“I sense that Elton John and columnist Janice Kennedy have not experienced the loving side of the Roman Catholic church...”, begins a recent letter to the Ottawa Citizen. A scant few lines later, it says “Jesus calls us to love homosexuals. The church teaches that all people deserve dignity, respect, and love. The chuch also knows that homosexual intercourse is contrary to God's plan and distances homosexuals from God.”
Yeah, I sense a whole lot of love in there. Why, I'll bet you love homosexuals to DEATH in the Catholic Church*. This isn't a case of “love the sinner, hate the sin”, this is the classic “I love you the way you are, now CHANGE” relationship. This is not the same unconditional love that I would assume everyone else is entitled to. I find it amusing that people are defending the church in this way, almost marketing it as a kinder, gentler church. I don't buy it, not one bit. In the same letter I quoted before, it says “The Church has not rejected Elton John or Ms. Kennedy, but they cannot impose their beliefs on the Church. I'm sorry...no, no I'm NOT fucking sorry, but the holy book you cling to was written thousands of years ago, and for all you have any right to assume, could have been written as a comedy by an early humourist. Maybe if you have context, it's hi-larious...but seriously, If I am correct, didn't Jesus speak out against the status quo? I'm not calling Elton John the second coming, but when did it become not ok to challenge people's assumptions? I suppose I can comfort myself that as much as you resist, change is inevitable. The Catholics may have hated Martin Luther (again, not giving this role to Elton John specifically), but they were forced to change eventually, after the reformation. Cling to your pope, and your musty old book if you must, but remember these words:
“I AM OZYMANDIAS, KING OF KINGS: LOOK UPON MY WORKS, YE MIGHTY, AND DESPAIR!”
The winds of change cannot be held back forever.
While I'm at it. I have some more bones to pick with another letter writer:
“Catholics....cannot change what has been handed down, regardless of what new social agenda sprouts its head”
See above comments on Luther, and the inevitability of change.
Laugh at the naivite of the above quote
Repeat step 2 as necessary
And the REAL kicker:
“To call the church “homophobic” is an old attack word that doesn't quite make it. Witness the hundreds of hospitals and centres in AIDS-ravaged countries where the church is in the front line in caring for these ill and disadvantaged”
I saw a population video in World Issues. You know who gets AIDS? A lot of impoverished women do. You know where they get it from? Unprotected sex with men, often husbands. Unless I am mistaken, homosexuality is nowhere NEAR common enough to cause that spread. You know what the Catholic Church doesn't support the use of, that would save people from contracting AIDS? CONDOMS!
Caring for AIDS patients is NOT the same as supporting individual sexual freedom. Also, why so big on cure, when you ACTIVELY OPPOSE EFFECTIVE PREVENTION?!?!?!
This letter is so great, because it is one gigantic logical fallacy, AND it's offensive, because it presents AIDS as a primarily homosexual issue. Ah said, AH SAID, can you FEEL the LOVE yet?
In conclusion, the Roman Catholic Church loves homosexuals like a Neo-Nazi loves a black Jewish immigrant.
This is seriously getting on my nerves, you know? Why must it be such a huge deal in this day and age? I know maybe two or three people who are openly bi, and at least one lesbian. Are they bad people? Fuck No! There is one who gets on my nerves, but that's nothing to do with his sexual orientation. The others are friends of varying closeness, all of whom I hold dear. I will never ask them to justify the gender of whoever they want to date / get horizontal with. People who have been made to feel unwelcome understand the value of kindness all the more, I would say. Ever shunned a kid, 'cause he or she was jumpy and annoying? Yeah, I've been that kid, so I know. Choosing to control my impulses is something I can do, and so I can make a lot more friends now. These people can't, and shouldn't have to change who they fancy, so they may have to live with the social stigma for longer that I had to live with my own. Terrible as it is, I think it will galvanize them to be kinder people, who want to prevent the same discrimination against others. They will be far better people than the sheep who wrote those letters, in my opinion.
I won't ask the Church to accept such people as they are, of course; It would be rather like walking up to a pig in a farmyard, and demanding it to take flight immediately. I will, however, move that the church is counter-productive to social progress, and should no longer be considered realevant in modern society. We owe the church a debt of gratitude for laying the moral foundations of society, of course. Even the most secualr of morals take their cues from religion, in some way or another. We should repay our debt, by helping the church to bow out of politics and society, before it makes itself look any more the fool than it already has. And we're not talking the cool, Shakespearian fool here, neither.
Is anyone else tired of this? Can the Church not accept that it will never make homosexuality go away, and can homosexuals accept that the church changes very slowly, and reluctantly?
It's Almost Over!
I think I may have filled my 'Hatin' on the Church' quota for the week, so I'll keep this as short as possible:
If you have read and understood the poem quoted in the above section (Ozymandias), and even if you haven't, I'm sure you are at least capable of entertaining the concept that nothing is eternal. Why are we so intent on fooling ourselves, then? Cultures come and go, values come and go with them. Some customs get copied, manage to hold out a little longer, but when you look at human history, the only real universal commonalities are Food, Sex, Violence, and Ingenuity to help us do the first 3 things better. Omnivores like us haven't been around forever, and neither has sexual reproduction. Violence is not new, but the boundless zeal with which we persue it is somewhat unique. The Catholic Papacy and the Muslim Jihadists have it wrong, and it is not their time to shine. Both have seen their 'glory days' come and go. Maybe, just maybe, either one will manage to gain a foothold for some time, conquer a little new territory, burn heretics / stone women, all that jazz. It won't last. Secularism (think China, people...it's going to get BIG) will have its day, and that will pass as well. Maybe it'll be Gaianism afterwards...I think I could live with that.
So why do I bother posting about scary religious stuff, if I don't think it will amount to anything? Whoa, whoa....I didn't say that it wouldn't come to anything. There is a great risk that people are going to be hurt in attempted revivals, of any faith or church. Hell, when the scientologists declare some kind of L. Ron-Jihad on people who eat cookies with a slice of lemon, 2 cherries, and maple syrup on top, I'm going to be fuckin' terrified! If we stop this sort of thing now, less people will be hurt later. Once we've dealt with the religions, we can get back to preparing for the REAL threats.
...Like the invasion of the Alien-Robot-Zombie-Horde.
Casino Royale Review postponed for such a time as it would make any sense if I write it.