I'm not a religious person myself, due to my agnostic, or even atheistic, perspective. But nevermind that, because if I was into spirituality, karma or for some other reason cared about how some deity might judge me after I die, I would have an even harder problem understanding the reasoning of the religious conservatists.
Like that I-can't-believe-it's-not-a-joke article in The New Yorker: the columnist who not only is firmly against same-sex marriages, "like any sane person is", but who also is against feminine men marrying masculine women, what he chooses to call "samish-sex marriage".
The reason for which pretty much boils down to this:
Because my feeling is, when God made man and woman He had something very specific in mind. It goes without saying that He did not want men marrying men, or women marrying women, but also what He did not want, in my view, was feminine men marrying masculine women. George Saunders
Don't focus so much on this specific example, that is not what is relevant. What I don't understand is how someone so deeply religious dares to make assumptions about god's intentions. How he, a mere human, bestows upon himself the conception to comprehend god's mysterious ways. To ascend above his fellow man and judge him as if he were god himself. If that is not a cardinal sin, several times over, what is?
Even if the article in question is a joke (oh please say it is), it still isn't the first time I've heard, or read, someone religious make assumptions about god's intentions. Like I said, I'm not religious myself, but if I was, I certainly would not for even a moment pretend to understand god's intentions, or even presume to be able to guess them. Doesn't seem like the humble, virtuous thing to do to me...
Comments
Is this a question about assumption or about judgement?
I'm not sure if I personally agree with the authors idea of "samish-sex marriage" being viewed wrong in the eyes of God.
But when we are talking about judgement alone, we all judge. Even God does. He had a whole city of homosexuals destroyed in fact because he perceived the act of homosexuality as a sin.
Comment by Swami Prem at 02:29, 03 Mar, 2004 #
Saunders is absolutely joking. It's totally tongue-in-cheek. The point I think he's trying to make is just how silly making such judgements and divisions is.
George Saunders is a reasonably well-known satirist. There's a pretty good interview of him from a couple years back available here.
Comment by John B at 04:15, 03 Mar, 2004 #
I'm sure in the print version, it has a silly little cartoon that adds a little context. To me, it's very clear that it's satire.
Comment by Andy Baio at 04:36, 03 Mar, 2004 #
I wish it was a joke, but this sort of rats do exist. And ever worse you could find if you visit some goups. The humans have a long way to go before they reach wisdom. Or whatever.
Comment by Chadie at 06:58, 03 Mar, 2004 #
"How he, a mere human, bestows upon himself the conception to comprehend god's mysterious ways" - I'm afraid that's exactly what much of religion is about. That's why religion must be confined to the private sphere and not be allowed to interfere with society. And if the indidividual doesn't understand the mysterious ways there is always a priest (mullah, rabbi, shaman, guru etc.) around to tell h/h.
God told me I am right, you see, (also about Atom...)
Comment by Bengt O. at 09:24, 03 Mar, 2004 #
Swami: "He had a whole city of homosexuals destroyed in fact because he perceived the act of homosexuality as a sin."
That's pretty frivolous use of the word "fact".
God hates shrimp, too.
Comment by Tomas at 13:05, 03 Mar, 2004 #
Hey, I did not do it, nor did I write about it. As well, I don't eat shrimp. I'm vegetarian.
Concerning it being a joke, does anyone get the print version? Perhaps they can see if there is a cartoon like someone suggests, and if there is, upload it.
Comment by Swami Prem at 15:16, 03 Mar, 2004 #
I read the print version. I don't recall a cartoon, but rest assured that the article is satire (come on, "sameish-sex marriages"?) meant to reveal the absurdity of the anti gay marriage crowd. The NYer would never print anything like that article if it weren't satire. (Nothing is funnier than an explained joke.)
Comment by jkottke at 15:38, 03 Mar, 2004 #
Kottke: I'm sure this article is satire, but just about everything that actual religious conservatives says, even when they really mean it, is also obvious satire.
Comment by Tomas at 15:43, 03 Mar, 2004 #
What is satire?
:-) Just kidding.
Comment by Swami Prem at 19:15, 03 Mar, 2004 #
Shouts & Murmurs is always the New Yorker's humor offering for the week.
Comment by Stefan Geens at 20:02, 03 Mar, 2004 #
I myself am a believer, but it's easy to see that this whole anti-gay thing is hypocrisy.
First of all, there is a verse in which (I think) John says, "Who am I to judge a non-believer?" In essence, that means we aren't to enforce our beliefs on others. Evangelize? Sure, by showing love. But Jesus didn't die to have us force regulations upon those who haven't accepted the faith. That goes for any occurrence in which religious groups try to put their standards into law when they don't apply to anyone but themselves.
There also seems to be a general belief among us Christians that the US is God's country and that George W. Bush is a prophet. That's a little exaggerated, but you get the point. They don't see that a) the US is the most wasteful, greed-stricken nation on Earth, and does little to give back (and we were commanded to be tenants and protectors of the Earth in Genesis), and b) Bush is playing them into their votes. Is he a godly man? Well, would Jesus take revenge on a CIA agent by revealing his identity? Would he sacrifice the environment he created for us so that we can continue driving our gluttonous SUVs? Didn't think so. Bush's integrity is skin-deep.
I think the religious rally to end gay marriage is more to appeal to homophobia than to God's law. Assuming you believe homosexuality is a sin (addressing the Christians), you do realize that Jesus spent more time hanging out with prostitutes, thieves, and low-lifes than he did the "holy" people, don't you? Churches shouldn't be built to keep sinners out. What kind of message does this rally give to gay people? Certainly not a message of love and acceptance. I'm a liar who attends church and is accepted by God and his people. So why not my gay and lesbian friends?
Apologies for the rant. I've been wanting to let that out for a while. I'm tired of the church hiding hatred behind a mask of so-called love. God wasn't behind the Crusades, nor is he behind the exclusion of people who he created just as equally as everyone else. How can the Christians of this country miss that obvious contradiction?
Comment by Chris Vincent at 06:29, 05 Mar, 2004 #
It is a joke. But on a more serious note, if God existed, would he want the sense-of-humour-challenged to Blog?
Comment by Tom Davies at 06:39, 05 Mar, 2004 #
Tom: Probably not. You think there is some way that could be codified into law? Perhaps by amending the constitution?
Comment by Tomas at 19:06, 05 Mar, 2004 #
I agree with Chris' comment, but I will stress an important point. Many, many of us so-called Christians believe that our wisdom == God's wisdom. Then they go one step further and believe that they can speak for the Almighty. There are very few instances where a Christian can say, "God [verb] [sentence predicate]." The only ones I can think of is, "God loves you" and "God is love." Otherwise, you have people trying to buttress their arguments by putting God on "their" side.
Comment by Robert Barrimond at 21:37, 12 Mar, 2004 #
The discussion has been closed on this entry. Thanks to everybody who participated.