Forcing people to accept the "gay lifestyle" and "Christianity"? No. We're not.

I am becoming angry.  I think that's a good thing.  It's only a matter of time before I break out into more practical social action.

I just saw a picture on facebook.  Somebody shared it from "The Tea Party" and anyone who knows me knows that me and the Tea Party don't see eye-to-eye.  I wonder who these two men are and if they know their image is being used in such a way.

And I screamed inside.  At the idiocy of that question - and at how many people would think it a good question, that their freedom is threatened by allowing gay people to marry.  Then again I saw a comment yesterday from someone - a very faithful Catholic - who didn't see that the laws in Uganda as an affront because, he said, homosexuality is an affront to nature.  Would he want LGBT people in America to be imprisoned for life I wonder?  Would he think it an affront to imprison me for life?

Bear in mind that I wrote a long response to someone earlier in the day defending theism and theists - that it isn't a belief in God that leads to idiocy but other things that arise in non-theistic situations too: exclusivism, defensiveness, fear, crowd psychology, the human need to belong, leaders not encouraging thought - and sometimes actively discouraging thought.  I was a strong theist for two decades and know so many marvellous people who are theists.  I'm not anti-theism or anti-Christianity and remain a Christian, albeit a non-theist.

None of what follows is an attack on theism - I have no problem at all with people believing in God and see how many good things this can bring.  Even if theism is an erroneous belief it brings great things to millions of people and inspires great deeds, great art and literature and great charity.


I wrote this.  In one rapid sprawl.  And haven't proof read it, checked it or altered it at all.  I can't post it on facebook - I lost the original post by pressing the wrong button. That may be a good thing.  If you get fed up with my ramblings there are links to a couple of better writers at the bottom of this post.

 

 _____________________________________

 How stupid.  At best stupid.  At worst evil.

A) it's not a 'lifestyle'.

B) nobody is asking anyone to adopt a gay life - only to allow gay people to live their lives.

People are being asked to stop discriminating against gay people (like myself).  They're not being told to be gay.  People are being asked to accept us - not become us.  To stop hating us.  And they DO hate us, while claiming to 'hate the sin but love the sinner'.  I've been told my marriage is void, blasphemy and that I'm an abomination.  By Christians.  Throwing the Bible at me.  Many friends have had similar experiences.  All we ask is that we can be who we are - and that's rooted in love, compassion.

The current situation in many places, including much of the USA, is that people are forced to not be themselves and love who they love.  And the Catholic Church supports that situation.  "Who am I to judge?" falls on deaf ears when we've already been judged.

C) Who doesn't accept that Christians can be Christians?  Nobody is telling Christians to stop being Christians.

Except Christians keep living in fear - if we allow a gay couple to marry it will destroy civilisation, they'll turn and kill the church, they'll want to marry squirrels.  And all that crap.  Why are Christians taught to live in such fear?  Why do Christians fear human beings so much?  Are they really so faithless?  Do they not believe "if God is for me ...?"

If God is love and perfect love casts out all fear then it has to be said that an atheist gay couple can be MUCH closer to God than many Christians are.

Or does this picture imply that if the government allow gay people to live their lives it should force people to be Christian?

I hope not because that would be evil.  Very, very evil.

What I really hate is all this talk of "religious freedom" when what is meant is "we religious people want to force everyone else to live the way we want them to".  When I hear "religious freedom" coming from an American it is rare that religious freedom is meant.  What is almost always meant is bigotry, persecution, criminalising humans, and a lack of freedom - religious or otherwise - for others.

Hey, a church which I love I attend regularly is part of a denomination founded in the USA.  It teaches that gay marriage is fine.  Why shouldn't we have the "religious freedom" that people, including yourself, go on about?  Why do so many Christians think that religious freedom includes forcing your religion and the morality you draw from it onto everyone else?

So, legalise civil gay marriage.  Legalise it.  Any sex marriage.  Any gender marriage.

Because anything else destroys the concept of religious freedom.  And legalising it doesn't destroy your freedom to be in a church that teaches that it is evil.  That my marriage is evil.  That I am evil because of my gender (as Benedict XVI made abundantly clear).

Legalise it.  Because that's freedom.

Or don't you trust God to be able to cope with a society that is free?  Don't you trust God to "protect" the Catholic Church?

Your God should be big enough that you don't feel the need to piss, through your thoughts, words and deeds, on people for being gay and loving one another.

_____________________________________

If you want to go further read something else about threats to religious freedom, something written with much care and common sense, something which quickly and clearly cuts through much of the nonsense that people speak about the subject, I can recommend this post:

  

How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions by Rev. Emily C. Heath

Or take a read of this short article from an evangelical Christian website, written by Kristen Howerton on "the biblical definition of marriage and its relevance to marriage equality."  She doesn't judge any definition, opinion or interpretation but writes:

The relevance of your biblical beliefs on homosexuality in regards to marriage equality?

THEY AREN’T RELEVANT.

Case closed!

The Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Law. Catholic Opposition? Western Influence?

This is most definitely not what I'd expected to be writing about this afternoon. 

I hadn't been expecting to be writing anything at all.  The plan was to check Facebook and then go to a quiet room and read a book.  A book by Elizabeth Chadwick, The Love Knot.  Not the sort of thing I'd have even thought of reading a year ago.  Coming out as transgender means that I feel I can experiment with reading things that I wouldn't have tried as a "man".  The experimentation is all part of finding out what kind of a woman I am and revelation comes whether or not I like something.

Yes, I'd been expecting a quiet afternoon, free of any controversial subjects and free of thinking hard about difficult topics.  But then I checked Facebook and found myself reading something someone wrote about the "bold opposition" the Catholic Church has made since 2009 against the new anti-gay law in Uganda.

Ever suspicious of claims, the cynic in action, I wondered how "bold" the opposition was.  As a result of easy research - for the answers are easy to find.  I was cross about what I found.  How could their "opposition" possibly be described as "bold"?  The Catholic Church is powerful.  Bold opposition would use that power in a way that risks consequences, risks persecution.

I'm sure what I found out isn't the full story.  I'm sure there were plenty of faithful Catholics who did bold things.  But the story I found wasn't good.  To be fair, the Catholic Church did more than any major local church to oppose the bill.  No other major denomination in Uganda spoke against the bill at all.  The Ugandan Anglicans didn't.  And many of the other churches are greatly influenced by and often financed by American evangelicalism - with all its fundamentalist homophobia.

Indeed the genesis of the bill springs at least in part from those American fundamentalists.  It grew from a seminar called “Seminar on Exposing the Truth behind Homosexuality and the Homosexual Agenda."  There, a Ugandan group financially supported by US groups teamed up with two anti-gay activists.  You can read about the seminar here.  The entire article is worth reading.  Another article on the same subject can be found here.  It's also worth reading.

The second article gives more information about one of those activists, Scott Lively.  He's a holocaust revisionist who believes that homosexuals founded the Nazi party and were responsible for much of the holocaust.  He wrote a book about it, The Pink Swastika.  Not a book well received by historians who agree the premise is "utterly false".  And it's offensive to anyone who knows anything about the pink triangle - which was used to identify people sent to prison camps by the Nazi regime because of their homosexuality.

The article quotes him from a transcript of the seminar: "I know more about this [homosexuality] than almost anyone in the world ... The gay movement is an evil institution. The goal of the gay movement is to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity."  Later he met with the Ugandan parliament and after he left parliament announced the need for the new law. 

The other activist was from Exodus International which was a prominent anti-gay group calling for conversion therapy until June 2013 when it shut down and the leaders apologised for all the hurt they caused.

Both articles point to other first-world, Christian visitors to Uganda.  One of the most prominent, Pastor Rick Warren, visited in 2008.  I already knew that but it's good to find myself reminded.  Warren is the pastor of the Willow Creek Church, a "seeker friendly" mega-church and author of the astoundingly popular book in Christian circles, "The Purpose Driven Life."  I've owned a copy and at least one church I've been part of has studied and worked through the book en masse.  But that was just after I left it and I've not actually read the book!  Warren told political leaders in Uganda that homosexuality isn't a human right because it's unnatural.  Fuel to the growing fire.  And others have visited and funded massive satellite broadcasting channels on which similar speakers preach.

It's hard to know what can be done to help LGBT people in these nations.  It is almost as if the fires are so big that whatever action we take would be like pouring a jug water onto a vat of burning oil.  David Cameron spoke out.  Ban Ki-moon spoke out.  Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton spoke out.  But the situation is such that they are all told "what right have you to impose yourselves on us."  The result, at least in the short-term, is often that things become worse for LGBT people.

At least in part first-world people stepped in to help create a problem that we, as first-world people, can't step in to solve.  The influence of certain branches of western Christianity on Africa is sobering and, at least to me, disgusting.

Anyway, I quickly wrote a response on Facebook about the Catholic claim - not about the influence that we first-world people have had on the situation in Uganda.  And in Nigeria.  And in other nations where homosexuality is illegal.  And then decided to put it here, at which point it was only fair to mention non-Catholic Christian responses and influences.  And then I got carried away with the writing.

It won't do any good here - but it wouldn't have done any good on Facebook either.

Again, the two articles, here and here, are really worth reading.  A part of our shared history that we will, in time, look back on with shame.  Read them!

To close, here's that response.  Written in too much anger to be a picture of tact and diplomacy.  And not posted on Facebook.


Oh, such bold opposition.

In 2009 the Catholic Archbishop of Uganda said the bill was unnecessary because "acts of sodomy" were already illegal and said the death penalty was too severe and that gays should be rehabilitated.  True - no other major religion in Uganda opposed the bill at all but the statement suggested the laws in place - which could already include a sentence of life imprisonment - were good things.

When the Ugandan Ambassador visited the Pope in December 2009, the anti-gay laws (that at the time included the death penalty) didn't get a mention.  Instead the Pope talked about the climate of freedom in Uganda and praised the country for respecting the Catholic Church.

