriate for sexual impropriety. That which is immoral should not always be illegal.
Nevertheless, I cannot help reflecting that in just forty years our own society has gone from one where homosexual acts were tentatively decriminalized between ‘consenting adults in private’, to one where objection to homosexual acts is virtually a crime in itself. My advice to the Ugandans, were they to ask, would be ‘tread very carefully’, but this is not the way to go.)
Makes me ¨ache¨ for the spiritual torment the Roman Catholics must go through everytime they scan condoms at the drugstore…these folks are so SELFISH, and have been for lifetimes, they don´t even realize that the SIN is where the exclusive and bigoted selfrighteousness is…I swear if I have to listen to another decade of these vilemouthed (toward LGBT Christians/others) idiots assume they must not exam their own character, well, certainly patience has a limit until these turkeys are actually HELD RESPONSIBLE for the fear and hate-mongering (paid to do it by many LGBT citizens)…damaged to the core.
John, my bad that I didn’t find your earlier comments on Uganda.
Hopefully you’ll agree I didn’t misrepresent your views (apart from mistakenly assuming it was the first time you’d addressed the Uganda issue). I well understand you’re not supporting the Ugandan laws, but I nevertheless find your comments abhorrent and not a little scary. As a response to the persecution and oppression of a minority (apply the same logic to the persecution of a racial, ethnic or religious minority, for example) “They have a point,” is reprehensible.
I’m also unconvinced there’s any evidence that objecting to homosexuality nowadays is “a crime in itself.” Examples of public officers refusing to fulfill public duties that are within the remit of their public role don’t really support the idea that Christians are being persecuted merely for objecting to homosexuality. If I thought that was happening, I’d be the first to protest.
Nevertheless, I cannot help reflecting that in just forty years our own society has gone from one where homosexual acts were tentatively decriminalized between ‘consenting adults in private’, to one where objection to homosexual acts is virtually a crime in itself. My advice to the Ugandans, were they to ask, would be ‘tread very carefully’, but this is not the way to go.
No one is stopping you from objecting to homosexual acts. The problem is treating homosexual people differently under the law. If you want to argue about the supposed immorality of homosexuality based on your religious beliefs, just don’t use the blunt stick of government to impose your religious beliefs on others. Of course given the deliberate obtuseness of your responses to comments on your blog I’m sure this will just bounce right off.
David, there’s no reason why you should have known about the Chelmsford Anglican Mainstream post. The UK religious blogosphere is quite small, so people tend to know who writes what, where, but sometimes we forget the rest of the world is not as well-informed about our affairs!
I hope you take the point – and I wish others would note – that I did describe the current legislative proposals in Uganda as “draconian”, as in “harsh and excessive”. Probably I was being too indirect in my criticism, and that is not advisable in this day and age.
However, I did indeed mean that the Ugandans might have a point, in the sense that behind these proposals is clearly a fear of going the same way as the West.
At this point, things become complicated, because whilst the official Western ethos is of accepting multiculturalism, that is only a very thin veneer over an underlying cultural absolutism, which itself often depends on an unconscious racism. In other words, we accept the ‘cute’ kind of cultural variety we find in African and other non-white cultures, but we are ardently opposed to anything which really challenges, or does not fit with our own core beliefs – for example on (homo)sexuality.
Part of the drift of my article is that the Ugandans really do have some work to do. They are, I believe, entitled to reach their own conclusions, different from ours, as to what kind of society they wish to be. Our example shows that a leniency in one generation can reverse itself into an unintended backlash in another. The outcome of what we have done in the last fifty years is plain to see. The alternative is not clear, but I do think it is worth trying to discover one.
Meanwhile, we in the UK/Europe face a very challenging time for Christians particularly, who enjoy none of the acceptance accorded to, for example, Muslims on the basis of the multicultural ethos. Clearly it is now the case (as it was not when, I gather, Ms Ladele was first employed) that the office of registrar requires the willingness to contract civil partnerships. Any committed Christian must therefore square that with their conscience if they are to apply for the post in future. The limitation may be self-imposed, but it is there nevertheless.
More worryingly, I suspect the same will also become true of teachers who will be required to teach on ‘social responsibility’ and sexuality. Once again, the limitation may be self-imposed, but it would be interesting to imagine a country in which a committed, traditionalist, Christian could not enter public teaching.
Recently a ‘Relate’ counsellor was dismissed for refusing to counsel homosexual couples. In another situation, a Christian who claimed she was abused whilst giving out leaflets at a gay pride parade was interviewed by the police after she wrote to the local council on the grounds that her letter might have constituted a criminal offence – and I believe the list could go on.
