One might be tempted to deny that even those advancing such nonsense seriously believe what they are trying to sell, but I suspect they really do believe it. When one's conception of society is predicated on the notion that certain groups deserve — or have been granted by divine fiat — special privileges and authority over everyone else, then it's easy to conclude that any move towards greater equality is really an attempt to undermine the principles which make society function. It is also, of course, a rebellion against God — a sin to be quashed like attempted theft or murder.
Pope Benedict XVI is an excellent example of this:
The Pontiff, in an apparent swipe at gay marriage, criticized policies that undermine the traditional family unit based on a union between a man and a woman. "I wanted to shed light on the direct relationship that exists between the family and peace in the world," the Pope said, in his first public address of 2008. "The family is the primary agent of peace and the negation or even the restriction of rights of the family ... threatens the very foundations of peace."
Benedict, leader of the world's 1.1 billion Roman Catholics, urged followers to reject challenges to the family "darkening the truth of man". Quoting from a message he issued in December to mark the Church's World Day of Peace on January 1, Benedict said the family was "the first and non-substitutable educator of peace". He also said that if the world wanted to live in peace, it would need to recognize those universal values that all people share as part of a single, "human family".
Source: Reuters
So, the "very foundations of peace" are being threatened by people who want to expand the legal conception of "family" beyond what Benedict and like-minded people think is "traditional" and expected?
Bligbi comments:
Seriously, how can there be peace when center members of our various societies are denied the same rights and privileges enjoyed by the majority? When any attempt to extend those rights and privileges to them are referred to, on an international scale, to be an attack on peace itself? Such a peace is a fraud and anyone who supports such a fraud is a disgrace.
I can understand the confusion here, but perhaps some of that confusion can be alleviated by considering that Benedict isn't using the same definition of "peace" as the rest of us. In Fighting Words: The Origins Of Religious Violence, Hector Avalos explores how the Hebrew word “shalom” should be translated:
Self-serving translations are mostly responsible for representing the Hebrew shalom as “peace” in many instances in the Hebrew Bible. The idea that shalom means little more than “domination” is already found in Johannes Pedersen, who is criticized by Niditch for this idea. Pedersen, however, seems to restrict his remarks to ancient periods when he writes, “In the olden time peace is not in itself the opposite of war.” Pedersen could be echoing Clausewitz’s putative view that “peace is continuation of struggle only by other means.” In fact, it can be shown that both the etymology and the use of shalom in the Hebrew Bible is often consistent with an imperialistic approach to the world... The overwhelming meaning, whether as a verb or as noun, is usually “repayment,” “reward,” or “retaliation.” ...
Even the supposedly more peaceful utopia envisioned in some portions of Isaiah, one finds hegemony and peace linked: “His authority shall grow continually, and there shall be endless peace for the throne of David and his kingdom. He will establish and uphold it with justice and with righteousnes from this time onward and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this” (Isa. 9:7). But what is envisioned is a kingdom ruled by Yahweh on his terms and with everyone in slavery to him and his kingdom or paying tribute to him.
It makes sense that “peace” would involve domination in these contexts because God isn’t likely to be willing to negotiate and compromise with enemies — but that’s what is necessary for there to be a peace based upon mutual respect and equal freedom. The god of the ancient Israelites is an absolutist god with no interest in compromises, negotiations, dissent, mutual respect, or equal freedom. For such a god, the only peace that’s needed is a peace achieved through the subjugation of those who can or might oppose it.
We shouldn’t be surprised if similar notions about what “peace” entails has filtered down into the religions which have descended from ancient Judaism: Christianity, Islam, and of course modern Judaism. If peace requires submission and obedience, then disobedience for the sake of equality is naturally a threat to peace. Pope Benedict's claim that equality for gays threatens "peace" makes a lot more sense if we treat "peace" as simply the submission of people's to the will and dictates of God — as interpreted and administered by God's representatives in the Catholic Church, of course.
Peace can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people and when we are talking about peace, we shouldn’t assume that others mean the same thing that we do. If someone says that Christianity or Islam is a “religion of peace,” find out what they think “peace” entails — does it allow for everyone to live freely and to follow their own conscience, or does it require people to submit to the authoritarian rule of particular religious leaders?
Yesterday I was watching a biography on Ellen DeGeneres. My 13 year old asked – “Why do people care what other people do?”
What a good questions. Why do they care if people are gay, lesbian, atheist, believe in unicorns, etc?
I realize the excuse is the bible. But really why?
After reading your first paragraph, and the title, I thought, “I don’t know what’s more absurd, that people promote such crap, or that there are actually people who believe it.”
Then I saw your next sentence, “One might be tempted to deny that even those advancing such nonsense seriously believe what they are trying to sell, but I suspect they really do believe it.”
You’re not kidding. It’s crazy. And it really saddens me, to the core, to see people living in such heightened states of fear. I think fear is the number one impediment people have to actually living their lives (in countries where they’re not physically fighting for their lives/survival, anyway). It stops people in their tracks. Keeps them from trying new things. It’s a mental cage people create for themselves and then hide inside to different degrees.
I’m not the most fearless person on the planet; but I believe we “live” in direct proportion to our capacity to subdue our fears and “do” things in our lives. Fear paralyzes our minds and our bodies. And I’ve never looked back at anything in my life and thought, “I wish I’d been more afraid.” But I have looked back and thought, “I wish I’d have done/tried that when I had the opportunity–but I was too scared.”
There are enough things in life to have a healthy fear/respect for. There’s no need to create demons around every corner–to paralyze ourselves with self-generated fears with no basis in reality.
It really does break my heart sometimes to consider what could be accomplished if people were less afraid, and didn’t succumb to fearmongering messages, like this one.
I can understand the pope’s concern, after all, what comes after gay rights? Animal rights? That would certainly threaten the pope’s desire to have his sheep and eat it too.
Pope Benedict believes that societal acceptance of homosexual relationships threatens the very foundations of peace.
Fred Phelps believes that societal acceptance of homosexual relationships is responsible for the Iraq war. (And Katrina, and AIDS, etc.)
Phelps is more specific in his claims and less politic in his manner of expression, but both these men uphold exactly the same abhorrent principles and both use the same text to justify their bigotry and lust for power. It is strange that “moderate” theists revile Phelps but show respect for Benedict. I guess the packaging is more important to them than the message is.
Come to think of it, that might be the defining characteristic of “moderate” theists.
“Come to think of it, that might be the defining characteristic of “moderate” theists.”
Well said.
Once again, a pope prescribes for all others before getting his own house in order.
Okay, this statement coming from a man who said a few months earlier that the decline of the world’s morals was due to atheism. This very man is a member of the same religion a few years ago was exposed for pedophile priests whom the church knew about then protected. That is just a great example of their virtue of honesty; of course the church took a big financial hit in having to pay reparations for the victims due to the scandal.
Wow, Palpatine is really off his rocker.
(This very man is a member of the same religion a few years ago was exposed for pedophile priests whom the church knew about then protected)
Not too long ago, a catholic man at a gathering that I was attending was lording it over me about not believing. He acknowledged having been molested himself when he was a child. He made excuses for it, pointing up the importance of going to mass and giving time to the Lord. My reply to him: If you stayed in the church knowing full well that the church was protecting pedophile priests, then, your hands are dirty! It got awfully quiet in the room!
Is there any world peace to be threatened by gays or anything else the pope doesn’t like? I just wish he would stay away from my crotch.
“Wow, Palpatine is really off his rocker.”
I think the pope is much scarier than Palpatine will be. Palpatine is just a made up character based on several historical figures such Hitler, Stalin, and various Roman emperors. Benedict is a real person by attempting enforce authoritarian ideas that are either outdated or lack any support.
“Is there any world peace to be threatened by gays or anything else the pope doesn’t like? I just wish he would stay away from my crotch.”
Benedict would probably claim the crotch as full of sin which will contribute to downfall of western civilization as we know it. Then again, he probably has already said that.
Gotweirdness. The crotch is going to be the downfall of humanity in any case if we don’t do something. demographics scare me
More like Austin’s GAY-theism blog!
I can never understand how a christian person can reconcile their hate for homosexuals with the teachings of Christ. I believe their behaviour makes them a sinner. The family is under direct threat from parents and family members who physically and emotionally abuse children, there have been many cases of that in New Zealand recently. When christian church leaders speak out strongly condeming that then I can believe they have real courage, not a hollow courage to attack minority groups, until then they are sinners.