Cardinal Schoenborn, are you alive?
Wednesday April 2, 2008
Categories: Catholicism, Decline and fall
For your Eastertide enjoyment, the art museum of Vienna's Roman Catholic cathedral features a new exhibit by an artist named Alfred Hrdlicka, whose drawings depict the Last Supper as a homosexual orgy. One of them shows the crucified Christ being...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
I've had the pleasure of meeting Cardinal Schonborn, and certainly hope there is more to this, as he has always been a very orthodox and holy man. Being that he was one one of the major contributors to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I can't imagine him going along with this.
Rod -- if you come across "the rest of the story" on this, please keep us posted.
Art, I agree -- I've always had a very positive view of Schoenborn. That's why this is so shocking. If any of you readers can add anything to explain this situation, by all means do.
Will there always be a Europe? There are times when I do not care one way or the other.
This is one of those times.
I think it's fair to ask who runs the Cathedral museum. It may very well be run by an independent Board over which Schoenborn has limited control. It's also fair to ask whether many of the positions of authority or cures in the Vienna Archdiocese are old-fashioned benefices of one type or another that make it well-nigh impossible for the Archbishop to impose his will on the clergy. I ask these questions because it is sadly typical of the poor journalistic standards of LifeSite News to sensationalize and exaggerate anything that yanks people's chains, especially when it comes to homosexuality, and to denounce people for things over which they have little or no control. That said, this exhibition appears to be one of those gratuitously offensive and self-indulgent exercises in baiting the sensibilities of religious people that some gay activists just can't seem to stop themselves from promoting.
"an artist named Alfred Hrdlicka, whose drawings depict the Last Supper as a homosexual orgy."
Nomenclature is destiny:
"With a name like Smucker's..."
That's some 200-proof Hrdlicka to sip, not swallow; make mine on the Rock of Ages, draught for free...
Yes. Heaven forfend that God actually DID become human and that should be depicted in art, eh?
God as man, feeling actual human feelings and emotions! Gasp! Horrors! and all that.
Oh, wait a minute. I get it. It's because these particular humans are homos. De facto evil, eh Rod? Or maybe only merely inherently disordered. Call up the Orderer and have all explained.
Continue with the usual protests of 'righteous' outrage.
The anonymous poster is Repressed Ex-Pentecostal, or whatever his name is -- the gay guy who can't discuss an issue without screaming and going nutsy (and whose posts I am disinclined to allow, because they are not about forwarding discussion, but stopping it.)
It's interesting, with respect to his sort of mentality, to observe that the Incarnation must be sexualized. That having sex is the deepest meaning of what it means to be human. That unless Jesus was masturbated as he was being flogged, he was less than fully human.
Ultimately, that tells us far more about the deeply impoverished moral imagination of a certain sort of person than anything else.
I'm heterosexual, and I would be no less offended if the Last Supper had been depicted as a Playboy Mansion tableau. I realize that doesn't fit into Regurgitating Ex-Pentecostal's ideological frame of reference, but there you are.
"God as man, feeling actual human feelings and emotions! Gasp! Horrors! and all that."
Any man with half a brain knows that the art being portrayed had nothing to do with the Incarnation whatsoever, and everything to do with shock value and cocking a snook at things that people hold sacred, not unlike that famous Disney orgy drawing. Had the museum displayed a painting of Dumbo being sexually abused by Jim Crow, do you think respectable liberal opinion would have countenanced it?
Rod, many thanks for bringing this to our attention.
Who in Vienna permitted this filth to be displayed? I am definitely writing my Bishop and the Holy See to object strenously after checking this out more thoroughly.
A thought experiment for those who think Rod is over-reacting: Would you have be a negative reaction if a museum at or near the King Center in Atlanta exhibited a painting or a sculpture of a nude James Earl Ray giving a nude Martin Luther King a hand-job while holding a gun to his head?
If not, why not?
If so, why not react in the same negative way to the drawings that Rod has referred us to here?
"Ultimately, that tells us far more about the deeply impoverished moral imagination of a certain sort of person than anything else."
Very well put. It is the fruit borne of the Tree of the Objectively Disordered. (Pun is appropriate.)
Patrick, sorry, but I'm unpublishing the rants of R-eP. I welcome dissent from my opinion on this matter, but I do not welcome hissy fits.
I found this on the website of the Austrian Catholic Press Agency. It's a google translation:
Dommuseumsdirektor Bernhard Boehler stressed that he wanted to honor Hrdlicka with the exhibition "the greatest Austrian sculptor of the present", but also discussions on the relationship between church and contemporary art. He hoped that many "simple church contributors" to visit the exhibition and openly and constructively express their opinions.
Where would we be without simple church contributors, eh?
He is not a very good artist. I know that doesn't mean anything nowadays, but the draftsmanship in what appear to be finished works on display is worse than an art student's sketch pad.
Oh, I also found a comment on an Austrian Catholic site that said Cdl. Schoenborn ordered the "worst" exhibits removed, but some offensive ones still remain. It is unclear if the images shown on that video of the exhibit were the ones removed, or the ones that remain. If anyone can clear that up, please do, and I'll correct the main entry on this blog.
Still, the idea that any actual Catholic authority -- I mean the museum director, chiefly, not Cdl Schoenborn -- could have even thought this kind of thing was acceptable is rather astonishing. And depressing.
Well, I'm neither ex-pentecostal, nor gay.
(I am somewhat anonymous, but Rod has my email and can easily find out my identity. So it goes)
I'm not *entirely* comfortable with the particualr display. However, two things occur.
a) As far as I can understand Catholicism - as distinct from any other sect of Christianity - it endorses the notion of truth as the eventual outcome of ongoing debate and discussion within a tradition. My own go-to theologian on this is Yves Congar, but I've published on Alasdair MacIntyre, of whom I know Rod is a fan, and see something deeply similar in his writings. The reason to be a Catholic when one does not fully agree with current Catholic teaching is that one sees both revelation and magisterium as the products of continuous and authoritative discussion, into which all points of view have input, even though we don't expect them all to prove rationally acceptable.
Now, in this light, I can't see why Hrdlicka's work should be excluded from the debate as an *a priori* matter. I can see why people would be reluctant to admit it to the debate, as it's deliberately provocative. But the tone of your post, Rod, suggests it's outrageous that we should even *consider* this a viewpoint worth examining. Which strikes me as... unCatholic. It's clearly a deeply serious and sincere examination of the Last Supper; that it is decidedly heterodox shouldn't mean the Archdiocese of Vienna rejects it out of hand.
b) I'm not going to endorse Repressed Ex-Pentecostal excessively snarky post. But I think, Rod, you move a little too quickly in your dismissal. It's correct to say that he moves illegitimately from "sexuality is central to human life" to "sexuality is central to the Incarnation", but I don't think we can thereby dismiss out of hand the idea that the Incarnation *does* have implications for, welll... carnality.
Mel Gibson's much-maligned Passion got it about right, I think; we don't have to read anything sexual into Christ's suffering to suppose that there was a sexual aspect to its infliction. That His tormentors were sadists doesn't require us to think him a masochist. Nevertheless, the discussion can't all be in one direction on this. If JP2's "theology of the body" is not promulgated as dogma, and it wasn't, I think it puts Hrdlicka's "art" on the table for discussion. After all, only by discussing it can we have rational reason to reject it.
Er, of a number of typos there, the uncapitalised "Him" in the last para deserves correction...
Toro, thanks for your comment. I disagree, of course, that what Hrdlicka created is a legitimate meditation or inquiry into the meaning of the Incarnation. He's only a provocateur, in my view. But I do thank you most sincerely for your thoughtful dissent. I kick R-eP off not because of what he says, but his way of saying it.
"Very well put. It is the fruit borne of the Tree of the Objectively Disordered. (Pun is appropriate.)"
This silly sentiment, of course, represents the opposite extreme of that of our recovering ex-Pentecostal (my condolences), since if Max Schadenfreude really holds that view, he would have to throw out Plato's Symposium or, for that matter, any recordings of Leonard Bernstein or Benjamin Britten works as (err) but fruits of the poisonous tree.
Crap spewed by people like Max Schadenfreude, recovering ex-Pentecostal, and sometimes even by Rod Dreher is but yet another sign that the entire subject of gay rights, homosexuality, etc. cannot be reasonably discussed or even debated by anyone without people descending into ill-informed hysteria and rage, families and churches being destroyed, and social institutions becoming diverted from more pressing matters. Whatever happened to MYOB?
A thought experiment for those who think Rod is over-reacting: Would you have be a negative reaction if a museum at or near the King Center in Atlanta exhibited a painting or a sculpture of a nude James Earl Ray giving a nude Martin Luther King a hand-job while holding a gun to his head?
Nice try, Duncan, but r-ex-P's high dudgeon setting is reserved exclusively for "conservative" Christians and their sensibilities.
Substitute Dan White and Harvey Milk in your scenario and then--maybe--he would understand. Even then, I doubt it.
Patrick,
You wanna call what I say crap, fine. But at least get what I say right.
The fruit to which I referred was not the works of art. If you read what I wrote you would see that. I'll save you an up-scroll and post it here:
Very well put. It is the fruit borne of the Tree of the Objectively Disordered. (Pun is appropriate.)>>>
The fruit of the objective disorder of homosexuality is the "deeply impoverished imagination" that considers "having sex is the deepest meaning of what it means to be human."
As far as MYOB, if it's in the public square, it's my biz too. Last time I looked, Repressed Ex Pen's comments were in this public forum. Gay Pride parades are not held behind closed doors.
I don't care about the character of the artist (a Marxist whose sexuality is unknown to me). I care about what's on the canvas, and the fact that that canvas is hanging in a church museum. I would never say that homosexuals cannot be good artists -- does anybody say that? -- or that homosexuality is an unworthy topic of serious moral and theological reflection. It is part of the human condition.
The most basic problem making debate difficult if not impossible is that -- and I'm generalizing -- is anthropological. That is, for gays and their supporters, their sexual identity and its expression is inseparable from their identity, and is in fact the locus of it. For orthodox Christians, that's not the case (not even for heterosexuals). We believe that sex is a positive good, but only when used within certain boundaries -- which doesn't include homosexual or extramarital relations.
It is a modern view, of course, that sexuality is the key to identity; to deny the fullest expression of one's sexual nature (the argument goes) is to deny one's full humanity. I think that when gays hear orthodox Christians say that hsexuality is morally disordered/wrong/etc, they hear, "You are less than human." That doesn't make sense to those who hold to an orthodox Christian anthropology; we would no more call a gay person less than human than we would call a man sleeping with his girlfriend less than human. But that's because sexuality is only part of our humanity, and human identity -- and not the main part, either.
Does this make sense?
Based on some of the accounts I've read of some ultra-repressive Pentecostal and fundamentalist sects, if I grew up in such an environment, I probably would want to defecate on every picture of Jesus that I could, which may explain people like recovering ex-pentecostal and others who reject highly toxic forms of repressive religion. As it happened, I grew up in an MOR Episcopal parish and later turned Catholic, so if anything, my religious sensibilities are closer to what was once called "two-bottle orthodox," so I simply cannot truly empathize with the fringe wingnut/moonbat rage against religion that our culture so often mollycoddles.
I can't imagine any of the gay couples that belong to my church thinking this was anything but silly, juvenile crap. It's a shame that the human imagination has become so literalist, and as Rod said above, so impoverished.
The artist is obviously the opposite of anal retentive. He has to sh*t all over everything to feel authentic. This is really sad, and has nothing to do with gay rights.
Oh yes, let's insult everything you believe and use it as the basis for a serious discussion...
"I would never say that homosexuals cannot be good artists -- does anybody say that?"
That was attributed to me. Only, I never said it, nor have I ever held that opinion.
Makes sense, but aren't you generalizing about "gays." Yes, there's a subset of people for whom sexuality is the locus of their identity. For others, same-sex attraction is simply one attribute of who they are, a fact of their existence, to be accepted or resisted as the case may be.
The question is: when you make a blanket reference to "gays and their supporters", aren't you the one making sexuality the locus of their identity?
Should we have a dialogue about paintings of truckloads of dead babies being unloaded with pitchforks so as to understand the varying perspectives found outside the cultural hegemony of the closed minded irrational rubes who find repelant the unloading of truckloads of dead babies with pitchforks?
Or can we just say that such painting are gross, hideous, and do nothing to improve the human condition? I mean, does one REALLY need both reflection AND discussion with others to realize that?
Do we really need both reflection AND discussion to realize that artworks of Christ sexualized in the most base ways are indeed blasphemous, and further, that honoring such works in the Church is a self-destructive act at best?
"You wanna call what I say crap, fine. But at least get what I say right.
The fruit to which I referred was not the works of art. If you read what I wrote you would see that. I'll save you an up-scroll and post it here:
The fruit of the objective disorder of homosexuality is the "deeply impoverished imagination" that considers "having sex is the deepest meaning of what it means to be human."
While I regret that I was unable to understand the meaning behind your words, with all due respect, you point was written rather cryptically and in short-hand. However, even your clarified assertion is flawed because your "syllogism" is no syllogism, but rather a gross over-generalization in which the conclusion simply doesn't follow from your premise. It is further evidence for my point that people are simply unable to discuss the subject with anything remotely approaching rationality, and thus they probably ought to MYOB of their own accord rather than using the stupidity or mendacity of others as a launching pad for spewing forth their own.
Point well-taken, Dale Price. Perhaps Harvey Milk masturbating a *woman* while Dan White holds a gun to his head would be a better scenario in this particular case.
I was just searching for someone -- anyone -- whom a certain sort of reader of this blog would hold sacred enough to spare from this kind of indignity, and I thought that MLK *might* -- just *might* fit the bill.
Makes sense, but aren't you generalizing about "gays."
Yes, of course. I said as much.
"It is further evidence for my point that people are simply unable to discuss the subject with anything remotely approaching rationality, and thus they probably ought to MYOB of their own accord rather than using the stupidity or mendacity of others as a launching pad for spewing forth their own."
Wow, you must really like yourself! I think people who can't discuss these subjects without lapsing into patronizing and fatuous condemnations should MYOB too. ROFL!
And for the record there Aristotle, I didn't make a syllogism at all. I made a statement. Not being able to tell the difference between a statement and a syllogism calls into question your ability to recognize a proper syllogism even if it hit you on your middle term.
Actually toro toro I think there is traditionally a limit to what is acceptable in Catholic institutions. Used to that limit was much stricter, the Index of books, but it still exists in some form. Example things that reject basics in the Nicene Creed are not part of discussion or clarification. If a priest proclaims Jesus was conceived because Mary had sex with a Roman centurion he's generally "out of there."
In recent times Catholic institutions have become willing to allow just anything, but I don't think this says much about Catholicism itself. The religion still does have solid points which are not open to debate or discussion.
Makes sense, but aren't you generalizing about "gays."
Yes, of course. I said as much.
Ah. So you did. My mistake.
I can't imagine why the humblest curé let alone the Primate of Austria would allow such depictions of blasphemy and sodomy. Is there no longer any such thing as a nihil obstat?
That this infamy occurs on the watch of a man considered papabile is even more inexplicable. Should this nobleman someday wear the fisherman's ring, might we not expect the Sistine ceiling to be transformed into a lurid bathhouse mural?
I once had an Orthodox Rabbi who wrote an article about why homosexuality is forbidden in Judaism. I gave a response at a small discussion group. Basically, I argued 2 points against his view. The first point dealt with the meaning of various words in Biblical Hebrew in the Torah.In other words, I argued that they had been misunderstood. However, I had to concede that this misunderstanding was the basic historical position in Judaism. The other point I made had to with Romantic Love. I argued that Romantic Love was a much more recent concept than many thought and that the question of whether Romantic Love could exist or be accepted between two people of the same sex had actually never been considered until recently. In other words, the point about Modernity cut both ways. It could be understood as an argument for a historical position, in that Modernity was certainly not Tradition, or used as an argument for an old question or position to be newly understood or, rather, to be really considered for the first time, allowing full use of the critical apparatus Modernity has brought us. I don't remember anyone changing their mind, but I do remember the discussion being serious and civil and everyone respected one another in the end. That is how I feel this subject should be dealt with.
