Racism and homophobia - where we are in 2008

[capt_birdseye]

"Not long now til lunacy,"

what's all that about then? Is this deeply satirical, or could they not think of anything else that rhymed?

[Keef]

Guess they're having a dig at his age, and suggesting that dementia is on the cards. Nice to see that dementia is looked at as lunacy in some circles :-S

[Ted Max]

No, it's a reference to an unstable period he had, when he went missing for a bit.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/feb/05/football.deniscampbell

EDIT to add link.

[Keef]

Ah yes, had forgotten about that.

[Cassius]

Well remember Justin Fashanu - black AND gay and committed suicide after being accused of sexual assult. What was more important there - his colour or his sexual orientation?

[James]

Good point Cassius. It shows that homophobia was (and is) still rife in professional football (how many 'out' footballers are there?) Racism still happens, but once again, it is much less widely acceptable.

[mockney piers]

Graham Le Saux suffered homophobic abuse for years just for reading the guardian and being a bit French

[*Bob*]

You can always count on our national game to bring out the very worst in people.

I'm so proud.

[Asset]

rugby fans much more inclusive

[SeanMacGabhann]

I knew something would occur to resurrect this thread .. and bless

Pope Creepy and Religion - a marriage made in heaven

so does anyone think that the leader of a major christian religion would be able to say anything remotely similar about a group of any race? Of course not... and that is at the core of James' point surely

[Moos]

You make a good point, Sean. The teaching of the Catholic church that the article quotes "homosexuality is not a sin but homosexual acts are" are clearly intended as a get-out clause for discrimination but entirely miss the proven point of sexuality being inborn, as much so as race or fingerprints.

One of the worst aspects of teaching like this is that it may stem from gentle academics who would never willingly hurt anyone but it is used as justification of brutality and harmful discrimination.

It makes me very sad that we still seem unable to move away from this sort of hidebound thinking.

[mockney piers]

I just found it a weird thing to say.

So it's ok to be gay as long as you don't actually have sex, but we'd much rather there weren't any gays at all (even though it's not a sin to be gay, obviously as god made gays, he just doesn't want them to have sex apparently) because it confuses gender issues and the world will die out as it forgets how to procreate even though over population is clearly much more of an issue,isn't it, isn't it?

Basically what a tit*!!!

*that's a non gender specific tit, it could be genuine or it could be a transgender tit, wow, it really is confusing.

[cdonline]

I wish he was honest and would simply come out and say that he doesn't like Gays. That he finds the way we live distasteful and wish we'd all go away.

Wrapping all this bile up, saying that it's all God's Word is a load of piffle. At least. admit that you are homophobic and then we can all realise what a rotten soul runs through this Pope's veins, especially at this time of year.

Good will to all men and women.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Indeed Moos indeed - and I'm not raising it now to have a go at religion at this moment in time (I clearly do that enough and will probably continue doing so at another time) but purely to point out how a powerful institution (could equally be a government - think Italy) is able to confidently condemn homosexuals in a way that they just can't do to other groups of people - and that has nothing to do with gay people "banging on" about how gay they are.

Which is what most people objecting to to James point seemed to assert

[Moos]

Well, yes, that too. Confused? Surely not. Simple answers for a complicated world? Um, no, that won't do.

(was a response to Mockney's post)

[Moos]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Indeed Moos indeed - and I'm not raising it now to

> have a go at religion at this moment in time (I

> clearly do that enough and will probably continue

> doing so at another time) but purely to point out

> how a powerful institution (could equally be a

> government - think Italy) is able to confidently

> condemn homosexuals in a way that they just can't

> do to other groups of people - and that has

> nothing to do with gay people "banging on" about

> how gay they are.

>

> Which is what most people objecting to to James

> point seemed to assert

I completely agree - interestingly though I couldn't imagine Rowan Williams getting away with similar statements - but the RC church has always taken a harder line on practically everything. Telling women living in poverty across the world that God intended them to have (and probably lose) a 9th child is equally abysmal in my view.

[Brendan]

I?ve just been speaking to a friend and colleague who got back from Rwanda yesterday. He has been telling me about the first hand accounts he heard about the Catholic Church?s support for and involvement in the genocide there in 1994.* This isn?t some medieval inquisition but a very real event that took place just over a decade ago. As part of it Catholic priests called their Tutsi congregations to gather in church and then allowed Hutu militia to butcher them.

In my opinion it is organisations like the church that the world needs protecting from. They can take their opinions on ?oo knobs ?oo and shove ?em.

*The French government also played an active part.

[Jeremy]

Do the majority of Catholics agree with what the pope is saying? Does anyone know any Catholics who would openly disagree with the pope's views, or who take a tolerant line?

[SeanMacGabhann]

well Rowan Williams wouldn't be so silly as to express them as explicitly but he is certainly less than reassuring - from Wiki for example:

"In an August 19, 2006 interview with the Dutch newspaper Nederlands Dagblad, Williams discussed the Episcopal Church in the United States of America's increasingly liberal policies regarding homosexuality, saying that "in terms of decision-making the American Church has pushed the boundaries."[23] Williams argued that the Church had to be "welcoming", rather than "inclusive", a distinction he characterised by saying: "I don't believe inclusion is a value in itself. Welcome is. We don't say 'Come in and we ask no questions'. I do believe conversion means conversion of habits, behaviours, ideas, emotions. The boundaries are determined by what it means to be loyal to Jesus Christ."[23] Moreover, the Archbishop appeared to distance himself from his more liberal 1989 essay, explaining, "That was when I was a professor, to stimulate debate? It did not generate much support and a lot of criticism ? quite fairly on a number of points."[23] However, in a later interview with Time magazine in June 2007, he stated that he had not changed his own mind, although he is now constrained from expressing personal views at variance with the corporate view of the Church. In answer to the question "You yourself once thought it possible that same-sex relationships might be legitimate in God's eyes" he responded: "Yes, I argued that in 1987. I still think that the points I made there and the questions I raised were worth making as part of the ongoing discussion. I'm not recanting. But those were ideas put forward as part of a theological discussion. I'm now in a position where I'm bound to say the teaching of the Church is this, the consensus is this. We have not changed our minds corporately. It's not for me to exploit my position to push a change."[24]"

it goes on to say

"In 2008, it was reported that Williams had stated in 2000 or 2001 that homosexual relationships could "reflect the love of God" in a manner comparable to heterosexual marriages, and that he believed that passages in the Bible which are often cited in support of the view that homosexuality is a sin, in fact are aimed at heterosexual people seeking variety in their sexual experience, rather than at gay people.[27]"

which to my mind makes things worse - what's wrong with "heterosexual people seeking variety in their sexual experience" - did I miss a memo?

[SeanMacGabhann]

Jeremy - I would say most Catholics (and I'm from Ireland remember - I know a couple) have a superstitious support of the pope - if it interferes with their enjoyment of life they ignore him but if he supports a prejudice they quote him ... er... religiously

And remember with the economy going to the dogs, many older Catholics are LITERALLY rubbing their hands saying "well this means more people will come back to the church now"

It almost makes me wish the whole thing was true so they could burn in hell

[mockney piers]

Well here are the catechisms on homosexuality; at once ignorant, arrogant and supremely patronising.

They of course might want to get their own house in order and persuade abusive priests of the "[call] to chastity...by the virtues of self-mastery", leave alone protecting the sick fucks, before lecturing anyone else!!!

  Quote

#2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture*, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ?homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.? They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

#2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God?s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord?s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

#2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

*now I'm no expert but I beleive the gospels have next to nothing to say about this other than some general attendance at non-gay weddings, so the sacred scripture referred to must be OT, which of course has a lot of very weird things to say about a lot of weird subjects. Nothing in the catechism about avoiding shellfish for instance. Damned cherry-pickers.

emphasis mine

[mockney piers]

Agreed Sean, most Catholics brought up as such (Spain and Ireland being where I know most from) seem to have a very cherry-picking attitude to what suits them and what doesn't.

I've met a few converts in my time who tend to be less questioning (is that the word?). I'd be interested to know what TB has to say about this one.

[Moos]

Rowan Williams is another academic who loves to muse academically about things that actually impact people's lives. The articles you cite to me suggest a man attempting to reconcile his personal views with his responsiblity as spokesman for his Church. Anyway, my point - which you have tacitly accepted with 'silly' - is that the society and culture in which he moves (including, I hope, a great number of his congregations) would not tolerate the same kind of open homophobia that the Pope is happy to dole out. That said, I don't wish to try to undermine or minimise the very valid point you made in re: the damage these statements can make.

[SeanMacGabhann]

cheers Moos - mostly I'm just trying to give James some small and belated support in an argument I think he was badly treated in..

The churches (plural) view on the subject is worthy of more debate - possibly on another thread about religion generally. But I'm not starting it... I'll get by nose punched ;-)

[mockney piers]

"I'll get by nose punched"

It sounds like you already have!!