« Open Thread... | Main | They were the Shrewdest Unit-Movers So their Bosses Got 'Em Tours of the Countryside »

May 24, 2010

Comments

Sex without reproduction is bad, ergo

Reproduction without sex is bad, ergo

Jesus is bad.

Is there a republican / evangelical uproar about this that I'm missing somewhere? I would love to see a "cultural sensitivity" take on the subject.

"Is there a republican/evangelical uproar about this that I'm missing somewhere?"

Mark Souder found it "ironic".

Amnesty International have adopted Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga as prisoners of conscience: AIUK have a Take Action page for them, and possibly Amnesty America does too.

Among the horrific details, both men have been beaten in prison and have been subjected to forcible anal examinations to find out if they've "consumnated" their relationship.

From the AIUK website: "Criminalisation of individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity is banned under treaties ratified by Malawi, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Malawi is legally bound by these treaties to respect and protect freedom of conscience, expression and the right to privacy, without discrimination on the grounds of real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity."

This rubbish is in part due to the export of evangelical right wing Christianity from the US.

To quote Max von Sydow's character in Hannah and her Sisters, "If Jesus came back and saw what's going on in his name, he'd never stop throwing up."

When you live on a continent wracked with poverty, malnutrition and disease, the obvious best expenditure of energy and resources is persecution of gays. The mind - it boggles.

"If Jesus came back and saw what's going on in his name, he'd never stop throwing up."

How do we know that?

Maybe if Jesus came back he'd sign a multi-million dollar deal for a FOX talk-show, sell crap at NRA gunshows (gunsights with the Jesus brand-logo emblazoned on them), appear with Sarah Death Palin and Error Redhate at sh*thead festivals, and call for the crucifixition of Woody Allen.

Oh, he might sell fake plastic throwup to express faux outrage at every little human frailty, but only because there is money in it and in America money tells us what to do.

He and Mohammad could appear (well, in a manner of speaking) opposite each other on political talk shows every other week and do kind of a James Carville/Mary Matalin schtick, alternatingly cage-fighting with ear nibbling.

We really have no idea how quickly the America of 2010 would corrupt Jesus.


We really have no idea how quickly the America of 2010 would corrupt Jesus.

Well, we have some idea.

Just a small note: although Steven Monjeza identifies as a gay man, Tiwonge Chimbalanga identifies as a woman, which has contributed significantly to the uproar. The homophobia is getting a lot of press coverage in the West, but the coverage of transphobia has been oddly lacking.

In any case, the use of female pronouns for Tiwonge is probably appropriate.

http://www.queerty.com/that-married-couple-from-malawi-was-actually-just-celebrating-an-engagement-still-illegal-though-20091230/

Well, we have some idea.

Clearly, he'd have to have some time to be corrupted. You just never know what's going to happen, though.

I'm an optimist--I suspect the ressurected Jesus would more likely be exommunicated than corrupted:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072

If the hospital had refused to provide an abortion to save that patient's life, wouldn't it be guilty of malpractice? Given that the patient could not safely be moved to a hospital which would condone the abortion. I would expect that the duty of care is the same for all hospitals in the U.S. regardless of religious affiliation. I wonder if that has happened before.

Secondly, it seems like the patient, the nun, and the hospital had two choices:

A) Fetus dies, Mother lives

B) Fetus dies, Mother dies

I do not understand why this qualifies as a "dilemma."


Sorry, I should've been clear that I was referring to:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072

Also, I sort of perpetuated a threadjack.

I do not understand why this qualifies as a "dilemma."

My uninformed guess is that they see the options as:
(a) we murder fetus or
(b) fetus and mother die of natural causes

In other words, they might think that killing someone in order to save another person's life is wrong, even if the person to be killed is guaranteed to die soon anyway. I think this way of looking at things is dumb, but I believe it represents a well known cognitive bias.

"This rubbish is in part due to the export of evangelical right wing Christianity from the US."

We seem to dump a lot of rubbish in Africa.

I do not understand why this qualifies as a "dilemma."

If you're religious, because the fetus and the woman are both of equal value. The fetus is going to die. The woman is only of equal value to the fetus, so there's now no reason she shouldn't die too.

Going back to the original topic, Peter Tatchell pointed out in the Independent last week that Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga were convicted under a law that tbe British caused to be passed when we were the colonialist rulers of Malawi. In England this law was repealed in 1967, in Scotland in 1980, and in various other parts of the UK in later years. In Malawi, and other former colonies, it's still on the books.

Until quite recently Roman Catholic hospitals had to inform women that in cases of birth complications the baptism of the unborn was the first priority. It was explicit that the 'bodily' death of both mother and child as collateral damage was acceptable if only the baby could be kept alive long enough for the ritual. Iirc it was in 1982 only that a doctor was given the choice to risk the unborn for the life of the mother (as long as it was not a direct abortion). But it was still implied that a live baptism followed by two dead bodies was the better choice (than just one dead unbaptized baby). Just a natural consequence of St.Augustine's theology that explicitly* condemns even the unbaptized unborn to hell due to original sin. The mortal body has no value and is a cheap price to pay for the life of the soul**.

*not a later scholastic conclusion. St.Augustine discussed this very case. Luther btw follwed him there but Lutherans ignore him on this these days.
**Catholic priests officially also have to risk their own lifes, if otherwise someone dies unbaptized.

In England this law was repealed in 1967

(and Wales) partially repealed, only

Hartmut: Until quite recently Roman Catholic hospitals had to inform women that in cases of birth complications the baptism of the unborn was the first priority. It was explicit that the 'bodily' death of both mother and child as collateral damage was acceptable if only the baby could be kept alive long enough for the ritual.

Infanticide was far more common than abortion in Ireland well into the 20th century - well after WWII - and according to report, generally treated far more leniently than most murders - and was considered by the women themselves as morally better than having an abortion, because the baby could be baptised before death.

That still leaves the thorny issue whether females can baptize. Some theologians think they can in emergency situations, others deny any possibility. And it would be rather awkward to phone a priest saying: "could you please baptize my infant before I strangle it!?"
I condemn myself for extreme sarcasm and bad taste but also blame the church for providing the material.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad