Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Abstracts of essays; news; announcements; short takes.
About Me
- Yawning Bread Sampler
- This blog carries summary abstracts of Yawning Bread essays, with space for comments.
Here too are other tidbits that are too short for the main Yawning Bread site.
To email me, go to the main site.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(136)
-
▼
June
(21)
- Homosexuality and the problem of scale
- The Straits Times as an educational tool
- Keeping Singapore safe for families
- Goh Chok Tong admits that GRCs are meant to skew
- How George W Bush feeds Muslim cynicism
- Religion in defence of male privilege
- Lee Hsien Loong not impressed by democracy in Aust...
- An appalling standard of English
- Stomping its way to.... where?
- Football fan-dom, part 3
- Football fan-dom, part 2
- Football fan-dom, part 1
- Courts must pay attention to the quality of justice
- Yet another exploitative story by the New Paper
- Signs of Singapore
- Interpreting the IPS voter survey
- The propaganda of lies, the propaganda of spin
- From the electorate to the internet and back
- IPS post-election forum, part 2
- IPS post-election forum, part 1
- The Mbeki Syndrome
-
▼
June
(21)
Posts
6 comments:
The first woman anglican priest was ordained in Hong Kong in 1944 and her name was Florence Li Ti Oi.
Tuck-Leong
To YB:
You cleverly introduced your point on gay priests by riding on the story of the female Archbishop.
Discrimination against female priests is not the same as discrimination against gay priests.
Now, if I were a church-goer (for the record, I'm an atheist), I would imagine that I would be more uncomfortable with a gay priest than a female one. And I think most people would feel this way.
Religious people are generally more conservative, so you would expect them to lag behind society in terms of attitude change. This is evident from your article ("Why the ban on women?").
And since society is still coming to grips with the homosexuality issue, I have no doubt that gay priests will be a controversial and polarising topic for years to come.
p.s. Perhaps your article could be renamed "Religion in defence of the status quo"?
Karl Marx said:
"Religion is the opiate of the masses".
Human beings make rules, and idiot human beings follow them. Think about that.
Any organization that has been around long enough generates it's own group of power-hungry people; from secondary school clubs and societies to governments. Religion is no exception. Anything that changes the status quo and puts the group in power at risk of losing their positions is naturally opposed, be it from members of the opposite sex or opposite orientations.
That having been said, I am often irritated when homosexual or minority communities try to elbow their way into positions by claiming that they are discriminated against. In our society, our sexual habits is not run-of-the-mill conversational fare. How would your co-workers, or congregation in the case of a priest, know that you are a homosexual unless you openly advertise it? Perhaps these people should let others judge them based on their personal merits instead of hiding behind the shield of being a misunderstood and ostracised minority.
People with alternative lifestyles have an equal say as those that are hetros. Thank You. The various churches preach about heaven and hell, but so far- I have not heard from dead people about it. All this is FEAR that the humans instill into the idoit followers.
Malau said gay people "claim" to be discriminated against, suggesting that discrimination does not in fact exist. He goes on to say,
"How would your co-workers, or congregation in the case of a priest, know that you are a homosexual unless you openly advertise it? "
Here lies the notion that if gay people are treated badly, it's only because they tell others they are gay. Thus that gay people only have themselves to blame.
This is saying that others have a RIGHT to discriminate and treat gay people badly, and if gay people want to avoid bad treatment, then don't reveal ourselves.
How different in logic is this from those who say, if women are raped, they only have themselves to blame for dressing "sexily".
What about this: If you're discriminated against because of your skin colour, you only have yourself to blame for being born the worng colour? It's your fault you're not hiding it.
Post a Comment