Persecution Complex with the world's largest religion.
I was hoping to avoid even writing about religion at least until the New Year comes by. But with the article on the OIC, the UDHR and the Third Commission on the General Assembly, that was pretty much unavoidable. I've now learned that there will always be something that is so obviously ridiculous and stupid, that only given a pseudo-logical defense on the pathetic excuse that they're just following guidelines of some ancient textbook, that would piss me off. Especially if I still live with paranoid fantasists I call my family.
So basically, As living with these people means that I have to endure them indulging in superstitious beliefs as they head off to a place where like-minded folks go through much mental wanking over the archaic textbook serving as their moral guideline. Why, I'm talking about church, of course!
Interestingly, during this period, there's being something of a "reform" going on there. And by reform, I obviously mean "taking it back to basics" as most fundamentalists do. Somehow, the idea that the organizational structure of church should return to small, communal groups in which people meet up as they talk about the same nomadic scribblings they the nerve to call "the Good Book".
So, what have I learned about the a-changin' times? Well, apparently the freedom of religion and worship, is a myth. Well, not a myth, just not completely honest. Basically, I heard from the church leader about some guy who was gay suing a preacher because they removed for speaking his views on homosexuality, sorry, what the Good Book says about homosexuality. I discovered but two different tales on this, obscured sorely because of the fact that fundamentalist religious people insist on referring to gay people as "a homosexual" as if they don't have names. You can always tell if someone is being intolerant if they don't even so much as refer to them as a person.
So the first story I could find of is the Westboro Baptist Church being sued by the family of a soldier killed in the Iraq War. So what does this have to do with homosexuality? Well, not much except that the WBC has a prolific history of their vitriolic anti-gay protests, which for some reason has extended to Iraq War soldiers, several celebrities, the President of the United States (both George W. Bush and Barack Obama), Sweden and oddly enough, quite a few fundamentalist preachers; most of them under the same banner as "fag-enablers" or "fag pimps". I mean, the church even has a website called http://www.godhatesfags.com as well as godhatesamerica.com, and several godhatesexample.com to go with it. They're basically being sued for invasion of privacy and intentionally inflicting distress to the family. Anyone with even a semblance of sanity would agree that this is at least an understandable reason to why a family would sue a group who continuously pickets funerals of dead soldiers spouting their hateful vitriol to people in mourning. And for that reason, I doubt the church would be so stupid, bigoted and willfully ignorant as to defend the actions of the WBC in any case (save for the circumstances where the First Amendment covers them), where even "Focus on the Family" refers to them as a "hateful group".
(When even Fox News is disgusted by such unwarranted hate speech, then you really are scum)
For that reason, I suspect what was actually being referred to was the second article I discovered which was of a gay man appealing to a human rights tribunal because his church where he served as an altar boy for, removed him from duties for being gay (Interesting that this story was picked despite the church being Catholic, despite them hating Catholicism). Now those of us who actually care about things like discrimination and the rights of all people would probably think that the church is kind of messed up for doing that. But no, not with Christians! It's an attack on their faith! Things are gonna get rougher for the followers of Christ from nowm on! The End Times are coming! A few things though that they conveniently neglected to mention though (other than the church was Catholic and are therefore not True Christians™)
1. The guy was forced out of the church after 12 other members pressured the bishop to take action.
2. The gay man was in fact celibate. Imagine that! And here I thought they were obsessed with sexual immorality!
3. His name was Jim Corcoran. (I find this important to mention because I prefer to address even people I despise as, you know, people. Not labels that only characterize one aspect of them)
4. Not only did Corcoran lose his case against the church, but while many Christian blogs like to pander around the story of Bishop De Angelis forgiving him, the fact remains that he's still not allowed in the church and in fact, the church hasn't made contact with him since.
The astonishing thing about this is on point 2. Corcoran, in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church actually refrained from "homosexual behaviour", since it is a "grave depravity" (So men fucking men is wrong, but priests fucking little boys is A-OK, huh?) .In fact, he's probably two shades away from being part of the so-called "ex-gay" community. But that wasn't enough for these bigots. No, upon discovering he's gay from his own blog, they sought to remove him from church regardless of whether or not he actually engaged in sex with a man. And then, fundie Christians are asshurt if he finds the balls to sue their bigoted asses for this travesty, and claim their beliefs are being attacked, even if they're winning. Granted, I don't think he should've sued the Church either. In fact, I think less energy, money and time would've been spent if he simply decided to leave the church, and abandon the archaic self-destructive beliefs been promoted as reality. However, while I do respect the turmoil that he goes through in reconciling his beliefs with his sexuality, the reality is so long as there are jerks like this, placed as authorities of the faithful, there will always be cases like this.
But the rant, mistaken as spiritual word didn't stop there. Oh no. Apparently, Senate voting in favour of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell (awaiting Barack Obama's signature as of this post); there was much prayer throughout the early morning (Gee, and here I would've thought that fundie Christians like the idea of homosexuals running to shot at and/or get killed by someone who doesn't like them. Like the Taliban, for instance) OK, let's ignore that her in the United Kingdom, we already accept LGBT members in the military. We've done so for over ten years. A brief history of DADT:
Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a "compromise" that came about in 1993 during the Presidency of Bill Clinton. You see, Clinton campaigned on the promise that gays and lesbians would be allowed to serve in the military without discrimination. This promise was made difficult to uphold due to Congress electing to put the existing gay ban into federal law. Prior to DADT, in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice Title 10, Subtitle G, Section 654, it says in Statute (a) paragraph (13) that:
The prohibition of homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
And in paragraph (15):
(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability. (b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.
(I would add more but its more effective to simply read it for yourself) In other words, in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, gays and bisexuals were to be discharged immediately. So, Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a cop-out served to compromise this, by allowing gays and lesbians in the military without fear of a witch-hunt (Don't Ask), as long they don't reveal their sexual orientation. The idea goes in a few stages:
- Gays and lesbians risk losing their security clearance.
- Unscrupulous persons often attempt to blackmail gays and lesbians into revealing classified information rather than have their sexual orientation revealed to their commanding officer in a letter.
- If the commanding officer learns of their sexual orientation in a letter this would result in the loss of their security clearance, lest they continue to have access to classified information which they might reveal to a blackmailer.
- See part 1.
The problem was that more, not fewer soldiers were discharged under this policy. Since 1993, over 13,000 soldiers were discharged over DADT. The highest number of military personnel being 1,273 discharges in 2001 (This sharply dropped after 9/11, but it was still pretty bad, reaching around 600 discharges a year until 2009). And it wasn't really the case of teh gayz being loudmouthed in the military , or feeling the need to be open about themselves. It was superiors actively trying to search for information about troops in personal webpages, personal letters, personal ads, despite their being the presence of "Don't Ask". Even sillier is the excuse given for this ridiculous ban in the first place. It was claimed that somehow, having teh gayz in the military would somehow affect unit cohesion or morale. Here's a little statement from the American Psychological Association:
Empirical evidence fails to show that sexual orientation is germane to any aspect of military effectiveness including unit cohesion, morale, recruitment and retention (Belkin, 2003; Belkin & Bateman, 2003; Herek, Jobe, & Carney, 1996; MacCoun, 1996; National Defense Research Institute, 1993). Comparative data from foreign militaries and domestic police and fire departments show that when lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are allowed to serve openly there is no evidence of disruption or loss of mission effectiveness (Belkin & McNichol, 2000–2001; Gade, Segal, & Johnson, 1996; Koegel, 1996).
When openly gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals have been allowed to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces (Cammermeyer v. Aspin, 1994; Watkins v. United States Army, 1989/1990), there has been no evidence of disruption or loss of mission effectiveness.
The U.S. military is capable of integrating members of groups historically excluded from its ranks, as demonstrated by its success in reducing both racial and gender discrimination (Binkin & Bach, 1977; Binkin, Eitelberg, Schexnider, & Smith, 1982; Kauth & Landis, 1996; Landis, Hope, & Day, 1984; Thomas & Thomas, 1996)
And seriously, in the battlefield, the enemy is not going to stop and ask which one of the soldiers is gay if they're trying to kill them anyway.
"You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."
- Barry Goldwater
So what next to be asshurt about? Oh, nothing but this little "gem":
"There going to pressure the church to allow gay marriages. So we have to make a stand...Either you stand Jesus, or you stand against him."
Well, first off I'd like to point out that we don't have same-sex marriages in the UK. We have civil partnerships. That's not the same thing. And yes, following the Equality Act 2010, civil partnerships in England and Wales (note: not the whole of the UK, such as Northern Ireland) may now enter a religious venue if the building's proprietor is willing to conduct it. In other words, the state is not forcing you to marry couples, and you can refuse if you want to (I'm curious to why a gay couple would want to join a Pentecostal church anyway, let alone one that holds openly homophobic views). In fact, the first show of being asshurt over this bill was shown by, surprise surprise, a number of Roman Catholic bishops. In addition with a few of the Anglican clergy. The claim was that they were going to be prosecuted under the bill for refusing to allow gays, lesbians and transsexuals to join the priesthood (Interesting I hear all these tales involving groups that are apparently not True Christians™). Before we even get to changing the definition of marriage, I'd like you to read something:
"[miscegenation] will destroy our [white] race eventually...a pastor friend of mine tells me that a couple of opposite race live next door to his church as man and wife."
That was by Jerry Falwell, who had a massive history actively opposing anti-segregation laws. I've never seen him actually renounce those views publicly even up until the end of his life.
You might say, "Well, that's nowhere in the Bible!" to which I would reply, "LOL!":
Numbers 25:6-9 "And behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought to his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel...And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazaar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel."
Numbers 25:10-13: "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy. Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel."
So basically, Phinehas, whose granddad is Aaron, and grand-uncle is Moses; saw the interracial couple, killed them with a spear, and got rewarded by God with eternal priesthood, staving him from killing all of them. Well, at least we know about how Yahweh feels about mixed-race kids. That explains why the Bible-thumpers in the Tea Party movement hate Barack Obama so much.
(If the irony is lost on you in this, there's no hope for you)
Secondly, Jesus has never quoted anything on homosexuality, let alone against it. Granted, if we play the "Jesus is God" card, we can refer to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Of course, on that logic, they should also follow Leviticus 11:10, especially if they plan on eating lobster for Christmas (or is it New Year's). Also, Deuteronomy 10:16 seems interesting. I wonder how they've gotten around to "circumcising their heart". And Deuteronomy 22: 5. Maybe it's no wonder that people call those with such anti-gay rhetoric are labelled bigots whenever they resort to scripture: Because they so obviously pick and choose which ones to follow. What's astonishing is that even the fact that in the case of gay rights, in the stories mentioned, they're winning two out of three. And yet, that is enough to feel threatened and start declaring that their Lord and Saviour is coming soon, since the world is against you. Christianity is being attacked, indeed.
:
I can't even begin to cover the point by point horsecrap, so I'll just end with this:
"A few years ago, when Versace was still round. I had this friend who I spoke to, and then we had a sort of argument. I was saying that women should be careful about how they present themselves outside..."
But wait! There's more!
"And she said 'If the man doesn't like you I dress then that's the man's problem!'"
Wow. Kinda reminds me of that Dave Chappelle skit on men and women.
This was actually accompanied by laughter. Granted, I found it a bit funny as well. But not for the reasons that they likely did. You see what deeply religious folk and conservatives fail to understand, is that this statement is actually true. The suggestion that someone encourages men to behave a certain way because of whatever clothes they're wearing is ridiculous. Granted, that might actually attract men, but then are also the self-righteous moralizers kinda like the guy saying this, who don't like to see that. And simply of this vocal minority in society, the woman can choose to wear whatever she wants.
And yes, I've heard the argument go on to issues of rape and such, but guess what: If a man rapes a woman, it is the rapist who is the criminal. Accusing the women being sexually assaulted of somehow enticing the man would be like blaming the kid for being bullied at school: "You must done something to get his attention". But then the Bible also has screwy "blame the victim" rules, anyway: (Deuteronomy 22:22-23). Let's just ignore the fact that the majority of rape victims know who the perpetrator is, and around 50% of rapes occur in the home of the woman or perpetrator. Also, the argument can go both ways: If a man walks topless in the outside, would you expect women to lose control of themselves and attempt to sexually assault the man? And they have the nerve to talk about how Islam treats their women.
But it gets even better!:
"Then, a few days later Versace died. And then the woman came back and said: 'Yes, you're right , about how women should present themselves.'"
So, let me get this straight: God killed Gianni Versace, or at least withdrew his protection of Gianni Versace for making revealing clothes?
Gee, I would've thought he'd go after, Um, I don't know, Hugh Hefner. The guy who founded Playboy.
But I suppose I wanted to start small, huh? So how exactly did God go through this meticulous plan? Influence a gay prostitute serial killer to murder Versace and then kill himself for the same reason? Amazing how fundies are quick to jump on something bad happening and claim that "Goddidit". And this is supposed to convince people that God is loving, and convert to your faith? I'm a little shocked the woman put down her guns over this. Then again, critical thinking skills these days happen to be expensive.
But wait it gets even better!:
"Vercase, when he was young, saw a prostitute and was influenced by the prostitute...so he decided to make clothes...to seduce men. And that's why the Medusa is the logo of Vercase. Because Medusa is a sex ymbol."