Then in 2012 the Catholic Church in Uganda changed its views - to support the bill.  Catholic leaders there said the bill was necessary because of "“an attack on the Bible and the institution of marriage."  The Catholic bishops, discussing the bill at that time, stated "“We, the Catholic Bishops of Uganda, appreciate and applaud the Government’s effort to protect the traditional family and its values.”

The Catholic Church in Uganda thus threw its weight behind the campaign to revive the bill - which the government had shelved due to international pressure, largely of a financial type.

Such bold opposition.

Please don't look at this issue and portray the Catholic Church as some bold moral crusader standing up for the lives of human beings.  Because in this case it really isn't.

Asylum Seekers and Facebook - Where Does the Truth Lie?

I use facebook.  I use it a lot.  Some people would tell you that I use it too much!  And I tend to get annoyed by hoaxes and scams.  They crop up regularly - some of them crop up over and over again.  But I get most annoyed when those posts that unfairly demonise a group of people or individual people - the posts that began somewhere as a malicious lie not just a silly joke. There are politicians and organisations I don't particularly like and rarely agree with - but I've sprung to their defence when I've seen lies told about them, intentionally or otherwise.  Because of course most hoaxes and scams are passed on by well intentioned, pretty decent people. 

Here's something that I see variations of posted on facebook quite regularly.  There's a good chance that if you use facebook then you've seen it too.  A 30 second look on Google brings up several articles that show how wrong it is.  But people tell me they don't know how to do that - yes, there really are regular computer users who claim that Google is a complete mystery.  And other people tell me they haven't got the time to do that - which only shows that they would prefer to risk spreading lies, demonising other human beings, rather than spent 30 seconds giving them the benefit of the doubt.  I truly think the "no time" excuse is a symptom either of evil or of a belief in the basic rotten nature of humanity.

And this particular post, one I've seen quite a few times in different forms, makes me very, very cross:

I don't personally know any asylum seekers at this time.  We had an asylum seeker and his family at church for quite a while and they went through great suffering until they were granted asylum and could finally start to create a life here.  But I know people who are involved in working with asylum seekers and refugees - through an aid centre for them (which received my entire wardrobe of clothes in the last few months - new outward gender means new clothes for me) and through various groups run for them.

From those people I hear horror stories - families living in one room, without furniture, without extra clothes, with only one cup between them.  Asylum seekers who know they face life imprisonment or death if they are sent home, so live in great fear each day.  They may have the "wrong" race, religion, politics, sexuality or whatever else to be free in their nation of origin.  They are usually innocent of anything we'd call a criminal offence under our own comparatively very freedom loving laws.

There is a group of LGBT asylum seekers in this city who would face terrible punishment if sent back, because of their sexuality or gender - because of that fear and because of prejudice among others from their nation they cannot be openly gay, or lesbian or seek help as transgender.  Yet in order to stay the kind British government wants to force them to "prove" their sexuality or gender.

But tonight (at the time of typing - not of posting this) I saw the above set of lies on facebook.  Again.  Yet again.  And I just had to respond.

It'll do little good I suspect. (edit - I removed my post the following morning)  If someone wants to believe the worst about people and situations then they'll still believe the worst no matter how much light or truth is passed their way.  So I responded, and the likelihood is that someone will not like my response much - I'm afraid it's not 100% the epitome of calm diplomacy but does improve after the 'baloney'!

 _________________________________

I think it's a total disgrace that such complete and utter baloney keeps getting posted on facebook and elsewhere - especially when it's by people who know about the work of refugee centres and who have seen what poverty asylum seekers generally have to live in while often in desperate fear for their lives if refugee status is not granted.

But go ahead, scapegoat them.  They can't fight back.

An "illegal" immigrant gets nothing.  The clue is in the word "illegal".

A single asylum seeker can receive £36.62 a week.  That's under £2,000 a year to live on. 

A roof is provided - usually horrible as the contract goes to the lowest possible bidder and this can change at any time, without warning.  Recently some asylum seekers in Newcastle had to move to Teeside - with less than one hour's notice.

Under £2,000 a year doesn't leave a lot of spare cash and asylum seekers have to report in regularly.  In Shields.  So they walk, very regularly, from Newcastle to Shields and back in order to receive their £36 because they can't afford a bus.

But hey, that's only a 17 mile round trip and I'm sure we'd all be happy to walk that in the middle of winter in order to receive £36 to pay for our food, fuel, clothes, and anything else we might need to survive.

We wouldn't be allowed any other money - asylum seekers aren't allowed to seek work unless refugee status is granted.

If the asylum seeker is eventually granted refugee status he/she is entitled to the same benefits as anyone else.  Anyone who thinks that's wrong is wishing these people a quick trip back to their nation of origin where imprisonment or sometimes death awaits - for their politics, race, sexuality, religion.

They are scared, have run for their lives.  They arrive in Britain.  And people on facebook listen to lies and just piss all over them.