The St Nicholas Anglican church in Corfe Mullen, Dorset, is pushing heterosexual privilege in exactly this way. People there have complained because a lesbian couple, Kersten Pegden and Nina Lawrence, dared to hold hands and look at each other. Such behavior has been labeled "overtly sexual" -- but the sexual implications was entirely in the minds of the observers. Maybe they were so embarrassed by their own sexual thoughts in church that they decided to blame and scapegoat the gays? Wouldn't be the first time...
Miss Pegden, 38, had attended the church for many years. She separated from her husband last September and is now going through a divorce. She began a relationship with Miss Lawrence , 31, last November but the new relationship had split the congregation of mainly elderly people, Miss Pegden said. ...
'The vicar, who is a woman, wanted to know the details about my divorce, how long it was going to be, and the fact it had dragged on too long. And she said members of the congregation said that during hymns we were dishonouring God because they said we were singing the hymns to each other, and that we were overtly sexual with each other.
'The church says it accepts gay people as long as they are not practising. As soon as I had a partner they knew we were practising, but they can't refuse entry to anyone. Instead they said we must not associate with each other while we were at church. They said it was our choice. But it was an impossible choice.
'They said even the way we looked at each other was not acceptable. And as I was not divorced from my husband I was seen to be openly adulterous as well.'
Source: Daily Mail (via: The Freethinker)
The church's official statement on all of this is that "Issues have arisen with members of the congregation which are being addressed compassionately." Yeah, it sounds like they are being awfully "compassionate." I think society would be a lot more healthy if we had a lot less of that sort of Christian "compassion." What we need is less "compassion" that serves to excuse, justify, or perpetuate bigotry and a lot more concern with justice, equality, and basic humanity.
Miss Pegden has written a letter to the vicar, Rev Pamela Walker, telling her why she was leaving the church, which she has attended for four years.
The letter included the line: 'I have spent 25 years hiding and do not wish to continue that now.'
I hope Kersten Pegden realizes that getting her to "hide" is one of the main goals behind the actions of people in St Nicholas Anglican church. Attacking normal, innocuous behavior like this is designed to make people feel more self-conscious and even ashamed, leading to self-censorship and repression in public and sometimes even in private.
Making people ashamed of who they are and of expressing normal human emotions or thoughts is how privileged groups preserve their privilege. It's difficult to defend privilege openly in a liberal democracy, but if you can get people to self-censor and oppress themselves internally, then there's never a conflict between the oppressive agenda of privilege and the anti-oppression ideals of liberal democracy.
Avoiding a conflict means avoiding the possibility that state and culture take direct action against unjust privilege. Privilege is thus preserved without anyone ever having to make a public, direct, and honest defense of their desire to oppress minorities. Even apologists for privilege recognize that such a defense would be difficult at best, so it's in their interest if the oppressed learn to oppress themselves, keeping any debate over the matter out of the courts and public eye.
It always boggles my mind that anyone who is gay can also be a Christian. It’s like an African-American signing up for membership in the KKK.
The behavior of this church towards these two women is appalling, but not very surprising.
One of the strongest examples of this is how heterosexual complain about allegedly “provocative” sexual behavior from gays which, when seen among straights, is treated as completely unremarkable. — Austin
Not only unremarkable, but laudable, dear, sweet! Think if an elderly straight couple held hands and gave each other moony looks during the church service. Everyone would smile at how cute they were.
I don’t believe this to be true. It is disrespectful to be in God’s house and not giving him full attention and worship. The elderly in my church feel that way and wouldn’t dare be disrespectful enough to use their worship time to serenade each other.
As for the young couples, they have enough respect to keep hands off during church service.
I am not saying this is what happened with this couple but that is how the atheist made it sound.
Because some of those rules are stupid, immoral, and even dangerous perhaps?
Except that homosexuality isn’t a lifestyle.
How is it more disruptive for gays to hold hand than for straight people to hold hands?
Christians, though, feel free to show as much hate as they want…
So, how is holding hands “not giving full attention”?
You seriously think that “holding hands” is the same as serenading?
No one in church should ever hold hands?
Feel free to show how.
Z – Nobody cares when a father holds his son’s hand, or a mother holds her daughters. Are the overzealous morons now going to call that “homosexual incest”? Where I’ve grown up and lived, if two young girls held hands, say under 10 years, people would call that cute. Yet if two little boys held hands while walking, even as young as four years old, morons would call them “little faggots” despite there being nothing sexual about it.
Also, having lived in other countries, it would be curious to see how rednecks and gay-hating morons would react. In France, it’s common for women to walk arm in arm, joined at the elbow. And when I lived in Korea, sometimes I would see friends holding hands – same sex heterosexuals, including adults both women and men. It wasn’t widespread Korean behaviour, but it was common enough to be perfectly normal.
Bah.
Two things. The church congregation is mostly elderly, and these people will soon die off, replaced by grandchildren who either don’t attend a church, or who are atheists. This makes the world a better place.
Secondly, why do women, and why do gays, attend and support religious institutions? Free yourself from your own chains! Religions exist to serve patriarchs. I’ll never understand why women support institutions which oppress them, or why gays would even want to belong to a religion which specifically hates them.
I think the main problem the church has really was the fact that she is still married to my Dad, who also attends the same church!
I don’t understand why everyone gets so upset when the church defends the rules God has given us to live by so that our lives can be fulfilled and free from “chains” you all speak of.
Yes, the church loves and accepts everyone and this includes gays but they do not have to accept their lifestyle just as they do not have to accept the lifestyle of an alcoholic. If an alcoholic was in church being disruptive he would be asked to not come that way either. That they want him there but sober.
The reality is God LOVES ALL OF US. That means he turns NOBODY away from coming to hear his word. However, the bible plainly says homosexuality is not of his ways and thus brings only pain and heartache to this world we live in.
I have a baby out of wed-lock. I know pre-maritial sex is wrong, engaged in it, and when I became pregnant my sin was exposed. I did not stop going to church even though I knew some people were judging and everyone was able to see my sin.
Regardless Sin is WRONG and when we are committing it (as everyone does) it will be brought to light. It is only obvious that if you are a gay couple in church you may feel judged….as a non-wed mother might. You cannot be mad though at the church for defending their God. And at that this church did nothing wrong. They did not ban them from attending which would be against God’s word…People want to sin and then go to church and act as though they are not sinning….it’s not possible.
First off, I’m a Christian. Second, I would not consider Anglican’s to be Christian. They are Catholic’s. There are many differences. Third, as a Christian, I do not believe that one can claim to be a Christian and be gay. I don’t believe the congregation has the right to be judgmental but rather hold fellow members accountable.
If we should take your word for it, why shouldn’t we take others’ word for it as well? What gives you the authority to determine who is and is not a “real” Christian?
Says who?
Maybe someone else believes that a person cannot clam to be a Christian and to deny the Christianity of others — especially of people they don’t know and have never met. Where does that leave you?