If we ask ourselves honestly what forces are behind hatred and bigotry towards gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, and other people in the queer community, one answer comes out clearly on top: religion.
This is not to say that all religions or religious people hate us; that's most certainly not true. Many devoutly religious people are very accepting of homosexuality and other non-heteronormative lifestyles.
Rather, it is to say that almost everyone who does hate us is religious, and that almost all of these use their religion as the basis of this hatred. Leviticus 20:13 gives them some excellent grounds for this (KJV): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
If you buy into a literal interpretation of the Old Testament (as many, many people say they do), you have little choice but to say that queer people (especially gay and bisexual men) deserve to suffer and die for their sexuality.
Of course, you also have little choice but to say that children ought to be stoned to death for rebelliousness (Deuteronomy 21:18-21, KJV): "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." A literal interpretation of Old Testament morality is a very scary thing.
And that's exactly what we have to admit; the Old Testament is wrong. It's time to stop beating around the bush, giving religions the right to say whatever they want about us so long as we can't prove that it's leading to hatred or bigotry. We need to stop giving in to people's automatic "faith shield" that can be put up whenever they are faced with counter-arguments. If someone wants to say that homosexuality is wrong, they should be expected to defend that claim with strong evidence and forceful ethical argument. We need a new, humanist morality, one that respects people for who they are and not for who some ancient book wants them to be.
And we need it fast.
Melting-pot religions
I agree science does consider itself sacrosanct. Its an 'absolute truth' follower. I've also looked at some other religions like Hindu, Buddhism and the words of the Dali Lama, and all of them talk of sacrifice, temptation (of the flesh) and a higher being out there somewhere.
What is this thing about celibacy being so marvellous, bringing one closer to god? Priests and Monks are revered for battling and overcoming basic instincts and thereby become higher beings. Queers are bothersome because they are uninterested in the breeding process. Why not then encourage everyone to be as Monks? Isn't that more unnatural than queer?
I think a guy shutting himself away in a cave somewhere for fifty-odd years has lost the point on being here. The fact he's praying to a great void in the sky doesn't make him more sane, or better than sane.
When you raised Satan, it made me smile. That creation is the best yet. Unbeatable. If god and Satan do exist I'd certainly invite both to dinner. As long as Satan promised to behave himself for an hour or so. If god could be a woman, couldn't Satan, on a coloured wo/man? Besides, didn't mister perfect god create Satan? What was he thinking?
Of course religious education should taken out of school until the age of consent. I've seen images of children mindlessly memorising the Koran, others the Torah. Being beaten or humiliated if they misquote or forget passages. Its child abuse, pure and simple.
Religious education could be taught if it were put into context and not taught to an underdeveloped mind. Add some quality reasoning and logic, put some heart and soul back into the teaching. All the kiddies get is that this particular god is the only one, that this hell place will flay one for eternity, and that non-believers should be converted or killed. Such abusive images to give children, it breaks my heart to realise the 21st century is more like the 1st. Society has advanced into the past.
Jesus, I like the guy. But neither he or his dad wrote those books. Divine inspiration? The best marketing tool of all time. Jesus kicked over the moneychangers' tables, said you won't find his dad in churches, his dad is love, and he is within. Not very good news for the church to con the faithful in parting with their cash to buy redemptions, sins absolved, to guarantee a place in heaven, and all the other stuff the churches sell. And what of idolatry? Religion is certainly into that in a big way. Jesus on the cross is in many shop windows.
Check out the fans at an evangelical meeting ... just like a Beatles, U2, Rolling Stones concert. And there was a time when Elvis was the devil and rock music was evil.
This year the Hitler Youth Member pope declared babies who die before baptism no longer go to Limbo for eternity, they now have a special spot in heaven. Wow, there must have been a lot of angels on the duty roster for the influx. The madness is sad.
Getting rid of education might be easier than teaching people to actually think? Religion prevents them from thinking, its discouraged, its called blind faith and god is above criticism and question. Where's the thinking in that? The Tree of Knowledge was chopped down way back in Eden.
Thinking is natural behaviour. What religion, and now politicians, do is blind and/or dumb-down society. We all are thinkers, some/most have just succumbed to 'not think' more than others. Its hard to make a living. Its easier to go numb in front of the TV, play endless computer games, than think. My apologies for rambling.
more comments
Your rambling is excellent so no need to apologize. You have a number of good points to address, and I can find little to disagree with strongly. I still think you need to allow for liberal minded, thinking religious people -- people that would take some core beliefs out of, say, Christianity and hold to those absolutely but allow for deviation outside that, and still tolerate and discuss with those who deviate from those core beliefs. This is how my relationship with my partner began actually :) though both of us have since had our religious and philosophical beliefs change quite substantially.
Let's take an example -- think of a Christian who holds that god exists and that following Jesus is a path to god. The hold this abosolutely, but consider 'following Jesus' to mean 'following the example of Jesus' (by being kind, compassionate human beings). (Whether or not Jesus is the son of god here is oddly irrelevant). So, those who are not Christian but are still generally good people will enjoy a pleasant afterlife. My own example here starts to get to me when I think about hell - I can't believe a omnipotent, omnipresent, and benevolent god could allow people to suffer an eternity in hell regardless of how 'evil' they may have been on this world. To go back to some earlier philosophical arguments about hell, the punishment would be overkill (not fitting the crime). So maybe there's an alternative -- and maybe this example Christian believes that alternative, or maybe not. But anyway, I digress, preaching this core element of Christianity would mean preaching that we must be kind, compassionate human beings to the best of our ability in order to go to heaven. (This is what I believed as a kid and I was shocked to hear some felt I had to be Christian too!) This has the potential for good -- teaching people to be kind and loving is a good thing, teaching them to hate is not good.
But maybe what you're getting at is that these things are hard to create -- for if someone holds the core in the above example as absolutely truth, someone else will take it a step further... more details from the bible... until some very questionable elements are included. And maybe this is a problem... a slippery slope to be avoided. (Though I would hope that thinking people would catch the contradiction between these details and being kind and loving).
As far as the way religious education is done most of the time -- yes I agree with you. This is not good -- it does discourage free/critical thought, it does do damage to people. If this is what religious education is, I'm all for seeing it go.
Now, going back to Buddhism -- my introduction to Buddhism was in a university setting, so as you can imagine critical thought was very much encouraged! But what we learned is that Buddhism is much more of a thinking religion/philosophy. "The Buddhist teachings are very much alive" and should be updated as we learn and grow socially. Some countries use Buddhism to justify things I find very questionable -- but I think those things are cultural and not actually justified by Buddhism (at least in the 3 major western religions you can find some crazy stuff in the texts to justify murder, mayhem, whatever).
Buddhist does have a precept "to not engage in sexual misconduct". But this is about not hurting people and not breaking promises to those you have already made commitments to -- it is not about limiting what you can do with what person provided all involved consent. I take something like this: http://www.yawningbread.org/guest_1999/guw-048.htm (first q/a) to be a pretty good representation of what I think -- if you care to follow me along my sidetrack here.
Furthermore, I think there is good reason that Kelvin says on that site there is no difference between straight sex, gay sex, etc. One of the main purposes of meditation in Buddhism is to recognize such categories (gay, bi, straight, male, female) as without intrinsic value. It goes as far as to encourage the elimination of the "I" category, but this wanders off an even rougher sidetrack ;-). Anyway, once such categories are removed, it is pretty nonsensical to discriminate again groups that are otherwise kind and compassionate human beings.
I am also reminded of a meditation group I used to go to. We would meditate for 45 minutes then have a reading then discuss the reading. (Agree, disagree, relate to other things, the discussion was very free and after 45 minutes of meditation, everyone was very open-minded!) One of the readings had to do with sex. Good sex, according to the reading, was sex where you lose the distinction between yourself and the person you are having sex with. In my view this is something in Buddhism like 'getting closer to god'. :-) Yes there are celibate Buddhist monks -- I'm not sure how I feel about it. Really, it's their choice, and if they feel it's right for them, then great (see http://buddhism.about.com/od/ethics/a/Celibacy.htm for even more info). As for me, I'd have a hard time giving up sex... especially good sex as described above ;-).
If you are thinking that Buddhism, as I describe it here, is philosophy and not religion -- you might have me there. Religion usually involves taking some leap of faith ... I came to Buddhism through critical thought, reflection, and practice.
cheers,
mekyla
Creator
Thank you for your comments. And I will take a side trip off to the links you mentioned.
But first I would like to add ... I have found it difficult to find liberal minded, thinking religious people. Conversations start off all nice and rosy when skimming across the surface. Hop on down below the outer crust and things start to change. Perhaps that's just my confrontational approach. I'll lighten up.
Following the example of Jesus is a positive step. He was a good guy. But you have me thinking, what if we are born wide-eyed, creative, imaginative, kind, compassionate and loving? Its flips me back to chicken or the egg ... who wrote these religious books? When? Did/do we really need these books as a means/reason to be kind and compassionate? What if we already are?
If babies are born with original sin, hatred, are morally corrupt, cruel, brutal, then they wouldn't make it to puberty. They would bite the hand that feeds them - bite the nipple that suckles them. Babies are born wanting to love and desiring love. And I don't believe that is a phase you automatically grow out of when you become self-sufficient. Nurture does that. Without love there would be no driving force in wanting to live.
Love is positive energy. Hate is not negative energy, it is moulded by man out of fear (of hell and Satan and death). Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It just is. Therefore, energy is love. Negative energy cannot be, as negativity has no desire of itself to be anything. Then, only god could create Satan and hell.
What is heaven? Who's there? Is it just a concept? I don't need to be a kind human just in order to go to heaven, because I believe I'm not going there. I'm off to somewhere else (and its not hell either). And this life has nothing to do with that journey. Life is about the present journey, and I choose to be kind whether or not god requires it of me.
My religion (though its not a 'religion') is the Ancient Egyptians. (the source for the big three religions) They didn't have any concept of devil/Satan, whatever. Evil didn't exist. No slavery, no curses, none of that. No ancient cultures did, its just our modern religious eye looking back and assuming those people must've been more infantile and brutal than we are now. You know ... progress. Today it only has one direction, better/up. But aren't we now progressing toward the dark ages, revisited?
The devil was created around the time of Christ. Hell came later. But because these places are in infinity-land, once they are created they must have existed for eternity. Marvellous thought process. The History of the Devil (by Gerald Messadie) gives a detailed, good account of when these characters were created, by whom and why.
God, heaven and hell are all founded on a belief of life after death. Christians don't believe in reincarnation (the Dali Lama said he'll probably come back as a mosquito because he had killed one once). Amazing man. Can't imagine the pope saying he's coming back as a jew because he hated them while in the Hitler Youth Movement. No reincarnation for them, no, they're off to heaven.
Christian and Muslims together in heaven. Wow, god better be a good mediator. Perhaps there's two heavens, three? The Jews will want their own us well. If there's only one heaven, don't come looking for me. I want nothing to do with it. But if there's three, then I'll be in the forth. Bring your dancing shoes.
more comments
You're hard to keep up with :) but great!
And yes what if we are naturally/originally kind and compassionate and don't need religious texts to tell us to be that, and how to be that. You've touched on an important aspect of Buddhism (in my view). Everyone has this "Buddha nature", and it is through meditation and other exercises that we can realize it. This nature includes being kind and compassionate, and having an 'enlightened' state of mind. But why do we need Buddhism to realize it? Well, we don't necessarily, but for many the guide of Budhdism will help.
When we are born, we are generally free from concepts and categories. But as we grow and learn language, we begin to differentiate between objects, between a book and a block, between a house and a cat, between me and you. It's not that there is something wrong with these distinctions -- in fact they are very practical. However, they are fundamentally illusions. If we are to appreciate reality for what it really is, we cannot apply such concepts to it as all of this sense data comes at us. Most constructivists will tell you that's impossible, but those who have practiced meditation (for various reasons) might tell you otherwise. When the distinction between you and I is removed, or weakened, a compassionate relationship develops. I do not help you out of some hope for future gain for myself. I help you because, fundamentally, there is no distinction between you and I. In this way we are unlearning a divisive understanding of reality. We needed that understanding initially for survival, practical communication, and so on, but afterwards we can weaken these distinctions in order to have a deeper connection with reality (including each other). (If that makes any sense).
Yes God better be a good mediator, or maybe there are multiple heavens ;). I am reminded of an episode of the Simpsons where they show protestant heaven and catholic heaven.. good stuff.
Tell me more about your religion (though not a religion) - I'm curious.
mekyla
Religions
I had a stroll through the sites you mentioned and have a few comments (as always). But that's for another day.
My mind had settled comfortably into a soft easy-chair of life after death. When browsing the big-boy religions I had to go back 3,500 years to find one that made sense to me. The Ancient Egyptians have an amazing and amusing take on things. No-one has been able to attach an actual 'religion' to them. Or really free their minds to peer objectively into the underlying beliefs. Except to ridiculously say they were obsessed with death. Would the future say we were obsessed with sacrifice by nailing millions of young men to crosses?
They believe in total freedom of 'religious' expression. The only caveat being, do not force your beliefs on others. It is to be a personal choice. There are numerous, harmonious Gods within and without. Sort of like saying, god is everywhere: Amun. God of life: Ra. God of the Afterlife: Osiris. The Son of Osiris and Isis is Horus. The Living Horus is Pharaoh. Father (Osiris), Son (Horus/Pharaoh), and the Holy Ghost (Amun, the Hidden One). Oh, Heaven for them was still on earth, and hell/evil/devil had not been even contemplated. That depth of negativity wasn't imagined for another 1,000 years.
Then I wondered, what if there is an Afterlife? I went to Egypt to investigate. The power there is beautiful. The visions, the conversations ... I was momentarily in Heaven. Every statue, carving, painting (and there's literally thousands) had this wonderfully serene smile. A beauty that came from within and moulded the outer appearance.
Not one was angry, upset, annoyed, crying, weeping, etc. Warmth, compassion, love and friendship whispered from the stone. All captured this feeling of benevolence, with a tiny twist of good humour in the smile and a twinkle of timeless wisdom in the eyes. That energy is withdrawing and I'm going again (April 08) to say bon voyage, catch up with you soon. Apart from the Great Pyramid and Sphinx, they also gave us wine, beer, the most beautiful art imaginable, freedom of thought and expression, alchemy (from Kemet = black land = Egypt) and magic (the tarot cards, dream reading and the like), and the source of today's big three religions (so sad it has been corrupted so crudely).
I can give my interpretation on specifics, if you wish.
Now, I'm investigating what if there is no life after death? Like a schizophrenic my mind has two components. One, there is an Afterlife that is not physical in any sense. Reincarnation is not a lineal progression each growing from the previous, but all happening at once in parallel universes. Karma does not jump lives and chase after you in the next, it is dealt with in the here-and-now. Paying a debt owed by a past life is nonsensical and equates with being born with original sin. I do believe in karma but it is limited to this life only. Life-jumping Karma assumes there is a supreme being (or beings) waiting to pass judgement and issue fines and penalty burdens to be taken like excess baggage into the next existence.
I can't imagine the bit between death and rebirth being likened to a courtroom settling. Its defining the 'bit' in between that has me intrigued. And what if there is nothing after this? Two paths for me to walk along further.
I'm not sure if all that encapsulates my non-religious religious beliefs but I hope it helped. Life, Health, Prosperity
The Secret Order of the Third Sex
And we need it fast ... just like climate change, the ship has already sailed. Melancholy me has been surfing the World Wide Web hunting for thinkers, people to converse with on what I feel are important issues. I've had more success on hetero philosophical sites. Admittedly the search is only a few weeks old ...
But myspace queers, generationQ etc etc etc are all full of nonsense on vote for me, I'm so sexy. Sodom and Gomorrah stuff. When the Titanic was going down all the queers were at the bar giving three cheers.
For us/me to have a better life queer philanthropists need to start looking in their own backyards. Religious education needs to be removed from all school systems. It should be taught only alongside science, or only made available until the age of consent. And that's not gonna happen.
