Irreverent Impiety

Uče vas da ste ovce, pa se date štrigati… no, dolazi li tome kraj?

Stranica ChurchOuting.org kreirana je s namjerom da LGBT vjernici konačno progovore protiv mržnje koju sipaju crkveni vođe, te time predstavljaju prepreku, a ne poveznicu (kako si sami vole tepati) tih istih vjernika s Bogom.

Site je orjentiran na Washingtonsku nadbiskupiju, no predstavlja i dobar odgovor našim vjernicima koji tako rado sliježu ramenima uz komentar “a što ja tu mogu?”. Eto, možete se organizirati i glasno reći što vam ne valja. Ili vam ovakva maćeha ipak odgovara, pa prigovarate samo zato jer vas je ipak sram priznati da vam se ta i takva Crkva zapravo sviđa?

A da nisu jedini, pokazuju i linkovi s njihovog sitea:

• Catholics United for Marriage Equality,
• Clergy United for Marriage Equality,
• About the Interfaith Alliance,
• …

Svaka od ovih organizacija je zanimljiva na svoj način. Naglasio bih posljednju (About the Interfaith Alliance), na čijoj “O nama” stranici između ostalog piše (prijevod, uz moje naglašavanje):

Kako se borimo?
Međuvjerska alijansa je jedina nacionalna međuvjerska organizacija posvećena čuvanju integriteta i religije i demokracije u Americi. Borimo se za vjeru i slobodu.

• Nacionalna politika – Borimo se za zakone koji bi štitili granicu između religije i vlasti, kako se politika ne bi miješala u vašu vjeru i kako se vjerske stvari ne bi miješale u vaše slobode.
• Temeljni aktivizam – Naši lokalni suradnici mobiliziraju pojedince u zajednici koji će donijeti promjenu vlastitim zajednicama. Pružamo osnovu za borbu protiv fanatizma i obranu religijskih sloboda vezanih uz lokalna pitanja, uključivo edukaciju kandidata, religiju u javnoj sferi i međureligijske odnose.
• Izbori – Pomažemo religijskim vođama i političarima da upravljaju granicom između politike i religije na način koji jamči odvojenost crkvi i države.
• Edukacija – Pokrećemo međuvjerski dijalog kako bismo unaprijedili uzajamno razumijevanje i poštivanje vjerskih razlika.

E sad, meni je to malo previše religije, ali moram priznati da ovdje vidim napore koji su za svaku pohvalu. Ljudi hoće vjerovati i hoće što normalniji (su)život s okolinom. Ne žele se opterećivati mržnjom prema onima koji nisu njihove kopije.

Zašto je to tako još uvijek tako teško “vladajućima”? (ovo je retoričko )

I, bolje pitanje (upućeno vjernicima), na kojoj strani mislite (o)stati? Onoj koja vas/nas svakodnevno zasipa mržnjom i lažima ili onoj koja se ne zamara “sitnicama”, nego traži dobro u ljudima?

Za kraj, jedna simpatična pričica:

Nekada davno stari indijanac ispriča svome unuku jednu životnu istinu:

“U duši svakog čovjeka se vodi neprestana borba. Kao borba između dva vuka. U duši svakoga od nas.
Jedan vuk predstavlja ZLO.
Predstavlja bijes, zavist, ljubomoru, mržnju, pohlepu, aroganciju, samosažaljenje, laž, krivicu, grijeh, srdžbu, pakost, lažni ponos, sebičnost, podsmijeh…
Drugi vuk predstavlja DOBRO.
Predstavlja ono što pruža užitak, mir, ljubav, nadu, vedrinu, ljubaznost, dobrotu, srdačnost, darežljivost, istinu, saosjećanje, sreću, vjeru…”

Unuk se zamisli na nekoliko trenutaka. Sve svoje misli vrijedno usmjeri u dubinu djedovih riječi, pa ga upita:

“I koji vuk će na kraju pobijediti?”

Stari indijanac, pogleda unuka pravo u oči i bez ijedne emocije na svom izbrazdanom licu odgovori:

“Uvijek pobjeđuje onaj kojeg hraniš…”

(izvor)

Nemojte mi sad tu da zašto je “vjera” u dobrim osobinama. Postoje razne vjere, npr. vjera u prijatelje i druge bliske osobe, vjera u ljude, vjera u znanost,…

Švedska luteranska crkva ima novog biskupa u Stockholmu.

Ona je lezbijka.

U stabilnoj vezi.

I imaju trogodišnje dijete.

Ne naročito veliko iznenađenje od crkve koja omogućuje i homoseksualne crkvene brakove.

I dok će se razni “pravovjerni” križati da kuda svijet ide, ja ću samo reći da se meni čini jako logično na vodeće mjesto “religije ljubavi” smjestiti ženu koja voli, voljena je i pruža birgu i ljubav djetetu. Sigurno takva može kvalitetnije propovijedati o obitelji i ljudima nego gomila mizantropa u haljinama koji nikad nisu imali obitelj (osim eventualno zabranjenih avantura i krevete žena (djevojčice i dječake da ne spominjem) koje nisu “njihove”).

Čestitam švedskoj luteranskoj crkvi što im “ljubav prema čovjeku” i “jednakost svih ljudi pred Bogom” nisu samo prazne fraze.

A čestitam i novoj biskupici (ili kako bi se ta “blasfemija” zvala na hrvatkom) Evi Brunne i njenoj obitelji.

Izvor

Prenosimo dio članka iz The Jakarta Posta:

Homosexuals and homosexuality are natural and created by God, thus permissible within Islam, a discussion concluded here Thursday.