After endorsing The Passion, it would be rather hard for the Catholic Church to object to this piece, which, after all, is pretty much what the movie was.
"After endorsing The Passion, it would be rather hard for the Catholic Church to object to this piece, which, after all, is pretty much what the movie was."
Not hard to object: The Way of salvation is the Passion of the Cross, not the Passion of Sex.
So I guess Hieronymus Bosch is right out then.
"So I guess Hieronymus Bosch is right out then."
I don't think Bosch ever painted Christ in degrading sexual situations and offered that as a worthy alternative the the Passion of the Cross. Do enlighten me on which work of his fits that description.
Rod: "In the cathedral museum"
That this happened in Europe sounds like par for the course.
The only question is why something like this hasn't yet occured in a cathedral museum in this country.
Then again, culturewise, Europe is just a few years farther down the road to where we here will shortly be.
I looked at some of Hrdlicka's other art at another location. I think the words "ugly" and "misanthropic" are not too far off the mark in describing it.
Rod, you know very well that Dr. Frank Lazarus, President of the University of Dallas, could explain why it's perfectly OK to exhibit these works of art in a Catholic setting, viz:
"There are a number of principles touching upon, at least, the Catholic character of [a Catholic museum], the nature and purpose of a [museum], academic and artistic freedom, professional judgment, and natural, civil, and moral law that are confounded within this situation, and this statement cannot possibly deal with all of them... Perhaps our Center for Christianity and the Common Good will consider developing an appropriate academic forum so we can, as a community, discuss and debate these principles more fully.....The print itself, in my view, asks a question and depicts biblical and mythological symbols that suggest literary, psychological, and religious archetypes...The question of the “good,” the “true” and “the beautiful” in this issue is difficult to construct and articulate, but this crisis gives us an opportunity to clarify how to align our freedom with those goods...."
So, why are you being so closed-minded about this?
Lest we forget, the partial quote by Dr. Frank Lazarus was of course made in reference to the sacrilegious "art" depicting a semi-naked Virgin Mary as a prostitute, exhibited at the Catholic University of Dallas.
"The only question is why something like this hasn't yet occured in a cathedral museum in this country."
You obviously haven't been in St. John the Divine, NYC, where no religious expression is too bizarre or outrageous not to be honored and affirmed. Except, of course, when the bizarre or outrageous behavior comes from the Right or from conservatives. After all, they must uphold some standards in that place!
I suspect Jason's post of 5:39 yesterday sums it all up. "He's not a very good artist."
Those who can't do, do shock value, those who should be shocked don't want to appear prudish.
Excuse me. Not "prudish" but "intolerant", more P.C., dontcha know.
Cleveland, Patrick, look at the update to the main entry. I just posted a 1993 essay by Terry Mattingly reflecting on how a liturgy at that parish that prayed to Egyptian gods helped drive him out of the Episcopal church.
Thomas R - yes, I distinguished between things which are promulgated as dogma and things which are not. I can't think of any dogmatic prohibition on "this sort of thing".
"That is, for gays and their supporters, their sexual identity and its expression is inseparable from their identity, and is in fact the locus of it. For orthodox Christians, that's not the case (not even for heterosexuals). We believe that sex is a positive good, but only when used within certain boundaries -- which doesn't include homosexual or extramarital relations."
Of course, true heterosexuals would not be having 'homosexual relations'. Besides, it is you who claims sexual orientation is the "locus" of our identity. Many would disagree (myself among them, obviously). Also, the same could, of course, be said for many heterosexuals. You seem to be saying that 'anything goes' for gays when, in fact, we/I also believe that "sex is a positive good, but only when used within certain boundaries".
"It is a modern view, of course, that sexuality is the key to identity; to deny the fullest expression of one's sexual nature (the argument goes) is to deny one's full humanity. I think that when gays hear orthodox Christians say that hsexuality is morally disordered/wrong/etc, they hear, "You are less than human." That doesn't make sense to those who hold to an orthodox Christian anthropology; we would no more call a gay person less than human than we would call a man sleeping with his girlfriend less than human. But that's because sexuality is only part of our humanity, and human identity -- and not the main part, either.
Does this make sense?"
