After reading this article, I've been pretty angry. The story talks about the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, an act working to include violent crimes committed based on someone's sexual orientation to be added to the list of hate-crimes in the states. Matthew Shepard was a man in Wyoming who was tied to a fencepost and beaten to death because he was gay - the bill is named after him. Good idea, right? I think we can all agree that tying anyone to a post and beating them to death is generally a dick move, and doing so because of their nationality, gender, race, or sexual orientation is most definitely a hate crime, right? Can we all agree on that?
No, we can't, apparently.
A christian group in the states is claiming that new hate crime legislation is "an effort to eradicate religious beliefs opposing the homosexual agenda from the marketplace of ideas by demonizing, vilifying, and criminalizing such beliefs as a matter of federal law and policy."
Agenda? What? Did I miss something? Is there a greater plan involved here, is the gay community meeting in secret - planning something? Does it involve short-shorts or assless chaps? Saying something like "the homosexual agenda," in my opinion, is tantamount to saying "I'm a big moron, and nobody should ever listen to me." It's an absolutely rediculous statement, and there aren't enough words in the english language to describe the baffling ignorance behind it.
The group believes that because their religion says that it's A-O-K to hate homosexuality, that any bill opposing that belief is an attack on the religion itself.
They're idiots. There's really no other way I can put it, they're idiots. Most people who read about them will probably come to the same conclusion; theists and atheists, hetero and homosexual alike.
What really gets to me in situations like this, however, are the "moderates," the people who say things like "That's not how Christianity is." The fact is, this is exactly how your religion is. These people are in the spotlight, talking about all the dirty little secrets involved in your religion, preaching it to the masses.
You can try to sugar-coat it, and say that it's not part of what you believe, but it's there. It's part of the faith, part of the religion that you endorse - that you hold up. The radicals and the crazies are screaming hate and vitriol at the top of their lungs, and they're doing so while riding on your backs. By supporting their religion, you are inadvertently supporting them.
Aaaaaaand /end rant.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Let me preface by saying, I am not a Christian, and I am not trying to defend Christianity. I am just a scholar of religions, and your post points to a very common misconception about Christianity (and many other faiths as well).
ReplyDeleteRemember that Christian theology is not monolithic. There are many interpretations of the bible (and many versions and translations as well). There are Christian denominations that embrace homosexuals, allow homosexuals to be priests or pastors, and perform homosexual weddings.
I think what the moderates are trying to say is, "don't judge Christianity solely by the loud ones."
I've read about some of the more liberal sects of the religion, and while I can applaud their progress; they're exactly the "moderates" that I'm referring to. Both individual and large-scale differing interpretations of their faith still rely on the bible itself - and it's that book which plainly, and clearly condemns homosexuality (among other things.) In my opinion "dolling up" a faith to be more accepting of the things it's holy book speaks against is like painting a peace sign on a nuclear bomb.
ReplyDeleteIt seems many religious folk like to pick and choose bits of their faith that they like, and ignore the parts they dislike. I understand that it's only the loudest and most irrational believers who spread that hatred; but with fewer of these moderates (unintentionally) supporting them, their voice wouldn't have nearly as much power behind it.
I appreciate the comment, it's nice to see people reading this.
you know, it always strikes me that two groups of people judge me the most harshly: fundamentalists and atheists, two groups of people at either extreme, the black and the white, with no cause to see anything imbetween. My view is this: I would hope that some distinction can be drawn between prison/navy sex, which I do oppose, and those who seem legitimately born that way. The Leviticus chapter on sex is book-ended with "don't have sex with your sister" and "don't have sex with animals". To my mind this is speaking to men who will have sex with anything they physically can have sex with, and I do think that kind of behaviour is destructive for society, and I do stand by it being in the Bible. I also maintain that providing an exception to a rule leads to the old give an inch take a mile situation. So there you go, I don't expect everyone to agree with my view but I maintain that it is logically sound even if it doesn't agree with one extreme or another.
ReplyDelete