Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
The real war is queer as folk
Dr Peter Jensen, Anglican Archbishop of Sydney was reported as making the following statements recently in an article authored by Barney Zwartz and published in The Age, February 3, 2006 - Church imperilled by gays: archbishop. Dr Jensen had told a conference in England that “homosexuality is a life or death issue for the church.” Calling on the authority of the Bible he further stated that “we would be cowards if we do not make clear this is an issue of life and death”.
While acknowledging that his critics, who advocate a modern understanding of homosexuality based on scientific research, have strong points, Dr Jensen stated that accepting homosexuality compromised the Anglican Church and that “the issue before us is the concrete form of the question of God's authority.”
Firstly let me acknowledge that I have more than a passing interest in these matters. I have a gay son and have been involved in gay advocacy issues and family support for many years. As far as I know, Dr Jensen does not have a gay child so from the outset, as in the case of Sydney’s Catholic archbishop, George Pell who also does not have a gay child, we seem destined to be at loggerheads. I love my son dearly and Jensen and Pell do not, so my passionate wish to see my son being affirmed for the human being that he is with all the privileges and opportunities that society affords it members will bring me to blows, verbal or otherwise with these august, robed and privileged gentlemen.
Second, I want to thank Dr Jensen for clearly placing the blind prejudice of his part of the Church in such clear relief. It is obvious that he has decided to dispense with the niceties and engage in a war to the “death”.
Whatever an ordinary person’s opinion may be about homosexuality, it certainly does not have the reach or imprimatur of an archbishop of a mainstream church.
Jensen uses his high profile position to make some extraordinary claims. He claims to speak for God. He claims prescience as to the ultimate fate of the Anglican Church. He calls for like-minded person’s to engage in a struggle where either the Anglican Church perishes or those Anglicans who are homosexuals do.
Now Dr Jensen is an articulate and educated man but as to him speaking for God I would say at best he is severely deluded and at worst he is an unmitigated liar. That is a harsh claim to make on my part but I challenge Dr Jensen to produce one shred of evidence that he is empowered by God to speak on His behalf. I want to see on a tablet of stone or gold or silver or parchment or piece of paper a clear statement in God’s own handwriting with signature attached and provenanced by heaven attesting to Jensen’s status as a divine spokesman. Better yet let him bring God to a media conference so that the journalists of the world can attest first-hand what God’s position on spokespersons is. Anything apart from this is speculative, self-serving hearsay.
Normally I would not give two hoots about what Dr Jensen thinks or believes. It only becomes an issue when his remarks are released, obviously with his permission and approval, in a national newspaper and goes unchallenged.
The mainstream churches have significant influence in Australian society as indeed they do in many parts of the world. The history and track records of the Christian churches in getting things right are very poor. In spite of the magnificent humanitarian work of individuals like Mother Teresa etc the churches have blood on their hands and no Christian charity in their hearts.
O yes, I can hear the howls of indignation now, “we have done this”, “we have done that”. I am not disputing it. However, examine the history each Old World and New World country in turn and over the past 17 centuries. There is a clear and unequivocal history of bastardy and bloodshed that has effected indigenous populations, local populations and other religions such as Muslims and Jews.
There are hatreds of skin, culture, pagan (local) beliefs and sexual orientations that are institutionalised and propagandised so that they become the mainstream. The message of the biblical Jesus, supposedly the focus of all these institutions, has been corrupted in everyday example to where it is unrecognisable from its original.
The Dr Jensen’s of the world are hell-bent (pardon the pun) on maintaining the status quo of discrimination and exclusion. In the 21st century, we all deserve better than reactionary moral Canutes.
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Adults can decide...
...but what of the children?
Peter Jensen is the head of group called the Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation. This group represents 14 of the 30 Anglican schools in the Sydney, Southern Highlands and South Coast areas.
Their approach to Christianity reflects the evangelical nature of Peter Jensen. My niece attends Danebank and claims the religiosity makes her "want to barf" (gotta love those 13 year olds!!). In fact, in their advertisements for staff placements, it is made clear that non-Christians need not apply.
The point I wish to make is that when you've got 14 private schools under the direct stewardship of a man who wants to kill homosexuality, what do you reckon the chances are of these children coming away with a tolerant and respectful attitude towards gays and lesbians in later life?
Although most kids are a lot smarter than their elders and will arrive at their own conclusions about their peers, there are those that won't. It is with these kids that the average 'intolerance quotient' will rise and more intolerance is the last thing we need.
BTW. Let me now deflect some of the inevitable histrionics regarding my statement that Peter Jensen wants to kill homosexuality.
Note that I said homosexuality and not homosexuals.
Note, also, that Peter Jensen said that homosexuality was a life and death issue for the Church. From that statement I assume that Jensen would prefer the Church to continue living and homosexuality should suffer a fate that is not quite the same as the Church's.
Great article Roger. It's nice to have different meaty topics to chew on every now and again.
Oops. Was that last line an homo-erotic Freudian slip?
Oh well, bugger it!
A Jensen For Me....
Thanks Mark. Can I paraphrase part of what you wrote? Thanks again in anticipation.
"Jesus Christ is the head of a group called the Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation. This group represents 14 of the 30 Anglican schools in the Sydney, Southern Highlands and South Coast areas."
What's wrong with this picture? Doesn't Jesus have anything to do with the other 16 schools?
Having raised four children, I know that you need to teach them a morality that allows them to live usefully in society. Christian schools are as good a place as any to learn the Golden Rule. However, let's not lose sight of the fact that our exemplars for a life lived in Christ are also high-powered business men. This is a "between a rock and a hard place" conundrum. Do we trust Peter Jensen to be true to Jesus? How could we? Jesus was never quoted as saying, "Go out and build a gigantic business in my name". The historical message of Jesus has nothing to do with the perversion that is represented by today's churches.
Stuart to Robyn: The Bible....
Robyn Clothier: No, you are right, there are no specifics condemning homosexuality by Christ, but I guess you also ignored the various statements made telling people to follow the example set through the Law (even though it didn't bring salvation, it did bring a clear set of codes to follow - indeed, Christ's sacrifice was only made possible by living perfectly through the Law itself).
And as for the Bible - either the whole thing has to be valid, or none of it is. If we start ignoring what Paul says, then you start ignoring inconvenient items that are said in other places, and then eventually from the gospels themselves.
And as such the Bible is the foundation of the Church - not of Christianity, but of the Church - for the Spirit was sent down both to stay with us until Christ's return, and to protect and promote the truth that is Christ. And it is the Bible especially in this case that is being applied to this issue, as to ignore what it says leads to the issues aforementioned. The identity of the Church is being battled over, not just this front but on many others, but it all boils down to this - do we take the whole Bible to be both true and without fault, or do we ignore either the hard or the unpopular parts instead?
And Roger - secularism is not without morality or judgement of its own, far from it - society is exactly like the church, just with a far more flexible set of standards, because they are as fluid as the people who exist in those societies, rather than set. But they are still a moral and social code, and as such, why should they be more valid than any other set? By saying that you want a 'completely secular' Australia, basically, you are asking for a humanist or an atheist society to exist on the public level to the exclusion or removal of all others - and as such that is no different to asking for a Christian or Jewish or Buddhist society to exist on the public level exclusively to all others. And just as you would not accept the latter, I would and will not accept the former.
Unconstitutional
Stuart, I guess we could start in a secular Australia by accepting that the Constitution does not matter and therefore the churches can jump into to bed with the pollies. Ooops, soory, I was just describing today's Australia.
Seriously, religion is a personal issue not a public one. If you accept a life based on Christianity then you should know that when your judgement comes you will be judged alone not as a social group. There will be no questions about "Did you push your morals onto society". Rather you will be asked "What did you do that followed my example".
If you believe that your fellow citizens, unfettered by some unprovable ideology, will let things slip into debauchery and degradation then you have a serious problem. However, religion is not required to make worthy laws except to those who would proselytise us all.
Taking Peter Jensen seriously
Surely any religious leader's words should be taken seriously if they are spoken to his flock when in authority as Peter Jensen was doing when he singled out homosexuals as a group by claiming that they could bring about the end of his church.
These are powerful words and could influence our current government where members make no secret of their religious affiliations and act upon them,Tony Abbott being a good example.
Both John Howard and Peter Costello claim to be Christians and are quick to lash out at religious leaders who draw attention to the unfairness of government policy they say will hurt many at the lower end of the economic scale, the unemployed etc., yet will install their religious views upon society by involving the Salvation Army in job seeking thus giving them more power.
Although you are perfectly entitled to "not lose sleep" over this subject, Craig Schwarze, surely that is one reason we need to be so vigilant that smaller groups in this society do not lose rights because of either apathy or deliberate denial of rights. I suggest if only one gay couple wanted to get formally married , although I suspect it would be many more judging from overseas incidents, that couple's natural rights should be as protected as those of the majority.
When John Howard, who claims to govern for all Australians, fights for that one couple's rights, instead of always aiming policy at his larger conservative minority, we will have a real leader. When Peter Jensen speaks out he knows he will have an influence and, while not abusing his position, he is most certainly abusing a minority group and that's offensive.
Jesus, Historical or Invention?
Peter Pilot, without quoting from the Bible how do you prove that Jesus (who for the sake of the argument we will accept existed) is God? That is how do you personally prove your statement. Saying "because the Bible says so", or "the Pope says so", or "My pastor says so" is not an acceptable answer to me.
While you ponder that question let me point out that you have made the same claim that Jensen has done, namely that you can speak for God. You say "It was God that said". Were you there? Did you hear Him? Why should anyone believe you? What language did He speak? If you ask Him right now will God appear on your behalf and tell us that you are correct?
You so readily accept the reality of a biblical God. Do you also accept that the authorities upon which you rely are part of the wealthiest, most powerful and longest-lived global institutions on this earth? Do you think that if Jesus/God came back today that He would recognise what was done in His name to build up these monumental treasures? Do the churches just hand over the keys and say "Hey God you're one wealthy dude, look what we've done for you".
There are plenty of abominations in the world and you can start with the obscene wealth of the churches, the lying hypocrisy of governments, the rapacious greed of commercial enterprises and the ever quickening pollution of this planet. Homsexuality does not even rate on that scale. Yet this current government just had to rush through some legislation to stop homosexuals from entering a legal marriage. Never mind that the Great Barrier Reef is dying or the Yarra River is full of shit (still/again) let's "save the institution of marriage" from the queers. Get the picture?
And just to be pedantic, the New testament writes that Jesus gave authority to Peter. Jesus never met Paul unless you consider that Paul hearing voices (they lock you away for that today) on the way to Damascus was some form of introduction. Also in all my previous biblical studies I have never heard the term "Spirit of Jesus".
Roger...
Roger, the issue seems to be that Jensen has views which you disagree with strongly. He shared these views at an Anglican conference. I cannot see that he has done anything wrong.
I strongly disagree with marxism. But if the leader of the communist party shares his marxist views at the local party meeting, I'm not going to suggest he is abusing his position!
You are offended by some of our beliefs and practices. I am sorry about that, but we cannot change our beliefs for your sake. All we can do is offer you the olive branch of tolerance.
Regarding gay marriage, I'm not going to lose any sleep if it ever gets up. I suspect it would be pretty rare anyway. But really, a marriage is really just a civil contract. There is nothing to stop your son drawing up a contract with whomever he chooses.
Civil Unions
Craig, there is some movement in the political sphere on civil unions as reported in the national media today.
However, I need to labour the main point of my original comments again because the irony of your comment "I'm not going to lose any sleep" is not lost on me.
If Dr Jensen is merely involved in an internal Anglican matter I would not take a stand as it is no concern of mine. However, in spite of your special pleading for my understanding him in that context it is not the case. Dr Jensen has taken a public, not private, position. It is not just a matter of views. I do not have the power to influence public opinion, Peter Jensen does. The bully pulpit is his to use, not me or others like me. In this context there is hardly a parity for the expression of my view or Jensen's. His is the position of power and privilege.
As to my changing your beliefs, I would only be working towards that end where it is a matter of conflict with existing legislation and public attitudes. Doesn't it strike you as hypocritical and therefore actionable that in most of Western society, progressive and socially responsible laws have been passed to stamp out discrimination based on sexual orientation while in the sphere of civil union the Australian government and people like yourself can say "this far but no further"? Canada, the UK, Spain and other countries have seen fit to allow same sex unions but not here. Why?
Don't you do that on the basis of religious belief, cloaking prejudice with the respectability confered by society upon religious precepts?
To draw upon another situation in this country (and elsewhere), our government prints, "This will kill you" upon cigarette packets while at the same time raking in billions in excise. The parallel is that the government can say "we know this is deadly but we'll let you do it because you are all grown up and can make your own decisions" while at the same throwing their hands up in horror and bleating "we must save the institution of marriage from the queers". In this Jensen and others are complicit because it is the proscription laid out in the religious manual for righteous living, the Bible, that is used by the secular state to justify its own hypocritical discrimination. The government can pass as much anti-discrimination legislation as it likes but while the churches continue to label (stridently in Dr Jensen's case) the yearnings of same-sex attracted people as an "abomination" the prejudice and exclusion will remain.
I can't believe that Dr. Jensen does not know what he is doing or what the impact of his statements are in the wider community. If there truly was a separation of church and state in the country it would not matter. However, the churches, almost exclusively, remain behind all the negative stereotypes and public attitudes on homosexuality in the Western world and only the churches can change that.
The Other Foot?
Thanks for your considered reply Roger. I can't help but feel you have demonised Jensen in much the same way that homosexuals were demonised in the past. I get the feeling that you are not willing to tolerate his views, regardless.
Dr Jensen has taken a public, not private, position.
The media made his position public. But even so - so what? He is entitled to make his views public. You are making your views public on this forum. I disagree with your views, but respect your right to have them.
I do not have the power to influence public opinion, Peter Jensen does.
That is the nature of the world - some people have more influence than others. Lots of newspaper columnists have influence. Sports stars do as well. And actors and other performers.
Your problem is not that some people have influence. Your problem is that Peter Jensen has influence (very limited I should note).
In this context there is hardly a parity for the expression of my view or Jensen's. His is the position of power and privilege.
Philip Adams sometimes uses his columns to criticise religious belief. There is no parity between me and Adams in terms of influence. Should Adams be obliged to stop writing?
Besides, there are a number of people over the years that have taken up the cause of gay activism. Even some within the church (Dorothy McRae, for example). You cannot claim that the gay lobby has been silent.
As to my changing your beliefs, I would only be working towards that end where it is a matter of conflict with existing legislation and public attitudes.
I find this a bit frightening. You are saying basically that you want to try and alter my ideology. Legislation controls our behaviours, but not our beliefs. There are shades of 1984 in what you are saying.
the sphere of civil union the Australian government and people like yourself can say "this far but no further"?
Wait - I've never said no to civil unions. Like I said, it doesn't bother me, won't affect me. And there is nothing to stop your son drawing up a legal contract now with his partner. He could do it today!
but while the churches continue to label (stridently in Dr Jensen's case) the yearnings of same-sex attracted people as an "abomination" the prejudice and exclusion will remain.
I think you are attributing to the church way more influence than it has. But Dr Jensen honestly believes that homosexual relationships are wrong. So do I. I will tolerate your different values. Will you tolerate mine?
I have to say I suspect not. I think you wont be happy until myself, Jensen, and others like us all share your values. This is what it comes down to, doesn't it?
If there truly was a separation of church and state in the country it would not matter.
Of course there is a separation. What evidence do you have that there is not?
However, the churches, almost exclusively, remain behind all the negative stereotypes and public attitudes on homosexuality in the Western world and only the churches can change that.
About 8% of the Australian population are in church on any given Sunday. But the problems homosexuals face are all the church's fault? So a gay man gets bashed, and it's the church's fault?
Roger, it is plain to me that you have scapegoated the church, and particularly Dr Jensen. You have not demonstrated at all that Dr Jensen has done anything wrong. He has expressed his opinion.
You are entitled to express a contrary opinion. You are entitled to lobby politicians for legislative change. You are entitled to debate the merits of these views on these and other forums.
You are not, however, entitled to suppress the opinions of others. To do that is to become the enemy of a liberal democracy.
Church foundations
Stuart Lord: "The foundation for the issue is that the Bible, which is the entire foundation for the Church, states that homosexuality is a sin."
Many Christians would disagree with you here, Stuart. In fact, there is an old hymn which begins with the words:
There are no recorded words of Jesus that state that homosexuality is sin. The text that is most used to claim that "the Bible says homosexuality is a sin" is attributed to Paul. The problem is how to work out what Jesus himself would have said (or does say).
The weight to give to the "authority of scripture" is not universally agreed upon amongst Christians, or even amongst Anglicans. I think that the vehemence of Jensen's statement that “homosexuality is a life or death issue for the church” is more about the battle for the identity of the Anglican church and the supremacy of a more literal view of the Bible within it, than it is about a battle within society. I don't deny that one influences the other but I suspect the identity of the church is closer to Jensen's heart.
Jesus is God
Jesus is God, It was God that said that Homosexuality was an abomination, Paul was given authority by Jesus and received the Holy Spirit (again called the spirit of Jesus and also the Spirit of God) so if Paul also said it he received it from Jesus aka God... but I agree, it's about a church issue and nothing to do with the secular world.
Occam's razor
Robyn, I commend you on an incisive and brief (I need to learn that art) statement.
You have shone a clear light on this complex and confusing subject.
Ok - here is how I see it
Ok - here is how I see it - The Anglican church takes the view that homosexuality is a sin, but no worse a sin than stealing, or adultery, or pre-marital sex, or lying, or anything else, for that matter. The issue is whether someone is willing to repent of that sin, and not engage in it again - if they are not, for whatever reason, then they do not deserve to hold positions of leadership within the church, or join in the communion of the saints. (Now I must make it clear right now - I am just using those particular sins as examples - but no sin is seen by God as worse than any other, they are simply symptoms of a disease - our failed relationship and rebellion against God).
And if someone persists in continuing to sin unrepentantly, then that person will eventually - after many stages of talks, offers of help, and all the rest - be thrown out.
The foundation for the issue is that the Bible, which is the entire foundation for the Church, states that homosexuality is a sin. And that if someone is unwilling to repent (that doesn't necessarily mean change preferences, but it does mean remaining celebate with anyone apart from your lawfully wedded wife) and continues on in their actions in complete defiance of God's word, then they have to be removed, and not allowed positions within the church. This applies, as I already said, to anyone who is unrepentent about anything, really - like adulterers, paedophiles, thieves, liars, or whatever your issue is. Now if you don't like these particular set of laws, then the person has the option of leaving at any time.
Archbishop Jensen is making a statement mainly about homosexuality in the clergy, but he is taking it as a priority simply because it is such a hard issue to go around. I mean, I think society would generally accept paedophiles from being banned from the clergy, and not too many would take offence at thieves being removed. But homosexuality? Society, for a main part, sees that homosexuality is not a sin, and yet the Bible does, and it is because of this we run into our serious problem. Should active, practicing homosexuality be tolerated in defiance with the Bible, the scripture which is the entire foundation of the Church itself? If it was, then the Church would stop being the Church, methinks, and just become another moral and ethical rubber stamp - conforming to societies changing (downwards) standards.
And so this is how the two stand at loggerheads - society seeing the Church as wrong for seeing practicing homosexuality as a sin in and of itself, and the Church seeing society as wrong for trying to force it to deny its tennents and scriptures and conform to society's standards instead. There are always those in between, but that is the way the world works.
Hamish: isn't that an excellent argument for strict separation between church and state though? And there are thousands of secular marriages every year.
Scott McKinnon...
Scott McKinnon, Please do not put words into my mouth because you feel strongly about something. I understand that feeling but you are not reading what I am saying.
No they were not "just" expressing "an opinion" they were committing a crime and as such should be charged and should feel the full weight of the law!
Read the thread were I write about free speech. Should the Church also take credit for you being able to read and write on Webdiary? They afterall in history are the great educators.
Well why bother about the Church's opinion? They do not make the laws of the land.Well actually the right to a free opinion does outweigh your rights. If it did not, you would be trampling on others rights, no?
Again the Church does not make the laws in this land, neither does it stop you or anyone else being a part of making said laws. They only express an opinion on what the laws should be, the same way you are doing now.
You will never end equality by showing exactly the same tendency towards others!
Jay White...
I understand the point you are making is about free speech, and it is a good point. I'm not arguing for censorship of the church, or of anybody. John Laws was recently taken to court by an individual because of homophobic remarks Laws made on radio - I disagree with such actions, I don't think it helps anybody.
So I am not arguing that the church should be prevented from expressing an opinion. I am arguing the following:
1. I want the church to back up that opinion by explaining how it can ignore certain elements of the Bible and not others. If the church is going to "express an opinion on the way the laws should be" and is going to use the teachings of the Bible as a basis for the way it believes laws should be, then why not use ALL the Bible? Why are certain elements of the church's former teachings now considered outdated, while the "sin" of homosexuality is not? The church may have been the great educator, but it used to teach about Adam and Eve. The Catholic Church now believes in evolution. Why was the Bible wrong about that, and not about homosexuality?
2. The church is expressing the opinion that homosexuality is wrong, but actually being homosexual is not an opinion, or even a belief or a lifestyle. It is part of who I am. I am white, right-handed, I have brown hair and I am gay. It is possible to change your opinion (the church is no longer of the opinion that mass must be in Latin, for example, or even that there is a limbo), it is not possible to change your sexuality. So by arguing against the opinions of the church on this matter, I am not trying to press my opinion on them, I am defending who I am. You see it as a matter of free speech, I see it as a matter of discrimination. Put another way, should black people speak out against racism or should they accept that racists have the right to that opinion and leave it at that? In arguing against racist ideas (not attempting to censor them, but arguing against them), are the victims of racism trampling on the rights of racists?
You say "Well why bother about the Church's opinion? They do not make the laws of the land." but then later "They only express an opinion on what the laws should be, the same way you are doing now". That is exactly why I have to bother about them. Because they are expressing an opinion on what the laws should be, and because they are influential in doing so. I will never gain equality if I don't speak out against the people who would like to prevent me from attaining it.
And finally, I wonder if you would consider contacting Pell and Jensen and letting them know that whenever they speak out against gay rights, they are trampling on the rights of gay people to attempt to influence the laws of the land?
Scott and Jay
Scott / Jay, I wrote a long reply to a comment by Craig Schwarze in which I addressed some basic theological understandings of sin. It is just a short excerpt from a much longer document that I had written.
You may find it useful to explore because the sticking point in these discussions always comes back to 'sin'. The usefulness of church input into the drafting of some laws that require a moral framework devolves straight from society's uncritical acceptance of the church's definition of 'sin'.
Without 'sin', we would not be having a debate on homosexuality. This uncritical acceptance of the religious realm's monopoly on certain ideological precepts must be broken to move forward.
In the current dialogue we have the religionists saying "Homosexuality is a sin" and those opposing saying "How can it be a sin if same-sex attraction is an intimate part of who I am". Both sides unwittingly accept that 'sin' is part of the discussion. In fact it should not be.
And that is where we should be going in our advocacy.
Scott McKinnon Sorry I
Scott McKinnon: Sorry, I actually meant to write I have nothing against gay marriage.
If it is any consolation I think with the progress of time we will eventually have gay marriage throughout the western world. Then it is welcome to our world! good luck!
Although it should down the track make for some very interesting divorce cases in the social pages. Looking at some of the more famous gays in our society, they are surely not mundane in anything they do!
Scott McKinnon For those
Scott McKinnon: "For those of us continually restricted (and insulted) by the teachings of the church, teachings which still have such influence in the broader society and so cannot be ignored, that kind of stance is just not good enough".
They may say exactly the same thing about your beliefs. You would say you have the freedom to do as you please under the laws of the land and so would the Church.
"Jay, I agree that single heterosexual people are marginalised, no argument there, but I don't know anyone who has been bashed because the bashers found out they were single. I don't know anyone whose (Christian) parents have thrown them out of home, burnt all their clothing and other belongings and never spoken to them again because the parents found out they were single. I don't know any heterosexual single people who couldn't get married this afternoon if they wanted to, should they find the right person on their lunch-break today".
I read everyday of people being bashed for a variety of reasons, surely not all are gay? As to the family issue these are private relationships and have nothing to do with the government or Church.
As to the marriage problem I suggest you take this issue up with your local MP. The Church does not need to change a stance because you do not agree with the stance.
"I do have friends who have been bashed for being gay, and I've copped plenty of abuse myself. I do know someone whose parents reacted in that way to their son's coming out. And despite the fact that I have been in a relationship for four years, our Christian Prime Minister denies my partner and I the right to get married. Maybe you'll forgive me for feeling a little marginalised.
And please don't reply that the Prime Minister is simply following majority opinion on the topic of marriage. He has defied majority opinion in the past - the sale of Telstra is an example.”
All the things you speak of happening are crimes. You have as much right under our law as any other person not to have a crime committed against you.
As to the Prime Minister, if you do not agree with the stance I suggest again you do not vote for him. That is how democracy works. Personally I have nothing against marriage, I do however understand some do and I respect their right to express this opinion.
Jay White:"I read
Jay White:"I read everyday of people being bashed for a variety of reasons, surely not all are gay?"
The point is the marginalisation of gay people. Of course I was not suggesting that everybody who is bashed is gay. What I am saying is that the simple fact of being gay places people at risk of violence. A friend of mine was in hospital for a week because a bunch of young men thought it would be fun to sit in their car in Darlinghurst and wait for a gay man to walk by so that they could bash him. This was not a robbery, drunken brawl or argument. He was knocked to the ground and kicked in the stomach and face because those people were of the opinion that there is something wrong with homosexuality. They left him lying unconscious on the street. They were, I guess, just expressing an opinion.
"As to the family issue these are private relationships and have nothing to do with the government or Church."
You are defending the right of Church leaders to express an opinion, but denying the fact that these opinions have consequences. If a person takes actions against homosexual people (including their children) because they are taught to do so by the Church, then the Church must take some responsibility for that. In a democracy we have both rights and responsibilities. I would never argue that the Church should be prevented from making a statement. I would argue that they must take responsibility for the damage that their statements cause.
"As to the marriage problem I suggest you take this issue up with your local MP. The Church does not need to change a stance because you do not agree with the stance."
Believe me, I have taken the issue of gay marriage up with my local MP. I do NOT want to get married in a church, and if churches want to deny gay marriages within the church, fine by me. What I do mind is when religious arguments are used to deny me the right to marry AT ALL.
"Personally I have nothing against marriage, I do however understand some do and I respect their right to express this opinion."
What you need to understand is that we are not talking about simple opinions, we are talking about my right to equality. The civil rights movement, the women's movement and the gay rights movement are all about a repressed section of the community standing up to the majority "opinion" and demanding equality. They are about the fact the right of one group to a certain "opinion" does not outweigh my right to equal rights under the law.
Not "massive generalisations"
Craig, they are not massive generalisations, but many years of study, travelling and in debate with many in what may be called the hierarchy of Australian churches years ago. Not US evangelistic. During those travels and studies it became visibly apparent as to what the truth was regarding religion and how far that was away from the reality of their expression.
As to telling you my ideology, I may just write about it in an article and see if Hamish will publish it. I would expect more ridicule than support though, But would enjoy the responses. As to emotions motivating my attack, let’s just say a warped sense of humour. However if I write something and they don't want to publish it, then I shall send it to you and you can attack it all you like. That’s called learning difference. But thanks for the offer.
I am sure you have found your peace, all do when they have confidence in an ideology that hasn't let them down personally. But with religion, the trick is to make people take things in isolation rather than the whole picture. The whole picture shows religions to be despotic, demonic and just plain warmongers
However this is off the subject, which revolves around the churches attitude to homosexuality, my only other comment on that is, the church is full of them. Take it from me, all factions are riddled with them, as well as those that have deviant sexual desires and hide behind the cloth and bible. So I see that as a pure hypocrisy
Oops, upset a secularist
Alga, many thanks for your reply, though I'm not aware of feeling any fear at this stage!
I think massive generalisations about "the history of religion" are not at all helpful. It's about as useful as me saying "Well, the history of atheism, as exemplified by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pott..." etc.
You speak from the perspective of your years in the church. But can you really draw a conclusion about others purely based on that?
You suggest my (very mild!) "counter-attack" was driven by insecurity. Well, which emotion motivated your original "attack"?
You say "Religion offers a number of things, that it can't deliver, peace, love, and harmony." Dear me, that is quite a statement! The truth of it is self-evident to you and in no need of supporting evidence. At the individual level I have found all of these things through faith, and I know of many others who have as well. I am simply speaking from my experience - I imagine yours has been different.
"To explain why I see religion in this light and the methodology I use to come to this conclusion, may be beyond most people understanding and ability to accept difference..."
Well, why not try me? Anyway, this is way off topic. But you (or anyone else on this thread) is welcome to email me at craig.schwarze@gmail.com. I would be interested in hearing more about your ideology.
thanks again
Thanks Roger for your thoughtful reply. I'm a little concerned that it may seem from my post that I am a religious person myself and that this is causing me some confusion or turmoil around my sexuality. Don't worry, I'm not. I was raised Catholic but left all that behind me long ago. No turmoil here.
My point really is that I want someone of faith, who uses that faith to condemn homosexuality, to explain to me how they deal with the hypocrisy of that stance. I want someone to explain how they justify ignoring certain sections of the bible as irrelevant while asserting that others are not. If someone is going to insult me based on their faith, than they need to be keeping pretty strictly to the teachings of that faith themselves.
Jay White has said here, "I cannot prove one way or the other what God truly thinks. I think it all comes down to faith in whether you believe what you are told or not." For those of us continually restricted (and insulted) by the teachings of the church, teachings which still have such influence in the broader society and so cannot be ignored, that kind of stance is just not good enough. It is like saying that homosexuality is a sin and the way I know that it is a sin is that I believe those people that have told me that homosexuality is a sin. If you are going to deny me equality, you need a better bloody argument than that.
Jay White has also said, "I hardly see gays as marginalised in this day and age. They are no more marginalised than say single hetrosexual people in many areas." Jay, I agree that single heterosexual people are marginalised, no argument there, but I don't know anyone who has been bashed because the bashers found out they were single. I don't know anyone whose (Christian) parents have thrown them out of home, burnt all their clothing and other belongings and never spoken to them again because the parents found out they were single. I don't know any heterosexual single people who couldn't get married this afternoon if they wanted to, should they find the right person on their lunch-break today.
I do have friends who have been bashed for being gay, and I've copped plenty of abuse myself. I do know someone whose parents reacted in that way to their son's coming out. And despite the fact that I have been in a relationship for four years, our Christian Prime Minister denies my partner and I the right to get married. Maybe you'll forgive me for feeling a little marginalised.
And please don't reply that the Prime Minister is simply following majority opinion on the topic of marriage. He has defied majority opinion in the past - the sale of Telstra is an example.
an explanation
"I want someone to explain how they justify ignoring certain sections of the Bible as irrelevant while asserting that others are not. If someone is going to insult me based on their faith, than they need to be keeping pretty strictly to the teachings of that faith themselves."
To answer your question. The Scriptures indicate “Wickedness” as mans actions against another human, and signifies “Sin” as Man's actions against Gods Commands (or the will of God) . God makes known his will to individuals or groups throughout the Scriptures by way of a “Covenant” or a law. For example in the beginning there was only one law….“don’t eat the fruit from that tree” then a judgement was imposed…….”if you do you will die“. Now when Cain killed Able God did not kill him because there was no Law or judgement in place for Murder, so God just banished him.
If we jump past a few Covenants and come to the one made with Israel, we see God issue ten initial Commands which form the Basis of the Covenant, and then hundreds more laws which were to cleanse the Nation morally and reflect the nature of God which is “Holiness” ( that’s why he kept saying I will make you a Holy Nation amongst all Nations). This was necessary because God was going to use Israel to bring Judgement on other wicked Nations.
When Israel left Egypt it was morally equal to the culture of Egypt and there for it would have been hypocritical of God to use an unholy Nation to bring judgement upon another, and so Israel itself was shaped up. This process made Israel not only the Law bearer, but also the judge, jury and executioner of her own people and other Nations. This Covenant as a whole is referred to as “The law of Moses”.
If Israel as a nation sinned then there was a consequence, if individuals sinned the same applied for that person. Now Jesus enters the scene to bring a new Covenant, not only for Israel but also for all mankind . The death of Jesus fulfilled and completed the Covenant of Israel (or the Law of Moses) and set down only two new Laws which form what we refer to as the “Law of Grace” and “The law of the Spirit” to this were added other laws by Jesus and those who he gave authority to by announcing that what they bound on Earth was also from heaven. This authority would be from Jesus through the Holy Spirit (which the scriptures refer to as the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Jesus and the Spirit of Christ ). The Apostles were directed by Christs Spirit in regard to issues within the church.
The New Testament (or covenant) is very clear about continuing to sin knowingly, it states that if you continue to sin then “you do not know God” the context of this statement is to imply that you have not entered into the Covenant with him and therefore not really one of those who God has given him.
What then constitutes sin in the New Covenant? Well the Apostles who when explaining the New Covenant to the Jewish believers showed them that the Old Law was to reveal to us what sin was. So we see that Jesus allows you into the Covenant if you acknowledge your sin and accept who he is and what he has done on your behalf.
But you cannot continuously prevail in your sin, therefore a homosexual cannot continue to engage that lifestyle, a murderer cannot continue to murder and so on. The New Testament does acknowledge that we from time to time slip back into sin and the Church leadership is to place that person outside the body of believers until there is a genuine repentance and then they are received back into the Body.
My personal opinion of homosexuals prior to becoming a Christian was one of indifference and sometimes repulsiveness, but since becoming a Christian, Christ has shown me that we are not to judge homosexuals outside of the Church as my previous sins were no less or greater than theirs, but it cannot be tolerated within the Church as any other sin cannot be, and it is for the very same reason as God would not tolerate it within Israel
oop's, upset a christian
Craig, I understand the fear regarding your beliefs being wrong or a mental aberration. However a quick look at the history of religion, shows that it is not what it represents itself to be, in its worldwide applications and evangelistic approach. It's not that all who follow religion are mentally ill, it's the effect upon people's rationale that indicates its detrimental effect on a persons mental stability.
As you don't know what my ideology is, I don't see how you can determine, that I wish it to reign unopposed. Quite the opposite I'm afraid, I have no desire for others to follow what I may believe in, it's private and should stay that way. I do however understand, from my many years within the church, the tendency to attack, ridicule or blame anything that questions the illusion of religion.
Religion offers a number of things, that it can't deliver, peace, love, and harmony. Those things require tolerance, acceptance and support for all. Religion fails that miserably. Religions last ditch attempt to keep people entrapped, is the offer of hope after death. Not before when you need it, but after you have sacrificed your entire life for nothing but confusion, doubt, double standards and an unfulfillable hole, that you pour your money into in the hope of redemption.
To explain why I see religion in this light and the methodology I use to come to this conclusion, may be beyond most people understanding and ability to accept difference, beyond their current acceptance of existence. So lets just say that I see it from what I call, a non worldly, non material view.
Roger Fedyk...
No it is not, the laws of the land are governed by those we elect. I suggest you find people whose views you agree with to vote for. That is the thing politicians live and die on. Blaming Jensen or any one outside of politics for our laws is fighting with windmills.
"Not only the Peter Jensen's of the world hold sway in the halls of power, witness the unashamed courting of the Pentacostal vote by both sides of politics. What an ego boost for Brian Houston".
Again politicans live and die on the decisions they choose to make. Labor courts the unions, Liberal business and so on. If things were to turn nasty for say Brian Houston this no doubt will have a political rub off on all involved with him. Once upon a time pollies kept out of religion because it was not popular amongst the voter. Times are forever changing.
I wonder if John Howard has ever been very personally cosy with this person?
The thing is that with respect to gay marriage most Australians are against it in every poll I have ever read. Politicians reflect the things that gain them the most votes. Like or not this is the system and always has been.
"Within such a corrupted situation, minorities can be marginalised and villainised. If I picked up the phone and called the PM I would get as far as the switchboard. When Pell and Jensen make the same call, it's 'Hello George (Peter) this is John'. The cosy buddying up of politics and religion continually skews what we read, see and hear".
I hardly see gays as marginalised in this day and age. They are no more marginalised than say single hetrosexual people in many areas.
Of course Pell and Jensen have power with the PM. They represent in Australia very large organisations as do many other people. There is nothing wrong or shady about these people expressing the opinions of their respective organisations. That is democracy.
Democracy-shemocracy
Jay, let me be pedantic. Demos is from the Greek for people. The Greek for an organisation is Organismos. Are you suggesting that a democracy and an organismocracy are the same thing.
Also do you stand by Lord Acton's theorem that "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Powerful interests peddling unprovable tenets are hardly the right thing in a mature modern democracy.
amazing religion
I'm always amazed at how heated debate can become when dealing with religious intervention in peoples lives. Here we have self righteous ideologists ranting about their firm belief in their superiority over others in both intellectual, ethical and moral issues.
What really bugs me is that the religious purport to these moral standards, but religious history points in the opposite direction. They base their bias on a book that isn't factual, historically, inaccurate and hypocritical in its interpretation and implementation.
As others say, homosexuality is a part of life, as are many sexual and non-sexual relationships. The problem is determining what is acceptable to the majority of the community, as well as not neglecting the rights of others to be as they wish. Morals are mostly determined on religious grounds and so are biased towards that belief. However ethics are universal throughout all life on the planet and allow all life to express itself, as long as it doesn't bring unnecessary harm to other life forms.
As can be seen throughout the world, religion will do what it can to gain political and moral control over whatever part of society they reside in, or infiltrate. Religion has but one aim, thats to control life by whatever means. So homosexuals are easy game. Rather a bent outlook when you consider the rampant sexual abuse encompassing all religions throughout history.
Roger has a valid point, but he is lucky that his son lives in a country where the vast majority live by ethics and not religious morals. My only problem with homosexuality, is the same as it is with sole parents, I don't believe that children should be brought up in an environment that restricts their access to their biological parents, unless that is impossible or dangerous.
Considering all monotheistic religions follow the same deity, yet they have constantly been at war with each other since its inception. It makes one wonder, if this is a valid belief system, or an endemic debilitating and dangerous mental illness.
Mental Illness
I think its pretty unhelpful to suggest religion is a "mental illness". In Alga's view myself (and all other people with religious beliefs) are actually mentally ill.
I'm not sure such statements are conducive to a constructive dialogue with religion.
I think there is great irony here. To Alga and Roger it is self-evident that religion is about controlling people. Therefore it needs to be suppressed so that their own "tolerant" and "liberating" ideology can reign unopposed.
It seems to me that Jensen's critics are far more intolerant and prejudiced than Jensen himself.
Some Comments
Thanks Roger for your clarifying comment. I am an Anglican and a Christian. I have heard Dr Jensen speak on numerous occasions, though I have never met him in person. My own ideology is fairly close to that of Jensen. I will try and answer some of the questions raised on this thread. I must hasten to add that I don't expect to "win" anyone to my views.
I was surprised when Roger suggested that Jensen "speaks for God." I'd never heard him use that phrase before. Roger's further comment helped clarify things a little.
When Jensen speaks about God's "authority" or "Word" he is talking about the Bible. He believes that God has spoken clearly through the Bible. Hence someone reading the Bible can actually know the mind of God (to a limited extent, of course).
Now, if you don't share Jensen's assumption regarding the Bible, it is going to be pretty difficult to agree with some of his statements. It would be surprising if the morality endorsed by the Bible perfectly matched that which was endorsed by society at this particular point in history. There are going to be conflicts.
Jensen believes that the proper expression of sexuality is in a life-long, monogamous heterosexual relationship - what we call marriage. According to this view, homosexuality is a sin - though I should add that it is no more a sin than heterosexual adultery or fornication.
Having said all that, I find it hard to understand what Roger's concern is. Jensen is a religious leader and teacher. His job is to expound the doctrines of his particular religion. He has done precisely what we should expect him to do.
A Comment on Belief
Craig, you say that your ideology is close to Peter Jensen's. How would you measure that and what do you actually mean? Are you responding to his call to be involved in a "life and death struggle"? To my mind what Jensen has said is stridently confrontational. He is saying "bring it on, we are ready to fight and die".
Whether Dr Jensen actually uses the phrase about being God's spokesman or not, you do not get appointed to high office unless you understand that you have considerable power and that your utterances are taken by the population as if God himself is talking. Calling on the unchallenged authority of the Bible is a smokescreen for worldly ambitions. The faithful are not responding to the Bible but to Christ's Bishop, the one who "binds" and "looses". Make no mistake, Jensen, Pell and others know exactly how their words are taken by the public.
Jensen's beliefs on marriage are of enormous relevance. They are the same as the law promulgated by Parliament. In this I would assume that Jensen would give praise to God and not to his, or his cohorts, behind the scenes machinations. How fortuitous an outcome for the gentle bishop who wants to go to war.
To finish, my concern is that Peter Jensen and others are just men. No better no worse that most. They live in a privileged position from which they make pronouncements to suit their own ideology. They cloak this in the respectability of their office and they successfully seek to influence the laws of a secular state.
That they do this by trampling on a despised minority is a travesty. Seeing that God/Jesus will not be showing himself any time soon the bishops of the world have a clear run. I assume, Craig, that you do not have a gay child in which case I recommend to you the lyrics of the song "Walk A Mile In My Shoes". You would then have an appreciation of how much sanctimonious humbug from well-meaning people, I have heard in the last 20 years, here in Australia and in the US and the UK where we also lived.
Thanks Roger
Thanks Roger. You have asked a number of questions and I will attempt to reply to them.
Well, as I said previously I am an Anglican (in Sydney) and I regularly attend church. I've heard Jensen speak and I've read a fair bit of his writing. I find myself in general agreement with his theology.
Part of the problem is that you are responding to sound bites quoted in the article. From what I can see, he was saying it is a "life and death struggle" for the Anglican church, rather than individuals.
Yes, and fair enough too! He believes passionately in his ideology. He is entitled to be strident. He is entitled to be confrontational. This is a western liberal democracy after all!
You have put words into Jensen's mouth. But I suspect he would be ready to die for his beliefs. I suppose there may be some things (your son?) that you would also be willing to do so for.
This is a massive generalisation. You are reading your own assumptions about religious leaders back onto Jensen. With respect, in this instance you are the one being prejudiced.
I do not believe Jensen is a worldly man. I draw this conclusion from his writings, and from those who know him personally. You will need to provide evidence of such an assertion.This is Roman Catholic language. Evangelical Anglicanism takes a rather different view to the episcopacy and the "power of the keys".
I really don't understand your comment. Marriage has been with us for thousands of years. It is not something that Jensen and his "cohorts" have contrived behind closed doors!Absolutely.
Certainly. In this respect they are no different to any other influential figure in the country.As citizens of the nation they are perfectly entitled to lobby for their beliefs. Just as you are.
You are using emotive language. I don't see at all how he has "trampled" on homosexuals. He has expressed a sincere belief that homosexuality is immoral. You disagree. Is Jensen required to adopt your morality is in order to be a peace with you? Is that "tolerance"?
No I don't. It sounds like it has been an incredibly painful experience for you.
I do, however, know several gay people. One is a close friend and also a Sydney Anglican. He has made the decision to be celibate as required by his faith. (Single heterosexuals are also required to be celibate, of course!)
So I do have some understanding of the issues, and some stake in it all. And there are many like him in our churches.
A book was published by Jensen's brother a couple of years ago called What Some of You Were. It discusses the experiences of gays "coming out" of the homosexual scene and into the church. If you are interested in how people like Jensen really deal with homosexuality, may I recommend you get hold of a copy?
Problems of pain
Thank you, Craig. Our family experience has been painful. However my son's pain is greater than my own.
I appreciate your efforts to be evenhanded but in the end you say the same things as those who continue to support the discrimination and exclusion. Even if Peter Jensen is the man you say he is, he is plainly willing to tear apart his own church because he disavows the efforts of those who want to move past his line in the sand, including his superiors.
For those on the periphery, such as yourself, it is simple to compartmentalise the occasional interaction with those who are gay. It is easy to be glib and adopt platitudes. After all it does not affect your life. If the only acceptable homosexuals are the ones who live in your favoured celibate box then that is an inhuman expectation. Why should homosexuals make the heroic efforts because a book says so? Human beings look for fulfillment and comfort in physical contact.
However more to the point is that when your own child is a homosexual you are forced to accumulate expertise in human sexuality because that is the only way to understand the challenges of society. My son has three heterosexual siblings. He was conceived in the same loving union as the others. In hindsight, from the age of four, he was different. He did not choose homosexuality, it is innately part of who he is. To use terminology that you understand and accept, God made him!
That Peter Jensen is willing to promote conflict within his own church shows that his understanding in this matter is flawed.
I thank you for the book reference, however at this stage I would not read it because it his brother's book and not his. Its usefulness is limited. I don't seek to understand Dr Jensen because his actions and words are inimical to what I want to achieve.
Thanks
Thanks again for your response. If you don't wish to understand Jensen any further then I imagine this dialogue is at an end. All I can ask of yourself, and others like you, is that you will show tolerance of those whose beliefs and values are different to your own.
At Who's End
Craig, if Dr Jensen was a private citizen exercising his citizen's right to freedom of religion there would not be an issue. My wife is a religious woman and I occasionally attend church because it pleases her. You are welcome to believe what you want and I will support you in your wishes because I have no desire for you to follow my path.
As my central point seems to get lost in the cross-traffic of competing comments, I will repeat it. Jensen, Pell and others abuse their prominent position to push an agenda which in the case of homosexuals is discriminatory and exclusionary.
Dr Jensen's career choice has been to take a public role as the spokesperson for a religion that is closely allied with many of those in Australia's establishment and who's head is the English monarch. From this public position he is forcing a very public showdown within his church on an issue in which he is neither a genetic expert nor an original thinker. His whole position is based on a book which draws its emminence from nothing more compelling than some one like yourself chooses to believe it.
If you have something to say on the matter that does not rely on biblical authority I would certainly be pleased to hear it. And there is the crux of the matter, the Bible (honoured by convention as a formal noun) says homosexuality is a sin.
Now I have very deliberately refrained from theological argument in which I have considerable experience. All I will say on it is that a thorough examination of the omni-attributes of the Godhead will show that concept of sin has no rational basis. The current understandings of sin are perversions introduced by Augustine and embellished by Aquinas.
Reasonable?
Roger, I think I understand where you are coming from. But I dont feel your position is reasonable. From what I can gather, Jensen was addressing a conference of Anglicans regarding matters of Anglican belief and practice.
These comments were picked up by the mainstream media and are now being debated in public. Is that his fault? Surely an archbishop is entitled to talk theology and morals at an Anglican conference!
As far as I can see, Jensen is happy for you to do whatever you wish "behind closed doors." Surely the church is also entitled to it's own beliefs and practices?
The politicians play god not the church
Roger, I have read your post and later comments and whilst having sympathy for some of your observations about the existing double standards in the current law I believe your criticism of the church is somewhat misdirected.
Notwithstanding that you disagree with existing Church doctrine about homosexuality this would be beside the point if adults of consenting age were able to freely contract with each other without interference from the state.
It is the state and not the church or religion that prohibits individuals from entering binding contracts about their personal living arrangements.
For instance, as an about to be married for the first time heterosexual couple, we would prefer to have a marriage contract that had a degree of penalty or fault for any breeches in the marital contract.
Other couples who decide to enter a commitment later in life who have adult children or homosexual couples may have different circumstances and may prefer a different contract.
Let us take the more controversial example of homosexual adoption.
Although I am strongly against it for various reasons I do not think that we should legislate against it where the natural parents believe that it is in the best interests of their child.
I respect the lifestyle choices and decisions of any consenting adult as long as it does not impact on me. However, I think that is morally wrong to expect others to subsidise or contribute to lifestyles or ways of life that they do not approve.
This is the totalitarian conundrum of the modern democratic welfare state that prescribes a one size fits all policy for all with politicians playing god.
Further, as a libertarian I see the current debate being conducted within the Anglican and Catholic churches as ostensibly about freedom of association and property rights.
Those who wish to change church policy wish to do so notwithstanding that those views rightly or wrongly have stood for thousands of years and without the honesty to start their own faith – notwithstanding that was the on the basis that they joined the organisation.
Rob, thanks
Rob, thanks for some thoughtful comments.
I would not agree with your statement that, "It is the state and not the church or religion that prohibits individuals from entering binding contracts about their personal living arrangements". That is a legalistic interpretation of the real interaction between Christian church and state in framing Australian laws. In your interpretation, the Church has no influence which is plainly not the case. The state would have no moral Christian position if politicians did not bring their religious views into the process of lawmaking. In the case of the Marriage Act amendment, we would not have the sanctimonious utterances of the Attorney General that he was 'saving the institution of marriage'.
I think that you would find it edifying to actually read what Australian law prior to the latest amendment actually said. Here is an excerpt from the submission that I wrote to the The Senate Inquiry on the Marriage Act amendment before it was aborted by Ruddock and co with the help of Labor:
With the considerable urging of all the major churches the Marriage Act Amendment was bundled through Parliament.
As to your statement "I respect the lifestyle choices and decisions of any consenting adult as long as it does not impact on me". Are you not just saying that whether we have discrimination or not you do not have a position as long as your life is not affected. How does that come over to those who's lives are affected, continuously, day by 24 hour day? Your indifference may in fact be worse than the deliberate actions of Peter Jensen. If you as a libertarian don't care who will?
Your 'politicians playing god' is a further terminological acceptance of a status quo that is orchestrated and played to by the mainstream Christian churches. Do you imagine that George Pell, Jensen and co are sitting contemplating the next diocesan tea party when in fact they are the high-powered local representatives of multi-billion (or trillion in the case of the Catholics) dollar multinational organisations. Are they not the Kerry Packers and Rupert Murdochs of the religious world?
Now this I find is more than just a little inflammatory: "Those who wish to change church policy wish to do so notwithstanding that those views rightly or wrongly have stood for thousands of years and without the honesty to start their own faith – notwithstanding that was the basis that they joined the organisation". Firstly if you allow, as you do, that Church views may have stood for centuries wrongly then what business do we have today to continue to endorse them. If the Churches have been rightly justified in the 1700 years since Constantine formalised Christianity as a political force then how do you explain away the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Jewish pogroms, the support of the Nazis, the acquiescence to Stalin, the obscene wealth, the corpulent privilege, the union of State and Church in the person of the English monarch. The list of obscenities is endless. But you blithely accept that this is somehow the fault of those that would seek to do something to rid a modern world of a feudal obeisance.
In my own case, I wonder why I would start a faith of my own seeing that in the end, according to Lord Acton, I will be lording it over others and being no better than those who I criticise. No, a search for faith is not a worthy ambition. A search for truth and understanding in the Englightenment sense as articulated by Paine, Jackson and others is far better and would bring harm to no creature.
Roger...
Roger, we are on the same page on a number of points however on balance notwithstanding some of the valid arguments and historical observations about the mainstream Christian churches I still believe on balance that they have the right to practise Christianity as they see fit with the caveat being as long as they do not interfere with others rights.
I have no doubt that with the monopoly on marriage law being held with the state that they like any other vested interest group would be lobbying the politicians with their particular viewpoint.
However this is not the fault of the religion or churches but the nature of our modern democracies that are increasingly totalitarian in prescribing to us how we must live our lives.
If we look through history you are correct in identifying that parts of the church have had a rather inglorious part to play in some of history's moments. However let us contrast that to the history of the modern state over the past 100 years with its monopoly on force to see who the largest mass murderers have been.
Points of Agreement
Rob, I do believe that it is the right of any person to believe what ever they want to. The problem is not a wish on my part to curtail other people's rights but the interefence of powerful religious organisations in my life and the life of my son.
To your last paragraph I would say that there is no valid numbers game to play. Where they killed 15,000 5 centuries ago and we killed 20 million 60 years ago cannot excuse the past travesties. However more pertinent is that fact that 1700 years of Christianity have produced nothing like they should have. The followers of Jesus Christ have failed miserably in bringing the world to a better place. Their ideology is competely bankrupt. The main thing that has happened is that an immensely wealthy global business has survived and prospered.
Compared to the actions and words of the biblical Jesus this outcome is grotesque. How can any thinking person still defend this religion and allow its influence to continue unabated?
Harold Bloom on homosexuality
Here is American literary critic Harold Bloom's explanation for why homosexuality has such a hard time being accepted in our culture. From his book (2004), Where Shall Wisdom Be Found?
Beauty is truth, truth beauty
The truth is, whether we like it or not, homosexuality is a natural part of creation. It exists in man and in animals, always has, and if God did create this world then it (God) also created homosexuality.
Get used to it Mr Jensen, your god has being trying to tell you the truth, and as the truth looks you in the face you appear to keep telling truth to go away.
That is all I am going to say on this matter for in my opinion there is nothing else to say.
Bible
The Bible apears to be full of contradictions and some pretty wacky rules that most Christians including Peter Jensen fail to obey. So selectively choosing one part - which I believe is from St Paul, and claiming it's the word of God and having a go at gays and lesbians is downright ill-mannered of the man. Even worse, he claims they will be the death of the church! Pretty nasty stuff if you ask me. I don't recall God's son Jesus ever engaging in a homophobic rant like this. One would have though he would have mentioned it as he was sent to show us the light.
Hamish: on the contrary, the good teacher allegedly told his followers that the key to salvation was to condemn nobody. See Matthew 7:1
Thanks
I want to take a moment to thank Roger for this post. That a father should not only offer support to his son, but take an active stand against the discrimination his son faces is a great thing. Congratulations.
What I find most frustrating in the battle between gay people like me and the religions that many of us grew up in is that I have never once heard or read a reasonable argument explaining why so much of the Bible can be considered outdated, yet the section on homosexuality remains God's word. Webpages and emails pointing out the various areas of The Old Testament which are obviously outdated are almost a cliche now, they appear so often (if you don’t know what I’m talking about see here), yet not once have I seen a reasoned response to them that is not along the lines of "because we say so". I am constantly told that homosexuality is a sin because it says so in the Bible. Is there anyone out there who can explain to me why some areas of the Old Testamant can be ignored today, and yet some cannot?
There is a solution
Scott, thank you for sentiments.
When you look within yourself and ask yourself "Why am I a homosexual?" the answer may be multifaceted but one thing will be conspicuous by its absence. You will not include 'because I chose this as my desired lifestyle'.
You are who you are, a member of a group of 200 million (yes that's right folks) human beings who are same sex attracted. Not a pervert, not a degenerate, not a chooser of a debased life style.
So if the Bible (a book written by men) says that you are committing a sin then you need to question the veracity of the Bible not the emotions and desires of your own being.