Give me a child at an impressionable age and s/he's mine for life. Monks centuries ago picked up on that one. Get 'em young. Crush their little dreams, paint their imaginations black, pull out their wisdom teeth, and chop down the tree of knowledge before anyone sees it.
There's too much power and money in religion. Wars are still being waged over it. The Vatican doesn't look poor to me. Happy little men corseted with sticks of dynamite catch the bus cause they think martyrs get an express ride to heaven and have 78 (?) virgins waiting with legs spread. What sort of fools do they take us for? The dumbing-down of society has been extremely successful.
All we have left is faith that's blind and a deep understanding that if we stop being gluttonous consumers the sky will fall in and the sea level will rise ... and that's gonna happen anywho.
This bible book (all of them - Jewish and Muslim) incites hatred and violence and offers up the sacrifical lamb: queers. Nature or nurture ... the question assumes first we are wrong and second no matter what we say we are wrong, for the bible told me so.
It amazes me that people care so much to hate us so. Why are we so interesting, why do they want to know all our private secrets, desires, sexual antics (and as for love, well that's just absurd), are we aliens from planet Laughable and need vivisection?
Huff and puff and blow my house down. Lots of love.
You have a point, but I
You have a point, but I still think there is room for 'religion' to be an ally. Yes, some of what has been done in the name of many/most/(all?) religions is atrocious, but there has been good - and continues to be the potential for a lot of good. And I mean real good, not good as defined by the religions themselves ;-).
Maybe I'm using a broader view of religion here. Is Buddhism a religion, or philosophy? Taoism? What about the Unitarian Universalism (the only church my parents brought me to as a kid)? I returned to a Unitarian fellowship for a few months in my university days (not that long ago), and there was not a shred of intolerance in that room. Maybe that's because, instead of relying on some ancient text, they are a group of thinkers that take material from various texts and evaluate it... sharing what they think is good (or bad) and allowing for discussion. Many Buddhists are independent thinkers as well... the Buddha himself saying something along the lines of "if this information doesn't work for make sense for you, discard it...". And definitely many Christians are independent thinkers. Joan Roughgarden talks briefly about Jesus in her cultural section in "Evolution's Rainbow" arguing (quite convincingly for me, at least) that Jesus has way more to do with accepting outcasts (including gender outcasts) and loving them for who they are. Christians can, while still calling themselves Christians, accept God, accept Jesus as a path to God (though not necessarily the only), while not accepting the other nonsense in the bible. (Arguably, this is some of what Jesus did with respect to the old testament).
Furthermore, science can be very intolerant and very damaging. While it's supposed to be 'objective', few (if any) philosophers of science accept that science is completely free from cultural perspectives/influences. We can use science to label homosexuality as a disease (as it was done, by scientifically minded people), as it is not conducive to reproduction and therefore against nature, against evolution. It doesn't take a brilliant philosopher to realize things aren't that simple -in this day and age-, but that doesn't mean there haven't been scientists who have taken this view. Why, I might say, would nature create anything that is wrong? So long as that being is not suffering (naturally), or inflicting suffering on others, how can something be wrong?
A thinking Christian might similarly argue, why would God create someone who is queer, if it is wrong? If that person is not suffering (naturally), or inflicting suffering on others... it couldn't be the work of Satan. They would recognize that the parts of the bible that condemn homosexuality/queerness should be taken with a very large grain of salt, considering Jesus' rejection of organized religion (in a sense), and call for tolerance, compassion, and love towards all beings (especially including outcasts).
So when we call for religious education to be excluded from schools -- we should think about this. Is it religious education we have a problem with? Or blind religious indoctrination? Science can be held up on a religious pedestal as well. Maybe what we should really be calling for is openness and critical thinking, real discussion... about (philosophical)-scientific issues, and about the ideas that come from various religions. Call me optimistic (and a product of my background in philosophy), but I believe this would lead to real tolerance, compassion, and love towards one another.
But yes, what you say about fundamentalist/more extremist religion makes sense. And maybe getting rid of religious education would be easier than teaching people to actually think, I don't know.