I've seen Susan Boyle's BGT performance video on Youtube probably six or seven times...What a great time for a such a gift! I came across this particularly touching tribute from this anonymous straight guy on Youtube. Suddenly the benefits of living in the era of the internet really hit home with what we're capable of experiencing together...I love you, Susan!
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
'The Golden Pin' to premiere at Toronto's Inside Out Gay and Lesbian Film & Video Festival...
I'm thrilled to let you know that a film I co-wrote and helped produce, The Golden Pin, will be screening at next month's Inside Out Gay and Lesbian Film and Video Festival in Toronto.
Directed and co-written by my good friend, Cuong Ngo, the short film tells the story about a young Vietnamese-Canadian swimmer who struggles to follow a different path than that chosen for him by his father. The Golden Pin explores the consequences of burying our own needs in matters of the heart.
I am so proud of this film. Filming it was life-changing, I agree. ;-) The entire team who put this together was outstanding. There are plans to adapt it into a feature film. Stay tuned.
The first screening is set for Wed May 20th at 7:15 pm at Toronto's Isabel Bader Theatre. For more on the Toronto Inside Out film festival, click here...
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Vermont legislature passes equal marriage, overrides Governor's veto
Vermont has become the 4th U.S. state to legalize same sex marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.
The Vermont Legislature voted Tuesday to override Governor Jim Douglas' veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for the override. Talk about a close call!
Vermont now joins Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa where same sex marriage is legal in America (with California still pending). Approval of gay marriage in those latter states came from the courts.
I will say I prefer winning marriage equality rights in legislatures, not the courts. I'm glad that politicians in Vermont appreciate the importance of equal treatment under the law. Congrats to Vermont!
The Vermont Legislature voted Tuesday to override Governor Jim Douglas' veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for the override. Talk about a close call!
Vermont now joins Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa where same sex marriage is legal in America (with California still pending). Approval of gay marriage in those latter states came from the courts.
I will say I prefer winning marriage equality rights in legislatures, not the courts. I'm glad that politicians in Vermont appreciate the importance of equal treatment under the law. Congrats to Vermont!
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Stephen Boissoin objects to my words...
In response to my recent post, Alberta plans to finally enshrine 'sexual orientation' protections in law, the infamous Stephen Boissoin, himself, felt compelled to leave a comment attacking “people” like me.
For the record, the only gay youth Boissoin wants to protect are those enrolled in so-called reparative therapy. There is nothing abnormal or immoral about being true to oneself; it is immoral, however, to pretend to be promoting God’s work when in fact you are doing the exact opposite.
I thought his comments deserved their own post, as well as my response to them. Below, you’ll also find a link to a copy of Boissoin’s original 2002 letter so you can judge for yourselves if his letter was an incitement to violence, as I believe.
TODAY’S COMMENT FROM STEPHEN BOISSOIN:
You said "he basically compared gay activists to dangerous vermin against whom any action readers deemed necessary should be taken to save children."
Another perfect example of manipulation. Grossly stretching the facts to suit your cause. I NEVER encouraged nor advocate violence. Those that know me, including gay youth and young adults, know that I would never so such and that I would protect them if necessary. The media knew and has expressed that they do not feel that I advocated violence in my 2002 letter to the editor.
You people continue to BS the public and present yourselves as poor victims. Any communication that doesn't support you is 'homophobic' or hateful etc etc.
It's true, I hate homosexuality. It is a disgusting abnormal and immoral lifestyle. No use beating around the bush about it.
Stephen Boissoin
Straight & Proud
AND MY COMMENT IN RESPONSE:
Stephen, your hateful religious views continue to cloud your judgment. My line is a very fair summation of your characterization of gay activists.
I'm not going to beat around the bush either: Homosexuality is a naturally occurring, inborn orientation that has always been with us and will always be with us. It cannot be taught, 95% of children will grow up to become heterosexual regardless of whether or not people like me are treated equally and with respect in this society.