No, Rod, it doesn't, because it isn't true.
You DO call gays "less than human" - frequently! Our relationships, if you will recall, are the equivalent of "marrying a plant" or "marrying an animal". If you could rationally explain to me how this is NOT depicting us as "less than human", perhaps we could actually have a dialogue. Your example that, "we would [not] call a man sleeping with his girlfriend less than human" is disingenuous because you never, ever DO describe them that way. 'He' is "sleeping with his girlfriend", and I've never heard you describe such a relationship as 'sleeping with a plant' OR 'sleeping with an animal'. You simply do not denigrate heterosexual relationships the way you do gay ones.
(Nor is it about the "objectively morally disordered" epithet which, in itself, goes against the calling to treat us with respect - it isn't 'respectful, especially in light of Who did the 'ordering'.)
I'm sorry you decided to 'un-publish' all of my posts, and have tried, in this one, to be more rational. But one of the points I made was to refute your contention that, for gay people, "having sex is the deepest meaning of what it means to be human."
I clearly said it is a part - a very important part - of being human, not the "deepest meaning". And yet you let Max Schadenfreude perpetuate that falsehood:
"The fruit of the objective disorder of homosexuality is the "deeply impoverished imagination" that considers "having sex is the deepest meaning of what it means to be human."
It is not true, and I am not the one who posits that it is.
It's clear from your continued posting, recovering ex-Pentecostal, that this blog host is a master baiter of outraged gay backlash, something the blog depends on for its survival. Don't fall for the bait.
Rod, the Gaia Mass is indeed a very good example of what is wrong with St. John the Divine, and sadly it's not the only loony thing that goes on there. It's a real shame - although many disagree, I think it is a glorious church, architecturally speaking. I can't imagine Bishop Manning and Ralph Adams Cram are at all happy with what's been done to the place.
It's clear from your continued posting, recovering ex-Pentecostal, that this blog host is a master baiter of outraged gay backlash, something the blog depends on for its survival. Don't fall for the bait.
Ain't you clever? In fact, this blog depends for its survival on maintaining an atmosphere of robust but reasonably civil dialogue and discussion among people who strongly disagree. When REP can state his views without shrieking at his opponents, I let his posts remain. Experience shows that maintaining a combox forum in which people essentially scream at each other discourages posting and drives people away. Early in this blog's history, I found that when I succeeded at banning a small but extremely vocal group of posters, participation and readership went way up, and I got e-mails from readers who said that they'd been intimidated or otherwise discouraged from posting in the comboxes because of the heated, needlessly contentious atmosphere.
But if you want to believe that this blog depends on outraged gays throwing fits, don't let me stop you.
Who Knew, good post about "those who can't do, do shock value." I like that. My way of putting it is the artist is stuck in the anal phase - he has the desire to cover everything with his own excrement, and actually thinks other people will be just as fascinated by his excrement as he.
As I said above, there are a number of gay couples at my church. The reason I don't think they would applaud this artist is that they actually have respect for the beliefs and sensitivities of others, as well as good manners and good taste. This is not about freedom of expression, it's about having no sense of personal decency. Even an artist whose aim is to "epater the bourgeoise" does finally need some sense of decency.
"The fruit of the objective disorder of homosexuality is the "deeply impoverished imagination" that considers "having sex is the deepest meaning of what it means to be human."
It is not true, and I am not the one who posits that it is.">>>
Yet you take offense of the term "objectively disordered" when it is applied to your homosexual urges. Quote:
>>
This phrase seems to equate the "self" with the "urge". It shows and inability to separate the "treatement" of the urge from the "treatement" of the individual.
In any event, I have spoken with many homosexuals (and read pro-homosexual commentaries) that do indeed consider sexual identity to be important part of personal identity. Heck, there are heterosexuals who make the same argument about everyone's sexuality. It is the leitmotif of our age.
REP, glad to hear that you don't think your sexuality is the fundamental aspect of you person/soul.
Endorsing that sexuality because one is "created" that way is whole other story.
Maybe the Cardinal is allowing this pinhead "art" to take the wind out of neo-Darwinianism's sails. Check out the manifesto on this subject.
