American's religion/ Homosexuality and Desmond Morris

[Kirstini]

Pshemekan:
> Why am I writing all that my country propaganda? It is to show how 
strange seems to me existence of God in US citizens public life. 
Pledge of Alliegiance, Dubya's speeches, creation "science", book 
burning &c, is unthinkable to me, even though I live in a country 
where in 100 persons only 8 are not Roman Catholics, and only 2 are 
not Christians (perfect birthplace for a religious state, isn't it?). 
I mean, US is viewed as a "land of the free", but sometimes I think 
it is just as religious as Iran or Afghanistan. Why is it that in my 
country, everything is being crafted so not to offend tinest 
minorities of atheists and other religions, while in much more 
cultural mixed US (when political correctness and zero tolerance 
often reach absurdal heights) politicians, judges, and other public 
figures often speaks about God, and use him/her to support their own 
view of right and wrong.> 

I quoted such a big part of the above argument because I feel that 
Pshemekan put forward very articulately something that has always 
bothered me about both US politics and the arrogance involved in 
assuming the position of a "chosen people". Hell yeah, says Mr Bush. 
God's on our side in the fight against Eye-Rack. How do you know, Mr 
Bush? Did one of your generals get a direct line wired into the White 
House? No? You just *know*? We arra people, as Glasgow Protestant 
Rangers fans crow. And, from over this side of the pond, Christianity 
appears to be used by American public figures as an indictment of 
superiority rather than any sort of moral code. What about "Thou 
shalt not kill", Mr Heston? What's that you say? Every American has 
the right to defend his own property? And God's on your side, right? 
He's right there, handing you the bullets. Hell, you probably go out 
a-huntin' together at the weekends.
I also really liked Pshemekan's other recent post, where she pointed 
out that to sin or not to sin is not really an issue to an athesist, 
where the point becomes only "does this behaviour harm others?" 
Personally, I think this is a much healthier moral code to adopt in 
today's climate (no prizes for guessing Kirstini's religious 
beliefs). Cindy, I'm interested in how you align your belief that 
homosexual sex is sinful with the fact that you have non-het friends. 
Doesn't this implicitly condemn your friends (in your view) to 
eternal damnation? I'm not trying to start a fight, more just 
wondering how literally the Christians on list interpret the Bible. 
Perhaps I was a bit hasty in describing myself as an atheist. In my 
more refelctive moments, I do consider the possibility of a spiritual 
force beyond human ken working to order the universe, but I have 
trouble in equating my own conceptualisation of this force with the 
adoption of the 2000 year old writings of a group of Palestinian 
patriarchs as an appropriate and relevant moral code for an 
empancipated young woman in modern-day Western society. (Nice long 
sentence there for you, folks.) Personally, I feel that the teachings 
of the Bible (Jesus' "be excellent to one another" aside) have 
absolutely no relevance to my life. St Paul especially can go and 
shove it. (Sorry to drag the debate down to my gutter-al level.) I 
suppose what I'm wondering is how relevant the on list Christians 
find many of the teachings of the Bible. Do you interpret loosely or 
to the letter? Steve made an excellent point about "thou shalt not 
commit adultery" being more of a property law than anything else at 
the time of inscription, which I think is where this jumbled train of 
thought started. 

My other point was just a little tag on to the homosexuality and 
religion debate. I suppose I felt it necessary to mumble out some 
vague statment of belief before tackling this one. The British 
anthropologist Desmond Morris (author of "The Naked Ape". He's the 
lipstick/labia chap) propounded a theory that homosexuality was as 
natural a state of being as heterosexuality, and that homosexuality 
tended to occur (cross-species, not just in humans) more frequently 
at times of species over-population. Can any Brits reading this 
remember the specifics of this argument? It was the gay duck 
programme, on telly a few years ago. I kinda like that theory, but 
then I also find the concept of original sin risible. 

Kirstini, just back from Peru with millions more freckles, endless 
photos of llamas on hills, and a really bad case of jet lage. So 
apologies for the confuzzled ramblings.