The real problem, I think, is actually in our own legislation – and the accompanying ways in which administrative and managerial tasks are carried out. And the tenor of my argument – which I believe at this point is unassailable – was that this would have been unimaginable to those who produced the Wolfenden Report, just as it would have been unintended by those who framed the 1967 Sexual Offences Act.
The Ugandans may get it right or wrong, but they are entitled to their concerns and may learn some things from us.
Boo, you wrote, just don’t use the blunt stick of government to impose your religious beliefs on others.
I think you’ll find that’s pretty much what I’m arguing for regarding the situation in the UK, provided you remove the word ‘religious’.
We do pride ourselves at XGW on our thorough research and fairness, so yeah, I am rather quick to hold my hands up – I should have found your earlier post.
I think by “official Western ethos” you mean liberalism, but I think the inconsistency is as much a conservative trait as a liberal. While a certain type of conservative rails against multiculturalism on the basis that there are absolutes that must be observed, the same conservative accuses western liberals of cultural imperialism when they challenge an aspect of another culture with which they disagree. Both sides too often want to have it both ways.
The first of these is yet another example of someone who refused to do the job they were employed to do. I don’t know the details of the second, but even if your interpretation is correct, the overzealous actions of a few police officers is not a good indicator of the legal situation overall. My guess is she was never charged, and if she was, it would probably be thrown out by a court. These sorts of silly incidents happen, but the fact they rarely result in prosecutions negates the notion that Christians are being robbed of their religious freedoms.
“Nevertheless, I cannot help reflecting that in just forty years our own society has gone from one where homosexual acts were tentatively decriminalized between ‘consenting adults in private’, to one where objection to homosexual acts is virtually a crime in itself. ”
I have a lot to say about this. Because this comment, and all else I have read in this so-called Man of God’s words, indicates that what passes for morality in this man’s mind is nothing more than the smug complacency of the truly self righteous, for whom no pain, no damage, no indignity, no suffering is too great for other people to endure. What they claim to be moral is nothing more– or less– than their knowledge of the echo chamber of their prejudicial, moralizing-without-morality, and monumentally-clueless-but-certainly-right-with-the-Big-Guy, brains.
First this: “to one where objection to homosexual acts is virtually a crime in itself. ” Utter nonsense– paranoid, bigoted, nonsense, the product a a bigoted and fevered brain. As Dave noted, you could probably count the TRUE incidence of something like this on one hand, with an upright finger left over to point out the utter unreality of the claim. Prove it. Give us a list of the people who have been persecuted for their religious beliefs about homosexuality. Show us how there is no other possible interpretation for what happened than this persecution. Demonstrate that this is not a cheap attempt to purchase martyrdom with something other than the easy coin of other people’s lives.
That this is about prejudice is obvious. This Ladele woman was not being told she could not believe that homosexuality is wrong. She can believe whatever she wants. But her belief does not trump her employer’s belief that she do her job. If she were TRULY a woman of conscience, she would have quit her job. But she didn’t, did she? She victimized others– the gay couple, the tax payers, and the courts, to start– but tried to claim that she was a victim.
If she had denied service to Jews, citing her religious beliefs that they were Christ-killers– and with 2000 years of Christian theology to back her up– the bigotry would be obvious to anyone but another anti-Semite. But if it’s about gay people, then oh, my, can’t offend her religious beliefs. Poor widdle hetero victim.
Here’s a little history lesson for you, Reverend Sir. Do you know why homosexual acts and homosexual persons were made illegal? for nearly 2000 years, the church has INSISTED on it. These acts and people who neither harm nor affect anyone were made CRIMINALS and IMPRISONED and MURDERED because of the insistence of the church. For acts and being– I will not allow you to separate the two– that offends your manly, god-like sensibilities, though you would attribute them to your man-like god. For acts and being that affect no one but the people involved.
In fact, in many penal codes, male homosexual acts were called “the vile and detestable crime against Nature, not to be named among Christians.” Does that even begin to give you a clue where this may have come from? And here you are claiming some sort of innocence in the matter?
Imagine; you can talk about murder, rape, robbery, incest, matricide, patricide. you can go into the lurid details of the murder and torture of your man god. You can justify 1900 years of anti-Semitism, and then through up your hands in mock horror at the real horrors of the murder of 6 million Jews. (boy, we won’t make THAT mistake again!!!!)
but you can’t even describe this “crime” lest you offend the delicate ears of some Christian. And all of the based upon what? Seven or so highly ambiguous passages that you believe, without question, and possibly even sincerely, that you might possibly understand as something that might theoretically be, in a vague, general, sort of a way, about homosexuality, as least as far as it was understood by desert tribes 2000 years ago and 8000 miles away, in a book that some people think has divine authority, in one or another of its legion of versions. They certainly knew the value of pi (3), women (none), shrimp (don’t), bacon (don’t), and animal sacrifice to appease a vengeful god (doesn’t work). Why wouldn’t they know something about this?
And of course, we would understand it. This book that has gone through 2000-2600 years of translation, interpretation, redaction, editing, misunderstanding, political meddling, confusion, retranslation, reinterpretation and– dare we say it?– MISUSE. But this couldn’t possibly yet ANOTHER example of misuse, could it?
Do you know one possible etymology for the word FAGGOT? The sticks used to burn witches, because only such a flame from such a source could be foul enough to burn the kind of person whose existence we now know to be the product of the fevered and oh-so-moral imaginations of the witch burners.
Does maybe the intensity of this belief give you the slightest bit of a clue that maybe this really isn’t about what your book might have to say on the subject?
How kind of you to decriminalize us for being different– or not so different– from you. That was so generous of the heterosexual majority as represented by its churches, especially the boy loving priests who tastes are so catholic. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed us from the list of people who were mentally ill, and who could be imprisoned and tortured in the name of MEDICINE (and god, of course). How kind of them to admit that they had been making a mistake for 100 years, and that the electroshock, the castration, the drugs, the commitments, and the deepest injection of self-loathing they could muster, were all just one big mistake. Sorry about that.
And finally, some religious folks are realizing that just like the burning of witches and the torture of scientists, the interpretation of those those ambiguous aforementioned passages might not only be wrong, but are used to justify yet another all-too-human prejudice against people who are Not Like Us, or who scare us, or who threaten our political and religious hegemony.
And that really just bothers you, doesn’t it? Imagine, having to give up a lifetime’s worth of unthinking prejudice, of having to actually think and feel something different than smug self-righteousness, judgment, and hate-dressed-up-as-love. And you have the sheer gall, after centuries of having it your way, that our objection to being treated any differently than you are by our own government, is somehow an impingement on YOUR rights to go whichever way your particular religious wind is blowing.
You can believe whatever you choose to believe, and I would be first in line to defend that right. but just because you have a religious belief does not mean that your beliefs trump those of people who do not share them, or that the government should treat me any differently than it does you.
I would also add that just because someone claims that their prejudice-du-jour is a sincere religious belief does not make that a true statement, as Ted Haggard, Lonnie Latham, and Wide Stance Larry will attest.
And it certainly doesn’t make it right.
Ben in Oakland, I trust you’ve read the whole of my article. You will see that I begin the last paragraph thus: “The question which must now be asked, frankly, is whether social normalization of homosexuality can co-exist with Christian morality. Currently, the answer would appear to be that it cannot …”
Your post suggests I’ve got this right.
That – and other comments on this blog – raises serious issues about what kind of society we are and what the place is within that society for orthodox Christians. That was the point I was raising, and the responses here indicate it was worth raising it.
It is up to our society to decide how it handles differences as radical as yours from my own position. As I have indicated, I am not optimistic about the outcome.
More worryingly, I suspect the same will also become true of teachers who will be required to teach on ’social responsibility’ and sexuality. Once again, the limitation may be self-imposed, but it would be interesting to imagine a country in which a committed, traditionalist, Christian could not enter public teaching.
No, no, and no. Choosing not to take a job because it would require you to do things that you don’t believe are right is not the same as not being able to take that job. It is making a choice. It may be making a hard choice, but it’s still making a hard choice. And let’s face it, people make hard choices every day. The fact that Christians don’t want to make those hard choices and want special treatment so they’re not placed in a position to make them are not victims in any sense of the word. They’re simply people who want to enjoy special privileges so they don’t have to make hard choices.
“The question which must now be asked, frankly, is whether social normalization of homosexuality can co-exist with Christian morality. Currently, the answer would appear to be that it cannot …”
I don’t think you even begin to understand your own question, let alone your answer to it. Of course they can co-exist. They have and they do, despite the efforts of religionists to torture, murder, imprison, cow, and frighten us. But you don’t want co-existence. You want dominance, control, and ultimately, power.
The first question to be answered is obvious: whose “Christian morality” are we talking about? There are plenty of Christians, even whole denominations, who have absolutely no problem with it. You and your like-minded religious bigots don’t represent Christianity. You just think you do, just like the witch burners and the Jew haters (look up what Martin Luther had to say about them!!!) that claimed to represent it 300 years ago in ways that are no longer considered polite.
For myself, I only wish that you would mind your own business and stop minding mine. I’m happy to grant you all of the religious freedom you want. You can believe whatever you want, and teach it to your children, and spew it in Church to your heart’s delight, however uncomfortable it may be for me to hear it. It’s a free country, at least for white, conservative, preferably Christian, heterosexual people.
However, what you actually want is not religious freedom, but the freedom to do and say whatever you like to people you don’t know and know nothing about, and use the coercive power of the state to enforce it. You have elevated your homohatred to a sacrament of your homohating subset of your religion. What part of “Judge Not Lest Ye be Judged” does not apply to one such as yourself, especially as a man who claims to speak for the One who said it?
What you want is to have religious freedom for you and religious bondage for everyone else. But you also want your religious freedom to be special, without consequence or responsibility– for you. Oh Pious Pilate! You want the government to enforce your religious beliefs on people who do not share them, both gay and straight, religious and not. You want to do and say whatever you like without fear of contradiction, with the support of society and church, and without any consequence to you.
Despite your beliefs about the so-called threat to you, there is no threat, and never has been. And what you hear from me is not hatred, nor intolerance, nor anything like that. What you hear is ANGER.
I’m sick to death that the course of my life, and my happiness, and those of millions of people just like me, can be subject to your prejudices, whether or not you prefer to call them your religious beliefs or just admit them for what they are.
I have no problem with coexistence, as reprehensible and as morally indefensible as I find your beliefs to be. The ones with the problem with coexistence are you and your fellow travellers.
thanks, jarred. what I was saying distilled a bit from my flowery rhetoric.
Jarred, you’ve written, Choosing not to take a job because it would require you to do things that you don’t believe are right is not the same as not being able to take that job. It is making a choice.
You prefaced this, however, by saying to me, “No, no and no.” Yet before this, you quote me as saying, “I suspect the same will also become true of teachers who will be required to teach on ’social responsibility’ and sexuality. Once again, the limitation may be self-imposed …”
I think at this point I’m saying the same as you, namely that the conditions of such public jobs would require people to make a choice not to enter the profession – unless they were somehow to square what the job required them to do with their conscience.
My point from this, though, is not that people must able to take such public jobs, but to observe that our society has reached a stage unimaginable forty years ago, partly brought about by decisions made by policy makers who had quite other intentions.
It may be, as I’ve said, that societies like our own in the UK are such that orthodox, traditionalist Christians must start their own schools, hospitals, businesses etc. That, however, may also be something of which other cultures, such as that in Uganda, wish to take note.
It may be, as I’ve said, that societies like our own in the UK are such that orthodox, traditionalist Christians must start their own schools, hospitals, businesses etc.
Again, they don’t have to to do any such thing. They may choose to do so because they don’t want to play by the same rules as society (treat everyone equitably and do your job). But no one is forcing them to do such a thing. They are choosing to do so.
This constant “have to” business simply underscores your sense of privilege.
Jarred, how about “it may be that they choose to, because they cannot square the demands made on them in other contexts with their Christian conscience”?
It doesn’t really affect my main point in my last comment, would you agree?
We are both saying the same thing here – albeit from different perspectives.
It makes a huge difference, John. It makes the difference between “traditional Christians” being “poor victims” and them being children who don’t like that they’re views no longer grant them special privileges in the public sector.
In another situation, a Christian who claimed she was abused whilst giving out leaflets at a gay pride parade was interviewed by the police after she wrote to the local council on the grounds that her letter might have constituted a criminal offence
Hardly. If that version of events was a miniskirt it would be obscene.
She deliberately went to a gay pride event with several others, and abused those who were attending. They responded; and I don’t doubt, in very few words. (Perhaps just two words would have been sufficient for me.)
That is how “free speech” works. She abused them. They told her to effoff. Everyone done?
No. She then wrote a letter (larded with invectives that had nothing to do with religion) to the Norwich Council demanding that they… get this… ban gay people assembling. Plainly a champion of free speech she is.
Some council bureaucrat was so taken by the charming letter that they forwarded it to the police. The police, as they must, followed it up … and then did nothing more. The end.
Funny thing though. This dear sweet old tea-sipping pensioner is not all she seems. Mrs Pauline Howe is the wife of the Rev. Peter Howe who delights the truly saved at Oulton Broad Free Presbyterian church.
Free Presbyterian church… where have I heard that from? Oh yesss — it’s headed by that renowned liberatarian, the Rev. Ian Paisley. A man who has never let slip an abusive comment about anyone in his life. A man who has never done anything ever to incite sectarian hatred anywhere. A man who is the very model of a “live and let live” attitude to everyone. One of nature’s gentlemen who has always played to a even-tempered crowd.
Now, I happen to agree with Stonewall. The response was over the top. Wasteful.
Norwich council should have simply sent her a polite get-stuffed letter, and ignored her. Yes, she is a hateful lump of the hypocritical type of christian but there’s also no point to effectively trivialising genuine cases of hate crime. They also ended up giving the nasty old cow what she was really after all along — a stage for her bigoted views.
The Christian Institute of course lapped it up. Oddly, they haven’t published the letter in question. Guess it’s hard to drum up sympathy for those who aren’t worthy of it.
So, no — like-minded Ugandans also do not “have a point” No ‘might’ about it.
“This dear sweet old tea-sipping pensioner is not all she seems. Mrs Pauline Howe is the wife of the Rev. Peter Howe who delights the truly saved at Oulton Broad Free Presbyterian church…Free Presbyterian church… where have I heard that from? Oh yesss — it’s headed by that renowned liberatarian, the Rev. Ian Paisley.”
Thanks, grantsdale. This is exactly what I meant when I told this Good Moral Christian (TM) to PROVE it.
Boo, you wrote, just don’t use the blunt stick of government to impose your religious beliefs on others.
I think you’ll find that’s pretty much what I’m arguing for regarding the situation in the UK, provided you remove the word ‘religious’.
No John, what you’re arguing is that a person’s religious beliefs should render them exempt from following the law and from the requirement that they actually do the job they were hired to do. If a certain job has requirements that offend your religious or moral beliefs, don’t take the job. For example, I think abortion is wrong. Hence, I don’t work in an abortion clinic. It’s really pretty simple.
Boo, no I’m not.
Boo, I should caution you before you head done this, erm, path. You will end up headbutting the table in frustration.
In the same Ouldian fashion of claiming Paul Cameron to be both abhorent and yet perhaps worthy of use, an occassion you will fondly recall, you are now witnessing Richardson claiming the Ugandan law to be both abhorrent and yet perhaps worthy of use.
(Not that he is supporting the law, mind. Didn’t he say it was abhorrent? Yes? So there.)
Apparently — through use of a classic Ouldian ethical fracture — one can reconcile this; at least on paper.
How so?
Well, because “[it appears] social normalization of homosexuality [cannot] co-exist with Christian morality”. ***
And social normalization is one of those “unintended consequences” of the the “legalisation of homosexual acts”. ***
Hence, Ugandans should look to the appallingly horrible siuation faced by Christians in Britain before decriminalizing homosexuality. If they’re not very very careful… one day they might not be allowed to discriminate against gay people. And for a True Christian(c) that would be a truly awful situation. Wouldn’t you agree?
(By unsaid implication, of course, comparable to gaol or execution.)
Also, godly compassion is meant to be the slave of striving for a godly society. That’s your priority list, if you are a True Christian(c).
And you do want to be a True Christian(c), don’t you?
So there. You lose.
Told you that you would end up headbutting the table.
————————
ps please don’t question the obvious gaps in logic or evidence at these *** points. If you do, it will be declared — again in the Ouldlin style — that you are engaging in an ad hominem attack. And that’s not allowed, so you lose again.
And we have the archives to prove that incredibly frustrating fact.
Let me preface this by saying that my faith is Christian. While I don’t have any desire to make anyone’s life more difficult, my impression, certainly from the New Testament, is that followers of Christ should expect little to nothing from the society around them. The entire idea of a Christian based society seems alien to scripture, which in fact says that we are aliens in this world.
Purely from a theological standpoint, when did we aliens come to expect the world to cater to us? Again, civil society in a modern democratic derivative has an obligation to ensure certain rights to all, and in this country (US) we come from a view which assumes that those rights exist apart from society, given to us by a generic “Creator” (i.e. beyond the ability of mere men to add or detract).
That said, I am always concerned when I hear fellow believers using the argument that recognizing this or that right for others will interfere with our Christian sensibilities. I realize I am in a dual situation here, but again strictly from the theological side, wouldn’t it be our obligation to take on that “hardship” in order to provide more justice and freedom for others?
Isn’t it all that much harder to show the unconditional love of Christ when one is expressing anger about the loss of such “rights,” if they even are such? I’m having a hard time believing that is what Jesus would do, to use a cliché.
Maybe I’m just missing that scripture which tells us how we should lord our rights above all others, or to do to others what we perceive them doing to us, or how we should use the force of civil law to make our neighbour live as we believe they should, etc. Lots of changes in these new editions of the Bible, I should catch up.
Can I just say I think David Roberts has got much nearer to the heart of my concern than most other responses?
John, you said:
So what possible legislative measures on homosexuality would you regard as not being draconian, harsh or excessive, and therefore as acceptable?
Boo, I should caution you before you head done this, erm, path. You will end up headbutting the table in frustration.
No danger of that, but thanx for the concern you two 🙂
Having read the responses on his original thread, I was aware of the level of self-denial already. You’re right that he’s like Ould and the others who will write something and then insist they didn’t just write what they just wrote, while it remains right there for all the world to see. Far from frustrating, watching people like John tie themselves in pretzels trying to deny their own words is kind of amusing, at least in small doses.
Hey John; two plus two equals four.
Hey John; I didn’t just say two plus two equals four.
If I read John correctly, he’s saying that this incompatibility between traditional Christians and modern society is just a fact – not necessarily a cause for complaint.
If so, fair enough. He’s just acknowledging the reality (to an extent) of the situation.
When he or other Christians want to portray it as persecution, and try to reverse society’s progress, then I have a problem.
I agree with you, Dave, that if the Revd Mr Richardson and (some) other Christians want to reverse society’s progress, then there is a problem. The problem, however, is largely an intellectual rather than a concrete one, since a reversal of society’s progress is highly unlikely in practice, at least in the foreseeable future.
I am speaking now of the situation here in the UK, although what I have to say may well be applicable to a great extent also to the USA and other countries.
The partial decriminalization of homosexual behaviour in the UK in 1967 (it was only during the last decade that the age of consent was finally equalized and that measures were introduced to outlaw job discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, for instance) did not lead directly to the continually increasing social acceptance of homosexuality. It did, however, facilitate the “coming out” phenomenon, which has gathered momentum over the past couple of decades. Up to then many, perhaps most, heterosexual people believed that they didn’t know any “homosexuals”. “Homosexuals” to them were largely faceless, anonymous entities whom they didn’t really think of as actually living anywhere, working anywhere, paying taxes, having families who loved them etc. People who realised that they had met these mysterious people spoke of the experience with wonderment: “We once had a homosexual working in our factory”; “I met some homosexuals when I was in Australia”.
The “coming out” phenomenon has changed all that. The number of gay people who go through life concealing their orientation from their families, heterosexual friends and colleagues is ever diminishing. All but the most incredibly naïve now know that we are everywhere and that we are real people whom they know and who lead real human lives, and for the most part they don’t see any reason why we should be treated any differently than anyone else.
I see what a long way we have come when I look at my local gay pub, which has a fair number of regulars who are straight, including heterosexual married couples. Most of them are friends or relatives (brothers, sisters, cousins etc.) of the gay regulars. I haven’t tried it, of course, but I’m pretty sure that if you went round asking them, “How can you be friends with people who are openly gay?” (something that would have been fairly unusual, I think, when I was a child), or “Don’t you think that your brother/sister ought to go to a reparative therapist or to an ex-gay ministry?”, or “I hope that your cousin and his boyfriend aren’t actually having sex”, they’d either gawp at you in amazement, taking you for some kind of pitiable eccentric, or tell you to get lost (however expressed).
Plainly these people, when they realise that gays and lesbians are also just people, and that they are their own family members, friends, neighbours etc., will repent of and abandon hateful attitudes – if any – that they previously held. They don’t want the people whom they know and love to be subjected to any kind of abuse or discrimination, nor do they see why they should be discouraged from forming appropriate same-sex relationships. They would be as fiercely opposed as their gay relatives and friends would be to any attempt to reverse the social progress that has been made. The Rubicon has been well and truly crossed, and there is no going back.
I’m not suggesting for one moment that the situation in the UK is perfect, even now. We still have our fair share of anti-gay cranks and gay-bashers, and homophobic hate crimes still occur. But the die is cast, and those who dream of a return to the days of repression are living a life detached from reality. They might as well hope for the return of the Inquisition or of the Witchcraft Laws.
If I read John correctly, he’s saying that this incompatibility between traditional Christians and modern society is just a fact – not necessarily a cause for complaint.
I’m not really convinced that’s all he’s saying. I do in fact believe there’s a sense of value judgment on his part in there as well.
Jarred, yeah, I could point to parts of what he wrote in his blog that suggest he’s complaining – but he seems to be taking a different tack on this thread. Maybe he thinks he was saying the same thing all along, or perhaps he’s just backpedaling somewhat.
And I am still waiting for a few answers. Some proof. something. but i suspect all i’m going to hear from the man is some sort of love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin hogwash. If i do, then I am sure i’ll have a few things to say aobut that.