Pauli
"...the entire subject of gay rights, homosexuality, etc. cannot be reasonably discussed or even debated by anyone without people descending into ill-informed hysteria and rage, families and churches being destroyed, and social institutions becoming diverted from more pressing matters. Whatever happened to MYOB?"
MYOB, of course, depends on NOT discussing whatever one's own business may be. MYOB is short for "don't ask don't tell," which, as a lawyer who has handled a number of military cases, I have real problems with. In fact, as nearly as I can tell, conventional anti-gay wisdom among all but the most fanatical is that gay people are welcome to continue doing whatever they do as long as they don't require the rest of us to see or hear anything about it. IOW close that damn closet door.
Which makes the whole issue one of free speech rather than free love. Can we possibly talk about this stuff without getting enraged? Or are we supposed to just dial the clock back a couple of generations and be grateful that nobody is peeking in the closet keyhole?
"MYOB, of course, depends on NOT discussing whatever one's own business may be...conventional anti-gay wisdom among all but the most fanatical is that gay people are welcome to continue doing whatever they do as long as they don't require the rest of us to see or hear anything about it." Marian Neudel
Please try to understand this, Marian-- the opposition of conventional Conservatives to current homosexualism goes beyond what YOU call conventional anti-gay wisdom. Therefore, you are calling Conservatives the most fanatical of people. Is that your business?
The problem is that homosexuals and people like you DO require the rest of us to see or hear about it. They don't want to mind their own business; they want to mind MY business. They want to attack MY religion publicly by gratuitous snarky comments, for example, in this blog, and by gratuitous filthy, blasphemous, in-your face attack-paintings and other "works of art", not in the privacy of their own homes, but in Christian and secular settings open to the public. They do so because they want to whine and act persecuted so that they can try to lay guilt trips on us.
They want to spread, with tax dollars, their disorder to MY children in public schools. (Google "homosexuality in schools")
They want to make it a crime for MY Catholic priests to teach MY religion in the pulpits of MY churches. (Google "hate speech bill")
They want to vilify MY country and destroy MY social beliefs and traditions because they want not only the same rights as everyone else, but more "rights"; "rights" to force private organizations to allow them to go on overnight camping trips with same sex teens, and, if not, then to have those organizations banned from the use of public parks and buildings; "rights" to force members of the same sex armed forces to shower and bunk with them, and so on.
So between me and thee, who's the fanatic, Marian?
Did you see the Reuters article on this topic that plugged the site?
I will first say that I am a non-believer.
It amazes how fundamentalists, be they muslim, christian or jewish, are quick to seize the chance to be offended in the name of their god. How come hard-line believers hardly ever express outrage at seeing poor, hungry, or dispossessed children? Where is the outrage? Why be so concerned about pictures and symbols when there is plenty of outrageousness going on everywhere, all the time, in the REAL world? If people stopped worrying about symbols and icons and cared more about their neighbors, things might be better.
Believers get angry when their beliefs are challenged. The fact is, faith is nothing more than the voluntary abandonment of reason in favor of an unprovable, unlikely, and unreliable story. The foudation is weak, that is why people of faith hate to be challenged.
To believe god cares about oneself more than another, to believe god would make man is his image, is the pinnacle of arrogance. In his image?!? Seriously? Who's in his image? George Bush? Osama Bin Laden? Ann Coulter? The gangs of Darfur? Robert Mugabe? The Crips? The Bloods? Vladimir Putin? The roving gangs of Haïti? The excutioner in Huntsville? Racists? Cheaters? Elliot Spitzer? Dick Cheney? Henry Kissinger? Stalin? Have I left out many god lookalikes? It amazes me how we humans think we are special. Would an all-powerful god really be so crass as to reward people who behave nicely (just to get to heaven or, perhaps more accurately, to avoid hell) and punish people who don't?
Get off your high horses, believers, you are no better and no worse than your neighbors, whether they share your mythological beliefs or not.
R Holder
self-righteous
"Why be so concerned about pictures and symbols when there is plenty of outrageousness going on everywhere, all the time, in the REAL world?"
I presume that you paused from your labor with the poor of Calcutta to write this post?
...It is fitting that you signed "self-righteous."
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.