Much is made by the anti-homosexual lobby of the sexual processes. Unnatural is the most common jibe. Well, the third most popular sexual act of heterosexual pornography is anal sex. Shock horror, a penis enters an anus. So? Men and women do it every day. They also indulge in oral sex. If there is an obliging orifice, a penis will find it in both heterosexual and homsexual unions. We don't hear a single word uttered about how men and women engage in sexual pleasure. What is the difference between a female or male anus? Neither can be used for procreation. What is the difference between a male mouth and a female mouth?. Neither can be used for procreation.
Scott, the sexual prohibitions of the Bible are part of the shamanistic ploy to mystify and control.
If the Supreme Creator was so worried about penises and orifices It would have removed them from all the life forms. After all you can't tell me It didn't know what it was doing. Spend some time thinking about what the Godhead attribute of omniscience really means and you will see that the Biblical sexual injunctions like the prohibitions on eating of pork and shellfish and women's periods is a lot of silliness that is not worth anguishing over.
Personal religion may be a comfort to many people but institutionalised religion is the bane of mankind.
Roger Fedyk I cannot
Roger Fedyk, I cannot prove one way or the other what God truly thinks. I think it all comes down to faith in whether you believe what you are told or not.
"However, it is not presented as such. What is presented in Barney Schwartz's article is fact. Dr Jensen make no such distinction as you have. He uses his office to reinforce opinion as fact. "God said this", "God said that", "God calls this sin" are all conjectures without proof. You consider yourself to be a thinking person and able to sort facts from fiction. How do you think that the peddling of the will of the unfathomable God comes about?"
He uses his office and position to force what he sees as its role on its members no dispute from me. As I have already said I am not an Anglican so my concern is minimal to zero. I would though have a problem if his position was forced upon society in general irrespective of personal belief. Hence I believe in seperation of Church and State.
"This much I can safely assume about a Supreme Creator, it is big enough to put with some scepticism from the highest primate. We need to stop listening uncritically to the shamans and use the God-given mind. It is out birthright!"
Sure and you have proven by this thread that you are doing exactly that. However some may wish not to go about life this way and choose to put faith in Dr Jansen and the Church he belongs too. That should be their right as is yours to simply ignore the message.
When Dr Jansen begins to force is opinions on to those by taking away their choice to listen to them or not I will be the first person on your side against such things. Until that day I have little concern how these law abiding groups go about their business and beliefs.
Comrades in arms?
Jay, I thank you for your support on that unlucky day. However it is already here.
Not only the Peter Jensen's of the world hold sway in the halls of power, witness the unashamed courting of the Pentacostal vote by both sides of politics. What an ego boost for Brian Houston.
In a country which has a constitution that separates Church and religion, we have people like Phillip Ruddock and Nicola Roxon who believe that their job as politicians involves, amongst other things, "saving the institution of marriage". Only within religion is marriage described as an institution. No where in all the laws of Australia including the Marriage Act is marriage described that way. Politicians tow the religious line that homosexuality is something immoral, perverted and wrong. In a country where 40% of all marriages end in divorce the focus of the government and opposition was, for a time, wholely focused on making sure that a small number of homosexuals should never achieve a legal matrimonial union.
43,000 divorces took place in Australia last year and the politicians for some unknown reason (wink, wink, nudge,nudge) decided that they would BS the public over "saving the institution of marriage" from those horrid queers.
So we already have a solid entwining of religion and state power which tells us what to do based on religious precepts. Christianity is the slightly hidden religion of the Australian state. There is no separation.
Within such a corrupted situation, minorities can be marginalised and villainised. If I picked up the phone and called the PM I would get as far as the switchboard. When Pell and Jensen make the same call, it's 'Hello George (Peter) this is John'. The cosy buddying up of politics and religion continually skews what we read, see and hear.
Relevance
Jay White: "I really do not understand the point you are trying to make in the thread. Apart from letting off steam about something you obviously do not agree with, what do you propose we as a society should be doing about the opinions of Dr Jansen?"
Jay, I won't attempt to speak for Roger but, apart from the issue of the ramifications of Dr Jensen's statement for the treatment of gays in our society, I think his piece raises very interesting and pertinent questions for "people of faith". I don't know about other faiths, but within both Islam and Christianity at present the question of how one ultimately decides what God wants of us is very important. Is the final arbiter a specific person such as the Pope or the Imam at your mosque, must one work it out as part of one's own experience of God, or is there ultimate authority in the sacred text itself? I don't know that these issues will ever be resolved to everybody's satisfaction, but a great deal depends on the progress of the theological arguments.
Roger Fedyk...
It is not my area whether or not he speaks for God. I think he thinks that he is reading the Bible as it is meant to be read. What proof do you have that Dr Jensen is in fact wrong? These things are ambiguious and come down to ones own opinion I would have thought?
"The good bishop has wrapped himself in cloak of legitimacy based on his standing in Australian society. Is this enough for us to accept that what he says is true?"
I see him as a person making a statement on behalf of an organisation he is in charge of. This happens every day and is up to each person to judge these statements by their own standards. It is obvious you have made your mind up on the merits of his speech, most likely others have also.
"Do you believe that Dr Jensen can actually see the future and therefore knows what the fate of the Anglican Church will be?"
I dont think any human being can see the future with certainty. As to the fate of the Anglican Church, well being that I am not a member it really is none of my concern.
"Why is his opinion any more worthy or true than yours or mine or my son's?"
I never said it was. He does though have the right to get his opinion across just as much as you or your son. He also has the right to express his opinion about which way a organisation he is a part of should head.
I really do not understand the point you are trying to make in the thread. Apart from letting off steam about something you obviously do not agree with, what do you propose we as a society should be doing about the opinions of Dr Jansen?
Well Jay...
Well Jay, for something that is not your area you are being quite forthcoming with comments, which is your right.
As to my proving Jensen wrong, I would point to the empirical evidence. Short of those who are deluded or who are liars there is not a single person or organisation who could claim that they can prove the existence of the creator. In any other field of endeavour, short of religion, you would be figuratively shown the door on the basis of such a nonsensical proposition. Those who believe the Bible can only point to the same book to prove their own arguments. This circular reasoning highlights the foolishness of those who claim to speak for God. Nevertheless, this same book highlight's that God is unfathomable. In spite of this many are prepared to give it a go.
You state, "These things are ambiguious and come down to ones own opinion I would have thought?". I think that you are correct. It is a matter of opinion. However, it is not presented as such. What is presented in Barney Schwartz's article is fact. Dr Jensen make no such distinction as you have. He uses his office to reinforce opinion as fact. "God said this", "God said that", "God calls this sin" are all conjectures without proof. You consider yourself to be a thinking person and able to sort facts from fiction. How do you think that the peddling of the will of the unfathomable God comes about?
If God says so we should believe it. If a Dr Jensen or other purveyors of conjecture say it what makes it believable to a thinking person like yourself?
As to your comment that I am blowing off steam, to the contrary. I have studied and worked long and hard to get to my position. I take nothing for granted and will unreservedly accept any proof that can be shown that does not rely on The Bible. Do you have such a proof?
You say, "I dont think any human being can see the future with certainty". Dr Jensen can. He sees with certainty and states that clearly that unless he fights this fight the Anglican Church will die. Since neither your thoughts or my thoughts will never be published in the national press in the same way that Jensen's are. You are a skeptic as I am. Perhaps the difference between you and I is that no one is threatening to do harm to you or to a member of your family. You can afford the luxury of being intellectually and emotionally removed. And yet, who will speak for my son or the millions of other homsexuals who live in this world? Not Peter Jensen, that is for sure!
To answer your final question, what should we do about it? Most Australians pride themselves on knowing the difference between what's real and what is not. We all have a built-in BS meter. It would seem that we are asked to turn it off whenever some person of emminence speaks. This much I can safely assume about a Supreme Creator, it is big enough to put with some scepticism from the highest primate. We need to stop listening uncritically to the shamans and use the God-given mind. It is out birthright!
Full Text?
Could you provide a link to the full text of Dr Jensen's comments? I'm especially interested to read where he says he "speaks for God". I imagine there would be some context to a comment like that.