John Richardson said:
Could you elaborate? I have to admit that after reading your post (on which this one is based) a couple of times, I can’t determine just what you are getting at.
Either you statements are in conflict and really say nothing, or you are trying to define some sort of paradox. If it will help make some sense of this, I would like to hear in what way my previous comment connects with whatever it is you were trying to say.
Or perhaps grandale are correct and I am just banging my head against an Ouldian logical fallacy. I’m willing to wait and see.
John Richardson’s arguments could just as easily be applied to the situations of:
* Roman Catholic judges and court clerks who must deal with civil divorces
* Teetotaling Southern Baptist waiters who must serve alcohol
* A traditionalist Christian school teacher who must use inclusive language about student families that include single mothers and unwed heterosexual couples
* Any evangelical or conservative Christian who has to be polite to co-workers who are pregnant out of wedlock or living in unmarried relationships.
These and many other common situations require religious believers to separate their personal beliefs from the demands of their jobs. If they feel unable to do so, they may have to exclude themselves from certain types of work.
It’s funny how conservative Christians don’t seem to have a big problem with this balancing act in situations where refusal to compromise might put them in conflict with a wide swath of society. But when it comes to dealing with gay people–a small minority that’s still subject to widespread social prejudice–they suddenly feel compelled to draw a line.
Excellent, NickC. You could also add to that list:
* Ultra-traditionalist Roman Catholics who work in chemists’ shops and who have to sell condoms to customers who want them
John, you are right to say that traditional Christian morality is incompatible with modern inclusive morality. That’s because traditional Christian morality isn’t actually very moral.
TRiG.
trig: of course it is moral…
if you define “moral” as the unseeing, unthinking, uncompassionate, unexamined, unreasoning, and lazy following of strictures that were laid down by desert tribes, but atrributed to their deity, 2500 years ago concerning subjects we might possibly understand 2500 years later.
I don’t think the essential elements of the human equation have changed all that much in the past 2500 years. And while you should feel free to challenge that position, let’s try to do what we do here without stereotyping people, ok? It’s hard enough to cut through the crap without adding more to the load in the process.
The big fear that Anti-Gay Christians face today is that they will no longer be allowed to legally hate. What is happening in Uganda is merely taking the words of Western Anti-Gay Christians and putting it into practice. Bascially Western Anti-Gay Christians are saying to Uganda, “No! Don’t kill gays in a physical manner, do it with your words like we do. Deny them all the rights and priviledges of other citizens. Make their lives a living hell, but don’t kill them.”
It always amazes me how Anti-Gay Christians will appear appauled at the likes of what is taking place in Uganda, or when violent acts occur against gays on their own turf, and yet, they are the very ones who initiated the whole ordeal. It’s like someone who has trained their dog to attack and then is appauled when the dog actually does it. Then they blame the dog for it and put it to sleep.
Sad to say Christianity, for most of its history, has made a list of who are worthy and who are not worthy to enjoy life on earth. And while the lists vary from denomination to denomination, the fact remains that it exists. Many feel they need to have enemies in order to justify their faith. In my understanding of Christ’s teaching, the enemy is ourselves, not those around us. But it is easier to shift the blame for the world’s problems onto someone else, having scape goats if you will.
If Uganda is doing anything appauling in the eyes of the Anti-Gay Christians of the West, it is holding up a mirror to them and showing them what it looks like to put their words into action.
I don’t think Christians are, or ever were appalled by the Uganda bill. In fact, it wasn’t until they got so much bad press (most of it from Rachel Maddow) that they even bothered to comment on it, much less condemn it. The reality is, they were saying to the Ugandans, we can’t kill gays here, but you can, and we want you to do what we legally can’t. Christians hate homosexuality, and they hate it vehemently, and that hatred was built into Christianity from its inception. We all know that there’s an injunction in Leviticus against gay men, but there’s no record in Jewish literature of anyone ever being prosecuted for it or even accused. There’s even debate as to whether or not Jesus came face to face with it when he healed the Roman centurion’s servant, and the nature of the real relationship between Jonathan and David. That aside, it was Paul, the creator of Christianity who had a problem, and he built his own hatred into his doctrine. When he turned Jesus into God and created the Roman church, which would later usurp the Western world, he opened the doors to hatred of the most profound, and he made it okay to persecute them. It’s ironic that a man who called himself a bondservant of Christ could leave in his wake so much death and destruction.
“It’s ironic that a man who called himself a bondservant of Christ could leave in his wake so much death and destruction.”
Ben– not if that famous thorn in his flesh was what several people think it was.
Projection and self hatred are hardly new emotions.
Hang on! I’ll readily point out the absurdities of religion, and I certainly think it’s immoral: Any moral system which cares less about the suffering of people than it does about the idiosyncrasies of a sky fairy is ripe for criticism. Religious morality is bad because it is not, fundamentally, morality at all. Morality is about people.
However, let’s not paint with too broad a brush. Not all Christians “hate homosexuality”. There are some non-homophobic Christians out there; some genuine ones. And, of course, many gay people are themselves Christian.
The nice Christians are cherrypicking just as much as the nasty ones are, of course, because the Bible is no moral guide: it’s an incoherent mess. It’s a pretty good mirror, actually: what it tells a believer to do is often a pretty good reflection of the believer’s own character.
TRiG.
I certainly agree that saying Christian hate homosexuality is painting with a broad stroke. I also agree that there are Christians who do love their gay brothers and sisters, but the irony is that this is irrelevant.
Most people act as if homosexuality is some sort of opinion, like they ‘believe’ in it or don’t believe in it. They agree with it or they disagree with it. This is absurd. That’s like saying (and many do) “I don’t believe in evolution.” So what? That doesn’t change the fact that we live in a Universe that has been around for billions of years, and we are a species that has evolved from a lower species.
Sexuality is built into us. We don’t choose to be gay, we discover, at some point in our development, that we are gay, the same way straight kids discover their attraction toward each other. Straight boys don’t decide to become obsessed with boobs, it just happens. Gay kids don’t decide to be attracted to peers of the same sex, it just happens.
Whether homosexuality is an ‘anomaly,’ or if it’s ‘on purpose (nature’s way of controlling the population),’ is still up for debate. However, for whatever reason it exists in nature, nature has allowed it to continue. It even appears at times that nature encourages it. We know by studying evolution that when something no longer serves a species, nature either removes it, or changes it. Yet homosexuality seems to remain consistent.
God did not create Adam and Eve (or Adam and Steve), God did not create a world in seven days, God did not ordain marriage or put a tree in the middle of a garden. We are not made in the image of God, we are made in the image and likeness of the Universe around us. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to oppose homosexuality.
The reason homosexuality was decriminalized is the exact same reason that interracial marriage was decriminalized. Science overrode superstition, and the Bible was recognized for what it was in this situation; prejudice and bias, and outright bigoted. These are the qualities of the Bible, and they are not only unsupported in nature, they have been proved absolutely false. The Bible is a lie told to humans by humans in an effort to suppress and control.
Unfortunately this isn’t a logical debate. It’s an emotional debate. We’re trying to discuss logic with people who still won’t acknowledge science. It’s like debate whether or not there’s a Santa Clause. They see the present under the tree, therefore Santa must have put them there.
The fact that Christians are so afraid that homosexuality might be taught in schools, or that children may be exposed to this ‘alternative’ lifestyle (death-style as some call it) is as absurd as their fight to keep evolution out of schools. This is nature and its science, and they might as well be arguing that those who believe in gravity are sinning.
I said all of that to get to this point. To call yourself a Christian means that you are taking on the ideology of Paul, you are taking on the superstition of the Bible and you are taking on the principles that book espouses. Even if you cherry pick the Bible, that doesn’t change the fact that the Bible endorses slavery, genocide, murder, hatred, violence, child abuse, crimes against women, megalomania, and crimes of all nature. To call yourself a Christian means that at some level you’re willing to participate in the crimes of scripture, and I don’t see how you could do otherwise.
Bless those Christians who support and love their gay brothers and sisters. Bless those gay men and women who choose to be Christians, but that doesn’t change the fact that Paul was adamantly opposed to it, even if that was his thorn in his side, nor does it change the fact that he built that philosophy into his theology and that it remains there to this day. It is one of the pillars of his church. There are many sincere peopel who participate in groups that commit agregious acts, but no matter how sincere they are, they still belonged to an organization that is based on pure evil and hate, whose sole purpose was to eradicate everyone they disagreed with, and I think this is a fair assessment of Paul’s church.
Ben, it is not our purpose here to malign the major faiths of the world. Many of your comments above are simply not useful to the discussion and will rightfully cause some readers to feel their beliefs are being attacked out of a glib sense of animous.
Visitors should not expect their faith to necessarily be supported, but they should feel safe enough to participate without having those beliefs ridiculed. If you indeed see the world through that particular lens expressed above, a personal blog (or one devoted to such debate) is the appropriate place to express those views.
This is not a perfect system, but it works better than the alternatives in our experience. It allows participants to discuss the topics which have brought us together with the least amount of interference from certain emotions which tend to interfere with reasonable debate.