Monday, July 18, 2011

Religious liberty in public life

Following the recent decision of Trevor Phillips and the EHRC to defend the traditional liberties of Christians, Gary Streeter MP has sponsored an EDM stating:
That this House welcomes the decision of the Equality and Human Rights Commission to intervene in support of four cases involving discrimination against Christians that are presently with the European Court of Human Rights; notes that this is a long overdue recognition of the need to defend religious liberty and marks an important development in relation to a better understanding of the role of faith in public life; and further welcomes the Commission's advocacy for reasonable accommodation in the workplace as an acknowledgement of the place of conscientious objection for those with religious belief.
It is indeed 'long overdue recognition' which hopefully 'marks an important development in relation to a better understanding of the role of faith in public life'.

But it is, quite frankly, appalling that this EDM has attracted only nine signatures.

If there can be no reasonable accommodation of religious faith in public life, then we have indeed lost a liberty for which our ancestors were imprisoned, tortured and martyred, and for which more recent generations have fought and died. If more Conservative MPs cannot see that, His Grace despairs.

89 Comments:

Anonymous nicodemus said...

It's time for our Christian MP's to became MP's of conviction and backbone and to stand up for Biblical truth in Parliament.

18 July 2011 at 22:31  
Anonymous Steve Thompson said...

There is no "reasonable accommodation" of religious faith because what you're asking for isn't reasonable by any stretch of the imagination. If you want the right to discriminate against people based, for example, on their sexual orientation then I want the right to discriminate against christians. Can you imagine B&B owners putting up signs that say "No Gays"? In todays modern, understanding and open-minded society, how quickly do you think the "No christians" signs will appear?

If you want to discriminate on the grounds you have a belief, be prepared to be discriminated against on the grounds you're a closed-minded bigot who feels it's OK to act that way and enforce your beliefs on others.

It is, quite frankly, appalling that this EDM has attracted nine signatures. That's 9 too many.

18 July 2011 at 22:50  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

I do agree with your sentiments but the Christian Church is and has always been a 'pilgrim church'. It will be a counter-culture challenging others to love their neighbour as themselves and to hear the Gospel of Christ.

'Militant Christianity', and I don't mean aggressive Christianity, means accepting, even welcoming, the risk of discrimination and ridicule when holding to one's beliefs and putting one's faith first.

18 July 2011 at 23:08  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 July 2011 at 23:10  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Steve Thompson,

I just wanted to say that Jesus Christ loves you. He loves you so much that he came to this earth2,000 years ago to be nailed to a cross because of the universes sins. This is not the act of a "closed minded bigot".

18 July 2011 at 23:11  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Your Grace,

Steve Thompson said :

"If you want to discriminate on the grounds you have a belief, be prepared to be discriminated against on the grounds you're a closed-minded bigot who feels it's OK to act that way and enforce your beliefs on others."

Indeed Steve Thompson I agree. This is the way that the atheists seek to treat Christians, which is sad. But we must pray and stand firm in our faith.

"Brethren, be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour : whom resist, stedfast in the faith."

1 Peter 5. 8, 9.

18 July 2011 at 23:18  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

"'Militant Christianity', and I don't mean aggressive Christianity, means accepting, even welcoming, the risk of discrimination and ridicule when holding to one's beliefs and putting one's faith first."

AMEN TO THAT BROTHER!

18 July 2011 at 23:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Using Steve Thompson's logic how can there be a 'reasonable accommodation' of homosexuality?

Male bits don't fit with male bits and female bits don't fit with female bits and to suggest that they do is completely irrational. It follows that it is 'unreasonable' to accede to demands for homosexual 'equality'.

18 July 2011 at 23:20  
Anonymous Gay Anglican said...

"I want the right to discriminate against christians"

You already have that ability and it is called the human rights act. Sorry Steve, but please stop making the whole gay community out to be a punch of pathetic loosers who are full of nothing but loathing for the rest of the community.

18 July 2011 at 23:27  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

The way I'm coming to see things is that today, like no other time in history, we in the liberal democratic world can exercise free will. Of course this means accepting the consequences both here and in the life to come.

The 'State' is seperated from the Church in a meaningful sense and no longer accepts Christian precepts as the guide for the rule of law. Individual freedom and individual rights rule supreme.

Religious 'rights' are seen as no different in our pluralistic nation to those of homosexuals, disabled people, atheists, trade unions, employers and a host of other groups.

That's the way it is. Free will brings great responsibility on us all. Absolute moral precepts have been abandoned. Today it is 'permissable' in 'law' to have an abortion, to divorce, to engage in homosexuality, to commit suicide. In fact, to do what you want as long as it has no apparent impact on the wellbeing of others.

Challenging times for Christians.

18 July 2011 at 23:38  
Anonymous Gay Rights for Gays said...

@paul twigg- vile homophobilc rant! Gays need to assert their RIGHTS NOW ! Jesus didn't exist so, I couldn't care less if he apparently 'loved me'. Christianity is a smokescreen for the biogt, like you.

19 July 2011 at 00:21  
Anonymous Gay Rights for Gays said...

Dodo- Hope your are roasted catholic fool! Catholics HATE GAYS!

19 July 2011 at 00:23  
Blogger B.N.A.Freedom said...

Maybe some MPs don't yet know of this EDM. Contact yours and ask that he support this effort to defend Christian liberty. Support the Christian Institute (and Party) also.
http://bnafreedom.posterous.com

19 July 2011 at 01:13  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

GRFG desperately tried to communicate to people vastly more intelligent that it @19 July 2011 00:21 & @19 July 2011 00:23

Dear Numpty,

From your desperate primordial attempt to try to say something of meaning to we residents here, I respond on behalf of this blog in the year 2011 AD.

Ugh, ECK, ooh aaahhh.

Now off you trot and play with your todger in some public convenience whilst the adults here have some meaningful conversations. Homo Erectus indeed..probably half your problem!

Ernst.

ps

You are not DanJO's 'special needs' brother by any chance are you.

19 July 2011 at 01:17  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

A Bishop General Leonidas Polk follower said 19 July 2011 01:13

"Maybe some MPs don't yet know of this EDM. Contact yours and ask that he support this effort to defend Christian liberty. Support the Christian Institute (and Party) also.
http://bnafreedom.posterous.com"

Sorry Father John but Ernst is not of the RCC persuasion but good cheeky effort none the less..are we 'All in this together' then?

Ernst

19 July 2011 at 01:57  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

I know you are probably tucked up safely within your urn at this ungodly hour but could you put an old codger called Ernst at ease at your earliest convenience.

"Nick Clegg becomes PM if Cameron resigns." Please say it could not be constitutionally so, else...

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

E S Blofeld

19 July 2011 at 02:20  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your grace

a futher note.

Mrs B took Ernst's debit card by mistake (or so she says) so Ernst went into the Lloyds TSB to get cash out via proof of id and withdrawl slip, to be told this is now impossible due to new security measures they have put in place.

What do you reckon..they are expecting a potential banking collapse via eurozone meltdown and a run on the banks if they shut down the ATM systems to stop such a run.. ONLY If I cancel my card can I withdraw cash out by this method.

Stranger and stranger yet the hacking scandal takes preference. Things are being put in place yet we are blinded to it.

Ernst

19 July 2011 at 02:37  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Your grace may well despair ,that some feel we are now at the complaint stage of explaining christianity to the house that legislates or even to its bigger EU brother.

The value which we try and explain has been washed out of concience ,some reasons progressive ,some just lack of thought.Now they weep a little when the faith that bounded good is no longer currency in how good is held within a person.

cognition is not the same thing as faith , the lord works on the purity of what is within us when we pray.
In politics it perhaps hard to know why you should support faith in legislature , as ones minds is so full of the power before you and it is perhaps a profession where one cannot have a few days in quiet communion free from the media before any vote .

Quite how christianity became viewed as unecessary in life , is somthing power frets over when power realises its base is no longer reasoned.

Concience is such a delicate quality , some believe it is mere matter of mental programming and the invisible power is little more than the brain filling in the gaps.

The centralisation we have seen , requires the cognitive logical mind to make it work , it is a construct of drones and commands denying the inate creativity that made us contributors rather than collaborators .

For the centurys we have celebrated the light of the world being born , deliberated and held its qualities high , and now only a few signatures can evaluate if it is essential .

I doubt we will have the same celebrations for the logic of the world being manefest ,we will be too busy and insular to consider our lives have any worth to anyone else.

19 July 2011 at 03:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

19 July 2011 at 06:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "The 'State' is seperated from the Church in a meaningful sense and no longer accepts Christian precepts as the guide for the rule of law. Individual freedom and individual rights rule supreme."

I think you're essentially right there. We're a diverse liberal democracy afterall. It's not all bad from a religious point of view though as we arrive at much the same point on most things even if the reasoning used to get there is different.

Except of course when (say) some Christian B&B owners want special privileges to discriminate in the public arena, or (say) some Muslims want special privileges regarding burqas, or (say) some Sikhs want special privileges to carry proper swords around in public.

19 July 2011 at 06:58  
Blogger D. Singh said...

DanJO said: 'Except of course when (say) some Christian B&B owners want special privileges to discriminate in the public arena, or (say) some Muslims want special privileges regarding burqas, or (say) some Sikhs want special privileges to carry proper swords around in public.'

Of course homosexuals by breaking down the institution of marriage, through homosexual 'marriage', now invite (by defualt) polygamous marriages for Muslims.

As the Muslims grow in power, through an exopansion in numbers, the demise of the homosexual is inevitable.

19 July 2011 at 07:43  
Anonymous Greg Tingey said...

Quote 1: " ....and ridicule when holding to one's beliefs and putting one's faith first."
Quote 2: "...stand up for Biblical truth in Parliament.

Which tells why this is so wrong.

The bible is not truth in any meaninfgful sense.
Its world-picture is that of Bronze-Age goatherders, and it shows, badly.
Examples include the "Creationist" fundies, the obvuios belief that the world is flat, the mis-classification of species, the treatment of women (still practiced by many christian sects) etc....
Faith is DEFINED as belief WITHOUT evidence - which is so unutterably stupid as to require no further comment.

There is also the point that once you allow one set of religious brainwashed to perpetrate their petty and not-so-petty bigotries in public on other people, then every OTHER religious group will want to do the same.

NO

19 July 2011 at 07:52  
Blogger D. Singh said...

No

19 July 2011 at 07:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have not done much research in this area, however, studies made by others showed varied deviations from the average or normal parent-child relationship. For example, clinical cases show that some homosexuals have not had a normal or natural relationship with the parent of the same sex. In some instances there has been a wide gap between father and son. There are those boys who have been neglected by their unaffectionate fathers. The boy who has not had a good and wholesome relationship with his father could have an unfulfilled need for a father relationship with a man. Now that need will not start out as a sexual one, but there are cases on record in which the sexual relationship has developed. I know one case of a homosexual adult who seduced a 13 year old boy whose father had forsaken him. Before the boy's contact with the older man he had no knowledge whatever of homosexuality. The older man seduced the boy.

19 July 2011 at 08:15  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

Greg Tingey, Christianity has never - the inevitable lunatic fringe ignoramuses apart - taught that the world is 'flat.' That canard arose in the "Enlightenment" by the misrepresentation of such documents as the Mappa Mundi which is a "spiritual map" and was never intended or presented as a geographic representation.

The Bible is a collection of many different writings, some of them historical and others philosophical. The philosophical parts are as valid an argument for anything as the works of Russell, Jung, Freud or the Humanitarian tracts - which draw heavily on the contents of - surprise - the Bible.

"Rights" and "Freedom" depend on the recognition of every individuals "Right" to hold certain views, to discuss those views openly and freely and to exercise the "right" to apply them. You cannot say that Group A may exercise their rights, but everyone else may not because it upsets Group A.

I welcome this EDM as I am growing increasingly tired of having my faith belittled, derided and mocked by those whose arrogance in their assertion of their "right" is equalled only by their ignorance of everything they mock and deride.

19 July 2011 at 08:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

New Studies Suggest Higher Level of Pathology

One important and carefully conducted study found suicide attempts among homosexuals were six times greater than the average (Remafedi et al. 1998).
Then, more recently, in the Archives of General Psychiatry-- an established and well-respected journal--three papers appeared with extensive accompanying commentary (Fergusson et al. 1999, Herrell et al. 1999, Sandfort et al. 2001, and e.g. Bailey 1999). J. Michael Bailey included a commentary on the above research; Bailey, it should be noted, conducted many of the muchpublicized "gay twin studies" which were used by gay advocates as support for the "born that way" theory. Neil Whitehead, Ph.D.

Bailey said, "These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence...The strength of the new studies is their degree of control."

The first study was on male twins who had served in Vietnam (Herrell et al. 1999). It concluded that on average, male homosexuals were 5.1 times more likely to exhibit suicide- related behavior or thoughts than their heterosexual counterparts. Some of this factor of 5.1 was associated with depression and substance abuse, which might or might not be related to the homosexuality. (When these two problems were factored out, the factor of 5 decreased to 2.5; still somewhat significant.) The authors believed there was an independent factor related to suicidality which was probably closely associated with some features of homosexuality itself.

The second study (Fergusson et al. 1999) followed a large New Zealand group from birth to their early twenties. The "birth cohort" method of subject selection is especially reliable and free from most of the biases which bedevil surveys. This study showed a significantly higher occurrence of depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance abuse and thoughts about suicide, amongst those who were homosexually active.

The third paper was a Netherlands study (Sandfort et al. 2001) which again showed a higher level of mental-health problems among homosexuals, but remarkably, subjects with HIV infection was not any more likely than those without HIV infection to suffer from mental health problems. People who are HIV-positive should at least be expected to be anxious or depressed!

The paper thus concluded that HIV infection is not a cause of mental health problems--but that stigmatization from society was likely the cause--even in the Netherlands, where alternative lifestyles are more widely accepted than in most other countries. That interpretation of the data is quite unconvincing.

The commentaries on those studies brought up three interesting issues.

1. First, there is now clear evidence that mental health problems are indeed associated with homosexuality. This supports those who opposed the APA actions in 1973. However, the present papers do not answer the question; is homosexuality itself pathological?

2. The papers do show that since only a minority of a nonclinical sample of homosexuals has any diagnosable mental problems (at least by present diagnostic criteria), then most homosexuals are not mentally ill.

In New Zealand, for example, lesbians are about twice as likely to have sought help for mental problems as heterosexual women, but only about 35% of them over their lifespan did so, and never more than 50% (Anon 1995, Saphira and Glover, 2000, Welch et al. 2000) This corresponds with similar findings from the U.S.

19 July 2011 at 08:26  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Outstanding posts by Mr Twigg.

Now there's a chap who has one of the hallmarks of leadership: courage in the face of adversity.

19 July 2011 at 08:43  
Anonymous Voyager said...

If you want the right to discriminate against people based, for example, on their sexual orientation

Fatuous and inane. Steve Thompson discriminates - presumably he finds necrophiliacs, child abusers, pederasts, zoophilia and other instances of paraphilia unworthy of praise and approbation.

19 July 2011 at 08:45  
Anonymous Voyager said...

some Christian B&B owners want special privileges to discriminate in the public arena

Yes, they publish their details in a booklet for "Christian B&Bs" available in Churches......quite why this is so attractive to same-sex couples is unclear.

However B&Bs are not really public places like hotels, they are private homes. Still future instances of action will open up saunas, B&Bs, Clubs to full public access rather than restricting them to "gay" clientele.

19 July 2011 at 08:49  
Anonymous Voyager said...

We're a diverse liberal democracy

Of course we are not ! This is a hierarchical society run by a small clique based in London representing a financial-media elite.

It is one of the most inegalitarian societies in the OECD run by a clique with its own private schools, its own media empire, and an incestuous network of contacts designed to pervert democratic accountability.

It is rather similar to the situation in the 1750s

19 July 2011 at 08:53  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Voyager with great wisdom said 19 July 2011 08:45

"Fatuous and inane. Steve Thompson discriminates - presumably he finds necrophiliacs, child abusers, pederasts, zoophilia and other instances of paraphilia unworthy of praise and approbation."

The nail is hit firmly on the head by Voyager.
Steve Thompson presumes 'prima facie' that ALL agree that same sex is accepted as norm by ALL.
It is not the case but must be praised and accepted because he and a minority of people therefore presume it so. Even those of no defined faith (excluding some extreme atheists that frequent this blog) do not see it as norm. Fatuous and inane. Could anything be clearer?

E S Blofeld

19 July 2011 at 09:00  
Anonymous Mustafa Pee said...

Can you imagine B&B owners putting up signs that say "No Gays"? In todays modern, understanding and open-minded society, how quickly do you think the "No christians" signs will appear?,

A lot quicker than "No muslims" signs.

19 July 2011 at 09:39  
Anonymous Avram said...

Looks like Steve Thompson and gay rights for gays are obviously suffering from some sort of psychosis and are tipping right over the edge and are now free-falling into their own personal infernos.

19 July 2011 at 10:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Voyager said,
"Fatuous and inane. Steve Thompson discriminates - presumably he finds necrophiliacs, child abusers, pederasts, zoophilia and other instances of paraphilia unworthy of praise and approbation.

19 July 2011 08:45"

Sex between consenting adults whether same sex or not OK, sex when one partner is coerced or does not understand what's happening not OK. Simple really.
Jobrag

19 July 2011 at 10:25  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Voyager 08:53 absolutely spot on.

19 July 2011 at 10:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'Sex between consenting adults whether same sex or not OK,'

Not ok. Our children must never be led to believe that it is.

The anatomy of a man and woman shows...

19 July 2011 at 11:48  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Voyager: "However B&Bs are not really public places like hotels, they are private homes."

They're not really private places like homes either. You can tell that because they're subject to food hygiene law, fire safety law, employment law if they employ staff, and they have various tax implications associated with businesses. In short, they supply goods and services and we have laws regulating that.

19 July 2011 at 12:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Someone said

Sex between consenting adults whether same sex or not OK,'


"Not ok. Our children must never be led to believe that it is.

The anatomy of a man and woman shows..."

There is a hell of a lot more to sex then vaginal penetration!

Jobrag

19 July 2011 at 12:08  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Voyager said...
"We're a diverse liberal democracy"

"Of course we are not ! This is a hierarchical society run by a small clique based in London representing a financial-media elite."

Who said liberal-democracies were equalitarian? Not me. I said they were pluralistic.

As unequal as they are, and they are, what other socio-economic-polical system would you replace it with?

All human organisations have elites of one form or another. That's the nature of the human condition.

19 July 2011 at 12:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'There is a hell of a lot more to sex then vaginal penetration!'

Jobrag


There are clearly limits to that which do not extend to homosexuality.

19 July 2011 at 13:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'There is a hell of a lot more to sex then vaginal penetration!'

Jobrag

Anonymous replied

"There are clearly limits to that which do not extend to homosexuality."

Sorry Anon could you clarify that please?

Jobrag

19 July 2011 at 13:36  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Jobrag

Sex between consenting adults whether same sex or not OK, sex when one partner is coerced or does not understand what's happening not OK. Simple really.

How very enlightened of you. Given this very simple paradigm, I am convinced you will have no moral difficulty with this relationship since it is totally consensual.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/switzerland-considers-legalizing-consensual-incest-columbia-professor-accused/story?id=12395499

It's just a father having consensual sex with his adult daughter. As the lawyer of the accused said:

"It's OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home," he said. "How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not."

Indeed. Please provide those of us trapped in cultural darkness with the high level of your moral reasoning on this matter. Otherwise, we might go on thinking that a father who beds his daughter is doing something wrong.

carl

19 July 2011 at 14:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Carl
The problem with a father daughter incestuous relationship is whether it is truly consensual, or whether the Father has such a sway over the daughter that she is somehow forced into sex. In the Old Testament it may be said that Lot's daughters relations with their father were not consensual as they got him drunk first, but I don't recall any adverse reaction from the almighty.
Jobrag

19 July 2011 at 15:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'The problem with a father [adult]daughter incestuous relationship is whether it is truly consensual'.

So are you advocating that gay relationships should be 'probed' on the same basis?

Back in the closet?

19 July 2011 at 15:16  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Someone said ...
"'There is a hell of a lot more to sex then vaginal penetration!'"

"Hell" being the operative word according to the Bible, or at least the Catholic understanding of sexual relationships.

Presumably this means where ever 'it' fits 'it' can be put so long as no-one objects? Not forgetting assorted 'toys' too.

But why stop at parents and adult children? Why discriminate against brothers and sisters or uncles and aunts and cousins for that matter? Or grandparents; let's not be ageist in our enlightened times. And can we be sure the cat and dog really object? Afterall, they might appear to comply.

See where it all leads? Back to "Hell" being the operative word!

19 July 2011 at 15:28  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Dodo : Something of a tunnel vision analogy perhaps? Maybe I'm just naive, but I understood the quote to mean something quite different from your lascivious litany of places to prod?

You RC's always did have a pronounced sense of sin. ;o)

19 July 2011 at 15:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Presumably this means where ever 'it' fits 'it' can be put so long as no-one objects? Not forgetting assorted 'toys' too."

Yes providing all the participants agree, and are capable of understanding what is happening, there is nothing inherently wrong with any act.

"But why stop at parents and adult children? Why discriminate against brothers and sisters or uncles and aunts and cousins for that matter? Or grandparents; let's not be ageist in our enlightened times. And can we be sure the cat and dog really object? Afterall, they might appear to comply."

Stop at animals because they cannot give informed consent, stop at drugging (including alcohol) because they cannot give informed consent.

Stop at teachers and students because there is a power discrepancy in the relationship, ditto in the armed forces were there is a difference in rank.

Instead of letting a bunch of guys in frocks telling you what to do, think for yourself, do we know what we are doing? and do we agree to do it?
Jobrag

19 July 2011 at 16:00  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

I note that in his attempts to scientifically dissect homosexuality with a patchwork of citations, Anonymous does not appear to be aware that even assuming that such data can be collected and presented accurately...something exceeding difficult if not outright impossible in social studies... its interpretation is another bowl of squiggly worms. Since it is very difficult to adjust or correct data on people to correct such variables like income, actual family histories, changing cultural norms, institutional practices, researcher bias, etc., most of these studies are no more valuable that today's horoscope. They do cost us quite a bit more, though.

19 July 2011 at 16:08  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Avi - any further news of Julius?

19 July 2011 at 16:36  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Religious liberty?

Could the secularists explain why, in a mere Thousand years, we have gone from being a Country that sent Knights Hospitaller to protect pilgrims in foreign lands.

To become a Country that sends the Police into Birmingham to protect the Paramedics from the pilgrims.

19 July 2011 at 16:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Jobrag: "The problem with a father daughter incestuous relationship is whether it is truly consensual, or whether the Father has such a sway over the daughter that she is somehow forced into sex. In the Old Testament it may be said that Lot's daughters relations with their father were not consensual as they got him drunk first, but I don't recall any adverse reaction from the almighty."

:) at the second bit.

Also, the father-daughter relationship develops over time from a very dependent one to one which still has obligations from the past. Even if the daughter consents, there seems to be something amiss in terms of duties and so on.

19 July 2011 at 17:47  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

So, if the daughter wasn't raised by the father i.e. he played no part in her upbringing, then a sexual relationship is okay?

And siblings and cousins (same or different gender?) where there is no power imbalance?

And what about that rather attractive looking Dyson?

19 July 2011 at 17:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Jobrag: "There is a hell of a lot more to sex then vaginal penetration!"

:O Wasn't it Thomas Aquinas who thought we should only use the missionary position too? Or have I picked up a myth from somewhere?

19 July 2011 at 17:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "So, if the daughter wasn't raised by the father i.e. he played no part in her upbringing, then a sexual relationship is okay? And siblings and cousins (same or different gender?) where there is no power imbalance?"

I know the original idea was that no-one could possibly say yes to any of those but at their core I don't actually think they're moral issues. However, I think there are very good practical reasons for discouraging it, possibly with normative ethics.

19 July 2011 at 18:01  
Anonymous Tony B said...

anonymous'Sex between consenting adults whether same sex or not OK,'

Not ok. Our children must never be led to believe that it is.

The anatomy of a man and woman shows...

