eChurch Blog

A post in which I muse a little, raise questions, and answer very little…..

I Tweeted earlier:

I sincerely believe that it is easier to publicly proclaim your sexuality than it is to declare mental illness and personality disorders.

This was met with a small chorus of agreement.

This thought derived from an incident on a prominent Christian forum in which a gay atheist activist took exception to the fact that the moderators had requested he change his provocative avatar. The avatar was of two naked men in an implicit homoerotic embrace. Given the history of this particular guy on the forum, which is typified by aggression – bordering on the threatening – vileness, rudeness, bullying, accusatory sentiment, ad hominem, Christian hatred, and so forth, it was plainly obvious to many that the avatar was designed to provoke.

This guy decided not to comply with the request of the moderator and subsequently was forced to do so.

The ensuing indignation from him and his supporters was quite breathtaking, and it wasn’t long until this polite request for him to change his avatar was conflated with the holocaust in accordance with Godwin’s Law.

What struck me most forcibly however, were the accusations flying around of Christian homophobes persecuting a gay man in violation of his “rights”. It didn’t take long to determine that this fellow identified himself primarily in terms of his sexuality; which he readily acknowledged.

This strikes me as odd, as we are all sexual beings one way or another and yet most of us don’t feel the need to define ourselves primarily by this trait, nor, make our sexual preferences a matter for public consumption. I would venture that we are in fact multi-faceted beings, with our self-identity being derived from many sources, both past and present.

In truth, the whole nature / nurture debate surrounding sexual orientation is of little import to me, even though it incorporates the contentious issue of reorientation therapy. To be truthful, I couldn’t imagine any amount of therapy reorientating my sexual proclivity.

Of course, the reasoning behind a person, especially a gay person, publicly parading their sexuality, is in the cause of changing societal sexual norms; especially in the realm of prejudice or discrimination. And let’s be frank, the Gay community has been enormously successful in this endeavour.

To self-describe as Catholic / Christian is, in the minds of some, to effectively declare yourself a homophobe. A person characterised by hatred of homosexual folk. And with the label homophobia being conflated with racism and such, it is certainly not something a person wishes to be associated with, and is indeed the ultimate conversation stopper.

On an aside, the word homophobia first appeared in print in an article written for the 23 May 1969 edition of the American tabloid Screw, in which it was used to refer to heterosexual men’s fear that others might think they are gay. It has also been used to describe a fear of people who ‘come out’ as homosexual. (SOURCE)

The term phobia obviously relates to fear and I would aver that the very term “Homophobia” now elicits a fear within some Christians; namely, the fear of being viewed as an unreasonable, bigoted, hate-filled, discriminator.

As it happens, I view homosexuality as “disordered”. There I said it. Does that mean I hate homosexuals? Absolutely not. Nor am I in “fear” of them. The fact is, you see, I view homosexuality as just one of a myriad of disorders that afflict the human race. I have my own disorders, and I seek to fight against them. That’s my choice. And others are free to view disorders in a favourable light and embrace them and let them form the basis of their identity.

Do I view homosexuality and Christianity as incompatible? Who the heck am I to judge another! A queer Christian has his / her own dealings with God, that are frankly non of my business.

But all of this pondering got me to thinking down a different line.

With so many different sub-cultures fighting for equality, there’s one group that always seems to get left behind, and that’s the mentally ill or personality disordered.

It strikes me that in our politically correct society, with the rights of so many being promoted through the powerful mechanism of Newspeak, it is still perfectly acceptable to malign another using mental health terminology. Not many folk would use the terminology now employed by the gay community to self-describe; in a pejorative manner. And yet this change has not taken place in relation to the terminology used to describe debilitating mental illness.

The obvious example is to employ the terms “mad”, “lunatic”, or “insane”, when debating someone. Or perhaps to label someone as schizophrenic when they exhibit the very common trait of cognitive dissonance. It’s interesting to note that even the Oxford English Dictionary has a secondary definition of schizophrenic as: “With the implication of mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements”.

I’m sure you can think of many other examples in which deploying the language of clinical mental illness diagnosis to describe everyday personality traits is used.

Many seem to labour under the misapprehension that using these mental health metaphors is simply a joke, not to be taken seriously. But I believe these language tactics further obfuscate conditions that are widely misunderstood and stigmatised. It’s deeply upsetting to sufferers, and is part of the process of creating and perpetuating stigma around mental illness.

Why hasn’t the mentally ill community made progress like other groups?

Firstly, because of the very nature of the illnesses. Secondly, because how does it sound to have a “Schizophrenic Pride” march? Or perhaps, “Mad Pride”? It’s not great is it.

And in amongst the stigma surrounding mental illness, believe it or not, there is a stigma within a stigma. I am referring to Personality Disorders.

How does this sound to you:

Hi, I’m Stuart, a diagnosed Psychopathic personality.

or

Hi, I’m Stuart, a Narcissistic personality.

or

Hi, I’m Stuart, a Borderline personality.

or

Hi, I’m Stuart, a Schizotypal personality.

Doesn’t sound great does it.

How about we bring the much maligned Christian label into the mix? How “proud” are we then?

On top of the debilitating symptoms or these personality disorders is a HUGE whack of shame.

Again, I don’t care much for the nature / nurture debate surrounding these disorders; one thing I do know, is that the folk afflicted with these, didn’t choose, or bring it on themselves.

Who really are the maligned, persecuted, discriminated, mocked, belittled, humiliated, within this society?

Who should really have pride?

Who’s rights really need fighting for?

I’ll leave it there…..

As from 30th April this year, nestled amongst adverts featuring sweet meerkats and tasty morsels from M&S, we will be treated with adverts from abortion clinics.

Of course, the new rules issued by the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) and The Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) are couched in friendly terminology, as according to them, this is really just advertising: “Post-Conception Advice Services (PCAS)”. Now doesn’t that sound better than advertising “Abortion Services”.

We’re duly reassured that PCAS is all about offering a wide range of services such as: Advice on health and well-being, provision of ultrasound services and so on. Well what decent person would argue against advertising these innocuous sounding services?

We’re assured of sensitive treatment of the subject and appropriate scheduling.

Of course, the crux of these new rules is to remove the prohibition on commercial PCAS advertising on TV and Radio. Welcome to our living rooms Marie Stopes and British Pregnancy Advisory Services.

And let’s be brutally honest for one moment. Organisations such as Marie Stopes and British Pregnancy Advisory Services may well camouflage themselves, but when we boil it down, they are in the business of abortion, evidenced by the fact that they are Britain’s biggest abortion lobbyists.

And let me reveal the really sinister anomaly in these new rules.

Those PCAS groups that do not refer women to abortion services, i.e. pro-life groups, must declare this fact in their adverts; however, those groups that do refer women for abortion, do not have to declare this fact, and further, they are under no obligation to declare a financial interest in women opting for termination!

How sinister is that? And this particular rule is devised under the concept of transparency. How ironic is that?

These new rules are also being legitimised in that commercial pro-life pregnancy services will now be able to advertise also. One problem with that, there are no commercial pro-life pregnancy groups in the UK. They’re all not-for-profit and so will never be able to afford to advertise on TV and radio in the same way as the hugely wealthy abortion providers.

These adverts will be subject to the rules in the Code requiring advertisements not to be harmful, offensive or misleading.

Well, I certainly think abortion is rather harmful to the baby. I find the prospect of abortion providers advertising on TV and radio offensive. And the legitimisation and desensitisation which comes through advertising on mainstream TV and radio is certainly misleading.

A few links I found interesting for one reason or another:

Vatican – Pope Bendict’s address to the US bishops

First Things – Is the European Union a Catholic Plot

Roger E Olson – Neo-fundamentalism

NPR – Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Christian Post – The ‘Prosperity Gospel’ Is Peddled by Magicians

Scotland’s largest health board has been taken to court by Catholic staff who claim conscientious objections over abortion procedures were disregarded.