Moderate Muslim scholars said there were no reasons to reject homosexuals under Islam, and that the condemnation of homosexuals and homosexuality by mainstream ulema and many other Muslims was based on narrow-minded interpretations of Islamic teachings.

Siti Musdah Mulia of the Indonesia Conference of Religions and Peace cited the Koran’s al-Hujurat (49:3) that one of the blessings for human beings was that all men and women are equal, regardless of ethnicity, wealth, social positions or even sexual orientation.

“There is no difference between lesbians and nonlesbians. In the eyes of God, people are valued based on their piety,” she told the discussion organized by nongovernmental organization Arus Pelangi.

“And talking about piety is God’s prerogative to judge,” she added.

“The essence of the religion (Islam) is to humanize humans, respect and dignify them.”

Musdah said homosexuality was from God and should be considered natural, adding it was not pushed only by passion.

Aleluja da je netko shvatio i javno rekao! Naravno, ovo je kap… još će mnogo vode proći ispod Savskog mosta dok stvari u muslimanskim zemljama krenu na bolje, no čestitam na inicijativi.

Naravno, našlo se tamo i “pravednika”:

Condemnation of homosexuality was voiced by two conservative Muslim groups, the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) and Hizbut Thahir Indonesia (HTI).

“It’s a sin. We will not consider homosexuals an enemy, but we will make them aware that what they are doing is wrong,” MUI deputy chairman Amir Syarifuddin said.

Rokhmat, of the hardline HTI, several times asked homosexual participants in attendance to repent and force themselves to gradually return to the right path.

Vjernicima, naravno, ostaje izbor između onih koji propovijedaju da njihov bog voli jednako sve koje je stvorio i onih koji uče da taj isti bog mrzi sve koji su različiti od njih (propovjednika). I ne zaboravite: šutnjom također radite izbor (za one koji su glasniji).

Primijenjivo i na druge velike religije, a ne samo Islam.

Prije cca 7 mjeseci izvijestili smo o naporima islamista da suptilno, preko UNa, uvedu zabranu kritiziranja religije. U međuvremenu, plemenitom stazom terora nad slobodnom misli u interesu opće šizofrenije zakročila je i Irska. U posljednje vrijeme, stvari se zahuktavaju. Prenosimo text Christian Science Monitora (ox i moron u nazivu? prosudite sami!):

Remember the Danish “Muhammad cartoons” that set off riots by offended Muslims more than three years ago? The debate pitted freedom of press and speech against notions of freedom from insult of one’s religion. It rages still – but now in a forum with international legal implications.

For years, Islamic nations have succeeded in passing “blasphemy” resolutions at the United Nations (in the General Assembly and in its human rights body). The measures call on states to limit religiously offensive language or speech. No one wants their beliefs ridiculed, but the freedom to disagree over faith is what allows for the free practice of religion. The resolutions are misguided, but also only symbolic, because they’re nonbinding.

Symbolism no longer satisfies the sponsor of these resolutions – the Organization of the Islamic Council. Under the leadership of Pakistan, the 57-nation OIC wants to give the religious antidefamation idea legal teeth by making it part of an international convention, or legally binding treaty. Members of the UN Human Rights Council are passionately debating that idea in Geneva this week.

Dakle, došli smo u posljednju fazu: traži se međunarodna, zakonski obvezujuća konvencija koja bi zabranila (a vjerojatno i kažnjavala) “uvrede” religiji. Namjerno sam “uvrede” popakirao u navodnike, jer znamo da religijski fanatici svaku kritiku, pa čak i nevino analiziranje dogmi smatraju “uvredom”. Hej, mogu se i ja uvrijediti ako mi netko napiše da imam grešku u prvom paragrafu i da je onaj tekst bio prije 8, a ne prije 7 mjeseci! Hoće li takav čitatelj ovog bloga također u zatvor? Zašto ne? Zato jer Irreverent Impiety nema status religije (za sada )?!

• Je li “uvreda religiji” i ako svoje djete odlučite ne poslati na vjeronauk ili ne krstiti? A na koji vjeronauk i na koje krštenje mislite poslati dijete, tako da se niti jedna religija ne osjeti “uvrijeđenom”?
• Je li “uvreda religiji” i ako obilježavate “krivi” Božić ili Uskrs? Ne znam kako da Vam kažem, no ako proslavite ijedno od toga, “uvrijedit” ćete Islam; ako ne proslavite niti jedno, “uvrijedit” ćete kršćane (kao što Halloween “vrijeđa” Vatikan).
• Je li “uvreda religiji” ako ste homoseksualna osoba? Naravno, svim većim religijama. Dapače, oni koji pod ljudska prava guraju antiblasfemične zakone, obično “problem” homoseksualaca rješavaju odstrijelom istih.
• …

Pošto ne čujem prigovore Vatikana na ovaj grubi napad na ljudske slobode — a zašto i bih? oni su također veliki protivnici tog koncepta — očekujem da se oni misle samo ubaciti u tu priču, kad islamisti obave prljavi dio posla. Dakle, pobrojane teze o “uvredama religiji” su itekako stvarna opasnost, iako vjerojatno tek za nekoliko godina.

Nisam mislio da ću to ikada napisati, no srećom USA se konačno počela baviti ljudskim pravima. Jesu li oni i Europa (unatoč Irskoj) dovoljno jaki da stanu ovoj nakaradi na kraj?

The United States under Barack Obama recently joined the UNHRC, maligned for years as the mouthpiece for countries that are themselves flagrant human rights abusers. A “new” council formed in 2006. President Obama’s hope is that as an engaged member, the US can further reform – and its own interests. This case will test his theory.

Samo primjer onoga što se želi uvesti:

Consider the wording put forth by Pakistan, written on behalf of the OIC. It proposes “legal prohibition of publication of material that negatively stereotypes, insults or uses offensive language” on matters regarded by religious followers as “sacred or inherent to their dignity as human beings.”

Da stvar bude bolja, Pakistan već ima “zakon o blasfemiji”. No, eto, osjećaju se pozvanima naturati ga i drugima! Poznato? Ne znam, zaista, odakle… možda od zakona o MPO… od plaćanja velikih proračunskih para religijskim organizacijama,… od vjeronauka i svećenika (pa i molitva!) na svečanostima u državnim školama i vrtićima,… od križeva po državnim institucijama,…

E, pa daragi moji vjernici, kad više nećete smjeti reći (istinu) da je Muhamed bio pedofil i kad nećete smjeti reći da vaš bog nije Alah, nego Jahve/Bog… tada ćete vidjeti kako je to kad vam naturaju vjerovanja koja ne želite! A bit će kasno za sve nas…

Mnogi su tu na tapeti za ušutkavanje: od raznih (npr. religijskih) manjina, do žena koje traže — saklonimebože! — poštivanje njihovih ljudskuh prava:

This gives broad latitude to governments to decide what’s offensive. Countries such as Pakistan already have national blasphemy laws, but a global treaty would give them international cover to suppress minority religious groups with the excuse that these groups offend mainstream beliefs.

And what about unpopular, even “insulting” dissenters within a majority religion – such as women who seek to interpret Islamic sharia law so that they may gain more rights?

Tračak nade komentatori vide u radikalnoj promjeni politike USA, kao i u okretanju južnoameričkih i prisaharskih država prema demokraciji (što, naravno, nužno povlači odmak od religijskih hegemonija):

Besides, international treaties are meant to protect the rights of people, not ideas. A legal defense of dignity – how a person is viewed – is not on par with a defense of a person’s inherent identity and rights. And treaties already aim to protect individuals from discrimination and violence based on religion.

As a newcomer to the Human Rights Council, the US is vigorously arguing against the OIC’s latest push, as are European countries. They may not get very far in changing minds in the governments of Egypt or Saudi Arabia. But human rights advocates such as Freedom House and the US Commission on International Religious Freedom say Latin American and sub-Saharan African countries could be persuaded to resist the OIC’s push.

These largely non-Muslim countries have typically voted as a bloc on the nonbinding religious defamation resolutions. But the trend has shifted so that more of them are now either abstaining or voting against the resolutions. Chile, for instance, recently switched from abstain to “no” at the March Human Rights Council vote; Liberia switched from “yes” to “no” at the last General Assembly meeting.

These are democracies that understand that suppression of speech in the name of religion can come with a negative effect – suppression of people and theological fault lines that at some point will erupt. It is, conversely, open debate, interfaith dialogue, and righting of misconceptions that will allow religion to flourish – including Islam, whose many followers feel so maligned at the moment.

“Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called antidefamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. I strongly disagree,” said Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton this week.

She went on to argue that the best antidote to religious intolerance is enforcement of antidiscrimination laws, government “outreach” to minority religious groups, and “the vigorous defense of both freedom of religion and expression.”

The US is now in a position to persuade along these lines from inside the Human Rights Council. It should proceed with the vigor that Ms. Clinton talked about.

Očito, svijt ide brzim vlakom u smjeru Srednjeg vijeka. Nadam se da će Zapad ipak propustiti taj izlet i da ćemo zadržati civilizacijske tekovine prošlih stoljeća.

Po mogućnosti, bez još jednog besmislenog svjetskog rata…

Dallin H. Oaks, “prorok” je i jedan od vođa crkve Latter Day Saints. Zvuči poznato? To su oni koji su predvodili bitku za ustavnu zabranu gay brakova u Kaliforniji (iako su pretežno locirani u obližnjem (no čak ne niti susjednom!) Utahu). Spominjali smo ih već.

Od kad su progurali tu ustavnu zabranu, našli su se na udaru javnosti, pogotovo gay aktivista i prijatelja. Bilo je ponešto nasilja i vandalizama, no najviše ih je pogodio bojkot biznisa pobornika i sponzora zabrane, a koji je poprilično masovno prihvaćen među gay-friendly populacijom.

Naš dragi Dallin 13.10.2009. održao je govor o religijskim slobodama u Sveučilištu Birminghama Young u Idahu. Iz tog nadahnutog govora — ponavljam: o religijskim slobodama — izdvajamo zanimljive dijelove (naravno, moje boldanje).

An 1833 revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith declared that the Lord established the United States Constitution by wise men whom he raised up for that very purpose (Doctrine and Covenants 101:80). The Lord also declared that this constitution “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:77; emphasis added).

In 1833, when almost all people in the world were still ruled by kings or tyrants, few could see how the infant United States Constitution could be divinely designed “for the rights and protection of all flesh.” Today, 176 years after that revelation, almost every nation in the world has adopted a written constitution, and the United States Constitution profoundly influenced all of them. Truly, this nation’s most important export is its constitution, whose great principles stand as a model “for the rights and protection of all flesh.” On the vital human right of religious freedom, however, many constitutions fall short of the protections that are needed, so we are grateful that the United States government seeks to encourage religious freedom all over the world.

…

“For the rights and protection of all flesh” the United State Constitution includes in its First Amendment the guarantees of free exercise of religion and free speech and press. Without these great fundamentals of the Constitution, America could not have served as the host nation for the restoration of the gospel, which began just three decades after the Bill of Rights was ratified.

The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The prohibition against “an establishment of religion” was intended to separate churches and government, to prevent a national church of the kind still found in Europe. In the interest of time I will say no more about the establishment of religion, but only concentrate on the direction that the United States shall have no law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion.

…

The inherent conflict between the precious religious freedom of the people and the legitimate regulatory responsibilities of the government is the central issue of religious freedom. Here are just a few examples of current controversial public issues that involve this conflict: laws governing marriage and adoption; laws regulating the activities of church-related organizations like BYU-Idaho in furtherance of their religious missions – activities such as who they will serve or employ; and laws prohibiting discrimination in employment or work conditions against persons with unpopular religious beliefs or practices.

…

Unpopular minority religions are especially dependent upon a constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion. We are fortunate to have such a guarantee in the United States, but many nations do not. The importance of that guarantee in the United States should make us ever diligent to defend it. And it is in need of being defended. During my lifetime I have seen a significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion in our public life, and I believe that the vitality of religious freedom is in danger of being weakened accordingly.

…

Religious freedom has always been at risk. It was repression of religious belief and practice that drove the Pilgrim fathers and other dissenters to the shores of this continent. Even today, leaders in all too many nations use state power to repress religious believers.

The greatest infringements of religious freedom occur when the exercise of religion collides with other powerful forces in society. Among the most threatening collisions in the United States today are (1) the rising strength of those who seek to silence religious voices in public debates, and (2) perceived conflicts between religious freedom and the popular appeal of newly alleged civil rights.

…

Atheism has always been hostile to religion, such as in its arguments that freedom of or for religion should include freedom from religion. Atheism’s threat rises as its proponents grow in numbers and aggressiveness. “By some counts,” a recent article in The Economist declares, “there are at least 500 [million] declared non-believers in the world – enough to make atheism the fourth-biggest religion.”

…

Such forces – atheists and others – would intimidate persons with religious-based points of view from influencing or making the laws of their state or nation.

…

For example, a prominent gay-rights spokesman gave this explanation for his objection to our Church’s position on California’s Proposition 8:
“I’m not intending it to harm the religion. I think they do wonderful things. Nicest people… My single goal is to get them out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims.”

Aside from the obvious fact that this objection would deny free speech as well as religious freedom to members of our Church and its coalition partners, there are other reasons why the public square must be open to religious ideas and religious persons. As Richard John Neuhaus said many years ago, “In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being ‘religious’ than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb.”

Religious Freedom Diluted by Other “Civil Rights”

A second threat to religious freedom is from those who perceive it to be in conflict with the newly alleged “civil right” of same-gender couples to enjoy the privileges of marriage.

We have endured a wave of media-reported charges that the Mormons are trying to “deny” people or “strip” people of their “rights.” After a significant majority of California voters (seven million – over 52 percent) approved Proposition 8’s limiting marriage to a man and a woman, some opponents characterized the vote as denying people their civil rights. In fact, the Proposition 8 battle was not about civil rights, but about what equal rights demand and what religious rights protect. At no time did anyone question or jeopardize the civil right of Proposition 8 opponents to vote or speak their views.

The real issue in the Proposition 8 debate – an issue that will not go away in years to come and for whose resolution it is critical that we protect everyone’s freedom of speech and the equally important freedom to stand for religious beliefs – is whether the opponents of Proposition 8 should be allowed to change the vital institution of marriage itself.

The marriage union of a man and a woman has been the teaching of the Judeo-Christian scriptures and the core legal definition and practice of marriage in Western culture for thousands of years. Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights. The supporters of Proposition 8 were exercising their constitutional right to defend the institution of marriage – an institution of transcendent importance that they, along with countless others of many persuasions, feel conscientiously obliged to protect.

Woo-hoo! Odakle početi?

Pa, prvo, kad je riječ o religijskim slobodama, onda piše da su to ljudska prava; ostale slobode su tobožnja i “ljudska prava” (pod navodnicima!). Licemjerno i omalovažavajuće? Procijenite sami.

Zatim hvali američki ustav, višestruko naglašavajući da mu je glavna uloga “prava i zaštita živih bića” (“for the rights and protection of all flesh”). I još objašnjava kako je svrha ustavnog jamstva religijskih sloboda  — odvajanje države i crkve. I onda krene kako se religijske slobode narušavaju kad se netko protivi da pripadnici jedne ili više religija nameću zakone (stvar države, čiju se odvojenost od crkve hvali samo nekoliko pragrafa prije) svim građanima države — i pripadnicima te/tih religija i onima koji to nisu!

Zgodna je i primjedba da vlade diljem svijeta nasiljem napadaju religije… Hmpf… Bliski Istok, Filipini, Malezija, Poljska, Bugarska,… ja vidim vladu kako napada sve one koji ne žive u skladu s većinskom religijom. Ionako ateisti, koliko je meni poznato, niti u jednoj državi na svijetu nisu u većini.

A kad smo već kod ateizma, i njega se g. Oaks dotiče, objašnjavajući kako je taj ateizam zao jer tvrdi da religijske slobode ne uključuju samo prakticiranje religije i obreda po volji, nego i — saklonimebože! — neprakticiranje nikakve religije!

I onda dolazimo na ono što ovog proroka, kao pravo duhovno biće, zapravo muči: tretman Mormonske crkve nakon Prijedloga 8 (ustavne zabrane gay brakova u Kaliforniji). Saznajemo da zabrana ljudima da se vjenčavaju “nije stvar ljudskih sloboda, nego onoga što ljudska prava traže, te prakticiranja religijskih sloboda”. Jer, je l’ te, već smo vidjeli da se religijskim slobodama (uz odvojenost države i crkve) smatra nametanje zakona svima, neovisno o religijskom opredjeljenju.

Također smo saznali da je 52% “značajna većina”. Uzmemo li u obzir da je na te izbore/referendum (organizirano je paralelno s predsjedničkim izborima prije skoro godinu dana) izašlo sitno ispod 80% glasača, ova “značajna većina” zapravo predstavlja oko 41% svih glasača u Kaliforniji. Također, razlika onih koji su podržali Prijedlog 8 i onih koji su mu se usprotivili iznosti 600.000 glasača — otprilike jedna šezdesetina ukupnog broja stanovnika u Kaliforniji. Stvarno “značajna većina”. (podaci preuzeti s Wikipedije: 1, 2)

Simpatično je i kako kršćani već “tisućljećima” naučavaju da je brak zajednica muškarca i žene… a poznato je da u ranom kršćanstvu brak nije imao veze s crkvom. Nadam se da će Isis to malo raspisati u komentarima.

Kao šlag na kraju, pročitajte zadnje poglavlje (VI) g. Oaksovog govora, da vidite kako se LDS nosi sa svim ovim stravičnim napadima na religijske slobode. Saznat ćete da to čine propovijedanjem ljubavi, inzistiranjem na svom samoproglašenom “pravu” da nameću drugima svoje zakone (naravno, on je to malo drugačije sročio), te još kojekakvim ljepotama. Ima ukupno pet stavki.

Za kraj, g. Oaks nas podučava da je najvažnije od svega sačuvati religijske slobode (na način kako ih je opisao). Ništa nije važnije od toga da se ne dira u “kršćanske temelje Amerike”…

Religious values and political realities are so interlinked in the origin and perpetuation of this nation that we cannot lose the influence of Christianity in the public square without seriously jeopardizing our freedoms. I maintain that this is a political fact, well qualified for argument in the public square by religious people whose freedom to believe and act must always be protected by what is properly called our “First Freedom,” the free exercise of religion.

Na službenim web stranicama Vatikana dostupan je tekst kojeg je sastavio Herr Ratzi povodom prve opće kongregacije 2. specijalnog Biskupskog sinoda za Afriku. Tekst je trenutno dostupan samo na talijanskom jeziku, no vrijedi izdvojiti sljedeću tvrdnju njemačkog ovčara:

Le cose della scienza, della tecnica comportano grandi investimenti: le avventure spirituali e materiali sono costose e difficili. Ma Dio si dona gratuitamente.

Prijevod: Stvari koje se odnose na znanost i tehniku zahtijevaju velike investicije. Duhovni i materijalni pothvati su skupi i naporni, ali se zato Bog daje besplatno.

Ako se Bog daje besplatno, a znanost je toliko teška, zahtjevna i skupa, onda:

a) Crkvi ne treba sva ta lova iz Državnog proračuna.

b) neka se Papa odrekne inovacija na području medicine i tehnologije, s obzirom da je…

c) …Božja pomoć dovoljna.

Neka Ratzi sad to pokuša objasniti pacijentima koji leže u odjelima onkologije.

No, serija komičnih izjava iz Vatikana se nastavlja izjavom nadbiskupa Silvana Tomasija, stalnog promatrača Svete Stolice pri Uredu UN-a. Charon je već pisao o njegovoj pajtonovskoj izjavi kako je pedofilija učestalija pojava u drugim vjerskim skupinama i ustanovama.

Tomasi sada pak tvrdi kako su katolički svećenici-zlostavljači prije svega homoseksualci sa sklonostima efebofilije (muški homoseksualizam prema dječacima od 16 do 18 godina), a ne pedofili.

Zaključak: pedofilije ima više među muslimanima i židovima, dok u Katoličkoj crkvi postoje saaaaaaaamo sporadični slučajevi istospolne ljubavi prema pubertetlijama. I time se, naravno, opet trpa homoseksualnost na crnu listu.

Zar se meni samo čini, ili Tomasi brka lagano pojmove? Jedna je stvar kada odrasla osoba spolno zlostavlja dijete; druga je stvar homoseksulanost, odnosno kada dvije osobe istoga spola svjesno prihvaćaju (i primjenjuju) vlastitu seksualnu orijentaciju.

Izvor:

UAAR- Il papa: “Dio è gratis, la scienza costa, le analisi empiriche prescindono da Dio”

UAAR- Onu, Vaticano: “Preti colpevoli di violenze non sono pedofili ma omosessuali”

Počnimo s Wikipedijom:

The phrase “What would Jesus do?” (often abbreviated to WWJD) became popular in the United States in the 1890s and again in 1990s as a personal motto for thousands of Christians who used the phrase as a reminder of their belief that Jesus is the example to be followed in daily life, and to act in a manner of which Jesus would approve. The initialism WWJD is sometimes used by Christians to mean “Walk with Jesus daily”. Many Christians still use this phrase today, especially with young children.

Prvo bi pitanje koliko onih koji na usnama nose “WWJD?” stvarno i žive život u tom stilu…

“Would Jesus Discriminate (bi li Isus diskriminirao)?”, pitaju se organizatori akcije “Why Would We?” iz Metropolitan Community Church (MCC). Riječ je o crkvi koja ima župe u 20 država, te zagovara ljudska prava (pogotovo gay prava, uključivo i homoseksualne brakove), a inicijativa je — još čudnije od same akcije — krenula iz Texasa!

Iako je osnovna premisa jednostavna, ekipa ju je dodatno razvila i potrudila se citatima iz Biblije argumentirati stvari onima koji se kunu u ljubav živeći mržnji. Više možete naći na njihovom siteu.

Kad netko zapili s religijskim homofobnim pričama, sada znate gdje ćete ga/ju poslati…

(Pronađeno na Pink News)

Danas je blagdan Velike Gospe. Vjerojatno najpoznatije obilježavanje tog blagdana događa se u Sinju, u spomen na pobjedu nad Turcima 1715. (detaljnije možete vidjeti na Wikipediji; ukratko: Turci zbrisali vjerojatno zbog dizanterije, pa Sinjani to pripisali Marijinoj slici koju su donijeli iz samostana u tvrđavu).

Kako to važno duhovno slavlje izgleda danas, u sekularnoj Hrvatskoj? Otprilike ovako:

Oko 80.000 vjernika posjetilo je danas najveće južnohrvatsko marijansko svetište Čudotvorne Gospe sinjske, a središnja vjerska proslava tradicionalno je počela procesijom s Gospinom slikom ulicama Sinja, u kojoj su sudjelovali svećenici, alkari i alkarski momci, pripadnici policije i Hrvatske vojske te vjernici.

…

Uz zahvale Majci Božjoj u svojoj propovijedi mons. Barišić osvrnuo se i na aktualno stanje u hrvatskom društvu.

Govoreći o važnosti obitelji istaknuo je kako je ona isključivo zajednica muškarca i žene. Spomenuvši problem niskog nataliteta u Hrvatskoj osvrnuo se i na zakon kojim se, kako je rekao, egoistične želje žele pretvoriti u legalizirana prava, a s druge strane već začetom ljudskom životu uskraćuje se to pravo.

…

Mons. Barišić također je rekao kako i radna nedjelja donosi više štete nego koristi, a na kraju propovijedi nebesku Majku Mariju zamolio je da nas “oslobodi straha od križeva u javnim prostorima naše Domovine i društva”.

…

Jedan od najvećih katoličkih blagdana, dan kada se obilježava navodno Marijino uznesenje na nebo (rekli bismo godišnjica smrti), mons. Barišić iskoristio je kako bi pričao o:

• homoseksualcima i njihovim zahtjevima da se njihovu ljubav ne diskriminira (što najvatrenije zagovaraju neke kršćanske (to je religija ljubavi) denominacije poput Katoličanstva),
• svjetovne medicinske zakone (srednjevjekovni zakon o medicinski potpomognutoj oplodnji i legalnost abortusa u RH),
• reguliranje rada nedjeljom svjetovnim zakonima,
• pozive na poštivanje Ustava RH (oko uklanjanja vjerskih simbola iz javnih ustanova).

Ne znam kako Vama, no meni se ovo čini kao uvreda iskrenim vjernicima (ne onima koji su u Sinj išli po pivu i/ili na provod, nego onima koji zaista vjeruju u Boga i njegov nauk). Je l’ tako teško na Marijin blagdan pričati o njoj i njenom sinu?

I da objasnim mons. Barišiću: mi se ne bojimo križa. Za nas koji ne dijelimo Vašu opsesiju nekom od kršćanskih dogmi, križ nije više od dvije letve uz koje se veže mnogo brutalnih priča i stvarnih povijesnih krvoprolića.

Meni osobno ne smeta križ, nego oni koji taj križ i svoje srednjevjekovne stavove naturaju (i) nama koji s tom religijom veze nemamo. Pustite nas na miru, pa ćete vidjeti kako brzo nestaje “strah” od križa…

P.S. Živo me zanima je li mons. Barišić zaista rekao da je “obitelj zajednica muškarca i žene” (dakle, djeca tu ne spadaju) ili je ipak riječ samo o novinarskoj omašci…

Već smo puno puta pisali o utjecaju Rimokatoličke Crkve na donošenje političkih odluka u (formalno sekularnoj) Republici Hrvatskoj. Sjetimo se nedavno izglasanog Zakona o medicinski potpomognutoj oplodnji, kao i neradnih nedjelja, a da i ne spominjemo (z)vjeronauk u školama, pa čak i vrtićima. Za takvo stanje često se pronalaze razne izlike kao npr. “većinsko katoličko stanovništvo u Hrvatskoj”, “odgoj u katoličkom duhu” i sl. Ipak, da tako ne mora biti pokazuje primjer Kraljevine Španjolske u kojoj se, kako donosi tjednik Nacional u članku pod naslovom Španjolski izlazak iz srednjeg vijeka – Zapatero lomi crkvu na pobačaju i eutanaziji, naziru neki novi trendovi.

Podsjetimo, Španjolska je (kao i Hrvatska) izrazito katolička zemlja u kojoj se 76% stanovništva izražava katolicima, a za vrijeme fašističke diktature Francisca Franca (1939. – 1975.)  donesena je velika količina zakona koji su potaknuti “odgojem u katoličkom duhu”. Evo samo nekih:

• žene su trebale muževo odobrenje kako bi putovale ili obavljale bilo kakvu ekonomsku djelatnost (tzv. permiso marital)
• razvod braka je bio zabranjen
• svi brakovi sklapali su se isključivo u crkvi (ovo bi se svidjelo našem ministru zdravstva)
• pobačaj je bio kazneno djelo
• homoseksualnost je bila kazneno djelo

Ti zakoni su nakon pada diktature (tj. Francove smrti) neznatno ublažavani (npr. ukinut je permiso marital, a pobačaj je dopušten u nekim slučajevima; razvod braka uveden je tek 1981.), ali tek nakon izbora 2004. (i ponovno 2008.) kada je za premijera izabran José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (član Španjolske socjalističke radničke stranke) počinje španjolski liberalni procvat. Pogledajmo do sada donesene odluke za vrijeme mandata ove i prošle španjolske Vlade

• liberaliziran je razvod braka
• donesen je zakon o istospolnim brakovima
• homoseksualnim parovima dopušteno je posvajanje djece
• medicinski potpomognuta oplodnja dopuštena je i lezbijskim parovima (je li netko rekao da je hrvatski zakon o MPO najnapredniji u Evropi?)

