Monday, May 6, 2013

Theo-crap-acy

Good morning, sports fans! First, my apologies for the vitriol last Wednesday. I was, as noted, depressed. So to all my readers, but especially those who do promote my stuff: I'm sorry. I'm going to try and keep a couple of reserve posts as backups from now on so I don't blog when I'm seriously down. 

Onwards, then! 

I present to you now, for your consideration, the following:



This was posted on Facebook by an old friend, one whom I've actually had serious discussions about LGBT issues and the state of the world with. And, up until this popped up on my feed, I had thought we were in a "live and let live" detente. So I naturally asked for clarification, albeit laconically. 

Her response is as follows:

God cannot tempt us and puts no evil inclinations into our hearts. All of our desires and drives He built into us so our lives might reflect His glory and goodness. But our fallen nature allows Satan the chance to try and twist and defigure what God has given us. He distorts our natural yearnings into temptations. To call same-sex sexual attractions a natural orientation is one of today’s most prevalent heresies. 

Why not extend the same protection to all sins? What of those oriented towards sloth, gluttony, anger...? Why should any act be defined as a sin? Where does this heresy end? 

And how confusing for our children! The message we are giving them is clear: Ignore God’s law and trust only in your own desires. There is no sin or sinful nature. Do as you please. It sounds very similar to a serpent’s whispered words in a far off garden, yes?

We can tie up the courts with these matters. We can pass laws to protect an individual’s right to a sinful life. We can even attempt to redefine marriage to include relationships outside of the true sacramental right. But we cannot fool God. And in the end, each and every one of us is going to have to answer Him for the part we played in letting this heresy take root.


This is going to take two separate responses, as the image and the text are from two different sources and heave two slightly different messages. On the image, then:

Well, thanks! It's nice to know I'm broken. How do we fix it, then? Oh, that's right. It's not a fixable issue.

In fact, the best one can do is choose whether or not to act on one's sexual orientation. And, as the above report notes, trying to "fix" homosexuality simply doesn't work. All the therapy in the world won't make a gay man or woman straight; it can, however, teach them to accept that they are, and then help them cope with their decisions on how to proceed. 

Choosing to abide by any religious ideal, and choosing to not act on your orientation, is fine. Hell, if you're that devoted to your beliefs, it's laudable. But implying that ten percent of the population is broken in such a way that they cannot be fixed is, as I've said before, inhumane and evil. 

Why? Well, there's therapy for everything we can fix. There's medical treatment facilities for the things we can't. So if there's no therapy, and one is definitively broken if one is gay...will we be rounding up ten percent of the population and locking them away in treatment facilities? 

Oh wait...that sounds like a rights abuse...

Hmmm...well, at least there's legislation against that sort of thing, right? Just like all those nice laws that used to prevent us from dealing with other imperfect people, like blacks, Jews, Asians, and so on. 

Oh, but they can't choose not to be what they are! Uhh...well, remember that study I linked up there? The one that says neither can gay people? 

But hey, we can choose not to act like we're gay! Just like those blacks, and Jews, and Asians can choose not to act like they're—what do you mean it's racist and demeaning to impose our cultural perceptions on minorities? 

But God says it's ok! 

"God" has also historically condoned slavery, white supremacy, religious despotismgenocide, and killing infants. And just so we're clear, anyone that wants to whine about the Old Testament-y goodness can have this: 
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fall — Luke 16:17
So I'm going to have to point out that following "God" does not make you a good person, or even correct person. It makes you a religious person. And if a deity insists that to follow its precepts, you must work for the detriment of your fellow humans, then I believe that's a horrible religion and I recommend you find a new one. 

But hey, anyone can believe anything so long as they don't force me to live their religion with or for them, right? Because this is a country of liberties, a country where we have the right to live and worship howsoever we wish. 

Which leads us into the response to the text portion of this. For those that don't want to scroll up, here we are again:

God cannot tempt us and puts no evil inclinations into our hearts. All of our desires and drives He built into us so our lives might reflect His glory and goodness. But our fallen nature allows Satan the chance to try and twist and defigure what God has given us. He distorts our natural yearnings into temptations. To call same-sex sexual attractions a natural orientation is one of today’s most prevalent heresies. 

Why not extend the same protection to all sins? What of those oriented towards sloth, gluttony, anger...? Why should any act be defined as a sin? Where does this heresy end? 

And how confusing for our children! The message we are giving them is clear: Ignore God’s law and trust only in your own desires. There is no sin or sinful nature. Do as you please. It sounds very similar to a serpent’s whispered words in a far off garden, yes?

We can tie up the courts with these matters. We can pass laws to protect an individual’s right to a sinful life. We can even attempt to redefine marriage to include relationships outside of the true sacramental right. But we cannot fool God. And in the end, each and every one of us is going to have to answer Him for the part we played in letting this heresy take root.


So, let's kick this off by defining the most popular word up there: heresy.

Now, my good friends over at Merriam-Webster define heresy two ways: one is any dissent from a religious organization's accepted view, especially dissent towards the Roman Catholic Church by a baptized Catholic; and second, as dissent from a prevailing theory, opinion, or custom. Well, damn. I guess that means anything that isn't acceptable to a church is heresy. Anything. 

For the record, by the way, I am a heretic by the most narrow definition of the word. I am a baptized Catholic who has repudiated the Church and works against the portions of its dogma that are inherently harmful to humanity. And that's not an "in my opinion" moment. That's a "hey look, they're causing psychological and in some cases physical harm" moment.

Moving on: the problem with declaring heresy in the religious sense, is that it's technically heretical to advertise a burger special on a Friday in Lent. The problem with declaring it secularly is that the Civil Rights movement (not to beat that horse into the ground) was socially heretical.

So claiming heresy, and the fact that something is heretical, is a valid reason to work against it is not good enough. If it was, we'd be living in caves and killing each other with rocks over who has the best berries and which women have the strongest teeth and bones structures.

But hey: that's cool. You have a faith system, and it's yours, and you like it and want to share. That's fine. You can worship as you please, live as you please, raise your children as you please. What you may not do is tell me how to worship, live, and raise my kids.

Just as most people wouldn't allow the institution of Sharia law as the essential tenets of the American legal system, I can't allow the establishment a Christian Theocratic state. And they are the exact same thing, because they would have the exact same results: pain and suffering, religious and moral cleansing, and an end to the "free" nation that many who wish for such a state claim to love.

Why don't we extend the same protection to other "sins"? Well, because stealing isn't inherent as a rule. And as there isn't usually anything inherent to a person that makes them steal, it  is not inhuman to declare the they must control their theft habit. And when there is such an inherent cause, we extend treatment and help. The same goes for gluttony, sloth, and anger.

And that treatment and help model, I'd like to remind you, doesn't work and is impossible to ethically administer for homosexuality.

Furthermore, it's only confusing for children being raised with precepts that specifically hold homosexuality to be a sin. But that's fine, we'll just legislate to ensure that children are free from anything that—

Um, guys? We are all aware that Jehovah's Witnesses can't give or receive blood, yes? So, if we're going to ensure that children learn their God's law is paramount, does that mean the rest of us have to stop having blood transfusions as well?

Oh, never mind. We need to respect the Amish religion enough to not confuse their children, so we won't have modern medicine anyway.

Hmm? Oh, right, we can't expect everyone to live by Amish principles. Ohhhhh...

(Source)
The problem is the conflation of "there is no sin" with "there is no wrong." What a faith declares to be sinful is wrong to its practitioners, not wrong inherently. Making this particular argument implies that because people act in a way that is not consistent with a certain faith, the human race as a whole will accept wrong behavior.

Finally, I'll close with these questions:

How does repressing homosexuals work for the greater glory of God?

How does forcibly evangelizing through legal manipulation in direct opposition to the precepts of liberty this nation operates on reflect His goodness?

And how is insisting that thousands of people you have never and will never meet live in a way that is socially and culturally acceptable to you the only moral thing to do when it is your religion being used as the model, but heinous and evil when it is someone else's religion or beliefs?