Carry On Rome

The Lord Giveth

What a week it's been in the Carry On Rome series.  In case, you missed it, an interim draft report on the family came out earlier this week from a Synod of over 200 Roman Catholic Bishops.

This document included some "liberal", "inclusive" language on gay people.  It was only a working draft report for a fuller synod next year, but it was enough for people to speak of an "earthquake" in Rome.   In some respects, an earthquake it was; this move was pretty much unthinkable under John Paul II or the arch-conservative Benedict XVI.  The Catholic Bishops' work certainly got some great responses online from the more excitable faithful:

However, if you're not wrapped up in a bubble of Catholic belief, and aren't entirely sure whether Our Lady of Fatima is referring to:

• A) the former Olympic British javelin thrower; or 
• B) the ghostly apparition of a 2000 year old dead Jewish woman, who apparently appeared to some Portuguese shepherd children in 1917

Then this requires further examination.

By any normal, non-Church standards the language in the interim church shouldn't have got you praying.  The most positive thing it said was that homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community.  Wow, we're human beings who have qualities.  Groundbreaking.  It then posed the question whether the Church was capable of welcoming "these people" into the Church and described us as an "important educative challenge".  Having given these crumbs and posed a question, it went on to affirm that "unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman" and spoke about the "moral problems connected to homosexual unions".

So, the above words, which said our unions are second class and mentioned their moral problems, was heralded as a ground-breaking, liberal, welcoming document that threatened schism within the Church.  Guys, this isn't actually exactly the Pope coming out on stage wearing a rainbow tutu accompanied by the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.  Srsly.

And the Lord Taketh Away

But then even the crumbs were scraped back.  This was because of a vocal backlash amongst conservative bishops.  Watered down language was instead proposed that removed the revolutionary statement that we have gifts and qualities to offer.   As the new version really didn't "give" gay people anything that wasn't already the case, it's extraordinary that 62 bishops are so deeply homophobic they felt the need to vote against it.   It therefore failed the 2/3 majority required and a new, third draft was created.  The "welcoming" language was thus entirely removed and we are left instead with a document that states:

There is no basis whatsoever to assimilate or to draw even remote analogies between same-sex unions and the plan of God for marriage and family.

So my steady, loving, same-sex relationship may not have any even remote analogies drawn between it and a marriage.  It does not constitute a family in the eyes of Rome - nor do those of countless same-sex couples across the world, many of whom are bringing up children, very happily and very successfully.

Justified Discrimination

Amazingly, in the same breath, and without seeing any contradiction at all, the document then goes on to say we must be accepted with respect and sensitivity, and every sign of unjust discrimination should be avoided.

I love the insertion of the word "unjust".  The Bishops are at least not so blind that they realise that actively encouraging over a billion of their faithful to treat us as less than everyone else does indeed constitute discrimination.  It's just they think it's okay, and is what their god wants.  It's the kind of statement a die-hard supporter of Apartheid might have said.  Shutting out black people from opportunity and civic life by means of racial discrimination was legal, and in their minds entirely justified.  As long as it was done with sensitivity, no problem at all.

Let's then throw in U.S. Cardinal Burke's comments during the Synod that a couple should keep their grandchildren away from their gay son or daughter at Christmas.  That "moral dilemma" was, he said, "made more delicate by the aggressiveness of the homosexual agenda".  Because, as any reasonable person knows, expecting to be welcomed by your own flesh and blood at Christmas is highly aggressive, and just the type of militant thing we homosexuals so unreasonably demand. 

A time of goodwill to all mankind. Unless they're LGBT.

If you'd like to read the exact texts of the draft report as proposed, and as passed, here's a link.  With typical English understatement, the Catholic commentator Damian Thompson put it like this:

The Catechism

None of this should of course be unsurprising if you're familiar with the language of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which was put together in the 1990s by the later Pope Benedict XVI.  It's remarkably recent.  Everything you need to know is there in 2357 and 2358, just below the stuff on incest and rape.  It states that homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity, contrary to natural law and intrinsically disordered.   It says under no circumstances can they be approved of.  We who have "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" have an inclination which is objectively disordered.  It apparently constitutes "a trial" for most of us and is a "condition" the psychological genesis of which remains largely unexplained.  The only way to deal with this trial is celibacy.

As this Catholic priest and psychotherapist comments, "any effort by a gay person to reach out for human sexual love, no matter what the circumstances, is judged as evil.  The Vatican says that "if gay people enter into a human sexual love relation they know evil and will separate themselves from the love of God."  If this isn't religious extremism, I'm not sure what is.  The priest concerned calls the Catechism the worst document issued from the Church since it declared in 1866 that "slavery itself.. is not all contrary to the divine and natural law."

Not just gay Catholics, but all gay men and women around the world are dealt with in this way, in a few lines, following on from the subject of rape.  A nice question mark is vaguely, but entirely deliberately cast over our mental health.  Of course pretty much every reputable psychological association around the world has concluded from actual empirical evidence that homosexuality does not imply psychological disorder, but that didn't stop Benedict.  Having thrown this slur out there, the text then goes on, just as is the Synod discussion paper, to say we should of course be treated with respect, compassion and sensitivity, blah blah.

I should like to remain charitable, but I'm struggling.  In both instances there is a massive inherent contradiction: you cannot say we should be treated with respect and sensitivity, when you also systematically state we are worth less than you, that our relationships can in no way be placed on a par with yours, that we have a psychological condition, and that if we have sex with our partners we know evil and cut ourselves off from the love of the god that you're so keen on.  

I just can't don't see how you square a belief in the Catechism or that Synod draft and saying these things to my face, with at the same time being sensitive, compassionate and respectful to me.  You can't.  It's like sensitively inviting a vegetarian along to watch the slaughter of a pig followed by compassionately and respectfully offering them a nice gammon steak. 

We, the Disordered

Oh, but try they do.  A couple of Catholics have tried to explain to me that I shouldn't be offended in the slightest by any of this.  No, no, the words "objectively disordered" is just technical language that carries a special meaning in this context.  It simply means that when gay people have sex they are deprived of "god's gift" of creating a child.  According to Rome, only sex acts which can result in babies are natural: everything else is by definition disordered in the sense that you don't reproduce as a result.

I must therefore, I am patronisingly told by a heterosexual Catholic on Twitter, feel a personal loss that when I make love to my boyfriend because he can't get pregnant as a result.  Except I don't.  Not for one moment.

Not on the top of my shopping list. No, really.

What is lacking here (apart from any sensitivity, compassion or respect) is any understanding that people's moral beliefs and indeed their desires in life differ.  I am not a Catholic.  I am not a Christian.  I do not believe in a magical being who dictates, 2000 years after his son allegedly rose from the dead, through an elderly celibate German man sitting in Rome, what I should or should not do in bed with the man I love.

As positive as some aspects of Christian faith have undoubtedly been during history, I personally find belief in a god as a superstitious, somewhat ridiculous and unfathomable thing.  I don't think sex is about having as many babies as you possibly can.   Like me, millions disagree with the idea that sex is purely for reproduction, and it's extraordinarily arrogant to think only you possess the absolute moral truth, because the institution you belong to has spoon-fed you that "truth".  But that's the Catholic Church in a nutshell, I guess.

What I do feel is a rising amount of anger at trying to twist the meaning of words which have a very normal, natural definition.  You cannot expect to throw terms like "act of grave depravity" and "objectively disordered" at an individual about their life and not expect them to be irritated and offended.   The special Catholic meaning of the words is just not the way I or any reasonable bystander will interpret them.  Let's look at that term "disordered":

It is a little naïve to suppose that anyone outside the narrow little world of strict Catholic belief will not give the meaning "dysfunctional, disturbed, unsound, sick or diseased" to the term.  Looking at the specific context in the Catechism, and the fact this expression follows on from "act of grave depravity" I see absolutely no reason to believe Benedict did not intend the natural, offensive meaning in any case.  The other favourite trick is to say "oh YOU are not disordered/depraved"; it's just what you do that is depraved.  Because that's far better and far less insulting to me, obviously.

The same Catholic went on to describe my love making with my boyfriend as "using him as a sex-toy" for "masturbatory purposes".   He was hardly helping his case of coming across as sensitive and respectful by doing that.  Throw in a later comment from him that "a man who contracepts is using his wife as a sex aid" and 95% people are going to think him a sexist pig, as well as a homophobic idiot.

This is all from a man who claims he is fighting the "REAL" homophobes within the Church.  He says his god's love is limitless (and presumably extends to me if I torture myself by not being in a loving relationship for the rest of my life).  I'm afraid I ended up telling him to fuck off.  I further expressed the wish that said fuck resulted up in a nice baby, because that is all that he is reducing the sex act to.  Shucks, it takes the patience of a saint to deal with these people online.  I failed.  I gather from what he's saying to me it's a career choice which is probably ruled out to me now, anyhow.

Someone else had reserved my name anyway

Joking aside, the actual disorder here is in fact plain for me to see: it's the brainwashing abilities of the Catholic Church which are capable of convincing someone he is being a reasonable compassionate person, whilst spewing this bile to a non-Catholic, who has repeatedly asked him to stop it.  Why should I have to put up with this?  It's hate speech and it's absolute poison.

Why Does It Matter?

If you're therefore wondering why it should matter to me what Rome has decided to do this week, I should have thought it actually rather obvious.  The Churches collectively still wield a massive amount of influence.  Look for example at the way the Tories fell over themselves to give quadruple locks to Christian Churches to allow them to exclude us and discriminate against us legally on equal marriage.  That's in this country, which by large, is not a religious one at all.  Still the Churches are given enormous special treatment and "belief" is still accorded an official respect in our society which I find baffling.

The attitudes of the Church, particularly on human morality, have determined to a large extent what people thought privately for the last two millennia.  I can think of no other institutional driver of  homophobia (past and present) than the Christian Churches.  This homophobic legacy has a very real effect today.  Ours is a country where in 2013 you still can have your life torn to pieces for holding your boyfriend's hand in public.  Read that link, please, and consider the effect of these dehumanising, degrading words by such a powerful institution as the Church.  It's a country where this week a gay couple was thrown off a London bus after the homophobic driver told them they weren't real men and to fuck off.   Sad to say, but without knowing a single thing more about it, my money is instantly on it being more likely than not that "Jesus" was involved in that story in some way.

Many British Christians appear to love screaming that they are being persecuted.  They have zero idea of what it is to like to be shouted at, thrown out of a store or to be fearful for their loved one walking down a street.  They have no idea what it feels like to hear the language of violence and hate being spoken in school playgrounds from the youngest age.   They have no idea of the fear that gay teenagers feel that they may be rejected by their parents for simply being themselves: the most unnatural act of all.  They have no idea what it feels like to be bullied.  They have no idea what it feels like to have be told on Twitter their relationship is worth less than everyone else's by a person who doesn't even know them. 

Inside and outside the UK, the Vatican contributes to making the lives of LGBT people utter misery.  The Church, if it cared about the well-being and dignity of all people, should be screaming from the rooftops about the injustices we face.  Instead they remain at its vanguard, perpetuating the hatred and poison in 2014 with their words and acts.  Millions of ordinary people, thoroughly decent souls who actually make up the Catholic Church, disagree with the stance of the bishops: that's part of the background of why this Synod was called.  That's a truly wonderful thing - but look at the result.  Despite a Pope who has achieved some remarkable things, Rome has moved one step forward and two steps back.

1 Corinthians 13

I've genuinely no desire to pollute myself with the bitterness I have experienced from some of the so-called Christians I've encountered, on a routine basis, over the years on Twitter.  So I shall quote Corinthians and try to wash it right out of my hair.

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal... If I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.  Love.. does not dishonour others..  Love never fails..  And now these three remain: faith hope and love.  But the greatest of these is love.

Your Bible may contain the most absurd logical flaws, and a load of stuff I couldn't believe in a million years, but it's sometimes great for a quote.  What truly beautiful words and sentiments.  LGBT people will not go away simply because you wished we didn't exist.   Show some love and show some real humanity, Rome, rather than the farce this week and the utter poison and hatred you've been spewing forth for hundreds of years.  It is, after all, what you're supposedly all about.

Homophobia and the B&B case

It's been another excellent day for LGBT rights in the United Kingdom.

The "Christian" (I'll explain the inverted commas in a moment) guest house owners who refused to allow a gay couple to stay, in clear contravention of the law, have lost their case in the Supreme Court.  They were funded by the homophobic Christian Institute in their lengthy struggle to have the right to discriminate against the gay couple, in case you wondering.  They lost in the County Court, they lost (unanimously) in the Court of Appeal, and now they've lost (unanimously) in the Supreme Court. You'd hope they've got the quite clear message by now.

One of the most heartening aspects of this case were the words of Baroness Hale, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, and as such the most senior woman judge in the country.   She went way beyond simply rejecting the guest-house owners' spurious arguments, with this passage right at the end of her judgment:

"Sexual orientation is a core component of a person's identity which requires fulfilment through relationships with others of the same orientation... [Homosexuals] were long denied the possibility of fulfilling themselves through relationships with others.  This was an affront to their dignity as human beings which our law has now (some would say belatedly) recognised.  Homosexuals can enjoy the same freedom and the same relationships as any others.  But we should not underestimate the continuing legacy of those centuries of discrimination, persecution even, which is still going in many parts of the world."

These are beautiful words, coming as they do, from someone so very senior in the judiciary.  When I studied law (at the same Cambridge college as Baroness Hale, no less!) I remember sitting in a supervision in 1994 reading the words of the Law Lords in the recently handed down R v Brown case.  It followed a homophobic witch-hunt by the Police, and the overtones of the judgement were extremely unpleasant.  How times change, and so very rapidly.

The wonderful Baroness Hale of Richmond

The owners of the guest-house in this case have taken every opportunity to portray themselves as reasonable, simple Christian believers.  It is actually hard not to see them as are hard-nosed zealots, determined to take their alleged right to discriminate as far as they possibly can.  They have chosen to open a business and simply can't expect to get away in 2013 with the equivalent of hanging a "No Blacks, No Irish" sign on their door.  They do not even share the part of the building that was used as a commercial guesthouse with their private living quarters, nor is their any evidence they asked straight couples for proof of marriage: quite the contrary.

They will continue to portray themselves as a persecuted minority in the ilk of the early Christian martyrs.  There is a certain group, like them, who seem to revel in their status as long-suffering Joan of Arc types.  Being thrown to the lions in ancient Rome is nothing compared to what they suffer.  They were after all simply "following God's word" in discriminating against the gay couple.  After today's judgement they said they preferred to disobey the law of the land if it meant obeying "the law of God".  They forget that it's their interpretation of the law of God, and there are certain huge flaws in their argument as I've pointed out before with a quick look at Leviticus.

For any straight readers, imagine the personal offence and damage to your basic dignity at being told that cannot stay somewhere because of your relationship.  It happened to my friend Henrietta and her girlfriend in an expensive boutique hotel one Easter, before this legislation existed, which wasn't that long ago.  The aggressive hotel owner told her he "wouldn't have any of that going on under his roof" and literally threw their bags out of the reception.

Of course there are amusing elements to this case too.  I love the assumption that sharing a double bed means you're going to have sex (or will be tempted to).  It's positively Victorian: hands above the sheets, boys and girls!  How about the times I've shared a double-bed with sundry male and female friends, with my mother, and indeed with my dog, without feeling even the slightest need to shag my bed-fellow in the middle of the night.   Moreover, who needs a double-bed if you do actually fancy your bedroom mate?  Do these people have no imagination? :-)

Christian Homophobia

I still encounter homophobia on a regular basis on Twitter.  A common theme arises: by no means all Christians are homophobes, but almost all homophobes I come across seem to be Christians.

There's the zealot Catholic stalker of mine who talks not about gay people, but of people who "have SSA" (same-sex attraction) as if it were an affliction or a temporary disorder that can be "cured".  I didn't chose my sexual orientation, honey - you however chose your faith.. and your nasty, bigoted views.  Then there are the random men, often from America and Australia, who just hurl out violent homophobic abuse to strangers.  It's a very odd straight man who spends all his time thinking about gay sex and gay men.  You don't need to be Dr Freud to take a guess at what's going on here.

Who you trying to kid?!

As ever, the hollow vessels make the most noise, however, and it's important to remember that the bulk of Christians I interact with don't share this type of view point.  In fact several I know are embarrassed, at pains to disassociate themselves from these attitudes, and are genuinely some of the kindest people I know.  It's a constant task to remind yourself of them, but it would make me guilty of the same prejudice I deplore not to.  Aside from anything, they're a delight to talk to.

