Three Religions Have This in Common

Fundamentalist Christianity, Fundamentalist Judaism, and Fundamentalist Islam all condemn homosexuality. Their agreement on this point, and most likely a number of other points, does not make them correct. But it does make me wonder why they have this (and presumably quite a few other things) in common.

So here are my thoughts: The molders (and I use that word with much careful consideration, so as to encompass both ancient, historical personages and modern religious leaders) of these religions feel that life needs to be tightly controlled and regulated--presumably by their scriptures and their clergy. So they see life--behavior--as being about a lot of rules, for what we must and (maybe more importantly) what we must not do. What clothes we should wear, how we must wear our hair, what we should (or, more likely, should not) eat. Maybe there is a view of human nature implicit here: we are all wild, savage beasts, and our natures--our lusts and other baser impulses--need control, examination, regulation, corseting.

And what about the people who are drawn to these sorts of religion, who embrace them and gladly follow them? I believe there is a certain personality type that positively likes having a lot of their conduct prescribed. I'm not sure whether this is the same personality type as the "molders" I referred to above, or a complementary type that fits that of the molders like two pieces of a jig saw puzzle.

Well, it's usually believed in modern, western democracies that people should believe and observe what they want. That's fine; but too often the attitude is, "I don't think such-and-such is right, so I am going to try to prevent you from doing it"--whether it is  homosexuality, abortion, or any of countless things which most of us feel a human being ought to be free to do.

Copyright © 2018

I'm Sick and Tired of Homophobia

It seems that any time the Huffington Post (HuffPost) publishes any article online that relates, no matter how tangentially, to any gay issue (they do have a page called HuffPost Gay Voices, but sometimes gay-related things get posted elsewhere), for some reason all the homophobes come out of the woodwork, very happy to have a platform to express their anti-gay views.

So we hear (over, and over, and over again) that homosexuality is wrong, it's unnatural, it's perverted, it's against Nature and "God's law." So often religion is invoked. I've become firmly convinced that, as a gay man, religion is my enemy.

It makes me truly sad to have to think that homophobia is so widespread. One of these people touched on something very true when he or she said, "They just want to be accepted." I'd put a spin on that in a way that he or she probably did not intend and say, Yes, we gay people would very much like to be able to feel that we were not disliked (let alone hated), rejected, persecuted, discriminated against.

Let me tell you from personal experience that it is a tough row to hoe in life if you belong to any minority—and I belong to at least two or three.

I spend too much time reading and responding to many of those people. Here is what I wrote in reply to one:

There is an old American Indian proverb that says, "Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his moccasins." I only wish that you and others like you would have even a fraction of the humanity that is embodied in that saying.

I am getting very, very tired of you homophobes posting your ranting (and very, very tired) old, bigoted ideas any time there is anything posted on HuffPost that has anything to do with anything gay.

And, as to "abominations" named in the Bible, are you aware that Leviticus also says that you should not eat shellfish, you should not wear garments that have two fibers mixed, and that a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night should be put to death?

Are we maybe just being a tad selective in what we do and don't point to in the Bible? It's not the Bible, it's just your bigotry.

Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein

Not Acts of God

The by now very old (and if he's not tired by now, I'm tired of him) televangelist Pat Robertson said that the cracks in the Washingon Monument that appeared after the recent earthquake centered near Washington were an "act of God."

Glenn Beck says that Hurricane Irene is a "blessing."

I'm not going to try to get inside these guys' heads or figure out their chain of logic (!?!).

I see a dilemma in the thinking of people who are always seeing God's hand in this or that. First, if you believe that God can and does interfere in the workings of the physical or natural world, then the god you believe in is certainly not a benevolent god. These natural phenomena have caused enormous human suffering, particularly over time (certainly they've been going on for all of the history of the human species).

The god who is always "punishing" mankind, for this or that or whatever, sounds like the Old Testament Jehovah, a vengeful god who once (the story of Noah) wiped out nearly all of mankind, who is an angry and wrathful god--as He himself tells us.

Ironically, the people who believe the things above are professed Christians; and I understand that in the Christian version of things, God in the person of Christ is supposed to be loving, forgiving, tolerant (never mind that we've got so many of these so-called Christian believers who spend enormous energy--and money--spreading hatred of gay people).

(To be accurate, there's always been that strain in Christianity--at least in American Christianity, going back to the earliest days. A notable American example of a hellfire, fire-and-brimstone preacher is the eighteenth-century figure of Jonathan Edwards.)

Maybe some Christian would care to explain their religion to me a little better. I see only paradoxes and inconsistencies.

Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein

Strict Interpretation - When It Suits 'Em

Republicans and religious conservatives may advocate a strict interpretation--of the Constitution in the one case, and of the Bible in the other.

But they seem to me to be hypocritical because they can be shown to favor strict construction only when it is in their interests; and otherwise, they just ignore whatever they prefer to ignore.

Former US President George W. Bush effected "substantial military actions" in Afghanistan and Iraq "that under any traditional reading of the Constitution [would have] required a declaration of war" (Robert Dallek, "Power and the Presidency," Smithsonian, January 2011); but, as is implied, these actions were done without a declaration of war. But I don't recall Bush's conservative supporters crying foul, complaining about his possibly unconstitutional actions--even though they are always saying that they favor strict interpretation of the Constitution.

And I think it's somewhat analogous when religious conservatives point to the Bible as justification for their condemnation of homosexuality and gay people. They need to remember that the Bible was used to justify slavery in the decades preceding the Civil War.

Also, they point to a passage in the Old Testament book of Leviticus that calls homosexuality an "abomination." Leaving aside the fact that abomination may not have meant, when the Old Testament was written, what they would have us believe it means, Leviticus also calls the eating of shellfish and pork an abomination. It also forbids wearing clothing made of mixed fibers, and prescribes particular sacrifices for many types of sins and crimes.

Not only do these people not make the sacrifices that Leviticus says we need to perform, I'd wager they also eat pork and shellfish, and don't give any thought to whether their clothing is a mixture of fibers.

So it looks like the Constitution, and the Bible, must be strictly adhered to only when to do so happens to harmonize with the aims of Conservatives.

Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein

Yet Another Homophobe Outed As Gay

If you follow the news, you've heard or read about Bishop Long, of a huge (25,000 member) African-American church in Georgia. This is a man who is a very vocal homophobe, and now he is accused of having had sex with (at latest count) four men from his congregation when they were adolescents.

This is just the latest of a long list. Remember these: Foley, Craig, Haggard? I think there have been several more that I can't recall at the moment.

I have to wonder, when will people stop listening to these people with credence and simply question whether the volume of their rhetoric is in proportion to their desire to cloak their own homosexuality?

Here is an article that is excellent and, in my opinion, gives a very good slant on the issue of homosexuality and the Bible.

http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-bishop-long-and-whats-long-overduer-for-christians/19645378

Update, August 26, 2011
Yet another instance to add to the list along with Sen. Craig, etc.--just the latest among many: An Indiana state senator, Phil Hinkle, arranged, via Craigslist, a liaison in a hotel room with a very young guy (either 20 or 18). He claims, "I am not gay."

Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein