Thursday, 29 April 2010

Homosexuality is not a “lifestyle choice” – Christianity is

Christians feel that they are being discriminated against and that their values are being ignored. But what people of all faiths need to realise is the difference between practicing a faith, and imposing those views on others.

Perhaps the best recent example of this supposed “discrimination” is the case of a nurse prevented from openly wearing a crucifix at work: I wouldn’t bother reading the whole article, but this is probably the best bit:

“She sees herself as the victim of politically correct persecution, particularly as other hospital staff have been allowed to carry on wearing the Muslim hijab or headscarf. 'I feel personally discriminated against, and I am very angry,' said the nurse.”

Now I’m no theologian, but I can’t remember any point in the bible that specifies the wearing of a dead man nailed to a piece of wood. It does say quite a lot about worshipping idols.

I’ve read the bible; I’ve also read the Lord of the Rings – I don’t believe in hobbits. Why do we need a special name for someone who doesn’t believe in a god – we don’t have a special name for someone who doesn’t believe in fairies?

If I die and find myself outside the gates of heaven, trapped in perpetual limbo, or banished to the underworld, it’s my problem, not yours. I don’t need saving from myself.

Sexuality is a prime area to come under the religious microscope. So many people seem, through their own narrow views, in denial of the human experience: fixated on the sexual act and unable to understand any concept of love that challenges their own insecurities. The Christian family infliction tries to nail everyone down into little family boxes where everyone has a mortgage and worries about how often the bins are collected.

It is deeply insulting to suggest that any religious system provides moral or ethical frameworks for society. Non-religious people are both moral and ethical, and to suggest that Mother Theresa only carried out her work because she was religious is an insult to her memory.

Christians often use the argument that their religion has served humanity well for 2000 years. I would suggest that humanity has survived despite their religion. They use their religion to justify their attitudes, rather than allowing their attitudes to be shaped by their faith. They ignore the actual message, teachings and actions of Jesus and long for the pre-war, Sunday morning, hegemonic “little England” version of Christianity to cure their own ontological insecurities.

They both instigate and are influenced by moral panics to sure up their own lifestyles and beliefs.

No comments: