Christianist Teacher Claims Gay People ‘Risk God’s Wrath’

The Christianists are at it again:

A Christian teacher was suspended from his post after complaining that a training day was being used to “promote” gay rights.

History teacher Kwabena Peat, 54, was one of several staff who walked out of the seminar at Park View Academy in North London.

The presentation was given by Sue Sanders of Schools Out, which campaigns against homophobia in education.

Mr Peat claimed that Ms Sanders had said questioned whether heterosexuality was normal.

In a letter to the staff members who organised the talk, he said that Ms Sanders’ presentation had been “aggressive” and, citing the Bible, claimed that gay people “risked God’s wrath”.

The staff addressed in the letter then complained to the school’s principal saying they felt “harassed and intimidated”.

He really wasn’t paying any attention to the Lillian Ladele case, was he? He’s perfectly entitled to have homophobic ideas, indeed to live with the delusion that somehow his God and religion hate gay people, but he’s not entitled under the law to use that belief as a weapon. I’m sure his school has an equal opportunities policy requiring him not to act in a discriminatory way against gay people, so what gives him the impression that his religious rights are paramount over all?

Some of you might say hold on, isn’t Sue Sanders’ statement somewhat ridiculous, somewhat militant and politically correct? Did that not give him the justification to object? Well to give it a context:

“She started promoting homosexual lifestyles and suggesting those who had objections should sort out their prejudices. She said, ‘What makes you all think that to be heterosexual is natural?’ It was at that point that I walked out.”
Speaking to PinkNews.co.uk, Ms Sanders said of her comment: “Taken out of context, it looks very stark.

She said she explains to her audience the heteronormative model of gender theory.

“It’s quite complex but enables people to question what is normal.

He’ll do as he’s told when it comes to working in the public sector, he’ll not behave in a bigoted or a discriminatory way, otherwise he’ll lose his job. It’s a very simple equation – we live under the rule of law, not the rule of ‘God’. Gender theory training will inevitably question trainees’ ideas about ‘normality’, it won’t suggest that being heterosexual wasn’t normal. And when the rights to be religious and the right to be gay are in conflict, the outcome is now clear – being religious does not give you the right to discriminate. End of.

David Attenborough Champions Darwinism

I particularly like the line about there being more evidence for evolution than there was for William the Conqueror.

It’s also highly reassuring to hear this unconditional, pro-evolution line coming from the world’s preeminent natural historian. When Richard Dawkins rails against creationism and slams belief he does so out of a political agenda; not so David Attenborough.

I would disagree however with his analysis that the Book of Genesis has led to deforestation, global warming and environmental disaster:

Sir David, 82, said the devastation of the environment has its roots in the first words that God supposedly uttered to humankind, as detailed in Genesis 1:28: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

An atheist raised in an academic, non-religious family, Sir David said Genesis peddled untruths about how animals and plants appeared on earth and was also at the root of why there was now serious environmental degradation due to the greedy overexploitation of the earth’s natural resources.

“The influence of the Book of Genesis, which says the Lord God said ‘go forth and multiply’ to Adam and Eve and ‘the natural world is there for you to dominate’, [is that] you have dominion over the animals and plants of the world,” Sir David said.

“That basic notion, that the world is there for us and if it doesn’t actually serve our purposes, it’s dispensable, that has produced the devastation of vast areas of the land’s surface.

I would say this may have been a justification for the abuse of the environment and of animal life during the industrial revolution – not so now. It would be an interesting point to investigate further, but I suspect that even though modern capitalism and its inexhaustible need to raid natural resources (because they until now have been the cheapest option on the balance sheet) to replenish itself may have had its philosophical origins here, what drives the exploitation of resources and environmental degradation is the system feeding on itself. Corporations for example used to be time- and function-limited organisations but grew into the all-devouring, unstable institutions we know today; capitalism has also evolved into something quite different. The guiding philosophy up to the economic collapse of last year was the maximisation of profit – all other considerations were secondary, and it became an end in itself.

Homophobic Church Leaders vs. Their Flock

It’s interesting, that at a time when Stonewall has released a report which suggests that Church leaders are significantly more homophobic than their flock, it’s curious to see that the Rt Rev Daniel Deng – Archbishop of Sudan – has demanded at the Lambeth Conference that Bishop Gene Robinson resign for the sake of the Anglican Church:

“The people who consecrated him should confess to the conference because they created an outcry in the whole Anglican world. God is not making a mistake creating Adam and Eve – he would have created two Adams if he wanted. If he was a real Christian he would resign.”

If you’re reading this and gay, this argument will likely be one you’ve had thrown at you at least once before. A variation on Adam and Steve, eh? Such a tedious stereotype, which you’d expect of a child, or a young person, without any experience of self-reflection, not a so-called man of God. He’s actually demanding that Robinson collude in the bigotry of others – the arrogance is breathtaking. However:

Ben Summerskill, the Stonewall chief executive, said: “Witnessing the tragic divisions in the Church of England demonstrated at this week’s Lambeth Conference, it’s telling that so many people of faith say they actually live, work and socialise with lesbian and gay people, and that significantly reduces negative ideas about difference.”

Proof, albeit not necessarily definitive, that people are not as stupid as their representatives, either political or those of faith. In this country at least, it suggests that equality legislation has proven Gene Robinson’s approach right, in demonstrating to his ‘moveable middle’ of the religious community, that with full civil rights for us the world doesn’t come to an end – plagues don’t come down, social order doesn’t break down. Nutters like Deng can’t speak for them, because Stonewall’s side of social change is having an effect, in increasing our visibility through normalising everyone’s treatment before the law. The same approach is needed within the established Church, and Gene Robinson must stay put at all conceivable costs. In a society governed by the rule of law, to exclude religion from the need for equality really must be out of the question, partly on humane grounds, partly on those of diversity – just look how much better society operates when we all are free to take part equally within it!

I can’t help but be reminded by this of the fight in 2004 over same-sex marriage in the US (which of course persists). The persistent argument was that same-sex marriage on equal terms to heterosexuals would undermine heterosexual marriage – somehow if we were granted equal rights, it would be at the expense of those who already had them. It was homophobic nonsense when articulated by George W Bush, it is homophobic nonsense uttered now by Archbishop Deng.

Perhaps most alarmingly from the Archbishop:

Deng said there are no gay or lesbian people in Sudan.

Like Iran eh? Uganda? Nigeria? This claim, if not countered, is the most dangerous of all because it doesn’t allow for a difference of opinion, for shades of grey, or any scrutiny at all. He could say Robinson should resign because it’s politically necessary at this time in the Church’s history. My opinion in response would be to disagree – the opposite is politically necessary – but instead he’s playing up to homophobic superstitions, no doubt shoring up a cheap power base, which only encourages those who would dehumanise us. In Iran Ahmadinejad’s identical claim legitimises the torture and execution of gay people; for a man of God to offer the same argument is beyond shameful.

Iris Robinson: Hatemonger!

You remember the post a short time back about Iris Robinson, MP & MLP and her appalling comments on homosexuality and the furious exchanges which came from it? Well the chair of the Health Committee at the devolved Northern Irish Assembly has now well and truly poured a tanker of petrol on the fire:

“There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing innocent children.”

Right. So gay people and gay sex are now not just as bad as murderers, but we and the way we express our relationships are now worse than child molesters too? She didn’t even say this on a radio show or in a TV interview – she actually had the nerve to say this to the Westminster Parliament. Madder than a bag of cats, I say, but when she was questioned by the Belfast Telegraph over the quote she went further:

“I cannot think of anything more sickening than a child being abused. It is comparable to the act of homosexuality. I think they are all comparable. I feel totally repulsed by both.”

She then said that her comments were not made out of hate.

“I am trying to reach out to people. I try to reach out and love them. That is what Christ teaches us. He wants us to help all people and give them an opportunity. We all have the opportunity to come to know the Lord Jesus Christ. Anything I say is out of love. I am not hate-mongering. I cannot leave my Christian values hanging at the door when I go into politics.

“I am speaking out more now because we are getting it more and more rammed down our throats that the minority views are more important than the majority views. I am not trying to alienate anyone. Anyone can come to me with any problems. I do not turn anyone away.

“I would never water down anything with the scriptures and I don’t think I should. I find it (the controversy over her comments) amazing, if not unexpected, as these days Christians are persecuted for their views but that will not stop me. There will be a judgement day and when I am judged I want to know that I did all I could to spread the word of God.”

Not hate-mongering eh? Sure you are. Can’t leave your Christian values at the door Iris? Well homophobia isn’t a religious value, so it’s really your choice. Given that your job and your profession are committed to the representation and equality of all, the attitudes which you are now clearly pushing are in direct contravention of those goals. Persecuted for your views? Sure you are – as I would hope any homophobe who tried to push their views in public were persecuted – quite right too; your religion doesn’t justify your homophobia. We live in a society governed by the rule of law, which aims for the equality of all, not the superstition of and interpretation of scripture by people who think they’re more equal than the rest of us merely because they have religion.

That she’s repulsed by homosexuality is her business (I fail to see why we need to have her personal tastes repeated to us again and again), and surely if she’s so put off by it (which you’d expect, being heterosexual) she just shouldn’t do it? The ego of this woman is quite breathtaking. Her argument whereby her religion justifies her bigotry really needs to be taken back and recast, as Sir Ian McKellen did in his interview on the Andrew Marr Show with Gene Robinson. The problem she and her ilk have is not persecution for their views, but a refusal to countenance social change they don’t like, and rather than taking responsibility for their homophobia they:

“root around in the Bible to discover the very few passages that seem to be relevant…the argument is one we have to…take seriously.”

Except of course the Bible has been interpreted, translated, reinterpreted and retranslated, not to mention having been written for a specific culture at a specific time in world history. To literally believe that every word in it is equally applicable now as it was then is to deny the responsibility we have to use our intellects. A book which cannot be critically evaluated is no better than a weapon, but even then we should remember that even fundamentalists like Iris do critically evaluate it – Iris is hardly going around arguing for the death penalty for adultery, is she? We indeed have to take her argument seriously, because it will be seductive to some, although underneath it’s about plain old hate.

Of Demons and ‘Negative Foreign Cultures’

A war of prejudices is being played out at the Lambeth Conference, or more precisely through the absence of key bishops, ostensibly on the grounds of homophobia. That they dress it up as justified under a ‘post-colonial settlement’ doesn’t make it any less bigoted or unjustified, and the thing is most of them are African. Ian Baxter, of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, after his visit to the breakaway Gafcon in June wrote:

“One of the things in “The Way, the Truth and the Life,” one of the key points that you’ve written is to “prepare for an Anglican future in which the Gospel is uncompromised and Christ-centred” But the gospel is already compromised by bishops who support the jailing of lesbian and gay people throughout Africa, which then leads to rape, which leads to torture of people and yet they are not prepared to speak out against this and change the laws in their countries.”

Archbishop Akinola chose to respond, informing the world that he did not know of any such cases.

I asked again, was he really not aware of any who were in jail for being lesbian or gay?

He said he was not, and challenged me to give him an example.

This, I am sure, is where God intervened with one of his divine “coincidences”. My church in Manchester, the Metropolitan Community Church, has begun a campaign on behalf of Prossy Kakooza, a 26-year-old woman seeking asylum in the UK. She fled Uganda after suffering vicious sexual, physical and verbal attacks due to her sexual orientation. I had brought copies of the information about the case, with the hope of being able to distribute them to members of the media covering the conference. While answering Peter Akinola’s challenge to give him an example, I was able to reach down and pull the information out of the laptop bag at my feet and give the example requested.

The Archbishop then spoke at length about African culture and beliefs, and this was echoed by Archbishop Henry Orombi of Uganda. Neither of them chose to condemn the violence or comment on the particular case of Ms Kakooza.

Further questions followed but, just before the end, Riazat Butt of the Guardian asked a follow-up to my original question. Would the Archbishops condemn the torture and rape of Lesbian and Gay people? Again they would not.

Really telling, isn’t it? These are supposed to be spiritual men, who love their neighbour as themselves. And yet the conditionality that’s there undermines their entire calling. This isn’t a surprise when people like the Ugandan President ‘reject’ homosexuality:

The Ugandan President has spoken of his country’s “rejection” of homosexuality during a speech he gave at the wedding of a former MP’s daughter.

Yoweri Museveni said the purpose of life was to create children and that homosexuality was a “negative foreign culture.”

Right, so it’s because of those nasty old colonialists or it’s even our own imagination – it isn’t freely occurring in Africa. I remember the other night listening to Bishop Gene Robinson, who couldn’t understand how people could refuse to use their intellects to make reasonable interpretations of the Bible. The answer of course with people like Museveni is that there’s money and power in it – there always has been when people have played to people’s ignorance and fear throughout history. The film also showed just how 20th century a phenomenon it was to have individuals who were prepared to make all-time judgments and definitions of the Bible, life and existence, when it had previously been and is increasingly now seen as a text which should be interpreted in an evolutionary way as society develops – we don’t exactly go around stoning adulterers to death do we?

The Right Rev John Chane of Washington has spoken out against this too:

“I think it’s really very dangerous when someone stands up and says: ‘I have the way and I have the truth and I know how to interpret holy scripture and you are following what is the right way,'” he said “It’s really very, very dangerous and I think it’s demonic.

He’s right. The people doing this are a blight on their religion, as Iris Robinson is to whatever sect she adheres to. The remainder of the article is telling, because it suggests that, as with Iris Robinson’s and Lillian Ladele’s cases, the mainstream of all societies and their Church leaders, don’t necessarily go along with this naked bigotry. I don’t think Gene Robinson is right in wanting bigots like Peter Akinola at the same table as him – sometimes bigotry is chosen rather than through ignorance – but I’m not as giving and charitable a man as he. And the irony that neither of them is at the Lambeth Conference isn’t lost on me either. Simon Jenkins has a great point:

It might be simplest to conclude that these are the last twitches of the British empire. The mind and the body may be long dead, but the soul has taken some time to catch up. It must be absurd to expect 70 million worshippers worldwide to accept the “discipline and leadership” of an archbishop selected by just 1 million in distant England – especially when each of 38 archbishoprics are referred to as “self-governing”.

Equally absurd is to expect the cultures and belief systems of Polynesians, Chinese, Africans and Americans to harmonise with the fast changing social mores of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant diaspora. How can African bishops commune with gay American ones, whom they regard as in mortal sin?

How can they indeed? Perhaps the Church, particularly in the days where the market determines everything, really does need to fracture and concentrate on what it’s good at, within competing markets for spirituality. Except if it did, Gene Robinson’s ambition for the Church to be a means of changing hearts and minds – to become a tool for human rights, would then be lost. Someone needs to exert some leadership, and find a compromise which can get the Gene Robinsons and Peter Akinolas at least to the same table, to avoid an unprecedented lost opportunity:

The Church of England is confounded by an absurd argument over gender and sexual discrimination, albeit often as code for a growing challenge to the authority of what is seen abroad as a still imperial church. A looser confederation of churches, a commonwealth of faith, ought to be good news.