OK, it's possible he read the source I used for this and muddled it up, or he spouted classic bullshit that was uncanny so here it goes:
Firstly, I found nothing on Versace seeing a prostitute when he was young. What I did see is him fascinated by the dominatrix and the prostitute in making his clothing. By then, he was already an adult. With respect to the prostitute, unlike what traditional, Abrahamic moralizers would have you view them as (e.g. "dirty whores"), to Versace prostitutes were heroic. Prostitutes turn their sexuality into a commodity. To Versace, prostitutes were assertive, confident and didn't abide by traditional rules, and thus were powerful. Versace sought to emphasize this in the clothes he made: Feeling powerful, but sexy and feminine. He wasn't trying to turn women into sex objects (He didn't need to, as I'll explain later), he was trying to take them take control of their sexuality and femininity, and not have it dictated by some patriarchal authority figure who tells you to cover up and abide by the same Bronze Age statutes that have influenced society for millenia, where men owned everything about the woman, including her sexuality.
Versace did however, see Medusa in his childhood. I myself wouldn't be so inclined to say that Medusa, the Gorgon, was a sex symbol. Rather, what she represented was a femme fatale. Medusa in Greek Mythology would turn to stone whoever gazed upon her. To Versace, Medusa represented the dangerous and deadly power of women. And as for this seduce men stuff, here's this:
"I wouldn't say the Versace woman is predatory. I would say she is seductive. Women need to seduce in order to achieve their goals. I don't mean seduce men - they need to seduce themselves, because once you seduce yourself, you start to like yourself and are better able to achieve what you want...The brain is the best seduction tool you have. But clothes help too."
That quote was from Donatella Versace, not Gianni Versace. Also, if you thought that quote was profound. Wait till you read this one:
"I don't like my physique very much."
Gee, no kidding:
 |
| You can never have too much plastic surgery with Donatella Versace. |
So yes, the basis of Versace clothing has rather consistently been about empowering women, and using taboo roles of women as inspirations to make popular clothing. But let see how the Bible sees women! Surely, it's better than wearing Versace right?
Exodus 20:17: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife,..nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbours." - So the wife is property? Gotcha.
Exodus 21:7-8: "And if a man sells his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her." - Tips on selling your daughter, and what to do if she doesn't make the new master happy.
Leviticus 21:13-14: "And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife." - God on who priests who marry. Imagine the irony with the Roman Catholic Church.
Proverbs 9-13: "A foolish woman is clamourous: She is simple, and knoweth nothing" - Foolish women are foolish!
Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: And he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject in Christ, so let the wives be onto their husbands in everything." - So, when your husband comes home from a hard day's work, wives, and says "Bitch! Make me a sandwich!" You do it without question.
I don't even need to further with this. There's been so much B.S. so I'll end with this: You cannot live as how the people wrote the Bible at all, without picking and choosing, especially if you do not live in a Iron Age society. The reason why common objections to the "Good Book" is that its internally inconsistent, racist, sexist, homophobic amongst others is because it is all of these things. And that's understandable because it reflects the sensibilities of that time. But to then pretend it's the eternal guideline of humanity, and we really, really need it because we'd be in bad state without it, is nonsense. Our species managed to survive, build civilizations, and do fine reproducing, even with the homosexuals within social groups (In fact, having one in the family, may have enabled female fertility), thriving, and becoming the most dominant species on Earth for millenia before even the pre-Judaic religion even emerged. All of this because guidelines were put forward to how to behave within the constraints of the society, to keep it effective and to make sure everyone within it survives. Throughout human history, the codes of conduct known as morality has changed and adapted itself as societies grew and became more inclusive. The Bible is reflection of this developing process of morality in its entirety (And for this reason, is arguably the biggest reason for schisms within Christianity).
Thus, it is even more absurd to dictate how others should behave, when you yourselves reap the benefits of the works of those who you'd probably call "secularist" in making civilization, in particular that experienced in the West what it is today. So my request is that you cease dictating what it is people should and shouldn't do unless you have experienced the life of an Iron Age Palestinian, then return to see if this is a life you'd rather all of humanity experience; and in addition sort out the schism crap within your own religion first. For a group that says there's only one truth, you sure have a lot of dumb arguments over which bit is the most important. And finally, it's a bit hard to take seriously the "Christ is coming soon" mantra, when people have been telling others this for 2,000 years, which is a third of the time many of you believe the Earth has existed. So, if you are going to reform your religion, the least you can do is abandon the Young Age Creationism crap. It seriously does harm for your position. Although, I'd prefer it if you do the intellectually honest thing and abandon such paranoid fantasies that put a stranglehold on lives, which are all too brief altogether. Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment