There comes a moment in every young gay man’s life when he has the awful realisation that no matter how hard he tries, he will not become the president, the pope or the chief rabbi. This is followed by the second great realisation that at some stage he will have to tell his mom and dad about his limited career options.
In a world where homosexuality is punishable by death in seven countries and outlawed in eighty others, many gay men still lead furtive lives, fearing that their sexual orientation may result in social ostracism or imprisonment.
Fortunately, gay rights are increasingly being embraced in more enlightened parts of the world with seven countries having passed legislation affording gay people similar legal rights to heterosexuals. These are Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, South Africa, and Spain.
Unfortunately the gay activism that has accomplished this has also spawned a backlash from the rabid, religious right who, since Jew-baiting became unfashionable after the Second World War, have taken up gay-bashing as a replacement pastime.
Some of the most vicious homophobic propaganda originates from the US evangelical movement, which is not averse to exporting its hatred to other countries. In Uganda, this has recently inspired the drafting of one of the most draconian pieces of homophobic legislation in the world in the form of an anti-homosexuality bill, which is currently before parliament.
This bill, which calls for the death sentence for some homosexual acts and prescribes prison terms for friends and family members of gay Ugandans who do not report them to authorities, enjoys the support of the interdenominational Uganda Joint Christian Council.
Following widespread publicity and condemnations from Western governments, some in the US evangelical movement have sought to distance themselves from the bill, claiming their advice on how to curb the spread of homosexuality in Africa has been misunderstood. It now appears that they merely wanted to cure homosexuals not kill them.
Watching this sordid theatre play itself out, it is tempting to agree with the refreshingly, irreverent new atheists that religious belief is the root of all evil. But, believing in god is, in itself, probably less harmful than believing in homoeopathy and possibly as benign as the relationship a child has with an imaginary friend.
While I do not wish to be gratuitously sacrilegious, the dialogue of the devout with the lord, like the dialogue with an imaginary friend, does tend to be quite one-sided. God only seems to reply every couple of thousand years and then to a very select audience.
For such a taciturn deity, it hardly seems plausible that he would use these rare vocal moments to condemn homosexuals to death and prescribe lashes for women wearing slack suits. So I am afraid, little fellow mud monsters of earth, it is not the lord who has ordained this nonsense; it is the creation of our very own minds.
If truth be told, unless very drunk, homosexuality tends to be harmless for the vast majority of heterosexuals. However right-wing religious zealotry is not.
It is an interpretation of religious scriptures without compassion. It is hatred disguised as riotousness. It is patriarchal, oppressive, narrow-minded and mean. It spawned fascism and apartheid. It is truly an abomination on earth and should be vehemently opposed by every decent human being.
Richard Kaplan is a medical doctor working in the field of HIV/Aids. He has developed a strong strain of resistance, bordering on antipathy, to politicians and poseurs, whatever their hue.
This entry was posted
on Monday, January 18th, 2010 at 4:22 pm and is filed under News & Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
28 Responses to “Beware the gay-bashing evangelicals”
Once again the rabid & mostly ignorant - like nose-length ignorant - “crucifixion” of ALL belief in God (as in the Abrahamic traditions), which by it’s very definition is as faith-based as visiting a doctor, a broker or opening a newspaper, speaks volumes about the small-mindedness of the current crop of so-called atheists. I say “so-called” because the bulk of them I have encountered, including He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Questioned (aka Pope Richard Dawkins), are merely swapping a metaphysical religion for a religion of non-belief or denial. That is their right. But they should not trot out centuries-old, time-worn empiricism and dress it up as the new bride of enlightened rational thought (ref Arthur C Clarke, magic & “religion”).
The Abrahamic faiths struggle very deeply & earnestly with the dilemmas posed when scriptural exegesis comes into conflict with prevailing social norms, limitations of current scientific enquiry, national legislation, the realities of a changing world, people and planet, comforting conveniences and the “quaint caprice of fashion” - not to mention the grotesque hubris of Superman (sorry) Superperson today. All writing is socially and historically contextual.
I share your abhorrence of religious zealots who sanctimoniously condemn homosexuality in equal proportion as I condemn the atheist zealots who refuse to accommodate the notion of belief in a loving creator God whose greatest gift was freedom of choice. A choice all atheists would deny their fellow homo sapiens sapiens (but this meagre space disallows adequate debate, so God bless, Richard)
Are you sure that ALL writing is socially and historically contextual? Really? All along people tried to convince me that that the Bible is always true, never-changing, the word of the living God. You know, “in the beginning was The Word” and all that. Reality check: It is true in its entirity, or none of it is true. Choose a talking snake and back it, please.
Sadly the tendency to hysterical, hyperbolic stereotyping is as evident in you as in those you seek to condemn, and I simply have to respond to a few of the claims you make.
Firstly, the interpretation of religious scripture that you criticise is not necessarily “without compassion”, based in “hatred”, or “oppressive, narrow-minded and mean”. I might love me daughter enormously even while I hugely dislike the fact that she chooses to smoke, or I might love my neighbour even while I hate that he persists in gambling away the money his family desperately needs to survive. It is possible for most well-adjusted people to ‘hate the sin, but love the sinner’, as it were - to seek to help those we believe are doing themselves physical or spiritual harm wherever possible.
I must disagree with you most emphatically; I have atheist friends who are sympathetic to and even supportive of my faith despite not “getting it” themselves. Not all atheists deny believers their freedom of religion. The problem as I see it is not “gay-bashing evangelicals”, “Jew-baiters”, “right-wing religious zealotry” or any other label that people like Richards Kaplan and Dawkins might hang on those with whom they disagree as much as with the erroneous belief which some people have, that they alone know and fully comprehend the truth, that everybody else is wrong (so far so good, aren’t most of like that?) BUT that they also have a right to impose their beliefs on other people, ridiculing, denigrating, marginalising and even actively persecuting those people in the process. Freedom of choice, freedom of religion, freedom to choose one’s own lifestyle and freedom generally to believe what one chooses are valueless if people do not have the freedom to freely exercise those freedoms. Kaplan and Dawkins themselves, in attacking theocratic belief, are part of the (”refreshingly, irreverent new”?) anti-faith fascism.
Atheist means not theist. Some atheists are more strident, but they are all right in their opposition to allowing religion to underpin the creation of laws. Atheists in general don’t interfere by trying to prevent others from believing in an invisible friend. Exactly the opposite, it is the very evangelicals mentioned in the article who would impose their religion on all.
The so-called Abrahamic religions each worship a very different god in spite of the pretense that it is all the same one. It is akin to languages that have all branched off from a single root, but now bear almost no resemblence to each other. And most definitely in the Christian conception of a god - an all-knowing, perfect designer - there is no place for free will; that god built you to act in a certain way and you are playing it out.
What remains fascinating is the continued obsession of the followers of the Bible with homosexuality. They’ve seen fit to do away with all manner of other silly nonsense found in therein, but cling to this one. Why fear them so?
A question for you, Mr Kaplan. A word of advice please. Let’s assume we have a young man (or women, of course) who has an encounter that leads him to believe that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” instead of believing that “In the beginning there was physical matter which noone can explain how it got there” (both being statements of faith). And let’s assume that his growing faith leads him to believe that homosexuality is what he would now call ’sinful’. He is not hateful towards homosexuals. He does not want their harm, but he does believe that the practice of sodomy will lead all those who participate in it to a dreadful judgment, which he would have them avoid. He feels a love for homosexuals as he does for all men and women, and his heartfelt concern for them is real and authentic to him based upon his worldview. Now, if possible, Mr Kaplan, please extract yourself from your hatred of Christianity and Christians, and honestly answer this for me: Will you allow this young man his worldview, what would you suggest he do with his convictions, and how would you suggest he plays a role in the treatment of homosexuality in society?
While i see your veiws as valid. Bewear the relegouse bashing gay man. not every christian on the face of the earth, believe the being gay is an offence against God worthy of death. Many have and are activly seeking to dispel such nonsens notions, which I believe are not only , unfounded in any scriptual refrance. I honestly believe God is more intrested in the man, spirit and soul and who he sleeps with. So while I have a number of gay friends and understand your hurt caused often in the name of relegouse bigots who should most likly remove the pole from their own eyes. There is also no need to be no better than them by lambasing all christains as right wing america’s. quite frankly theyre a bunch of ill educated idiots.
Llewellyn - equating Athiests with the planet’s human religious muesli(mixture of fruits, nuts and flakes) is like saying that in non-Malaria areas, Malaria must have been replaced by an equally murderous disease called non-Malaria. Non-Malaria is just like Malaria yet it has no symptoms and nobody dies from it. Logic so false it can barely cary the name. Desparate measure to prop up religion and hit back at Athiests who frankly couldn’t care less.
Let me state this categorically and clearly - Athiesm is an attempt by a fairly large and growing portion of people to not believe in anything that does not show itself to be believable. Athiests DO NOT believe in Athiesm or practise Athiesm. They are simply Athiest or ‘Without Religion’. To you they have Non-Malaria. To me they simply are not infected by Malaria. There is a subtle but massive difference.
Athiesm is simply refusing to believe in some constructed bullshit about a creator and some loving thing lurking in some mythical heaven that periodically burns people yet refuses to show any evidence for its existence and expects humans to rely on eachother to propagate the myth and worship it in some cosmic-sized egomaniacal fit of creator petulance. You may as well believe in witchcraft or alien visits. Both are equally as well documented as religion is.
Believe what you wish but please understand that equating Athiesm with a religion simply shows a lack of understanding of the basic premise.
Well said Jan. I’m tired of being told I am “believing non-believer.”
I do believe in something - anything, in fact, which can be proven true via logic. It is merely co-incidental that religion happens to be mostly unproven bullshit.
Perhaps the most mind-freeing thing about being an atheist is knowing that you CAN change your tune when things are proven incorrect - this is what we call science. I would struggle to base my life on an unchangeable doctrine laid down thousands of years ago.
Abrahamic faiths struggle very deeply and earnestly indeed. The reason for this is obvious. When you are myopically constrained, as they are, lateral and logical thought is nearly impossible. All you are left with is parroting some ancient text and a desparate struggle to explain the growing number of things that clash with those ever-popular pastoral, backward almanacs that form the shaky basis of all this faith crap punted to the indoctrinated masses.
Scientific enquiry certainly does have limits. Thankfully for us, Scientists know those limits and the system largely prevents the kind of unrestrained, self-serving creativity that is rife
amongst the men of the cloth when the good book comes up short.
You are also completely wrong about Athiests refusing to accomodate the notion of belief in a creator. They accomodate it but, for now, reject it as highly unlikely on the basis of a complete lack of evidence. Most would, I presume, quite happily believe in a creator if such a creator stopped playing his silly little game of hide and seek and popped down to say hello to us all. Surely thats not too much to ask from a guy who is everywhere at all times that loves us sooo much?
The choice is the homosexuals’. It’s not my right to judge.
Would I were good enough to feel the same about those accused of other crimes, like rape, abuse, fraud and murder. I find those far more difficult to leave without opinion!
@Jan Swart
As you no doubt know the bible as we call it was written by many people over many years (that much is fact) and in their writings the word of God is hidden. Sometimes that word is clear, sometimes veiled in nearly un-intelligent prose and/or stories. Jesus said: seek and you shall find.
Did the snake really talk? I don’t know but if people can ‘understand’ a dog, Adam, who was probably much closer to the animal world as we will ever be with the exception of Attenbourgh maybe, might well have understood what the animal ’said’ to Eve. As regards the snake, its little speech showeds quite advanced thinking, so much so that Eve was beguiled into believing it. Point is they did what the snake suggested and there lies the rub.
Modern psychiatrists elicit from our souls thoughts we never knew were there: we only have to lie on the couch and relate what we know or experience or dreamed. A friend of mine interprets dreams. I have trouble even to remember a dream, let alone give meaning to it, bar one or two exceptions which I believe actually came to pass. My point: the bible is (to me at least) a book about things unseen which contains the promise that one day all will be revealed. With the proviso that without seeking there will be no finding/revealing. Where would king Tut be without the seeker Howard Carter?
What unenlightened, sacrilegious codswallop, my dear Jan Swart.
That is why they teach us subjects such as exegesis and synoptic comparison at theological college. I’m sorry to snuff out the flame of your dogma and fundamentalism - the “people” who “all along … tried to convince” you of the Bible’s infallibility, uncontradictory rendering (over two millennia? - compare the original Hellenistic Greek in Acts 9:7 with Acts 27:9), flawless printing (three of my editions have typos), non-contextuality are, well, WRONG. The New Testament entreats you not to tempt the Lord your God. Neither should we pigeonhole Him into the cosy compartments of our limited concepts of reality or imagination. He is far greater than all that. Your unfounded flat-earthish assertion - true in its entirety or not at all - is profoundly offensive to students of scripture, theologians and the faithful; if not teetering on blasphemy. ALL writing - every jot, every tittle, every cedilla, every upward/downward stroke - is and always will remain contextual.
That’s why we see through a glass darkly now. That’s why allegory is prime in the quest for meaning - as Jesus told his stubborn disciples again and again. “Or”, as Robert Browning said (not in this context): “what’s a heaven for?”
I don’t know where or how you did your research on Christianity but your presentation of God-given free choice is inaccurate. God created us with the ability to make choices: Adam and Eve chose to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and you and I have the freedom to choose our own eternal destiny. Humans have the intellectual capacity for making reasoned decisions which have real consequences when acted upon. You can choose either to respond to my post or to ignore it, and your decision determines whether or not I ever get to discover to what extent you have understood my point.
Re your statement that religion should not be allowed to underpin laws: on the one hand we cannot remove legal bars to e.g. theft purely on the basis that it is forbidden in the Ten Commandments, nor on the other hand can we legislate faith or belief.
Those who believe that theft is an acceptable response to being socially or economically disadvantaged will not have that belief altered by any law. What can and should be legislated and enforced are laws providing for sanctions against those who steal so as to protect other members of society. Likewise in the case of sexuality, it is pointless to attempt regulation of people’s beliefs, but society must be protected against those who abuse others eg rapists and paedophiles, whether homo or heterosexual.
“…If truth be told, unless very drunk, homosexuality tends to be harmless for the vast majority of heterosexuals. However right-wing religious zealotry is not….”
The please explain why it is right for Homosexuals to adopt children? Why is disagreement to a Homo lifestyle always labels one a Zealot by the homosexual community?
Understand clearly, that the rights you have today, is given for political expediency. To gain the Gay vote. Until a short while ago Black Gay males did not exist in the eyes of Black society.
In essence you demand the right for homosexuals to be treated in a predetermined way, but want it at the expense of another right to freedom of expression.
I equate your call to the women’s libbers who, demand equality and a level playing field but when treated as a male they complains.
You cannot have it both ways. If you believe you are equal, live with the reality that some will reject you. In case you do not know rejection happens to all straight people sometime in their life. Bye the Bye. How many neo-male Lesbians say the same zealous mouthing about Straight males?
Seems to me labelling goes hand in hand with generalisations. Many people think of God in religious or philosophical terms, therefore they don’t meet God in a personal relationship. They read the Bible from this religio-philosophical perspective and don’t understand what God is saying to mankind. That in itself is excusable, but when they start making gross, sweeping statements that misrepresents God and his Word then it is a different matter.
Uganda is to my knowledge the only country that has effectively turned around the percentage of people with AIDS. The government together with the Church faced up to this huge problem and did something constructive about it. But that is conveniently forgotten when you want to get at the church.
Cut God out of the picture, then there is no hope for anybody/ The life and death of Nietzsche is a good example.
WRT your posts, you present as a very learned student of theology. You have ‘abhorrance’ for religious zealotry and the atheist zealot, which just leaves the rest of us to abhor the rabid theology student. Now we can all abhor each other equally. Except you are convinced that you are RIGHT.
Fortunately, the atheists do not have a reference or a wholly contrived course of theological course validity to defend. We have nothing to prove, whereas the study of theology as a career option can be likened to a course on poltergeists or astrology. You really are a waste of a good brain, but none will condemn you for it.
I can just imagine your dissapointment when one day you die; - and find nothing.
At least us atheists wont be dissapointed. But then maybe we will burn in hell. Scoff scoff.
Gay Bashing evangelicals are more dangerous than one can imagine - Did you see the maniac video of Scott Lively, an envangelical who hides his hate behind the bible. This is THE video that inspired the Ugandan Kill the Gays Bill - it was almost too hard for me to watch- but as an activist and blogger I had no choice but to expose it Here is the link http://lezgetreal.com/?p=24629 The here is more USA coverage of gay hate in SA http://lezgetreal.com/?p=25129 Then we ask to bocott SAWorld Cup http://lezgetreal.com/?p=25258
Melanie Nathan USA
As for the comment where Mr. Kaplan is asked - about would he criticize the gay man who decides sodomy is sinful. Let me educate your readers - in the US we call that ex-gay. Often but not always these are the people that the religious right like to USE - to undermine LGBTQI equality. Their argument is that gays and lesbians can change, but the educated know that there is no such thing as changing a genetic disposition. Reparatory therapy as it is called cause an enormous amount of suicide especially amongst youth, Secondly - In the bible it does indeed refer to sodomy. But it does not refer to a man loving another man in a loving relationship. Even some Orthodox Jews opine that men can form a relationship as long as they do not engage in sodomy. So as long as the ex-gay thinks it not okay - hallelujah for him - but please dont let him preach to others -and judge others who do not subscribe to his beliefs. melanie nathan
In an effort to educate myself, can someone explain to me the actual problem with homosexuality…
a)Is it that they are people of the same sex who love each other, be it physically or emotionally?
b) Is it the act of sodomy? and if so, should heterosexual males and females who partake in such activity be discriminated against too?
While certainly many atheists are of the live-and-let-live variety, a good number on here (like the good Mr. Walliser) seem to rival the worst religious folks in their smugness and confidence that they are right and that religious folks are poor, misguided fools believing in figments of the imagination.
To me it’s like debating how many angels dance on the head of a pin. You can’t prove there isn’t a God, and I can’t prove there is.
However, let’s take a pragmatic approach. Suppose I, as a Christian, believe I am called to live like Christ. I strive to be more patient, more kind, more loving to my fellow humans than my own short temper and sarcastic attitude would typically tempt me to be. I work for justice and regard true religion as care for the widow and orphan, ie the most vulnerable of society (see: James 1:27). I remain sharply aware of my own capacity for fallibility and am therefore cautious in my judgment, and more compassionate towards others who fail.
It would make me a better neighbor, a better citizen, a better friend. Now, whether this commitment arises out of secular “enlightenment” or a belief that little green men are whispering in my ear, why would you care? Wouldn’t you be pleased that I had found a course that challenged me to live up to high ideals and to try to incarnate them in my daily life? Simple pragmatism.
@Larry Goodfella
Aha, after death there still is the state of finding nothing and of not being disappointed. So there must be some form of conscience after death after all. That is what you are saying, right?
Atheist are at pains to emphatically state that God does not exist and all this nonsense about belief in a God is mere cotswhallop. But even atheists have their gurus who lead the way into nothingness. Some writer of the bible, a book I have great respect for, wrote these words: the fool says in his heart there is no God. The wisdom of a couple of thousand years ago.
Was he right?
Well, nobody wants te be called a fool so atheists will say: NO!
A more prudent person would perhaps say: I will think about it, he might have a point - about the God part, not the fool-part of course.
Only seekers will find (that’s a fact, remember Tutankamon) and some atheists do not strike me as ardent seekers.
As a new born non-theist (Islam and the bunch of silly happy-clappers did the enlightenment) I normally keep my opinion to myself unless I am asked. I adore common sense above all and regard myself as a doer, not as a preacher. I don’t hate believers, I just avoid them when my Bull-Shit-Detector starts peeping. I have no problem with other people’s sex preferences as well as left-handers and vegetarians. It doesn’t need a prophet to see the demise of organized faith, after all.
You are wonderfully correct and you melt any desire for further argument on the issue of belief, so long as our capacity to be good and to do good is challenged and maintained.
We must all be grateful for religions that strive to create a ‘good’ society, and those that need this form of guidance, can at least be led to social obedience.
Those that can follow their own path of rightiousness without any external influence are enlightened souls who manage well on their own without a god or religion to guide them.
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
On our Reader Blog, we invite Thought Leader readers to submit one-off contributions to share their opinions on politics, news, sport, business, technology, the arts or any other field of interest.
Loading ...
Once again the rabid & mostly ignorant - like nose-length ignorant - “crucifixion” of ALL belief in God (as in the Abrahamic traditions), which by it’s very definition is as faith-based as visiting a doctor, a broker or opening a newspaper, speaks volumes about the small-mindedness of the current crop of so-called atheists. I say “so-called” because the bulk of them I have encountered, including He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Questioned (aka Pope Richard Dawkins), are merely swapping a metaphysical religion for a religion of non-belief or denial. That is their right. But they should not trot out centuries-old, time-worn empiricism and dress it up as the new bride of enlightened rational thought (ref Arthur C Clarke, magic & “religion”).
The Abrahamic faiths struggle very deeply & earnestly with the dilemmas posed when scriptural exegesis comes into conflict with prevailing social norms, limitations of current scientific enquiry, national legislation, the realities of a changing world, people and planet, comforting conveniences and the “quaint caprice of fashion” - not to mention the grotesque hubris of Superman (sorry) Superperson today. All writing is socially and historically contextual.
I share your abhorrence of religious zealots who sanctimoniously condemn homosexuality in equal proportion as I condemn the atheist zealots who refuse to accommodate the notion of belief in a loving creator God whose greatest gift was freedom of choice. A choice all atheists would deny their fellow homo sapiens sapiens (but this meagre space disallows adequate debate, so God bless, Richard)
(Report abuse)