mmoa_writes

One of the reasons why Prof. Richard Dawkins is so vehemently against even the liberal versions of religious beliefs is that - he says - it provides a leeway for the fundamentalists to get through. One doesn't want to attack the fundamentalists, for fear of going against their religion which, hey, can't be that bad (the secular westerner thinks to himself), or we wouldn't have people like Shelby Spong and the Archbishop of Canterbury etc etc.

But I have to say that in most cases, this isn't true and in fact I get the feeling it is only out of sheer bewilderment if not laziness and misinformation that people seem unable to attack the fundamentalists. As I've pointed out before, when you attempt to defeat the fundamentalist, using the tenets of their own faith, then one can see quite clearly that such a perspective is not inherent to any religious belief. This is because it is possible, and indeed, more successful, to destroy fundamentalism with their own weapon of choice, because you are in many cases, putting a different spin on something that they have taken for granted - and the use of certain biblical/Qu'ranic quotes comes to mind... - rather than attacking them from a completely different background which they do not understand.

Anyway. What got me onto this line of thinking was something that has been in the newspapers recently. The upshot of it all is that religious organizations have been asking for a loophole within the law to make sure that if they wished to, they could (effectively) fire someone for being a homosexual.

Now, what annoyed me was that first of all, people started banging on the usual jargon about gay rights (which the religious groups could then counter with, 'oh but come on, we're not beating them up or anything, we just want the right to fire them... after all, how crazy would a gay person have to be to work for a Christian/Muslim/Jewish/etc. organisation? ho, ho, fucking-ho...), then secondly, that the groups were attacked from a secular perspective (which is stupid, full stop, because since when did religious groups give a damn what the secularist had to say? It's things like this that make me sometimes think that 'liberal' is synonymous with 'obstinate in a rather pathetic kind of way').

What no one (apart from Gay Christian groups, but then, no one listens to them) seemed to be doing is actually thinking about what was being proposed. No one was really thinking and so no one seemed to know how to effectively combat such demands made by religious groups without appparently attacking the religion itself (which for some reason no one wants to do these days *shrugs* what a load of wussies...) and thus proving Prof. Dawkins' point.

Well here goes nada.

From a Christian perspective: If we take the Bible to be saying that as it is a sin to indulge in homosexual practises, then we can go on to say that clearly, Christians should not do so. However that is about as far as it goes, ie that Christians should not practise homosexual acts. There is nothing that suggests that Christians should not employ homosexuals or socialise with homosexuals. Applying the rest of Christian teaching, firing someone for being a homosexual (and in this day and age, it is taken as read that that means they also perform homosexual acts) is a big no-no. Why? Because that is the modern equivalent of 'casting the first stone'. Indeed, even actively avoiding homosexuals can be seen as an example of what is in fact explicitly described (for once, Jesus actually said something clear) un-Christian behaviour.

There. By their own faith, the demands of the (in this case Christian) organisations wanting to reserve the rights to fire a member of staff for being homosexual on account of their own faith, are quite illegitimate.

From a Muslim perspective: Similar logic, only I will be a little more circumspect because as much as I wish it weren't so, my knowledge of Qu'ranic lore is not nearly as great as I'd like it to be. But anyway as the Qu'ran proclaims homosexuality unnatural and rebellion against God it follows that no one should be allowed to practise homosexual acts. However, the Qu'ran is not in favour of proselytizing which - if we were to say that by firing a member of staff for being homosexual an example of expected standards is made - behaviour such as discriminating against homosexuals is indeed symptomatic of. Again, something of a no-no. So long as the person does not adhere to the Muslim faith, then there is no reason why a Muslim employer has the right to fire a homosexual member of staff.

[Of course, my next step would be to make the case against firing a Muslim homosexual member of staff, but that will have to come much later, because my arabic is pants right now. But again, due to the context of the Qu'ranic teaching (the precise word used etc etc) then there is not much of case for that either. Nevertheless, I must stop there, I am afraid, for fear of getting my translation a little off]

EDIT: Just occurred to me: I don't have to go particularly in depth as the Qu'ran also tells Muslims that when living in a country that does not employ sharia law, one is to obey the laws of the country inasmuch as they do not order to disobey or go against the five pillars of Islam. As the law is hardly trying to force all Muslims to indulge in homosexual acts, then their request is still invalid.

In fact, the list goes on. A similar logic every time: a) if the person in question is not of the [insert name here] faith of the organisation, then there is no [insert holy book/reference here] reason why they should be fired on account of their sexuality.

b) If the person in question is a member of the [insert name here] faith, then as far as I can see, the organisation still has no right to fire them (one of the interesting things I've noticed is that if the religion is not as big on forgiveness, acceptance of man's universal sinful/imperfect nature et al, then they tend to be rather anti-proselytizing - Islam and Judaism por ejemplo - which is rather useful for argumentative and opinionated folk like me because it means that, even if the person should be stoned to death, the fact is that if they are not of the faith then to do so would be the same as impressing one's beliefs on non-believers) even by the teachings of their own faith. However, as I said above, to make sure this is completely true, I have to brush up on my hebrew/arabic.

...

See? You just have to know how to talk to people.



One of the interesting observations I have made... when I am struck by yet another bout of depression is how oddly hallucogenic one gets. For me, it is very strange because since I first started suffering from depression, I always associated it with feeling low, a bit sad and lonely, but never outright crazy, despite what I would read in medical journals and newspaper articles. Hallucinations, to me, were within the domain of other mental illnesses, schizophrenia in extreme cases, maybe, but not depression.

[And that's something else I always felt was a bit odd. Did you know that depression is actually classified as a mental illness? I don't know why I found that so astounding; maybe because I was so used to it *shrugs. You don't realise the damage it (apparently) does to you, I suppose. Or maybe that's more to do with my inner stoic who loathes making any sort of excuses for herself. But I digress]

Anyway, I was lying on my bed today and the bizarrest thing happened. I thought I was actually hearing some sort of a conversation, in these incredibly deep voices, which got me more than a little bit spooked, I can tell you (!). I listened closer and thought I could make out certain words, but then as I began to think, I realised that my mind had simply jumbled up the usual sounds of a lorry engine and a passing aeroplane, with the sounds of, say, two men conversing in low tones.

C'est vraiment bizarre.

Reading it (this post) now, and it seems trivial and silly, and indeed it was, but now it has made me feel more interested in what is really going on within my mind. I am tempted to get a brain scan, when I am feeling very depressed, and when I am feeling oddly high (though that in itself is apparently part of it, *sighs), just to see if the scan picks up any differences in activity.

Fascinating and terrifying. I dread to think what else my brain can possibly cook up.



And how I loathe LJ spell check. Is there a British-English one or is it simply good manners to translate posts into American-English? And I simply give up on 'practise'. I am too tired, lol...

Oh yes, and is anyone up for a Hallowe'en Burlesque special on the 26th of Nov? Tickets cost £15...


Interesting... http://www.liberal-international.org/