Larry Smith writes some thoughtful, researched and sometimes ROTFL funny columns in The Tribune. This is one of them: A Bahamian Political Review
This one kinda starts off in the same vane, but then veers into some rather currently conventional comments on Brokeback Mountain, Censorship, Religion, "Gayness" etc.
OK ... no real bone to pick with the column (any more than normal!) apart from the rampant generalisations - but they're equal opportunity generalisations, so we'll let 'em pass.
But a couple thoughts and comments about the whole Brokeback/Censorship/Gay Agenda controversy:
First ... Pastor Lyall Bethell, Apostle [??] Cedric Moss and Pastor Allan Lee wrote a letter to the editor which missed the point on censorship by a mile. In comparing the voluntary restraint of the Tribune in not printing pornographic photographs with the coercive imposition by government of a movie ban, they really don't quite get the point.
No matter what one's views on morality, the example of Jesus ... the really Christian approach to these things ... doesn't even come close to what I see the established church trying to do in the Bahamas today with marches on cruise ships and an extremely narrow focus on only ONE aspect of sexual sin. (To his credit, Cedric Moss has been very vocal in recent years about other condemnable aspects of the films passed for viewing).
I simply don't see anywhere in Holy Writ where Jesus used - or recommended the use of - civil government to impose an agenda on society. Matter of fact he ate with tax collectors and sinners without condemning them beforehand ... it's what got him trouble with the established clergy of his day.
It is not ... repeat NOT ... the Church's job to change society in any other way than by the attempted persuasion (dare I say conversion ?) of one person at a time ... and that, largely by example (see John 13 guys).
NOW ... to the point of the latter part of Larry's current article: While the Western press would have us believe that "gayness" is innate, the science is still not clear. Indeed, accompanying the original study noting the brain differences between gay and straight men was the qualifyer that it was not certain which came first ... that brain differences may indeed develop as a consequence of a lifestyle (as it does with other learned behaviours).
But be that as it may ... what REALLY concerns me ... is suppose we find (as studies have already shown) that criminals have brain differences. Do we then excuse criminal behaviour?
The horror of this scenario is that rapists, murderers and plain old "tiefs" would have to be excused by the justice system, wouldn't they? Not their fault!
So ... IF a behaviour is wrong (and I'm not pronouncing on gayness here, understand - it's immaterial to the essence of the question) it's wrong. PERIOD.
Don't people have ANY control over their impulses? Do we HAVE to always give in? Do we have no responsibility for our actions?
Again, I want to make it clear I am not pronouncing here on my personal view of a particular aspect of morality. But the questions need asked.
And there are serious implications in the answers which various societies eventually reach by consensus.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Looks like you have finally developed a good theme!
Sorry I overlooked this blog in my "blogosphere" article last year.
I respect your religious convictions. The only point I would make is why any straight person would 'desire" the gay lifetsyle - to be ridiculed and persecuted.
You would have to be a real masochist.
The comparison with criminality confuses the issue.
The word 'criminal' has to do with an act that is considered a 'crime' - which is defined as 'an act committed or omitted in violation of a law'
What you or I or Pastor Bethel may consider immoral is another matter.
To make one thing clear here ... my personal opinion falls on the side of "live and let live" in general ... as long as that's a two-way street.
But I agree ... why anyone would WISH to be persecuted, discriminated against, etc. ?
Of course those in opposition would say that the drive for sexual satisfaction overrides a whole ton of scruples/inhibitions.
How do we then deal with the pedophile, the rapist, indeed the whole gamut of sexual variations/deviations (in the literal sense of the latter of those two words)? I've been way too close to a couple situations, and one hears frequently from perpetrators (and some "experts") that it can't really be controlled (... don't know what I believe).
At what point do we pass from the acceptable to the criminal? From the "impulse" to the "uncontrollable urge"? And then why should the latter get a pass? When does any of this stray from sane to nuts?
I'm sure there are answers to these questions even if I don't have them, but I'm never sure where any given society thinks the lines should be drawn as to what makes any of it "morally/religiously" or socially acceptable.
Perhaps this is taking it too far, but it does begin to show why I decided to go down the road of comparison to criminal behaviour when it comes to physical brain differences ...
I fear that at some point in the future if the one thing gets a legal pass because of a [new] science of "hard coding", some other much less acceptable behaviours will too. And I'm sure there are a couple (!) lawyers out there studying already.
Surely the "gay agenda" doesn't have to depend on dubious science to exact tolerance from society. I've heard plenty of other arguments which are perhaps much less assailable "empirically". Unfortunately in today's world, science seems to always trump morality, whatever the subject. Sad really.
I certainly don't have the final answers to this stuff ... but before we drive down a bumpy road we'd do well to check the shocks.
well, you said it yourself - live and let live. A pedophile or a rapist is committing a crime against another person - often violently.
What consenting adults do is another matter.
Post a Comment