Do you only use your hands to eat and wipe your arse? Or do you use them for other things they "weren't designed for" - you know, driving, using a computer, etc etc? Just wondering.

19 July 2011 at 18:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DanJo
Yes it was Thomas Aquinas, a man who has probably caused more human unhappiness then any other individual, he came up with the bizarre idea of original sin and thought that men are born with a finite supply of sperm. He dumped his mistress of many years when he converted to Christianity all round bad egg.
Jobrag

19 July 2011 at 19:24  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

Hi Oswin,

Thanks for asking; I don't recall anymore who was updated and at what stage and also, I was away on a long haul and just returned couple of days ago, so lot of the more recent info is from my wife who gets it from a friend of J's mom.

Julius was off the breathing tube last week, has motility and while still slips in and out of coma, has spoken a few times, specifically to complain about his privacy when the nurse washes him. The latter, I hope, shows a high level of thinking and may mean that the brain stem damage is not as bad as anticipated, but that's just my thinking.

Overall, though, the recovery and especially its speed was...without being trite all...simply miraculous. Frankly, we were all prepared for a funeral, as in the first days since the accident all of the specialists were very concerned. Of course, no one with such an injury is out of the woods totally at this stage, but the discussion is over how long rehab will take, not whether he will live or die.

You and other folks here, J's relatives and neighbours, Christians, Jews and a Muslim chap all offered prayers and I'd like to believe that these helped. While I'm religiously observant, I never really thought very deeply about how exactly prayers might work and when. The best I can understand it, in simplistic terms perhaps, is that G-d expects a dialogue with us and will, at times and for reasons beyond our limited ken, reply. One day soon, when Julius comes home and I get a chance to meet him for the first time, I'll have a list of people who prayed for him. How will that affect him, what motions will it set off and will his life's path be changed because of this? And how have all of us who prayed for him been affected?

19 July 2011 at 20:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

D Singh: "Of course homosexuals by breaking down the institution of marriage, through homosexual 'marriage', now invite (by defualt) polygamous marriages for Muslims."

I found a handy pie chart detailing the devastating ramifications of same-sex marriage that you might find useful.

19 July 2011 at 21:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

19 July 2011 at 21:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I quite like that website. That same sex bed sharing milarky when renting a room from a pair of evangelicals doesn't even come close to this outrage. :O

19 July 2011 at 21:50  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Well if even smiling at a person of the same gender isn't allowed it's no wonder they get so upset about the sex.

19 July 2011 at 22:28  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Danjo

And what about that rather attractive looking Dyson?

You didn't answer!

19 July 2011 at 23:33  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Question: When is consent not really consent?

Answer: When people who believe that consent is the basis of all sexual morality finally confront a sexual act that can't be justified on the basis of consent.

A structural boundary by any other name is still a structural boundary.

carl

20 July 2011 at 00:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

carl jacobs

Can you think of an example?

Jobrag

20 July 2011 at 05:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

What is it exactly about (say) adult sibling sex that is immoral if one doesn't believe in a god of some sort? What actually makes it immoral?

I mean, the idea is horrible to me and I suppose to almost everyone. I can't imagine having the desire myself.

It has that social taboo thing going on of course. But is that a learned thing? Is it a genetic predisposition in most individuals that in some cases (like Lot's duaghters) gets overruled by circumstances?

And what is it about the action that some people feel it ought to be criminalised? Is it a really bad act that ought to carry a tariff of upto 14 years? Or none? Or 3 years? Because different European countries take all those approaches.

20 July 2011 at 05:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "And what about that rather attractive looking Dyson? You didn't answer!"

I'm not the best person to ask as I have been traumatised by something I once saw. Besides, shouldn't you be asking me about a Henry instead?

Years ago on usenet I saw some pictures of the results of people doing that with a particular brand of German cleaner of the time. Thing is, it had a hidden rotating metal fan rather too close to the opening as I recall. :O

But in principle 'doing the Vac and Shake' ought to be fine. Not that dissimilar to dildos or fleshlights I suppose. Don't let your wife catch you though if you're tempted and canvassing opinions here.

20 July 2011 at 06:10  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

"What is it exactly about (say) adult sibling sex that is immoral if one doesn't believe in a god of some sort? What actually makes it immoral?" DanJ0 (20 July 2011 05:57)

A good head-scratcher of a question, DanJ0, and I'll assume that you are interested in a secular, rather than an equally valid, IMHO, "because the scriptures say so" hypothesis.

This prohibition is a universal one among all cultures and like the prohibition against murder, predates all established religions. The familiar secular explanation, that people recognized the danger of consanguinity as a medical risk in terms of the threat of hereditary diseases apears to be quite insufficient. The occurence of hereditary diseases is relatively rare, is not immediately detectable especially with shorther life spans and takes too many generations and wider perspective to be noticed and for people to draw connections.

While real, the "grossness factor" which you refer to is also a weak explanation. People easily adopt a variety of sexual preferences and tastes, and yet barring extreme cases of psychological or social breadowns, the incest taboo is still powerful and universal, even as sexual mores change. A biological behavioural "driver" (e.g., offensive smells) appears to be totally absent; the taboo is a socially learned and maintained prohibition which can be un-learned quickly without the presence of strong societal reinforcements. In that respect, it's very different from prohibitions concerning homesexuality, which are mostly biblical in origin. Very puzzling, no?

The best explanation I've come across, way back when I was a wee lad who prefered his anthro courses over those in religious studies, was put forward by a US anthropologist, Marvin Harris. He saw incest prohibitions as purely practical and material in origin and totally dependent on societal enforcement.

There are two serious problems with incest Harris argued, as I recall. First, in that it creates literally deadly conflincts between members of nuclear and extended families and secondly, that historically, it prevented inter-communal alliances and networks on which humankind depended for its survival for tens of millenia. As the father of a paradigm and a research strategy he dubbed "cultural materialism" (one I favour very much), Harris saw that the measurable cultural and material costs of incest may not have been understood by the subjects, or that their effects may not have provided enough pressure and so, all cultures supplied more effective forms of coersion in the form of theological, moral, ethical and esthetic explanations.

His was a strictly secular explanation of the taboo, of course, but as far as I know, it has has not been empirically falsified. As for your question about the justice behind the penalties, I don't think it's even in the criminal code in many countries, like here in Canada, in the cases of incest among consenting adults, but it is maintained in others, like Israel and as you point out, the UK. I think that it matters little wherther it's formally banned or not; I haven't heard of greater occurence of incest in liberal jurisdictions. But the abhorence is still powerful and universal, resulting in incest being fairly rare. I think this is because incest continues to present severe family and social problems for most people and will continue to do so as long as they live in families and societies.

20 July 2011 at 11:32  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Danjo said ...

" ... 'doing the Vac and Shake' ought to be fine. Not that dissimilar to dildos or fleshlights I suppose. Don't let your wife catch you though if you're tempted and canvassing opinions here."

I'll continue with the tried and tested 'missionary position' thank you.

Seriously, I believe there is an overriding morality, yes morality, not merely ethics, to human sexual relationships that we as a comminity abandon at our peril.

Put simply, human sexuality is a gift from God for the physical expression of love between a man and woman and for the begetting of children within a life long partnership of marriage. One without the other is is unloving and immoral.

20 July 2011 at 13:14  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Dodo
I'm sure that you will appreciate that your description of human sexuality is not going cut much ice with either an atheist, or anyone who takes evolution seriously.

20 July 2011 at 13:56  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

Mr Tony B,

Although I might not agree with all things Dodo says, here he might have a point. In my case I suffer from taking both evolution and faith very seriously.

20 July 2011 at 14:10  
Anonymous Tony B said...

So do I, but at what point in our ascent from the animal did God decide to give us the gift of marriage? Did homo erectus get married?

20 July 2011 at 14:48  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

Re homo erectus, if pristine cultures, like those of hunter-gatherer bands are anything to go by, monogamy would have been common, but separation after a number of years, anywhere betwen 3 to 7, would have been the norm.

The "gift of marriage" need not have descended from the heavens like mana; it could have been "written" into life's "code" to emerge at the apropriate stage, to be finalized in a contract at Sinai, or it could have been the defining step towards true humanity, as in the Adam-Eve motif. Of course, all this is speculation, and I'm neither an evolutionary biologist or a Torah scholar.

20 July 2011 at 15:37  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Tony B said...
" ... at what point in our ascent from the animal did God decide to give us the gift of marriage? Did homo erectus get married?

Leaving aside the question of Adam and Eve, if I may, you must agree there is more to sexual relationships than mere sexual gratification? And would you acknowledge that the basic cell of society is the family where children are nurtured and loved by both their parents? And also the family is the basic unit that cares for the sick, the old, weak and infirm?

The point at which God revealed the permanance and purpose of marriage and the family would be the point at which man was intellectually able to grasp the difference between right and wrong.

An Christian evolutionist, yes, they do exist, would say Adam and Eve represents this historical moment. A more fundamentalist Christian would say this was God's communicated intent from the beginning of creation.

20 July 2011 at 15:40  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Avi Barzel said...Of course, all this is speculation,

Of course it is :)

Dodo the Dude said...
I would agree that traditionally there was a family unit, an ideal of which might answer your description. Yes I agree there is more to sexual relationships than gratification; and even than procreation.

What I do not agree with is that there is a God who dishes out rules about who should and should not share sexual relationships. I suspect that the idea that there is is just a cover for prejudice and various forms of squeamishness.

20 July 2011 at 16:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Put simply, human sexuality is a gift from God for the physical expression of love between a man and woman and for the begetting of children within a life long partnership of marriage. One without the other is is unloving and immoral."

It's a little harsh to condemn marriages between people who cannot or chose not to have children for whatever reason as unloving and immoral. What about marriage between people later on in life, perhaps where the woman is aged 50?

20 July 2011 at 17:23  
Anonymous Tony B said...

And what about warm loving families where the parents happen not to be married? Immoral?

20 July 2011 at 17:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Just some general comments from me here rather than a themed post.

Avi: "Harris saw that the measurable cultural and material costs of incest may not have been understood by the subjects, or that their effects may not have provided enough pressure and so, all cultures supplied more effective forms of coersion in the form of theological, moral, ethical and esthetic explanations."

I'm no egyptologist but sibling marriage between royals was fairly common for a time and I think Tut-ankh-amon was part of a royal line which was heavily inbred. As I recall, they had cranial and other abnormalities, possibly even sickle cell anaemia.

"People easily adopt a variety of sexual preferences and tastes, and yet barring extreme cases of psychological or social breadowns, the incest taboo is still powerful and universal, even as sexual mores change."

But not homosexuality, I think. I go by my own experiences in particular as I cannot easily adopt heterosexual sexual behaviour ... actually I don't believe for a minute that I could adopt it at all.

The genetic risks argument feels quite powerful to me until I start to think about other genetically-passed diseases such as sickle cell or cystic fibrosis. Sick cell is more prevalent in people from tropical areas hence in the UK at least black people are more prone to it I think.

If one is in a higher risk group then I wonder if one should have a test and if one meets a partner with it then one might be inclined to take responsibility for the possible consequences. In this case, bequeathing a child with the disease. Cystic fibrosis is a hideous, life-shortening, life-dimishing disease and the risk is something like (from a recent TV programme) 1 in 4 children will get it if both parents have markers.

If one has the markers, knows about it, and goes ahead with a pregnancy which results in the disease then is that an immoral act? It has a flavour of it to me. There's something about it of being HIV+ and knowingly having sex with someone who doesn't know.

Of course, reproductive rights are pretty important things to people and the State involving itself in them is a pretty heavy thing to do. But should we as a society be discouraging reproduction by high risk couples? Or encouraging genetic testing in high risk groups so that people know the risk if they partner with someone also with markers? Or encouraging embryo selection to select against embryos with the disease? That seems wrong too.

20 July 2011 at 17:51  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

DanJ0,

A long wait at the loading dock, so this in two parts, as I went over the allowable 4096 characters.

Re Genetic diseases: There were a number of societies which saw marriage between relatives, but only as a rare measure when there were no other suitable options, often without consumation and typically among chiefs or royalty. However, these are all examples of advanced, historically very "recent" societies, such as the Egyptian dynastic pharaonic ingdoms you cite. There are no known cases of legitimised incest among hunter-gatherers and they represent something like 99% of human history. That little point is something to always keep in mind when we pontificate on what may be "normal" or "natural."

I don't recall the data Harris used...and he was very careful about empirical evidence...but his bottom line was that pristine societies would suffer dire consequences from family disruptions and unacceptable levels of violence brought on by the dynamics of incest long before they could have the time to notice, much less corelate consanguinity with geneticaly passed-on diseases.

From what I recall, the chance of an incestuous relationship resulting in problems is pretty small. Add to the the fact that pristine people would not be able to spot many diseases, would not have the communication networks to colate incidents and had too short of a life span and high death rates to avoid dealing with the manifestation of such diseases...not to mention that many groups didn't even corelate sex with birth...and the problem of genetic diseases effectively flies under the radar. I'm far from my little library, and I can't remember which book covers this issue, but Cannibals and Kings or Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddle of Cultures are the most likely ones to cover this issue. Pick up anything by Marvin Harris, including his drier, more theoretical work, Cultural Materialism: The Science of Culture and I promise you, you won't be able to put it down. As a teaser, let me add that he does discuss homosexuality, in one of this later works (1980s), America Now.

20 July 2011 at 19:37  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

....aaaand part 2:

Re Moral responsibility in relation to genetic risks: This is a moral issue you need to resolve on your own, I'm afraid. I'm guided by my own tradition which establishes that the first commandment to reproduce can only be avoided if a birth would threaten a mother's life. In all other cases, you pays your moneys and takes your chances. As shocking and harsh as it may seem to you, consider the following: First, a high chance of an abnormality is still a high chance and not a guarantee. A prohibition, based on criteria not everyone may agree on, become draconian measures. Secondly, medical abnormalities are often in the eye of the beholder and are often based on cultural biases which could define certain "racial" features or, if you recall your objections in a previous post, even homosexuality as an undesirable "abnormality." And thirdly, knowing a number of parents with disabled children, I can assure you that they would prefer to have them rather than not having children, that the children would prefer to exist rather than not, and that from a religious position, we cannot guess Almighty's purpose in giving us a disabled child. I'm biased, of course, but I think that in prefering life, any life, over planning is the more humane and human approach.

Re Homosexuality: You will note that whereas incest is a universal taboo, homosexuality is not. This leaves you to draw conclusions either as a secular or religious person. According to my traditions homosexuality is a sin over which we must strive to exercise control, however, it is not an abnormality and even the threatened punishments in the Bible, pertained to repeated public flaunting of the law after warnings by witnesses and needed high, if not impossible standards of evidence. Furthermore, since the destruction of our Temple, there are no qualified judges or courts to adjudicate cases and to apply penalties. Depending on who you ask, of course, as we have no established doctrines and hierchcies, some of our Orthodox authorities hold that the Torah is binding only to Jews and that homosexuality may not meet the universally applicable Noahide Laws prohibition. This is certainly not a Gay-friendly view, and you may call it "shite," but it is one which at least recognizes the full humanity of Gay people and allows them to live as Jews without harrassment by authorities. This "strict" Orthodox position is, by the way quite lenient in comparison to modern standards only twenty years ago and is one that is not shared by our non-Orthodox liberal movements and congregations who accept Gay rabbis and perform Gay unions, and that in the slow evolutionary process of our traditions, even strict Orthodox interpretations leave room for some degree of change. But as a young person who wants, like all young people now, things done yesterday, I don't expect you to be impressed.

Anyway, as with all my theological pronouncements and musings, my standing caveat--that I only represent myself, that I'm not a Jewish scholar or even in the mainstream and that I certainly can't speak on behalf of the Christian folks here--still stands.

20 July 2011 at 19:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 July 2011 at 20:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "And thirdly, knowing a number of parents with disabled children, I can assure you that they would prefer to have them rather than not having children, that the children would prefer to exist rather than not, and that from a religious position, we cannot guess Almighty's purpose in giving us a disabled child."

Just a comment on the children preferring to exist ... once people have life then of course they want to keep hold of it for the most part. Even saying I prefer to exist rather than not exist is heavily influenced by existing now to think that. If one never exists in the first place then there is no I to lose. A more generalised form is to prefer at least someone to exist, even if with cystic fibrosis, than for the particular opportunity to exist to pass by. In that case, I wonder if it is better for the opportunity to pass by. Of course, once someone exists even if they are heavily disabled then they are as inherently valuable as anyone else. That's essentially what we mean by a human right to life, I think.

20 July 2011 at 20:20  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

I understand, you give good examples and it's a tough one. To put it in more extreme terms, would I work hard to bring someone into the world to suffer unmitigated hellish agonies. I don't know, I guess; it's one of those "have to be there" and "if this" and "if that" decisions.

The ethical theory is a little easier: If we proceed with the simplest equasion, that if all life we know seeks, strives, struggles to, thirsts, claws and gasps to maintain existence, then everything else becomes secondary or falls by the wayside as a series of unprovable ifs and buts. A more cheerful kind of existentialism, where existence, sui generis, justifies its purpose and its essential...goodness.

20 July 2011 at 22:10  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Good God Danjo you are getting yourself into a terrible ethical and moral muddle about all this!

21 July 2011 at 01:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Good God Danjo you are getting yourself into a terrible ethical and moral muddle about all this!"

There's not really any muddle about this, just grey areas, and some of my questions are actually just rhetorical. Morality is essentially a bit of a jumble anyway to someone like me: a value pluralist in that area.

Many people, especially the religious, would like to think there is a single, coherent moral system to find where one right answer is always available to those to look hard enough.

I don't think there is. I think morals follow from our values, and values are of different, incomparable types, from different sources, and of varying degrees of applicability. The result of even an apparently satisfactory moral decision is often a moral residue which leaves some disquiet.

That's just for information, I'm not opening up an opportunity for a forum fight, barely masquerading as a debate, from a certain quarter about the nature of morality there.

21 July 2011 at 06:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "The ethical theory is a little easier: If we proceed with the simplest equasion, that if all life we know seeks, strives, struggles to, thirsts, claws and gasps to maintain existence, then everything else becomes secondary or falls by the wayside as a series of unprovable ifs and buts."

