And in the extra anger department

[sparkindarkness]

The Catholic Church and the Anglican Church have found some common ground to agree on in Britain.

Unfortunately, this common ground is the rather typical bigotry against homosexuals.

The law has now being passed ensuring there is no discrimination against homosexuals when it comes to adoption and adoption agencies - children need a loving home and there are an ever increasing number of gay couples in the country who have loving, nurturing homes to offer and hate should not be a barrier for these families.

Of course, the churches disagree and want an opt out for any adoption services they provide (thankfully the government has refused) on moral grounds. Because it is MORAL to put your prejudice before children. because it is MORAL to use hatred to prevent families forming. And they want the government to recognise, in legislature, that their hatred is MORAL. Thank the gods that never happened

This isn't about their private religious faith and private religious services - this is a public need and public service they are providing - and homosexuals are PART of the public, no matter how much they'd like us all to crawl into a cupboard and die somewhere. And these kids - and these families - need what is best for them - NOT what best suits a 2,000 year old book

The Cartholic church has expressed that if they are forced to consider homosexuals parents they may stop offering adoption services altogether.

Frankly, GOOD! Because if an organisation is this twisted by prejudice I don't WANT them to be messing with the poor kids.

Gah, it's things like this that just confirm my wariness around Christianity. I just have a reflexive flinch whenever I see a cross or hear someone loudly proclaiming their faith in Jesus because I know that there is a good chance that this person hates me for existing.

And it's sad because there are so many good, decent, happy, friendly Christians out there who wouldn't dream of hurting me and mine and recognise my equal rights and the rights fo all homosexuals. I tell myself that the loud ones who hate are just a vocal minority and just stand out more than the good ones.

But then i look at this and wonder if I am just kidding myself? This isn't some lunatic fringe group like Rev Phelps. This isn't even an organisation like Pat Robertson's with untold thousands of followers - this is the Cardinal of the Catholic Church in England and the Archbishop of Canterbury. These are virtually the heads of the Christian church in England. These are the leaders who the others follow and respect - not some fringe firebrand, but major organisations presenting most of the Christians in this country.

It's just so depressing. I don't know whether to fear Christianity for the inherent hostility of the majority towards me or sorrow for it that so many people are getting such a bad name from the bigoted few.

Comments

[ephemera.livejournal.com]

I am *furious* with Rowan Williams. *Furious*. He's back tracking on things he said several years ago - before he was elected Archbishop - and *inarticulate fury*

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

I agree entirely. When he first came to the post there were so many promises of him being a moderniser and forward thinking and liberal
but he seems to have caved to the most conservative factions of the church

[girl-working.livejournal.com]

I can say there's some very nice Christians. My husband for one. :P Who finds your posts amusing. :) But, I have a reflective flinch too, not because I'm gay, tho' I am bi, but because it's so... recruit-y. So with-or-against... And it makes no logical sense to me as a religion. But that's a seperate debate.

And as elrohana pointed out on her LJ:

'So a fundamental Muslim, who believes that all infidels should be killed (as per an obscure line in the Koran), should be allowed to murder non-Muslims, because it is a ‘right of conscience’?'

Gah...

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

there are many many nice Christians, I just don't know whether to priase them as a wonderful minority pulling their religion up or sorrow for them that they are the silent majority being dragged down


and "my way or the hell way" doesn't work for me either :)

[elrohana.livejournal.com]

Have a look at Illgrace's comments on my LJ rant on the same subject - she makes a good point about old Rowan.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

I'm discinclined to give Rowan much of the benefit of the doubt any more. He is supposed to be placating shcismatics? But that seems to mean bowing down to them and even adopting their policies. That's not placation, that's joining them.

[the-yellow-king.livejournal.com]

Speaking as a lapsed Roman Catholic, I truly believe the Roman Catholic's hands are completely tied in the matter. Whilst being a homosexual is not a sin, the act of practicing homosexuality is - a fine distinction in theology, but ultimately hair-splitting the Church is tied to due to prior doctrine. The Pope could declare that homosexuality is not a sin using "infallible doctrine", but this would provoke a huge schism between the liberal and conservative arms of the Church. Homosexuality has never been declared either way in an ex cathedra declaration.

The issue of homosexuality and gender equality within the Church is probable going to be unresolved until a new Pope is elected. Benedict is a place-holder; the Church was not quite ready to transition to one of the younger liberal cardinals that want to modernize things.

It's a thorny problem. If the Roman Catholic Church admits that its doctrine in regards to homosexuality is incorrect, it opens wounds that cannot easily be healed. Should the Church not be cautious in changing its stance, it runs the risk of completely self-destructing, leaving Protestant thought the dominant meaning of Christianity. I have to admit that I find that frightening, but then, I also live in a region of the U.S. where there are a lot of Baptists who still believe that Catholics drink blood at the altar and sacrifice babies to saints.

[kitsuken.livejournal.com]

Actually, as I recall it's sodomy rather than homosexuality which the bible speaks out against. During the renaissence Da Vinci was charged with sodomy (yes, it was an actual crime) but was later found innocent. This didn't mean he wasn't in a relationship with his apprentice, but people were quite happy for them to have feelings for each other as long as they didn't practice sodomy. The whole "homosexuality is a sin" thing is actually pretty recent, like the last century or two

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

ah, the idea that if we all remain virgins then we're ok? yeah, I'm not a big fan of that one either

[kitsuken.livejournal.com]

Not surprised :p But seeing as it's none of their buisness what you do in the bedroom as long as it's nothing illegal (which it isn't any more), the arguement that "we shouldn't let gays adopt because it's against our religion" goes right out the window, since the only basis that their religion would be against you is something they have no legal right to know

Oh, and wouldn't this be pretty much like them refusing to let anyone who isn't a christian adopt from them? I mean, if the reason for them not wanting gays to adopt is that they think a lifestyle which doesn't fit their religion would be bad for the child, wouldn't that include people of *other* faiths? I mean, there's the whole first commandment thing which is usually seen as a bit more important than those piddly little leviticus rules that include no shrimp scampy or polyester blend clothing

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

that's what I tend to say to people about the whole gay marriage/gay rightys debate - you don't agree witfh gay marriage? Great! Don't have one! No, really, we will not send big gams of leather men/dungeree-clad lesbians round to force you into a same sex marriage. Really, we won't.


And that is another point - I mean, if the church is against the homosexual "lifestyle" aren't they equally against the non-(insert demnomination of Christianity here) lifestyle? Perhaps even more so - they just know that one won't fly. It must be more important to them though (or should be, according to the Bible) because it's part of the Big 10

[the-yellow-king.livejournal.com]

Well, yes. *grins* After all the 'Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith' used to be known as 'The Holy Office', which was formerly titled 'The Holy Inquisition'. There are still many theologians in the Church who get smacked for 'heterodoxical' and 'heretical' leanings. See the whole debate over Liberation Theology, for instance.

As I've mentioned to the atheist wife, it is my supposed duty to gently convert her and other atheists/pagans...but only after I've applied the holy cleansing of the flame to the heretical Baptists/Epsicopalians/whatnot. Gotta clean the house before cleaning other people's, y'know. ;)

Yes, that is a joke.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

heee, it's a secret plot by us pagans you know :)

[kitsuken.livejournal.com]

See, this is one thing that those wacky fundamentalists have gotten right, ignoring parts of things they don't want to hear. So when can you have those lesbians delivered?

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

yeah, they don't seem so freaked by lesbians - probably because of their porn stashes

[lilisonna.livejournal.com]

There are some in the church who would say that even heterosexuals are better off as virgins. In fact, I think Paul advocated just such a thing, but he allowed that if you couldn't stay a virgin, you sould go ahead, get married and do the hetero thing so there would at least be kids from the boinking.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

I beliueve so, yes. I remember Paul saying amrriage was the accepotable kind of sex IF YOU HAD TO. It was seen as the WEAK path - universal virginity was preferred

The man had issues.

[kitsuken.livejournal.com]

You knoww, that's an interesting thought. Christians not being permitted to breed. Maybe Paul was against the religion from the start?

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

maybe he was trying to sabotage it?

[only-playing.livejournal.com]

I think he was just scared of women...probably was a dork and got rejected a few times too many.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

definitely issues

[the-yellow-king.livejournal.com]

Pauline theology is bullshit. I mean, the man wasn't even an Apostle! Shit, claiming Jesus appeared to him on the road and told his ass to get renamed from Saul...I'm suprised James the Greater and the Lesser didn't get together to perform a Doubting Thomas Beatdown on his ass.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

I wonder if, in some afterlife somewhere, Jesus eternally chasing Paul around with an axe

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

It was also official catholic doctrine to torture hereics and witches - I'm disinclined to allow their "we've always dfone it this way" excuse stand.

Does change take time? yes - but until and IF (and, let's face it, the church is giving absolutely NO indication that they intend to change) they do change I don't think they're getting the benefit of any of my doubt.

They mere fear opening new wounds - but they have already opened many wounds and continue to do so. Homophobic bigotry and violence and even murder and state oppression is based on a foundation of religious intolerrance and the Catholic church is one of the stones in that foundation. I cannot - will not - forgive them for that.

[the-yellow-king.livejournal.com]

There has been no external evidence that they intend to change, but we Pope-watchers have been right amused. JP2 was in process of ensuring that the Curia and cardinal electorate is being restocked with much younger theologians; Benedict continues this process. Benedict was a follower choice - he continues almost exactly the policies of JP2.

The next Pope will be Latin American, probably one of the more liberal cardinals, like Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga. Within a few years of the next papal conclave, we will probably see the addition of women to the priesthood, the liberalization of attitudes towards birth control and homosexuality, and a repositioning of the Church towards a more modern world. Much like Vatican 2, but with modern issues.

The problems this will cause will definitely be a further splintering of the Church. However, there is no omelet-making without the destroying of many eggs. *shrug*

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

I will hope, and I hope we do see change - but until I see it I am not holding my breath or being especially positive about it.

Frankly, i don't understand why people worry so about schisms - especially if they are doing what they think is right - is it better to remain wrong and keep going on the same path?

[the-yellow-king.livejournal.com]

It is better to work slow change from within then split the Church. There have been two earth-shattering schisms:

- The Great Schism: The split between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy over who the leader of the Church is - the Byzantine Emperor or the Pope in Rome. This eventually led to the destruction of the Byzantine Empire by the Turks and several progroms during the Crusades...after all, those Greek-speaking monks kissing pictures of bearded men aren't REAL Christians, right?

- The Protestant Reformation & The Catholic Counter-Reformation: I shouldn't need to explain the deleterious effects of that split, considering that the history of the U.K. is full of it. Why the fuck we're still arguing over whether transubstantion is literal or not I have no clue, but was it truly important to have wars over whether the King was Catholic or Anglican? Bah. Not to mention that most of the religious intolerants have seemed to colonize and migrate to my section of the American South.

Having a schism in the Church is rather the religious method of "I think the Republicans are bad for the U.S. Let's not screw around and just shoot Dubya and every Republican in Congress on the White House steps. Live. On CNN. With the Democrats engaging in skull-fuck parties afterward." About that equivalent. :)

[kirylyn.livejournal.com]

sadly, there are way way too many scared and frightened people out there who are terrified that their "way of life" will change (not really but goddess forbid they should actually pick up a book and educate themselves!)

they're afraid that 'teh gay' is catching
/shakes head


are the chemists over there allowed to refuse to dispense birth control if its against their "moral beliefs"??

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

fear of the unknown backed with doctrinal prejudice makes for some virulent hate

No, they aren't. If they can't stock it they need to be in another form of work - like a Jewish pork butcher or muslim pig farmer

[kitsuken.livejournal.com]

The Bible also has rules supportive of slavery, so does that mean we can't criticize Lucy Buchanan on... whatever the show is she's on because she was being "moral"?

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

precisely - if someone forces his daughter to marry her rapist he is also being "moral." there are an amazing amount of abuses we would be forced to allow if we gave all religions an opt out on laws they can contravene with their holy text

[jrho.livejournal.com]

I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools until I went to college. I decided I wasn't Catholic when I was 9. My parents assumed this was some pre-teen rebellion on my part. Not so much. Granted I have thought it through in a bit more depth since that time, but my stance remains the same: this religion is what I've been taught, but that doesn't make it true. I really can't stand people who use religion as an excuse for their own prejudices.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

Rebellion at 9? Gah, I find parents tend to blame everything on rebellion from the age of about 8 to 15 as an excuse to just dismiss it :)

It's unfair on the religion and I think it is also a waste of minds. I ask people "what do you have against homosexuals?" and they say something like "the Bible says" WHY does the Bible say that?! Why does god have a problem with me? They never ask why - it just is. They hate and discriminate and cause all kind of pain and problems and they don't even know WHY

[jrho.livejournal.com]

You know what they always ask "Why?" about, why I stopped being Catholic. I don't ask them why they continue to follow their personal religion, and it's none of their business why I don't.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

ah, but there is that annoying "saving" thing they have going which is very very annoying

[ladydyani.livejournal.com]

Sigh. Once again: It's not God I don't like, it's his fan club I can't stand.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

yep, I was going to use that exact phrase

[kitsuken.livejournal.com]

and the slashfic is just disturbing

[ladydyani.livejournal.com]

*blinkblink* o.O

[kitsuken.livejournal.com]

apparently there's things like jesus/judas and, most likely, other more disturbing ones. remember rule 34 ;p

[ladydyani.livejournal.com]

I'm frightened.

[lilisonna.livejournal.com]

Would it make you feel better if I said that I only wished my country was as tolerant and accepting as yours?

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

partially it would, because it would remind me how much better things are than they used to be and how much further we had come and how much better off I am than homosexuals elsewhere in the world

but it would also depress me, because it reminds me just how many MILLIONS of people there are out there who really do hate us and how much power they have

[a-roar-a.livejournal.com]

an interesting news bit I was just listening to related to the above discussion http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7020219

about this book http://www.amazon.com/American-Fascists-Christian-Right-America/dp/0743284437/sr=8-1/qid=1169765013/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7884888-4738403?ie=UTF8&s=books a disturbingly good read

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

I've heard of it - it is extremely disturbing and worrisome

[thisdaydreamer.livejournal.com]

If they are believers, than why do they not believe that homosexuality is a creation of God, just like heterosexuality? Or do they hold to the myth that sexual orientation is a matter of choice?

These are questions that keep me away from churches.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

That's what I ask

But I have always found it is easier to be righteous by pointing out OTHER PEOPLE'S sins than it is to look in the mirror. It is much easier to condemn homosexuals than it is to examine your own organisation

[thisdaydreamer.livejournal.com]

Religion goes wrong when it takes the easy way out.

This whole thing makes me very sad and angry.