Camille on gays, Christianity and the West

My God, she's full of c--p! She's really no different from the academics you usually love to mock, having made a career out of academic nothingness.

"which can be openly practiced only in peaceful, affluent, cosmopolitan period"

Then why did it flourish in warlike, less-than-affluent largely rural societies like (ancient) Macedon? Maybe she means homosexuality as a lifestyle, instead of regular but "isolated" acts of homosexuality, but even so, her opinion seems sort of misinformed.

Oh my, Camille feels that WE (gay men) lack the capacity for self-examination?!

Not saying I disagree, though it is a bit of a generalization. But coming from this source, a lesbian infatuated with overheated male sexuality, violence and rape, I can only LOL!

"Oh my, Camille feels that WE (gay men) lack the capacity for self-examination?"

Of course she meant group CULTURAL self-examination. I fear there is no lack of other types of group self-examination.

I always like Camille. But a lesbian's point of view, even when correct in large part, about men in general and gay men particularly, is very female no matter how you slice and dice it. Lesbians are as different from gay men as men are from women. And besides, although this is hard to grasp, all ‘gay’ men are hardly an urban monolith. The CEO I had dinner with last week with 5 kids who spearheads solar energy development is hardly a tight jean kid from rural American who gravitated to the gay urban world worshiping buff bods and Mariah Carey. But he is indeed gay. And I might add a strong 'conservative'. As is in many ways Paglia.

Anyway, since women have always, in my mind, tended to judge male behavior as inherently defective, there you have it.

Men have always lied about their nature. After all, what is in it for them if the truth be told? Ridicule from other men who disown them because they did not hold to the secret codes?. Or women who punish men as dogs because their desires are not female coordinant.

Men...gay or straight...see sex quite differently and with multiple contexts whereas that is far less the case when the hormone surge is estrogen vs. testosterone.

I'm interested in exploring the point she makes about homosexuality needed urbanity and civilization to thrive, and the extent to which urbane civilization depends on a stable social order, which depends in part on religious institutions.

Paglia's being her provocative self, of course, but I think in her way, she's making a Sorokinesque point: that society thrives in creative tension between its sensate side and its ideational side.

Fromthe Article:" . . .So gays should quit bitching about Southern Baptists exercising their constitutional right to free speech about homosexuality, which is indeed condemned by the Bible, despite the tortuous casuistry of so many self-interested parties, including clerics."

___________________________

Fortuitously, the Canadian Human Rights Commission just recently handed down sentence on Stephen Boisson, the Christian pastor who wrote some disparaging remarks about the gay life-style in the Red Deer Advocate.

So, here's what the thought crime tribunals have in store for those of us who don't know when to shut up:

" .. . Lori Andreachuk, the human rights commissioner who issued the order, started off by acknowledging that “there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward.”

"The complainant was the town scold, an anti-Christian activist named Darren Lund with an axe to grind. Andreachuk’s first order was that “Dr. Lund, although not a direct victim, did expend considerable time and energy and suffered ridicule and harassment as a result of his complaint. The Panel finds therefore that he is entitled to some compensation.”

"So a busybody with no standing spends his time filing complaints — and gets a tax-free reward for doing so. For his “suffering” — not at the hands of Rev. Boission, but “as a result of his complaint.” People in Red Deer ridiculed Lund for being a tattle-tale and a censor — as they should. But Rev. Boissoin must pay for that.

"Her order continued: “Mr. Boissoin … shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.”

"Boissoin can never communicate anything “disparaging” about gays again. It’s a lifetime ban — and it applies to every conceivable medium, including his private e-mails and public sermons.

. . .

"But Andreachuk was just getting warmed up. Rev. Boissoin must “provide Dr. Lund with a written apology for the article in the Red Deer Advocate, which was the subject of this complaint.” The Alberta government couldn’t convince a Christian pastor that he’s wrong, so it will just order him to condemn himself. . . .

"This is like a Third World jail-house confession — where accused criminals are forced to sign false statements of guilt. But jail-house confessions pretend to be real. Not here. Andreachuk just comes out and says it: You’re going to say you’re sorry, even if you aren’t.

"In the final insult, Rev. Boissoin was ordered to “request [his] written apology for the contravention of the Act be published in the Red Deer Advocate.”

"Rev. Boissoin doesn’t just have to issue a false apology to Lund. He has to publicly humiliate himself, by publicly declaring his contrition — contrition he does not feel — and his abandonment of his deeply-held religious beliefs.

"So a pastor cannot give a sermon he actually believes in. Instead, he must give a false sermon; he must apologize to his accuser for his Christian faith. And then that pastor is ordered to declare to his entire city that he has renounced his faith, even though he has not.

"And then he’s fined $7,000. . . ."

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/06/11/ezra-levant-on-the-human-rights-show-trial-of-christian-pastor-stephen-boissoin.aspx

And there you have it.

And there you have it.
Posted by: Lynn | June 16, 2008 5:43 PM

Wow, I'm glad I'm not a Canadian and that I live in the USA where more than 200 years of settled case law would protect my right to criticize homosexual behavior...

If I were inclined to do that, which I'm not.

Rawlins Reality Czech,

Anyway, since women have always, in my mind, tended to judge male behavior as inherently defective, there you have it.

Men have always lied about their nature. After all, what is in it for them if the truth be told? Ridicule from other men who disown them because they did not hold to the secret codes?. Or women who punish men as dogs because their desires are not female coordinant.

No way. It's normal for men and women who are correctly ordered to complete each other, and thus they would naturally enjoy and respect each other's nature. The idea that men and women are at at loggerheads does not, to me, meet the reality check. Not by experience nor by science.

In fact, a good dividing line between social conservatives and liberals is that the cons believe men and women are good for each other, that the natural family is healthy for both men and women, and that the war between the sexes is disordered. Liberals, otoh, generally believe that disharmony between the sexes is a normal thing - hence the roots of male support of abortion and female support of feminism.

I fail to understand the fascination with Miss Paglia's opinions, except perhaps the schadenfreude of seeing Beelzebub's kingdom divided against itself. What true thing has she said that hasn't been better said by someone actually coming from a Christian perspective?

As to the Canadian situation: I dearly hope that the pastor has the courage to refuse to pay the fine and go to prison for Christ, so that more would recognize this for the rank persecution that it is.

"Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard."

So John,

If burning a flag and dropping a crucifix in urine are all protected forms of expression under the 1st amendment, why is dropping a Quran in a toilet within a certain (as yet undertermined) distance of a muslim a "hate crime?"

Man arrested for "Hate Crime" of Quran desecration"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017558.php

Don't worry John, I'll take up your slack.
Posted by: Max Schadenfreude | June 16, 2008 6:34 PM

Thanks Max, just not in Canada. Would hate to have to bail you out.

Ahhh John, you're such an optimist.
Posted by: Lynn | June 16, 2008 6:45 PM

Not really, just that I don't have an unfounded persecution complex.

If burning a flag and dropping a crucifix in urine are all protected forms of expression under the 1st amendment, why is dropping a Quran in a toilet within a certain (as yet undertermined) distance of a muslim a "hate crime?"
Posted by: Lynn | June 16, 2008 7:59 PM

Do I really have to explain the subtle nuance between 'arrested and charged with a crime' and 'convicted of a crime' to you?

John:

I'm not sure what the final disposition was, and it's very likely that he pled to some lesser charge - most people do. Still, the existence of such a law and the threat of such a charge will certainly cause others to think twice before committing "blasphemous" acts against the Quran in the future (at least within sight of a muslim). And that's the whole point.

I don't think this point can be overstated:
"people don't realize how fragile civilization is, and how easily what we think of as solid can melt."

About free speech: US support for free speech, in comparison with Europe and Canada, is one thing, along with the right to bear arms, that would encourage me to apply to migrate there (admittedly, there are other things that would put me off). Personally, I would like to see performing artists, in every town centre, wiping the Quran in pig excrement. The "harmonious civil society" would arise when the Muslims had rioted and been shot.

"The "harmonious civil society" would arise when the Muslims had rioted and been shot."

What an awaful person you are.

John E.: Should flushing a Koran, or a Bible, be illegal?

In my opinion, no, if it is a private act or a public act observed voluntarily. It's not right if it's intended to cause intense distress. It's also not right if it frustrates public policy, as in, does a soldier flushing a Koran help or thwart military efforts in Iraq? Does that soldier endanger other lives by doing this stupid thing?

What's despicable and what's illegal aren't always the same. This was illegal, despicable, and possibly treasonous.

"the insulting disrespect shown by gay activists to religion"

Why don't we play the game of listing the myriad occsions in which religious extremists show insulting disrespect to gay people? That'd be some fun.

And we wouldn't have to dig 10 years into the archives for examples, either.

Ms Paglia is full of a word Rod won't let me type here.

Lynn, I too heard about the Boisson case. Unfortunately this is not an isolated occurrence - Canada's laughable "human rights" commission system has long been used to punish politically incorrect speech.

"If you're hired by a foreign (in this case, US) hate-organization to inspire violence, in my opinion, you still can think what you want, but you can't necessarily say it if you have a series of convictions of assault, fraud, and conspiracy to commit assault."

Care to tell me what "hate-organization" you're talking about? Or what the assault case involved? Or how defending Christian doctrine regarding homosexuality is considered "inspiring violence"? This nonsense makes me wish I was back in Bulgaria where the homosexual lobby is virtually non-existent and citizens are free to criticize abnormal sexuality - although not for long, if the EU has anything to say about it.

Rob:

If you're still checking this thread, and you're so inclined, please watch these clips, especially parts IV and V, then tell me how Levant gets it wrong:

http://www.primetimepolitics.com/primetime/site/video/ezra_levant_on_the_michael_coren_show/