Hobbes's State of Nature and a sort of Natural Law? Well, yes, it's a start. In the UK, we have a number of ethical dilemmas in the news at the moment centring around rights to die. The latest is a very interesting one because it involves what is being called a 'minimally conscious' person. Others centre on notions of human dignity and/or terminal illnesses where someone doesn't actually want to go on living but the State prevents the exercise of their own will in some cases. So, not all conscious, self-aware life actually strives to continue to exist. Another grey area. But not really a muddle.

21 July 2011 at 06:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

By the way, Avi, I was quite disturbed by your description of abuse regarding the kippa. My one and only Jewish friend comes from a family in Europe and he told me ages ago they keep all their wealth in transferable assets. It's common in some countries in that area to rent rather than to own one's home but they appear to have made a conscious decision not to buy. I was initially quite bewildered when he told me they simply don't trust European countries and feel they need to be able to up sticks and run with short notice. The more I think about that, the more I feel sick to the stomach.

21 July 2011 at 07:23  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

DanJ0,

Ha, and I thought no one read that post, because it's way down at the bottom of the page now. Thank you for your sentiments, and keep in mind that as a Gay chap, you face similar challenges should you choose to be "visible." I too find this unfortunate reality disturbing and nauseating and hope that you live in a location and a community where you can be safe and respected.

Unfortunately for the Euro-Yids, it's true. Me, I've been spoiled; here, in Canada and the US, I go about hither and yon with a prominent kippa plonked on my fuzzy cranium, with my tzitzit (ritual fringes) waving from the four corners of my personage. I do get the occasional gawking, but discreetly and usually in places where such spectacles are a rarity. I drive trucks for my porridge and routinely stop at rough-and-tumble truck stops and loading docks all over Canada and the US, again with my odd attire, and nary a problem.

The situation in Europe, though, is quite different. Apart from the open hostility by local yahoos and, uh, "immigrant youth," some EU state authorities are openly making "anti-Zionist" declarations, arbitrarily prohibiting the display of Israeli flags or Jewish symbols (not to "enrage" and "provoke" sensitive youths), bar pro-Israel speakers due to "public safety concerns," have issued and enforced legislation against sh'hita, the ritual slaughter, and work to prohibit circumcision, which they attempt to conflate with the horrors of Muslim cliterectomy, falsely dubbed as "female circumcision." The made-up reasons for these bans are always presented as human rights concerns, and that's nothing new. Historically, attempts to stop Jews from observing their dietary laws and circumcising their boys goes back to ancient times and most recetly with Nazi Germany. Such measures always preceded official and popular actions against Jews. For such reasons, Europe's Jews have olenty of reasons to seriously worry.

Not that we are devoid of responsibility; European Jewish communities and individuals do not help the situation with their passivity, disinteres and poltroonish meekness, especially when such are not justified by circumstances. All over Europe, Jewish "leaders," usually secular magnates, the proverbial "pillars of the community" bow and scrape like medieval serfs before the authorities, while their commoner counterparts, secular left-leaning Jews, scramle to outdo the most rabid antisemites with their shrill declaration against "Zionism" in a futile attempt to appease enemies and to document their bona fides as ordinary and obedient members of the "international community."

As things stand, the overall message from us North Americans to our precariously positioned and timid brethren in Europe: Get out of Europe, pronto. It's unfortunate that we have come to think in this way, as there are millions of ordinary decent Europeans, just like you, our host--His Grace, and most folks here on this blog, but in these times the pressure on the Jews emanates from the top; the elites, academia, media, unions, governments, the EU leadership, the UN bodies, government sponsored and encouraged NGOs and the growing, openly hostile and increasingly dangerous Muslim populations. Things ain't too good for us in most of "ole Yurup," but it could be worse. As things are, we have a Jewish nation state for the first time in two millenia, and we're safe and welcome in the last bastions of free Anglo cultures; Canada, the US and Australia.

21 July 2011 at 18:43  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

DanJ0 et alia,,

Incidentally, while the Jewish lot in Europe may not be rosy, the fate of Christians in the Islamic Middle East and Africa is, simply horrifying. Please read a recent report by MEF (Middle East Forum): http://www.meforum.org/2993/christian-persecution

As for Gays, well, they don't survive long enough in most of the Muslim world to receive much notice and, as we all know from Mahmud Ahmenedijad, there are no homosexuals in Iran.

At this time, much of the reporting and attempts to assist Christians comes from conservative American Protestant and Jewish organizations. The mainstream Churches, I hate to say, are either cowed into submission, busy with this and that, or sweep the problem under the rug as "inter-communal violence" and something to be dealt with "quietly" and "diplomatically." In such a situation, Muslim governments and mobs are free to go apeshit on their Christians even more and to even punish them for being helped by Evangelists, who are deemed to be the new crusaders and Jews, who of course, are the world-dominating Zionist imperialist fiends.

I know all you folks here like to get into lengthy verbal fisticuffs over the old Protestant-Catholic kerfaffle, but please, your sisters and brothers are being raped, robbed, torchured and killed by thousands as we speak. If there was ever any issue to unite on, at least on a specific and temporary basis, this would be it, no? And while at it, set aside your views on Gays and include them in your mission as well.

As for the majority Gay movements, they are awfully quiet about their own brothers and sisters of all backgrounds who are in deep trouble as well, and I've yet to understand why they have become rabid "anti-Zionist" palestinianists, even while Gays enjoy full civil rights in Israel, but are being hunted down in Gaza and the West Bank like beasts.

21 July 2011 at 21:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "As for the majority Gay movements, they are awfully quiet about their own brothers and sisters of all backgrounds who are in deep trouble as well [...]"

I have a handful of gay facebook friends and I see quite a few statuses about political stories, such as the state murders in Iran for being gay and the problems for gay people in Uganda and some other African countries. I also see links to news items about 'Christian' abuse too, such as the christchurchearthquake site and inevitably the Westboro church. Thinking about it, most of my news and stories about gay people come from Christian political lobbying groups, such as the Christian Institute. I suppose there is Peter Thatchell and Stonewall but unless one lives in central Manchester or Brighton, or visits Soho, I'm not really aware of organisations that might be called the 'majority gay movements' in the UK to be honest.

22 July 2011 at 21:47  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older