Sada je u planu uvođenje novog zakona koji bi regulirao pravo na pobačaj. Po tom prijedlogu, pravo na pobačaj žene bi imale na zahtjev i to do 14. tjedna trudnoće. Prijedlog zakona predviđa da pravo na pobačaj imaju i žene s navršenih 16 godina, pri čemu nisu dužne tražiti suglasnost od roditelja, pa čak niti obavijestiti roditelje o obavljenom pobačaju. Također u pripremi je zakon o eutanaziji, kao i jedan od najliberalnijih svjetskih zakona o istraživanju matičnih stanica.

Na kraju ovog članka možemo samo španjolskom premijeru Zapateru poželjeti uspješan i produktivan ostatak mandata i nadati se da će i neki drugi političari i neke druge Vlade učiti na njegovom primjeru te da će konačno doći do spoznaje da vlast (i politika općenito) ne treba služiti Crkvi, nego narodu.

Gay pokret ovih dana navršava 40 godina starosti. Od dekriminalizacije, preko priznavanja do gay brakova, prošli su dugi put (a mnogi se još i bore da ga prođu). U tom procesu, mnoge homoseksualne obitelji imale su i djecu (npr. putem umjetne oplodnje). Danas, ta djeca su odrasla i pričaju o svom djetinjstvu, te o tabuima i besmislicama koje o njima laprdaju kojekakvi “stručnjaci”. Prenosimo dijelove iz članka na stranicama CNN-a (moje boldanje):

Jesse Levey is a Republican activist who says he believes in family values, small government and his lesbian mothers’ right to marry.

Levey is part of the “gayby boom” generation. The 29-year-old management consultant is the son of a lesbian couple who chose to have a child through artificial insemination. He’s their only child.

Critics of same-sex marriage say people such as Levey will grow up shunned and sexually confused. Yet he says he’s a “well-adjusted heterosexual” whose upbringing proves that love, not gender, makes a family.

“You can imagine what my parents thought when I was 13 and listening to Rush Limbaugh everyday,” Levey says. “But my family had strong family values. I was raised in a loving, caring household that let me be a free thinker.”

Zanimljivo, gay prava — u potpunosti svjetovno pitanje — stalno se isprepliću s religijom, jednostavno zato jer se razni religijski “autoriteti” osjećaju pozvanima suditi o tome, a da često nemaju blage o čemu se radi:

The modern gay rights movement began 40 years ago this weekend during the Stonewall Riots in New York City. While much of the controversy surrounding gay rights today has centered on same-sex marriage, a battle is brewing over another family issue: Is it bad for children to be raised by gay or lesbian parents.

It damages the children, says Dale O’Leary, author of “One Man, One Woman: A Catholics Guide to Defending Marriage.” She says that all children have a natural desire for a parent of each gender.

But children of same-sex couples are forced to repress that desire because their parents won’t accept it, she says. Their parents won’t acknowledge their children’s needs because they don’t want to admit that they have caused their children to suffer.

“A baby is not a trophy — the child’s welfare has to be considered,” she says. “These children are more likely to experiment with same-sex relationships. They’re more likely to be confused and hurt.”

O’Leary says she doesn’t personally know any same-sex parents or their children. That’s the problem, some children of same-sex children say. So many people are talking about them; not enough are talking to them, they say.

Dakle, velika kršćanska “stručnjakinja” ne pozna niti jednu gay obitelj, ali “zna” da takve obitelji nisu dobre za djecu. Zanimljivo je i što stvara probleme djeci gay parova: ne njihoa obitelj, nego homofobija oko njih, dobrano širena “stručnjacima” i drugim religijskim nakazama.

Some gayby boomers say they are tired of hearing that their family isn’t legitimate. It’s an argument many have heard since they were children. They learned that they didn’t fit the definition of the “right” family, and worried how others would react if they found out about their parents.

The result: the children of same-sex couples often lived lives that were more closeted than their parents.

“Many of us were so closeted that we didn’t know others like us were out there,” says Danielle Silber, a 26-year-old fundraiser for the International Rescue Committee, who was raised by lesbian mothers and gay fathers in Takoma Park, Maryland.

“In middle school, because of pervasive homophobia and taunting, I didn’t tell any of my new friends in school about my family to the point where I wouldn’t invite them to my birthday parties,” Silber says.

Silber says she didn’t tell her parents about her fear of harassment because she was afraid to stand up for her family in school even though she was proud of them.

“Although I would normally turn to my family, I couldn’t because I was ashamed that I was ashamed of them,” she says.

Naravno, postoje i uobičajena pitanja koja im ljudi postavljaju: “Kome kažeš ‘mama’ (kad ih imaš dvije)?”, “Je s’ i ti peder?” i “Ne fali li ti otac?”. Evo što kažu na to:

The more the children of same-sex couples come out, though, the more questions outsiders have about their unusual upbringing. Some common ones: Who do you call mom when you have two mothers? Did you ever miss not having a mom or dad?

And the most tedious for most gayby boomers: What’s your sexual orientation?

The answers to these questions are as varied as the lives of gayby boomers themselves.

Take the question about missing a mom and dad. Jeff DeGroot, 23, was raised by two lesbian mothers in Oregon. He doesn’t buy the argument that there’s a void in his life because he never had a dad toss a baseball to him.

“My parents can throw a baseball and take me hiking just as well as any man could,” DeGroot says. “I’ve always had a plethora of male role models. I never felt that I was missing anything by not having that dad for me.”

DeGroot does periodically share one struggle with other same-sex children — what do call his parents.

Since he’s raised by two lesbians, who does he call mom? Other same-sex children address the same linguistic challenge by either calling their parents by their first names, or by using expressions like, “my other dad,” or “kind-of-my mom,” same-sex children researchers say.

“If I’m on one side of the house and I want to talk to my biological mom, I’ll yell, ‘Mother,’ ” DeGroot says, chuckling. “If Meg [one of his mothers] says, ‘Yes?’ I’ll say, ‘No, other mother.’ “ [tako jednostavno, ne? op. Charon]

Dealing with teasing from classmates and the community isn’t so easy, same-sex children say. It’s not unusual to hear children of same-sex couples say that they were teased by classmates, but some of that may depend on their age and where they grew up.

DeGroot, for example grew up in Corvallis, Oregon. The city is in a college town and in a liberal state. DeGroot’s age may help, too. He didn’t grow up in the 1970s, but came of age recently when gay couples were generally more accepted.

DeGroot’s biological mother, Elisabeth, says her community didn’t criticize her or her partner for raising their son. Some of her son’s friends actually thought their son was cool for having two lesbian moms, she says.

“It was so in being gay and lesbian,” she says. “Some of Jeff’s classmates would say, ‘Oh, you got two moms? I got to meet them!’ ”

Elisabeth’s partner, Meg Grear, says she gets upset when she hears critics say that children of same-sex will grow up physiologically damaged.

“That makes me mad. I know better. There’s Jeff,” she says.

Slično djeci u poliamornim obiteljima, i djeca gay roditelja odrastaju psihički jača:

Some children of same-sex couples say their upbringing actually makes them psychologically stronger.

Abigail Garner, author of “Families Like Mine: Children of Gay Parents Tell It Like It is,” calls her upbringing a “fabulous gift.” She is the daughter of two gay dads and a straight mom.

She says her interviews with other children of gay or lesbian parents showed that those who shared her upbringing tend to be more empathetic and unafraid to take unpopular stands.

“I’m not surprised when I hear gay parents say their child stood up for the kid who was bullied in class or reached out to the one with a disability,” Garner says.

Istini za volju, vjerujem da ta prednost ne potječe od “superiornosti” gay obitelji, nego od činjenice da je pritisak okoline jači, da je selekcija roditelja “podobnih” za roditeljstvo jača (barem kod posvajanja ta kontrola je jaka, dok je kod tradicionalnih heteroseksualnih (bioloških) obitelji uopće nema). No, poanta ovog članka i je u tome da su gay obitelji podjednako dobre za djecu kao i tradicionalne obitelji (za razliku od poliamornih koje se pokazuju boljima) i samo zadrtost priječi veći broj nezbrinute djece da dobiju obitelj koja bi ih voljela.

Homofobija, predrasude,… sve to stavlja stvarni (i jedini) pritisak na “gay djecu”:

Some of the same children, though, face more difficulties dealing with questions about their sexual orientation. Garner, 37, who identifies as heterosexual, says some repress their sexuality because they don’t want to give ammunition to their parents’ critics.

“I know story after story of children who started to question their sexuality but stayed quiet about it out of fear that the truth would reflect poorly on their parents,” Garner says.

Science has already weighed in on the question of whether same-sex couples tend to raise gay children — and if there’s something wrong if they do.

According to the American Psychological Association, numerous research shows that most kids of same-sex households describe themselves as heterosexual in roughly the same proportion as conventional families. The association also says that homosexuality is not deviant behavior but a normal expression of human sexuality.

Znanost je svoje rekla; zakoni, naravno, lipšu za znanošću, udovoljavajući zadrtosti:

The APA also concludes that gay parents are just as capable as straight parents, and that laws barring same-sex couples from adopting have no scientific basis.

Those laws, however, do exist. At least six states have explicit restrictions on adoptions by gays and lesbians: Florida, Mississippi, Arkansas, Utah, Nebraska and Minnesota, according to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

I opet religija, kobajagi “za obitelj”, radi protiv djece i obitelji. Ako mislite da religija tu nema svoje prste… od nabrojanih 6 država, četiri su dio tzv. Biblijskog pojasa (Florida (istina, bez Miamia-ja), Mississippi, Arkansas i Nebraska), dok je jedna (Utah) praktički mormonska država.

Zaključak republikanca (u nama bliskoj terminologiji, to bi bio “desničar”) s početka priče:

The laws may have been passed to protect the family, but allowing gay people to marry could actually strengthen the family, says Jesse Levey, the Republican activist who was raised by two lesbians.

“The conservative argument for family values is that we should be in married couples; I agree,” Levey says. “If we want to see children raised by married couples, then we should let gay people get married.”

A Republican lobbying for same-sex marriages might seem odd, but Levey says he embraces the conservative notion of individual freedom. He became a Republican at 12. Once, he sought permission for his middle school class to listen to Rush Limbaugh (he says he no longer listens to Limbaugh).

“When you grow up with Lesbian mothers, you can’t get your ears pierced to rebel,” he says. “I became a Republican.”

Today, Levey sees his parents’ choice not as an expression of rebellion, but as a desire for something that’s actually a conservative virtue — a loving family.

“I believe in family values, but family is about taking care of your children and respecting one another,” he says. “It doesn’t matter what your sexual orientation is.”

Za kraj: alternativa gay (i svakom drugom) posvajanju su domovi za napuštenu djecu… Može li itko dati makar jedan jedini argument da su ti domovi za djecu zaista “bolji”, “zdraviji” ili išta takvog od tople obitelji ispunjene ljubavlju?