Friday, 29 September 2006

Bigots can be ordained, but gays can't

I guess you'd expect me to post about the Presbyterian Church's decision to ban homosexuals from being ordained in their church, news which is making waves today.

But why should I comment? What the trustees of the Presbyterian church choose to get up to is none of my business, any more than it's any of my business what the Mormons, the Destiny Church or the Exclusive Brethren get up to.

It's their right to be bigoted and to believe nonsense, just as it's my right to have nothing to do with them -- and your right to make fun of their antediluvian attitudes-- but what they choose to do in the privacy of their own churches is certainly none of my business.

LINKS: Presbyterian Church votes to exclude gay ministers - NZ Herald

RELATED: New Zealand, Religion, Free Speech


  1. Talking of bigots, you may like to read right winger Dean Esmay's critique of those who stereotype gays - oops - Muslims here

    The Islam hating right have more or less ignored this one - I wonder why?

    I have been following Crusader Rabbit whom you approvingly link. His opinions on minority groups and women suggest he is late for his Klan meeting.


  2. I suppose what makes it difficult is the sodomy aspect of it all. Does being openly gay imply acceptance of sodomy? And if so is this in conflict with tales about Sodom and Gomorrah? Yet do Christ’s teachings override the severity of the Old Testament? Christ seemed asexual and I think priests used to emulate that. Sadly priests are all too human and Christ, well, he was a god.

  3. Calling us rightwingers bigots is being a bit sterotypical isn't it Mr Anonymous. How come we don't get the hugs and kisses you reserve for the radical Moslems? I'm sure they dislike you just as much as we do.
    Oh, that's right, we wont hurt you if you offend us.

  4. ...I suppose what makes it difficult is the sodomy aspect of it all

    Well no - Lesbians are similarly barred.

    Christ seemed asexual and I think priests used to emulate that

    Sure - but why then the acceptance of heterosexual relationships?

    That's what happens when your values are based on the current interpretation of an often self contradictory ancient textbook that purports to be the word of a supernatural being.

  5. I think the biblical attitude toward female homosexuality was similar to Queen Victoria's - it simply wasn't possible! Hence there is no fiery punisment from heaven for it. The concern was probably with the practical mechanics of it.

  6. PC, you can and should comment on the activities of others when they are as blatantly irrational as these homophobic fundies. Sure, "It's their right to be bigoted" but its your right to remind them, and everyone else inclined to listen, exactly how stupid they are.

    Of course the initiation of force is another story ...

  7. These people have a bunch of serious beliefs with a heritage stretching back thousands of years.

    Are those beliefs silly? A lot of them are, yes. Are they bigoted? To my mind, bigotry is about WHY you believe something. One can be tolerant of homosexuality, and yet still say that one's faith precludes them from leadership in the Church. If that faith is based on a principled evangelical view of the Bible, then there is no bigotry involved. For bigotry to be bigotry, it must stem from an opinion of gay people rather than an opinion of scripture.

    And I must say that, having hung out with Christians for over twenty years, I've never heard a single one of them utter anything prejudicial about gay people in my presence beyond their interpretation of the Bible.

  8. From my experience I'd have to say you've been hanging out with some fairly moderate christians then.

    I don't think that simply following scripture absolves the faithful from the moral consequences. If the scripture is bigoted, then you have to wonder about the morality of the people who subscribe to it.

  9. "Scripture" actually has very ilttle (if anything at all) to say about homosexuality. Homosexuality is a essentially a modern concept. As far as I understand, scripture lays down what is considered a code in terms of sexual behaviour, that is restrictive to people who would prefer to have sexual relations with others of the same gener as well as people who wish to have sexual relations with people of an opposite gender. Christian belief does not mean that 'gays' have a monopoly of sexual struggle. Much of Christianty is about denial or surrender of the 'self'.

    If the Presbiterian Chruch would stand some one down as a leader for homosexuality then they should be consistent and stand leaders down for any other 'Sin' too (gossip, greed, hate, lust) . .

    BTW: The reason Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed (in the biblical story/account) was not because of 'sodomy' per se.

  10. Their Church is theor club. They should be able to decide who can play and who cannot. To me it is like these women who want to be able to join Men's Clubs or have heir hair cut at male barber shops? Why would you want to join an association that doesn't want you in the first place? The gays of the Presbyterian Church should start their own church. Make their own rules. Hell, If I wasn't an theist I would join their "inclusive" church by preference. At the endo fthe day this is none of our business.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.