It's sad that after all these years you still can't be rational about your own words and the extreme damage they have caused.
In 2002, you wrote: "It's time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorized to spawn. Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds."
"Whatever steps are necessary"? Easily, that line can and usually does mean violence, particularly when you asserted in your letter that people like me winning equality and dignity in life is the equivalent of, "every professing heterosexual [having] their future aggressively chopped at the roots."
"Their future aggressively chopped at the roots"? You identified a problem that doesn't exist, you asserted all gay activists like myself are just trying to "sleep with children." You used fiery language meant to incite unspecified action, which could easily be interpreted by any gay basher as good justification for violence, especially since your letter was signed as a Reverend. In the history of homophobia, far less inflammatory words have been used to justify great amounts of violence and suffering.
Without a doubt, it was incitement to violence and you should be ashamed of yourself.
But clearly you aren't. Religious extremists will always cling to their hatred because it makes them feel powerful and righteous. That's the only thing that's disgusting here.
While I think some of the punishments handed down by the Alberta Human Rights Commission against you may have been heavy-handed, there is no doubt in my mind that you incited violence in your letter. And for that, there should be justice.
Matt Guerin,
Gay & Proud.
Click here for a link to the original 2002 letter by Stephen Boissoin.
For the record, the only gay youth Boissoin wants to protect are those enrolled in so-called reparative therapy. There is nothing abnormal or immoral about being true to oneself; it is immoral, however, to pretend to be promoting God’s work when in fact you are doing the exact opposite.
I thought his comments deserved their own post, as well as my response to them. Below, you’ll also find a link to a copy of Boissoin’s original 2002 letter so you can judge for yourselves if his letter was an incitement to violence, as I believe.
TODAY’S COMMENT FROM STEPHEN BOISSOIN:
You said "he basically compared gay activists to dangerous vermin against whom any action readers deemed necessary should be taken to save children."
Another perfect example of manipulation. Grossly stretching the facts to suit your cause. I NEVER encouraged nor advocate violence. Those that know me, including gay youth and young adults, know that I would never so such and that I would protect them if necessary. The media knew and has expressed that they do not feel that I advocated violence in my 2002 letter to the editor.
You people continue to BS the public and present yourselves as poor victims. Any communication that doesn't support you is 'homophobic' or hateful etc etc.
It's true, I hate homosexuality. It is a disgusting abnormal and immoral lifestyle. No use beating around the bush about it.
Stephen Boissoin
Straight & Proud
AND MY COMMENT IN RESPONSE:
Stephen, your hateful religious views continue to cloud your judgment. My line is a very fair summation of your characterization of gay activists.
I'm not going to beat around the bush either: Homosexuality is a naturally occurring, inborn orientation that has always been with us and will always be with us. It cannot be taught, 95% of children will grow up to become heterosexual regardless of whether or not people like me are treated equally and with respect in this society.
It's sad that after all these years you still can't be rational about your own words and the extreme damage they have caused.
In 2002, you wrote: "It's time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorized to spawn. Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds."
"Whatever steps are necessary"? Easily, that line can and usually does mean violence, particularly when you asserted in your letter that people like me winning equality and dignity in life is the equivalent of, "every professing heterosexual [having] their future aggressively chopped at the roots."
"Their future aggressively chopped at the roots"? You identified a problem that doesn't exist, you asserted all gay activists like myself are just trying to "sleep with children." You used fiery language meant to incite unspecified action, which could easily be interpreted by any gay basher as good justification for violence, especially since your letter was signed as a Reverend. In the history of homophobia, far less inflammatory words have been used to justify great amounts of violence and suffering.
Without a doubt, it was incitement to violence and you should be ashamed of yourself.
But clearly you aren't. Religious extremists will always cling to their hatred because it makes them feel powerful and righteous. That's the only thing that's disgusting here.
While I think some of the punishments handed down by the Alberta Human Rights Commission against you may have been heavy-handed, there is no doubt in my mind that you incited violence in your letter. And for that, there should be justice.
Matt Guerin,
Gay & Proud.
Click here for a link to the original 2002 letter by Stephen Boissoin.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Iowa Supreme Court backs equal marriage
The Iowa Supreme Court today issued a unanimous ruling finding that the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples.
Same-sex couples in Iowa will be able to obtain marriage licenses starting April 24th. Iowa now becomes the third American state where gays and lesbians are no longer second class citizens.
Richard Socarides, an attorney and former senior adviser on gay rights to President Clinton, said the ruling carries extra significance coming from Iowa.
"It's a big win because, coming from Iowa, it represents the mainstreaming of gay marriage. And it shows that despite attempts stop gay marriage through right wing ballot initiatives, like in California, the courts will continue to support the case for equal rights for gays," he said. “Unlike states on the coasts, there’s nothing more American than Iowa. As they say during the presidential caucuses, ‘As Iowa goes, so goes the nation.’”
I'd like to think that today's ruling will start a trend similar to the remarkable victory in January 2008 for then-Democratic candidate Barack Obama. Before Iowa, few gave the first-term Senator from Illinois much hope of winning the U.S. presidency. But Iowa showed that his message of hope and change could resonate outside of traditional Democratic strongholds.
Perhaps those Americans (and others) sitting on the fence on this issue will continue to reflect and come sooner to agree that unjustifiable discrimination in law is never a good thing. Before various court victories in Canada on equal marriage, Canadians seemed generally divided on the merits of equal marriage. Years later, there's a new consensus that equality under the law trumps all other positions.
As with all gay civil rights victories, we can likely expect considerable backlash from the religious right over this issue. I'm not sure if Iowa has a similar ballot initiative process as California and other states, but when those pesky equality provisions in state constitutions get in the way of keeping those gays down in the gutter, so-called religious types will move heaven and earth to "re-define" equality in such constitutions to mean "heterosexual equality only."
Decades from now, we'll be watching as voters in U.S. state after U.S. state repeal those anti-equality provisions in state constitutions passed in these times. But for now, the culture war continues. It's nice to win a major battle.
Same-sex couples in Iowa will be able to obtain marriage licenses starting April 24th. Iowa now becomes the third American state where gays and lesbians are no longer second class citizens.
Richard Socarides, an attorney and former senior adviser on gay rights to President Clinton, said the ruling carries extra significance coming from Iowa.
"It's a big win because, coming from Iowa, it represents the mainstreaming of gay marriage. And it shows that despite attempts stop gay marriage through right wing ballot initiatives, like in California, the courts will continue to support the case for equal rights for gays," he said. “Unlike states on the coasts, there’s nothing more American than Iowa. As they say during the presidential caucuses, ‘As Iowa goes, so goes the nation.’”
I'd like to think that today's ruling will start a trend similar to the remarkable victory in January 2008 for then-Democratic candidate Barack Obama. Before Iowa, few gave the first-term Senator from Illinois much hope of winning the U.S. presidency. But Iowa showed that his message of hope and change could resonate outside of traditional Democratic strongholds.
Perhaps those Americans (and others) sitting on the fence on this issue will continue to reflect and come sooner to agree that unjustifiable discrimination in law is never a good thing. Before various court victories in Canada on equal marriage, Canadians seemed generally divided on the merits of equal marriage. Years later, there's a new consensus that equality under the law trumps all other positions.
As with all gay civil rights victories, we can likely expect considerable backlash from the religious right over this issue. I'm not sure if Iowa has a similar ballot initiative process as California and other states, but when those pesky equality provisions in state constitutions get in the way of keeping those gays down in the gutter, so-called religious types will move heaven and earth to "re-define" equality in such constitutions to mean "heterosexual equality only."
Decades from now, we'll be watching as voters in U.S. state after U.S. state repeal those anti-equality provisions in state constitutions passed in these times. But for now, the culture war continues. It's nice to win a major battle.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Worth repeating: Andrew Sullivan's 'Be Not Afraid, Rod'
I came across this post by famed American blogger Andrew Sullivan, in which he responds to an ongoing online argument between gay writer Damon Linker and Christian writer Rod Dreber. The two were debating some pretty deep stuff such as same sex marriage and the attempts by some to normalize homosexuality as a fundamental part of the human family.
Sullivan took objection to several of Dreber's arguments, but most especially this line: "If homosexuality is legitimized -- as distinct from being tolerated, which I generally support -- then it represents the culmination of the sexual revolution, the goal of which was to make individual desire the sole legitimate arbiter in defining sexual truth. It is to lock in, and, on a legal front, to codify, a purely contractual, nihilistic view of human sexuality. I believe this would be a profound distortion of what it means to be fully human."
Sullivan's response, posted earlier this week, is a beautiful read.
Here's a snippet:
"...far from nihilistically renouncing nature, the [gay] marriage movement aims at reclaiming the mantle of nature for homosexuals alongside our heterosexual peers and siblings and parents. We know now that same-gender attraction, bonding and sex is ubiquitous in nature, and almost certainly has some evolutionary explanation. We know too, experientially, that the love cherished by many gay couples is real and beautiful and deeply human. It is not merely "contractual" or "nihilist". It is organic, natural and completing. It is humanizing and it is civilizing. History is full of such relationships, and they stand proudly alongside their heterosexual peers. The reduction of these shared lives and loves to abstract sexual acts is itself a form of bigotry. It is an attempt to reduce the full and complex human being to one aspect of his or her humanness. It is, in my view, anti-Christian to speak of gays the way this Pope does. The Christian calling is not to guard ferociously the ramparts of the 1950s out of fear but to listen to the experiences of gay people - what the Second Vatican Council calls the sensus fidelium - and try to integrate their humanity into the structures from which they have been so cruelly excluded, with such horrible human consequences, for so long.
"It is Rod's self-evident panic at the thought of such an integration that has made some of us sit up and take note. There is some lurking fear that if this form of being human is recognized as equal in the civil sphere, let alone the sacred one, then the entire edifice of heterosexuality and marriage and family will somehow be destroyed or undermined. I do not believe that in any way. And I don't think it's possible to believe that without, at some level, engaging in homophobia - literally an irrational and exaggerated fear that the gay somehow always obliterates the straight, or that 2 percent somehow always controls the fate of 98 percent. This is where paranoia and panic take over. It is where homophobia most feels like anti-Semitism."
Well written, Andrew!
Sullivan took objection to several of Dreber's arguments, but most especially this line: "If homosexuality is legitimized -- as distinct from being tolerated, which I generally support -- then it represents the culmination of the sexual revolution, the goal of which was to make individual desire the sole legitimate arbiter in defining sexual truth. It is to lock in, and, on a legal front, to codify, a purely contractual, nihilistic view of human sexuality. I believe this would be a profound distortion of what it means to be fully human."
Sullivan's response, posted earlier this week, is a beautiful read.
Here's a snippet:
"...far from nihilistically renouncing nature, the [gay] marriage movement aims at reclaiming the mantle of nature for homosexuals alongside our heterosexual peers and siblings and parents. We know now that same-gender attraction, bonding and sex is ubiquitous in nature, and almost certainly has some evolutionary explanation. We know too, experientially, that the love cherished by many gay couples is real and beautiful and deeply human. It is not merely "contractual" or "nihilist". It is organic, natural and completing. It is humanizing and it is civilizing. History is full of such relationships, and they stand proudly alongside their heterosexual peers. The reduction of these shared lives and loves to abstract sexual acts is itself a form of bigotry. It is an attempt to reduce the full and complex human being to one aspect of his or her humanness. It is, in my view, anti-Christian to speak of gays the way this Pope does. The Christian calling is not to guard ferociously the ramparts of the 1950s out of fear but to listen to the experiences of gay people - what the Second Vatican Council calls the sensus fidelium - and try to integrate their humanity into the structures from which they have been so cruelly excluded, with such horrible human consequences, for so long.
"It is Rod's self-evident panic at the thought of such an integration that has made some of us sit up and take note. There is some lurking fear that if this form of being human is recognized as equal in the civil sphere, let alone the sacred one, then the entire edifice of heterosexuality and marriage and family will somehow be destroyed or undermined. I do not believe that in any way. And I don't think it's possible to believe that without, at some level, engaging in homophobia - literally an irrational and exaggerated fear that the gay somehow always obliterates the straight, or that 2 percent somehow always controls the fate of 98 percent. This is where paranoia and panic take over. It is where homophobia most feels like anti-Semitism."
Well written, Andrew!
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Sweden approves equal marriage...
No, this is not an April Fool's Day joke. Sweden has become the latest country to approve same sex marriage. Six of the seven parties in the Swedish parliament backed a proposal to implement a gender-neutral marriage law starting May 1, 2009. The proposal passed today with a 261 to 22 vote and 16 abstentions. I'm sure fans of Abba will be proud. Sweden has allowed civil unions for same sex couples since 1995. Now Sweden joins Holland, Belgium, Canada, Spain, South Africa and Norway allowing same sex marriage country-wide. (Massachusetts and Connecticut are the only two American states where equal marriage remains unchallenged, California still pending.)
Sunday, March 29, 2009
A little Sunday fun: Ashton Kutcher Gets Waxed...Ouch!
Enough talk about hate crimes, human rights and religion. It's time for a little Sunday fun and who better to provide it than 31-year-old actor/former model Ashton Kutcher, who produced this video detailing his recent waxing. Kutcher had to remove various chest hair recently so he could resemble his smooth stunt double on a new action movie. For more on the European shoot, click here.
For those who love body hair, my apologies. Personally, my feelings on the subject can be summed up simply: "Less is more."
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Ugandan propaganda horrifies...
I came across this story on a Ugandan "news" website today by accident. Needless to say, I was horrified by the ignorant display of yellow journalism. The article allegedly chronicles a born-again Christian who claims to have been "cured" of his homosexuality, who now says his fellow gays are "recruiting" children in schools. This article has every single negative stereotype anyone could possibly make up. Of course, it's about a fundamentalist Christian spouting more lies to promote a truly hateful agenda again.
As people who understand the truth know, homosexuals don't recruit kids in schools. It's the heterosexuals who do (remember senior prom?) There are too many young gay kids who need to be protected and allowed the chance to live happily on all continents, including Africa! Shame on this man and the movement that supports and promotes the lie he's leading.
It's amazing how far we've come in some parts of the world, but not in others...
*****UPDATE
Thanks to Bruce for illuminating on another aspect of this Christian extremist invasion of Uganda and parts of Africa...
As people who understand the truth know, homosexuals don't recruit kids in schools. It's the heterosexuals who do (remember senior prom?) There are too many young gay kids who need to be protected and allowed the chance to live happily on all continents, including Africa! Shame on this man and the movement that supports and promotes the lie he's leading.
It's amazing how far we've come in some parts of the world, but not in others...
*****UPDATE
Thanks to Bruce for illuminating on another aspect of this Christian extremist invasion of Uganda and parts of Africa...
What do 'Dr. Manhattan' and Paul Rudd have in common?
I saw the new feature film Watchmen the other night. Not being too familiar with the original graphic novel, I went in with an open mind and was mildly entertained (although the running time was about a half hour too long.) Overall, it was decent, but not as entertaining as The Dark Knight last year. I'll admit that media reports about the character Dr. Manhattan (pictured above) intrigued me, particularly mentions of his frequent full frontal nudity. (The character was played in close-up by actor Billy Crudup, but his full-body shots were essentially computer-generated.) Coming from the same director, Zack Snyder, who gave us the highly homoerotic (some would say homophobic) 300 a couple years ago, I began to connect the dots.
Hollywood superhero movies traditionally objectify women, either in tight leather outfits or sometimes clothes-free (and there was some female nudity in Watchmen for sure). But for a film like Watchmen, opening on thousands of screens across North America, to show so much male frontal imagery, albeit computer generated, is got to be a cultural breakthrough. Deliberate or not, director Snyder has managed to inject an incredible amount of male beauty/homoeroticism into mainstream culture with his last two efforts. Click here to read more.
I've often thought that the dearth of male nudity in mainstream films helped to bolster a culture in North America where most straight men are generally uncomfortable with their own bodies, and definitely uncomfortable with other men's. On the other hand, the bountiful female nudity on display in mainstream culture has had a positive effect on most straight women. We've had to listen to such crud as, "the female form is simply more pleasing to the eye than the male" and "even objective commentators will agree that there is nothing beautiful about the male penis." All were arguments to maintain the sexist status quo in mainstream culture, in which women were frequently objectified and men had all the power.
Such times may indeed be over if Zack Snyder or Paul Rudd (pictured below) have anything to do about it.
Rudd's new film I Love You, Man is the latest in new comedies in which straight male characters get to explore their sweeter, more "gay" sides with possible "bromances." I definitely like this trend. Paul Rudd has been making a habit lately of exploring homoeroticism through comedy. In truth, he's probably just going for the laugh, but he's done it in a way that isn't insulting to gays (at least not in my opinion.)
Rudd recently told Entertainment Weekly: "I always thought I'd be a really good gay guy. I love American Idol. I watch Antiques Roadshow like crazy. Guys like Oscar Wilde, Stephen Fry, Elton John - they're all very bright, with a razor-sharp wit. David Sedaris - who's funnier than David Sedaris? The Saturday Night Live that I hosted was such a gay-heavy show. But it didn't even cross my mind until after. The family that kept kissing each other - I didn't even think of that as being gay... I remember doing interviews for The Object of My Affection, and people would say, 'What was it like to kiss a guy?' Like it was such a shocking thing. I said, How many times does anyone ask, 'You had to shoot somebody. Was that weird?' I love gay guys. I feel pretty gay. I'm certainly not the most macho guy in the room."
For more on Paul Rudd's flirtation with homosexuality, check this out.
The cultural significance of all this is obvious to me: these stories and images are contributing to the dismantling of long-standing sexism and homophobia in the mainstream culture by giving straight guys permission to look at a completely nude Adonis of a man and not feel uncomfortable about it. These filmmakers/artists are liberalizing what it means to be a straight man today. Maybe I'm optimistic, but compared to where we've come from, I do consider this progress.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
I want to believe in God, just not their God...
I do want to believe in a higher power. I was raised Catholic and, although I've left that organized faith behind, much of (what I perceive to be) the loving message of Christ still informs my own life.
I do think that a healthy spirituality is essential, at least for me. But I also believe that all organized religion is inevitably corrupt and fallible. People (predominantly men) who seek power in such religious institutions are never to be trusted. Like all things touched by humans, organized religions can never be counted on to be perfect.
So I firmly believe that every person should decide for themselves what they believe and why. But no one should pretend that their faith is infallible and beyond question. You can believe something one day, but then after experiencing more of life you might find you believe quite the opposite. Personal faith should allow for such experience and education. In the end, every human is subjective.
The problem with organized religion is it shuts down individual thought and contemplation. It presents people desperate for answers with an entire menu of "This is what you believe so stop thinking about it and just believe!"
For me, there is too much about the world that is beautiful to believe it all simply came about through random coincidence. I may be a panentheist, but I need to do more research first before I put any label on my beliefs. I do believe that if there is a God, She lives and breathes through every one of us, we are a part of Him at all times. When we die, we unite with God completely. Do I have proof of this? Of course not, it's merely what I choose to believe at this moment. I could change my beliefs next year should I discover new information.