Midwifery sisters Mary Doogan, 57, and Concepta Wood, 51, say being forced to supervise staff taking part in abortions violates their human rights.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde claims conscientious objections do not give them the right to refuse such duties.

The hearing, at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, continues.

Ms Doogan and Mrs Wood sought during a grievance procedure to have confirmation that they were not required to delegate, supervise or support staff in the participation and care of patients through “the processes of medical termination of pregnancy and feticide”.

….continue

A molecular biologist friend of mine in Cambridge once told me that the saddest aspect of the work of people like Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins was the way they identified evolution with atheist materialism.

The result, among those Christians, Muslims and others who had little understanding of science, was inevitable: reject Darwinian evolution altogether.

SOURCE

Finally, Chris Cotter – who I introduced here – has put me out of my misery and revealed his top secret new project, which sounds really exciting.

I’ll hand over to Chris at this point to furnish us with more details:

The Religious Studies Project  (RSP) is a website and podcasting project launched in January 2012, founded by David G. Robertson and Christopher R. Cotter, and presented in association with the British Association for the Study of Religions.  It features a weekly audio interview (of around 30 minutes) with leading scholars of Religious Studies (RS) and related fields, which is available through the website, iTunes and other portals. In addition to the podcasts, the website also features weekly articles from postgraduate students and other scholars of religion on the themes of the interview that week, in addition to other useful resources and articles relevant to teachers and students of religion in the modern world.

The RSP has been launched to help disseminate contemporary issues in RS to a wider audience and provide a resource for undergraduate students of RS, their teachers, and interested members of the public. It aims to provide engaging, concise and reliable accounts of the most important concepts, traditions, scholars and methodologies in the contemporary study of religion, without pushing a religious or nonreligious agenda or resorting to presenting “fact files” about “World Religions”.

Have you ever wondered how you can use a brain scanner to study religion? Or what an anthropologist does? Is Jedism a religion? What exactly is the secularisation thesis? These are just a few questions we address in the first few episodes. Our first podcast features Professor Emeritus James Cox (University of Edinburgh) speaking to David about the phenomenology of religion. You can find the podcast and accompanying notes here, or alternatively subscribe on iTunes.

In the meantime, please have a look around the site, follow us on Twitter, “Like” us on Facebook, rate us on iTunes, tell all your friends about us… and let us know what you think!

A few links I found interesting for one reason or another:

Deacon’s Bench – Best. Fingerpainting. Ever.

The Thirsty Gargoyle – The Pope and the Diplomats

Mail Online – BBC sex education video ‘is like porn’

Accepting Abundance – Cognitive Dissonance and Geocentrism

A Grain of Sand – God is the Issue

The Atlantic – What’s Wrong With the Phrase ‘In Real Life’

Science and Religion Today – Why Might Our Minds Be Better Suited to Religion Than to Science?

FutureShapeOfChurch – Nothing Good

National Catholic Reporter – Five myths about anti-Christian persecution

The British Humanist Association (BHA) has welcomed a new revision of the model funding agreement for Free Schools by the Government in order to preclude ‘the teaching, as an evidence-based view or theory, of any view or theory that is contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations.’ This highly significant change has been made in order to ban creationism from being taught in Free Schools, and prevent creationist groups from opening schools. The change follows the BHA coordinating the ‘Teach evolution, not creationism!’ campaign, which called for this precise change.

In September, the BHA came together with thirty leading scientists and science educators including Sir David Attenborough, Professor Richard Dawkins and Professor Michael Reiss, and five national organisations to launch ‘Teach evolution, not creationism!’, which called on the government to introduce statutory guidance against the teaching of creationism and garnered significant press coverage. The BHA also launched a government e-petition making the same call, which has now garnered over 20,000 signatures.

….continue

A few links I found interesting for one reason or another:

CIFwatch – Was Moses a colonizer? The Guardian’s Nicholas Lezard uncovers why us Jews are kleptomaniacs

pmphillips’s posterous – The Way of Death is paved with…

Left Foot Forward – 2012 – the year the world must wake up to Christian persecution

NewScientist – The hard way: Our odd desire to do it ourselves

Trinitarian Dance – Dealing with personal sin is like extracting an ingrown toenail.

USAToday – The God effect: ambition drops with temptation

Linen on the Hedgerow – Be Gay friendly – or go to jail!

Science and Religion Today – How Can You Tell How Humble Someone Is?

Cranmer – The quest for the elusive ‘Conservative Particle’ in the Coalition Collider

Christian medical Comment – Lessons from Stephen Hawking and Kathryn Higham about assisted suicide

The BBC are leading this morning with the totally impartial headline: Assisted suicide: ‘Strong case for legalisation’.

This of course refers to the findings of the pro-euthanasia panel of ‘experts’: The Commission on Assisted Dying.

This commission was chaired by pro-euthanasia supporter Lord Falconer and funded by pro-euthanasia supporter Terry Pratchet and set up by pro-euthanasia group Dignity in Dying.

Regular readers will know my views on the death cult euthanasia and as there is so much being said on t’interweb right now I don’t feel the need to chime in, but will simply link to Christian commentary. I’ll probably update links as I stumble across them today:

Opinionated Vicar – BBC campaign for assisted suicide continues

Church of England – Statement on the report of the Commission for Assisted Dying

Catholic Commentary – It’s OK to need to be cared for

iBenedictines – Law and Life

Christian Medical Comment – Lord Falconer’s commission – help in reading what lies between the lines in their press release

Christian medical Comment – Individuals and Organisations who refused to give evidence to Falconer Commission

Christian Medical Comment – Falconer report on euthanasia ‘biased and flawed’, says Care Not Killing

Cranmer – What about Dignity in Living

Bishop Nick Baines – Assisted dyeing

Vic the Vicar – Being ‘In Control’

Will’s Blog – Assisted suicide and the “panel of experts”

Ben Trovato – BBC’s Euthanasia Campaign

Nancy Wallace – Can Assisted Suicide be Right?

The Telegraph: Cristina Odone – Two men with money and influence are trying to change the law to make dying easier. It’s scary

Vic the Vicar – Assisted Suicide – CofE get it right

Calvin L Smith – “Allow Assisted Suicide”

Catholic Herald – Lord Falconer’s safeguards will not make assisted suicide any safer

A Brief Encounter – Legalised Killing

MercatorNet – The New Year should begin with ideas for saving lives, not for killing them

Protect the Pope – Bogus commission’s pro-euthanasia report should be voted on by House of Commons –Tory MP

Christian Concern – The Falconer Commission on assisted dying: Do not be fooled

Feel free to let me know of other links or pop them in the comments.

And here’s a poem lifted from CounterCultural Father written by Catholic poet Elizabeth Jennings:

The law’s been passed and I am lying low
Hoping to hide from those who think they are
Kindly, compassionate. My step is slow.
I hurry. Will the executioner
Be watching how I go?

Others about me clearly feel the same.
The deafest one pretends that she can hear.
The blindest hides her white stick while the lame
Attempt to stride. Life has become so dear.
Last time the doctor came,

All who could speak said they felt very well.
Did we imagine he was watching with
A new deep scrutiny? We could not tell.
Each minute now we think the stranger Death
Will take us from each cell

For that is what our little rooms now seem
To be. We are prepared to bear much pain,
Terror attacks us wakeful, every dream
Is now a nightmare. Doctor’s due again.
We hold on to the gleam

Of sight, a word to hear. We act, we act,
And doing so we wear our weak selves out.
We said, “We want to die” once when we lacked
The chance of it. We wait in fear and doubt.
O life, you are so packed

With possibility. Old age seems good.
The ache, the anguish – we could bear them we
Declare. The ones who pray plead with their God
To turn the murdering ministers away,
But they come softly shod.