I therefore deliberately put the word "Christian" in inverted commas at the start of this blog post because my understanding is that the type of people who would shut people out, discriminate, judge and behave spitefully to others based on Jesus' teachings are about as far away from "salvation" as it gets.  It's just such a shame they have such enormously big gobs and make you forget about the good guys.

Going Forward

Gay men, in particular, were often accused in the past of being unable to forge lasting relationships and commitment.  Imagine the effects on their relationships if for a chunk of their life they were at risk of being arrested for having private, consensual sex in their own home.  Imagine what it would be like to live through Mrs Thatcher's government introducing the most spiteful piece of hate-legislation parliament has probably ever passed, with words in it like "pretend family relationships".  Imagine hearing as recently as 2012 from the most senior Catholic in Britain (who as it turned out sexually assaulted young male priests), and half the Tory party in Parliament, that your relationship was in no way worthy of being put on the same footing as heterosexual marriages.  Imagine not knowing for sure until 27 November 2013 whether you could go away for a break together and risk having a guest-house shut you and your partner out for being gay.

All of that has a massive knock-on effect.  Everyone wants their loving relationships affirmed and their love for one another honoured by friends, family and society at large.  When the law allows the discrimination it has done, it places an enormous strain on things.  The fact that so many LGBT people have worked through all this and led happy, fulfilling lives with contented relationships is a real testament to them.  As the legal and societal position continues to improve, so I believe will the lives and relationships of those in the LGBT community.  This a wonderful, wonderful thing.

So it's been another great day, just like the day Parliament finally passed the Same Sex Marriage Bill.  Thank you, Baroness Hale, and your learned colleagues.  You have no appreciation of the ripple effect your splendid words and sentiments may come to have. 

Leviticus

It's a fabulous name: "Leviticus".  Sounds like an extra from the Life of Brian - perhaps a Centurion colleague of Biggus Dickus.  It's the third book of the Old Testament and it actually means "relating to the Levites" (the priestly Hebrew tribe).  Its very name has that Old Testament awe and divine "smite them" power about it.

We all presumably know the two passages most quoted from Leviticus:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination (18:22);

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them (20:13). 

Why do we know these passages?  Because they are routinely trotted out by homophobes, predominantly traditional or evangelical Christians as proof of the "sinfulness" of gay people.  I have seen Norwich Reform Church* Members picketing Norwich Pride handing out leaflets based on the text to young gay and lesbian people.  The leaflets state that faithful marriages are the best way of countering Aids (along with wearing modest clothes), that homosexuality is a "perverted and degrading violation of normal human relationships" and that gay people must "repent".  They also say that the "medical, social and emotional consequences militate against the legalisation of homosexuality at any age".  Yup: they'd like to make homosexuality entirely illegal for all people in Britain, based on their reading of the Bible.

What we also (hopefully) know is the fabulous selectiveness with which the two passages are quoted.  They are part of the "Holiness Code" that was allegedly passed down by God, via Moses, to the Children of Israel.  My understanding is that they are a set of rules by which Biblical Jews should lead their lives.  There is a lot of scholarly debate about their applicability today, given that the Levitical priesthood and rules for animal sacrifice which are covered by them ended two thousand years ago, in AD 70, with the destruction of the Temple by the Romans.

Here's a lovely link to a post by @jamesrbuk that sets out some of the things that Leviticus bans: yes, it covers eating (or touching) a pig, eating shell food, trimming your beard, selling land permanently, wearing clothes with mixed fibres, having a tattoo, picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard, reaping to the edge of your field, eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it, etc. etc.

"Protestors point out: We Can Quote the Bible Too"

The point has been made a million times, but it's worth emphasising.  When Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are quoted to justify denying LGBT people rights, where is all the outrage about Christians tucking into a prawn cocktail in their local Indian restaurant?  Why aren't people out holding placards calling for the death of non-virgins?  If you're going to live your life by the letter of this stuff (or more to the point tell others they should do so) then adopt all of it, not just the bits that suit your prejudices.

My former boss, a devout Orthodox Jew, was quite straightforward in his analysis: the Holiness Code is a set of rules for Jews.  What we "goyim" (non-Jews) do is absolutely no concern of his.  His job is lead his life following the rules of the Old Testament, which included tolerance and compassion to all people.  He certainly extended a kindness and liberality to me which plenty of Christians could learn from.

Selectivity

The selectivity of quoting the above passages is gob-smacking.  It does not, of course, just extend to Leviticus.  Those who feel the need, frequently choose other passages of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) to justify their views, prejudices and sometimes hatred.  The Dutch Reform Church in South Africa based its support of Apartheid on the Bible and only felt the need to apologise in 1992. Clearly a lot comes down to how you interpret Biblical passages and this changes over time.  It is also subject to human fallibility and disagreement (the World Council of Churches expelled the South African church because they did not accept the biblical justification to treat black people as inferior, for example.)

Much more recently, the Tory MP for South West Bedforshire was quoted this week in the Guardian as follows:

This is quite fabulous.  Selous is of course talking about moves to legalise same-sex marriage.  One of the passages he selectively quotes from, Mark 10, goes on to set out Jesus' views on divorce:

¹⁰ When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. ¹¹ He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. ¹² And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

We remind ourselves of the fact that the Church of England was set up to facilitate the divorce by Henry VIII of his wife, Katherine of Aragon, in order to marry Anne Boyeln.  Remarriage is adultery and to allow divorce is "directly contrary to what Jesus said."

There is no doubt Selous is a devout Christian.  He is a trustee of the Conservative Christian Fellowship and sits on the group "Prayers for Parliament".  This group asserts that "the real power to change this land rests not in 10 Downing Street or in the Palace of Westminster.  It rests wherever you bow your head in prayer to the Almighty God who is sovereign over all."  He voted for Nadine Dorries' anti-abortion bill in 2011, voted to reduce the abortion limit to 12 weeks, and voted against the abolition of the crime of blasphemy, both in 2008.  It is not known, however, whether he enjoys prawn cocktails.

We also do not know what Tories like Selous think of passages like Matthew 19:24:

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

If we are going to change the land based on the Bible, this is a fairly powerful and little passage.  There's not much arguing against what it is saying.  How about a private member's bill from a Christian Tory MP to introduce an income tax of 90% on investment income, guys?  We need to save those rich people's souls and get them into the kingdom of God after all.

Nor can we say too much about Acts 4.32-35 which seems to be advocating in really quite clear terms an extreme form of socialism.  Anyone for that? Conservative Christian Fellowship?  No?  Oh.
 
You get the point.  I could go on and on if I wanted to.  The use of the Bible by people such as the Norwich Reformed Church or Andrew Selous MP is selective, manipulative and disingenuous.  They themselves do not lead their lives by the strict (and often contradictory commandments) of the Old and New Testaments, but they will choose passages from both to tell other people how they should lead their lives and to seek to prevent them from having the sames rights that they do.

Reform, Liberal and Masorti Judaism

The Reform and Liberal synagogues have clearly stated that they wish to marry same-sex couples in the eyes of God.  They have already been doing so for some time in the United States.  Remarkably, today, the Masorti ("traditional") synagogue movement in the UK hinted that it too might join them.  Masorti is the broad equivalent of the American Conservative Judaism movement.

If it does so, we have a really interesting triple whammy of three Jewish movements in this country wanting to marry same-sex couples.  It is wonderful, not just for the LGBT members of these synagogues who wish to marry, but because it is a massive slap in the face to the traditionalist and evangelical Christians who use the Old Testament Leviticus rules to justify their homophobia.  As I understand it, the theology behind the acceptance by the synagogues of same-sex marriage is that the Torah is a living book and set of commandments: it should not be taken to be rigid code that never changes.

Leviticus is undeniably a set of rules by which Jews seek to lead their lives: these are THEIR rules.  If three synagogue movements have studied them (Judaism is really quite good at this type of thing) and say it's okay by them in 2012 for gay people to get married (and even have sex without being put to death!), that really should be quite significant for anyone who believes in these things.  I don't see how bigoted Christians can keep banging on in the same way they have in the light of this.

Why am I getting into all this?

And on that last note, I just want to emphasise one thing.  The position of these Synagogues  is significant for "anyone who believes in these things".   I'm no theologian but I can recognise the highly selective and debatable use of Biblical passages.  I can chuck back the snippets I know and quite easily pick logical faults in the likes of Andrew Selous MP's arguments.  However, why am I even doing so?

Religion is in steady, dramatic and seemingly irreversible decline in this country.   This piece in the Guardian sets it out well  Fewer than 1 in 10 people who even says they are a Christian has been to church in the past week.  Even the Telegraph is under no illusions: the Church of England risks being wiped out.  WHY, frankly, is any MP in a highly secular country seeking to deny me my basic civic right to marry, in 2012, based on a passage of the Bible that he happens to believe in?

I am an atheist who believes that aspects of the Bible give us extremely powerful moral guidance.  Seen as a whole ("What would Jesus do?") I have no doubt it can offer wonderful, compassionate, loving and inspiring direction.  I also believe, though, that these qualities can exist just as well in people who do not believe in a deity, and that frequently atheists can be more "Christ like" in their deeds than some so-called Christians. 

The purpose of this post is not to bash all Christians or to mock their belief.  What it seeks to do is to highlight the problems of using the Bible as your bible.  Mixing your literal application of faith with law making is fraught with problems, particularly given the fact that faith is inherently open to differing interpretation over time, and the situation is made worse when there is selective quoting.  Of course some MPs will be guided by their Christian faith in the decisions they make.  If they think that their interpretation of this faith speaks for the country at large (or even for all Christians), or they "quote" it as the main reason to deny people rights of itself, however, I believe they are making a mistake.

Advice

The next time some wise-arse quotes Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 at you and says that the Bible makes clear homosexuality is a sin, hand them a bacon sarnie and point them in the direction of this blog post.  Their argument is flawed from start to finish.  And they shouldn't wear poly-cotton.  Not because of Leviticus, but because it doesn't breathe half as well.

The tattoo refers to the Leviticus "ban" on homosexual acts

* For the avoidance of doubt, the NRC is not affiliated to the much more inclusive and open United Reform Church.

New Statesman and "Gay Cures"

“We are a Christian initiative that supports men and women with race issues who voluntarily seek change in their skin colour.  We do respect the rights of individuals who identify as ‘black’ who don't seek change (though such rights don't extend to them marrying each other).  We also believe that the practice of going around being black is sinful for those seeking God’s highest purpose.

We will change your colour through the help of psychodrama, which involves the use of spontaneous dramatisation and elements of theatre, where the client acts out their emotions and internal conflicts on a stage with the use of props.  

However, we’re a tad disappointed that the British Psychodrama Association has actually entirely revoked the trainee status of our counsellor and co-director (he wasn't even qualified), so we're doing this on a non-regulated basis.  Dr Mike has been entirely open in his journey of changing his racial origins, and is now not black at all.  He's completely ex-Black.  We therefore don’t think this very fair at all.”

"Gay Cures"

How would you react to the above?  Laugh, cry, shake your head?  Don't just dismiss it, though: it is actually pretty much what “Core Issues Trust” is offering to gay men and women in the UK regarding their sexuality.  Core Issues is a body that sets out its thoughts on a website littered with spelling mistakes that provides links to other sites, mainly in the US.  One claims that “30% of all 20 year-old homosexual men will be HIV-positive or dead by the age of thirty.”   Another claims that on divine intention for the ordering of human relationships “science and psychiatry have no answers”.  It exists to promote the changing of sexual orientation.

The scientific, medical consensus on “gay cures” is actually absolutely clear. The BMA has condemned conversion therapy as discredited and harmful.  The Royal College of Psychiatrists is unambiguous on the assertion that sexual orientation cannot be changed.  The UK Council for Psychotherapy carries a video of a 22 year old Northern Irish man who talks of his experience of depression and suicidal thoughts during a “gay cure”.  UKCP states that homosexuality is not an illness, cannot be cured and that it is an ethical offence to offer therapy with the aim of altering sexual orientation.   Ben Summerskill, Chief Executive of Stonewall puts all this in layman’s term for us: “gay cures” are “voodoo therapy”.

The Harm 

Why then, if this is such demonstrable nonsense, would anyone be upset about it then?  I’m a little amazed I’d even need to set this out, but it is because LGBT people are being hurt by this.  Not theoretically offended: people are actually being hurt. The Lesbian and Gay Foundation found that young LGB people are three to six times more likely to self-harm than heterosexual young people.  It also estimated that 40% of all young LGB people self-harm or attempt suicide at least once  LGBT people are still routinely bullied, mocked and abused, and nor is the situation confined just to the young.  

These stats reflect general widespread negative attitudes, including the persistent belief that not being heterosexual is a choice and therefore the “fault” of the person involved.  The promotion of “Gay cure” therapies as an alternative feed directly into that.   

Do you care? I bloody do. About almost more than anything else

Those numbers demonstrate the general culture.  For the unfortunate people who submit themselves to the courses (or are submitted to them by their families) there is of course a much more immediate, serious, recognised, acknowledged risk of individual harm.  The State of California onlyyesterday banned all such “therapies” for minors. Governor Brown stated “This bill bans non-scientific 'therapies' that have driven young people to depression and suicide. These practices have no basis in science or medicine and they will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery.”

Adverts Promoting Core Issues 

Why then, we ask, is a leading liberal-left political publication, the New Statesman,  accepting a full page advert in this week’s edition from “Core Issues”?  This is the very “voodoo therapy” body that had its adverts pulled from London Buses by Tory Mayor Boris Johnson this April.   This is the same homophobic group that was exposed by award-winning journalist Patrick Strudwick whilst undercover.

We "voluntarily seek change in sexual preference": Ad in NS

You may of course take a free speech view, that any publication must accept money from any organisation that wants to publish on its pages.  Never mind the commercial reaction of its readers to such views.  This presumably would permit adverts that allow “cures” for black people and full page spreads from the EDL: just the kind of thing that would make people more likely to buy the magazine.  Or you might think the New Statesman is simply greedy and will take whatever it can get.  Perhaps there’s no link between its advertising, which is farmed out to an agency, and its editorial stance and therefore this is actually all terribly embarrassing for them.  I actually think the latter is the most likely, but who knows.

An Apology.  Of Sorts. 

What is clear is that the issue was brought to the New Statesman’s attention by @twf_mike at 12.33 on Sunday 30 September.  There has been a wave of protest on Twitter, with people stating they would cancel subscriptions etc.   The Labour Party Conference is currently on.  The editorial team is not presumably having an ordinary Monday.  Having tweeted on a range of issues all morning, finally at 15.19 today Monday 1 October they published the following:

However, I'm left personally feeling very disappointed by this.  It is short.  It rings hollow.  It offers no explanation for the mistake.  It does not mention "gay cures" which is why people object to the group, not its stance on gay marriage.  I think it's quite implicit that New Statesman will not be taking future similar adverts, but that could easily have been spelled out.  They could have offered the revenue from the ad to a LGBT counselling group to show the apology is real.  My reaction is, however, relatively mild judging by my Twitter feed.

New Statesman don't seem to "get it".  They don't acknowledge just how wrong this group is, and how their liberal/left readership has reacted to their making money from such a group.  NS are supposed to be the "good guys".  The LGBT community is used to a lack of understanding, mockery and writing that verges on abuse from the likes of Melanie Phillips at the Daily Mail.  We do not expect or want it from the NS.  The apology doesn't go nearly far enough, which implies they don't understand or they don't care.  I really hope (and actually believe knowing one of the personalities involved) that's not the case, but it's how it comes across.

Ostriches in the Sand

Not the best response on Twitter

There is another wider issue.  If you are a corporation and you want to play on Twitter, you have to know the rules.  These include giving someone a smartphone so that they can react if a storm blows up, even out of hours, even if everyone is at some drinks reception.  We've seen it time and again with corporations using Twitter to promote their products and failing to engage swiftly and adequately when an issue comes up.  It's not about 24/7 responses to routine things that can be dealt with in office hours: it's having one person who can firefight on the rare occasion something "big" comes up.  This simple statement should have been out there yesterday afternoon, not 27 hours later.  My disbelief turned to actual anger at the failure even to acknowledge the barrage of mentions.  As one person put it to me "It looks like they don't give a f*ck".  Yes, it did.  One simple tweet from NS saying "We're not ignoring you, we need time to get a statement out" would have helped enormously.  

Twitter is instant: Tesco tweeting about its special offers while ignoring the 200,000 who are tweeting at them about Workfare drives people up the wall.  It pours oil on the flames and it makes matters worse.  The editors at NS couldn't "undo" the fact their advertising guys took on this thing, whether by mistake or not.  They could have acted swiftly though.  It takes a second to publish a holding tweet.  I hope New Statesman have learned from this.  I also hope that instead of offering Core Issues the oxygen of free additional publicity through this furore, it will have highlighted the issue once more of just how objectionable and despicable they are.