This week's kerfuffle over federal Science Minister Gary Goodyear's initial reluctance to confirm his belief in evolution is a tempest in a teapot. It's true that some commentators will use this to, once again, slam the Harper Conservatives for being too Creationist-heavy. The Tories will deserve such criticism because they aren't a diverse bunch. While most Canadians hold moderate, if any faith, the vast majority of Harper's caucus is still mostly made up of the same Reform Party-type fundamentalists who turned off so many Canadians in the 1990s (and still do today.)
There is nothing wrong with personal faith. It is healthy. But no one can ever forget that faith is fallible and should be amenable to change. But too often the conservative fundamentalists that David Asper defends (at least this year) are unwilling to show such intelligence with regard to religion. Too often they are willing, if they get the power, to abuse others who don't agree with them. Too often they are willing to blur the lines between church and state and implement their own fallible religion into public policy. Fearing such people in higher office is perfectly legitimate, Mr. Asper.
For a great read on this subject, check out John Moore's take in the National Post.
I do think that a healthy spirituality is essential, at least for me. But I also believe that all organized religion is inevitably corrupt and fallible. People (predominantly men) who seek power in such religious institutions are never to be trusted. Like all things touched by humans, organized religions can never be counted on to be perfect.
So I firmly believe that every person should decide for themselves what they believe and why. But no one should pretend that their faith is infallible and beyond question. You can believe something one day, but then after experiencing more of life you might find you believe quite the opposite. Personal faith should allow for such experience and education. In the end, every human is subjective.
The problem with organized religion is it shuts down individual thought and contemplation. It presents people desperate for answers with an entire menu of "This is what you believe so stop thinking about it and just believe!"
For me, there is too much about the world that is beautiful to believe it all simply came about through random coincidence. I may be a panentheist, but I need to do more research first before I put any label on my beliefs. I do believe that if there is a God, She lives and breathes through every one of us, we are a part of Him at all times. When we die, we unite with God completely. Do I have proof of this? Of course not, it's merely what I choose to believe at this moment. I could change my beliefs next year should I discover new information.
This week's kerfuffle over federal Science Minister Gary Goodyear's initial reluctance to confirm his belief in evolution is a tempest in a teapot. It's true that some commentators will use this to, once again, slam the Harper Conservatives for being too Creationist-heavy. The Tories will deserve such criticism because they aren't a diverse bunch. While most Canadians hold moderate, if any faith, the vast majority of Harper's caucus is still mostly made up of the same Reform Party-type fundamentalists who turned off so many Canadians in the 1990s (and still do today.)
There is nothing wrong with personal faith. It is healthy. But no one can ever forget that faith is fallible and should be amenable to change. But too often the conservative fundamentalists that David Asper defends (at least this year) are unwilling to show such intelligence with regard to religion. Too often they are willing, if they get the power, to abuse others who don't agree with them. Too often they are willing to blur the lines between church and state and implement their own fallible religion into public policy. Fearing such people in higher office is perfectly legitimate, Mr. Asper.
For a great read on this subject, check out John Moore's take in the National Post.
Friday, March 13, 2009
South African gangs use rape to "cure" lesbians
There are so many evil aspects to this disturbing story, it's difficult to list them: rape, violence against women, misogyny, sexism, lesbophobia, homophobia, gang violence, machismo gone mad...
It disturbs me to no end to think there are groups of despicable men - bolstered by odiously macho cultures and attitudes - going around South Africa or anyplace who believe this lie and act on it. I post it here to remind all of us how truly demented and terrible some men can often be. In some circles of the world, this kind of violent thinking is sadly "mainstream."
Enough is enough!
It disturbs me to no end to think there are groups of despicable men - bolstered by odiously macho cultures and attitudes - going around South Africa or anyplace who believe this lie and act on it. I post it here to remind all of us how truly demented and terrible some men can often be. In some circles of the world, this kind of violent thinking is sadly "mainstream."
Enough is enough!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)