[ICTHUS]

Gay Community News : Ghana Orders Arrest Of All Gays

*edit* Here it is again from a Ghanian news source (the first is an LGBT-community Irish site)

This makes me, frankly, livid, and I'm really resisting the urge to say something mean and snarky, so I'll just say that this appears to have been motivated by the Christian faith of the prevailing Ghanian culture.

Discuss.

[Art]

Don't lump as all together with them. I doubt anybody here is going to support this.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

I'll just say that this appears to have been motivated by the Christian faith of the prevailing Ghanian culture.

Discuss.

I think this quote from Miroslav Volf is illuminating:

"In my estimation, rather than the character of the Christian faith itself, a better explanation of why Christian churches are either impotent in the face of violent conflicts or actively participate in them derives from the proclivities of its adherents which are at odds with the character of the Christian faith. One way to describe these pernicious proclivities is to speak of confusion of loyalty. Though explicitly giving ultimate allegiance to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, many Christians in fact seem to have an overriding commitment to their respective cultures and ethnic groups. Hence in conflict situations they tend to fight on the side of their cultural group and employ faith as a weapon in struggle. The empirical research on the churches' reaction to ethnic conflicts conducted by Ralph Premdas in a number of countries in the southern hemisphere has shown that the "inter-communal antipathies present in the society at large are reflected in the attitudes of churches and their adherents". Though the clergy are often invited to adjudicate, "the reconciling thrust quickly evaporates after the initial effort". The most important reason for failure, he notes, is the "inter-locking relations of church and cultural section which spill into partisan politics marked by the mobilization of collective hate and cultivated bigotry". Along with their parishioners the clergy are often "trapped within the claims of their own ethnic or cultural community" and thus serve as "legitimators of ethnic conflict", despite their genuine desire to take seriously the Gospel call to the ministry of reconciliation.

Churches find themselves unable to act on the Gospel call to the ministry of reconciliation because their commitments are wrongly ordered--universal claims of the Gospel of Jesus Christ are subordinated to the claims of the particular social groups they inhabit instead of the claims of particular social groups being subordinated to the universal claims of the Gospel."

[Bryan]

wow. that's utterly ridiculous. and Slap_j thank you for your post.

[ICallHimTurtle]

I don't know how to constructively add to this, but my opinion is that this is outrageous. I have a hard time believing anyone would dispute that, christian or no.

"All efforts are being made to get rid of these people in the society."

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they'll continue to be born.

[ICTHUS]

If a mod wants to tell me to stop with this line of discussion, I'll respect that, but I think this needs to be said...

Slapj - your quote, while I'm sure it makes sense to you and others here, looks to me like a simple case of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

"...the proclivities of its adherents which are at odds with the character of the Christian faith. One way to describe these pernicious proclivities is to speak of confusion of loyalty. Though explicitly giving ultimate allegiance to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, many Christians in fact seem to have an overriding commitment to their respective cultures and ethnic groups. Hence in conflict situations they tend to fight on the side of their cultural group and employ faith as a weapon in struggle."

So what we have here, in other words, is not true Christianity, but rather a Christianity which has been sullied by the 'overriding commitment to ... respective cultures and ethnic groups'. Like the hypothetical Scotsman, who saw the news of a brutal string of serial murders in London, said to himself "Och, no Scotsman would ever do such a thing!", only to hear of a similar murderer in Glasgow a month later, he says "No true Scotsman would ever do such a thing!" - your author conveniently tweaks the definition of what constitutes true Christianity in order to excuse the faith from responsibility.

Condensed:

Christianity does not promote violence/persecution of minorities.
Homosexuals are being persecuted in Uganda by persons calling themselves Christians
True Christianity does not promote violence/persecution of minorities

Secondly, there's also the matter that your holy book commands the death penalty (or did, if you take the view that those laws are no longer in effect and we ought no longer to arrest/exile/stone/otherwise maim/kill gays, as I should expect most here do) for homosexuality. But the fact remains that there are those who do not. Men like R.J. Rushdoony and his theonomist ilk, for example, maintain that the Old Testament command to stone the homosexual person is still in effect. There is no binding authority in Christendom, unless we take the Roman Catholic Church's claim as authoritative, to judge between competing religious opinions. Consequently, we have a sizeable portion of Christendom in Uganda (and other African countries) who take the view that it is God's will that they persecute LGBT people wherever they be found, and there is no authority available to tell them "No.", other than a secular authority such as the United Nations.

It is undeniable that, interpreted a certain way, the text of the bible itself gives license and indeed, command, to do what these Ghanian Christians are doing.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

Slapj - your quote, while I'm sure it makes sense to you and others here, looks to me like a simple case of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

I did not deny that they were Christians at all—it isn't my business nor inclination to judge how people identify themselves. What I deny is that it is congruent with the gospels. There is no God behind the back of Jesus who justifies this sort of death-dealing action toward the other (the homosexual in this case).

Secondly, there's also the matter that your holy book commands the death penalty (or did, if you take the view that those laws are no longer in effect and we ought no longer to arrest/exile/stone/otherwise maim/kill gays, as I should expect most here do) for homosexuality.

Yes. Although I think you've got quite a bit of work to do to show that this is particularly religiously motivated and not, as Premdas and Volf suggest, a reflection of "inter-communal antipathies present in the society at large" where religion is wielded as a cudgel. Folks do have motivating interests other than scripture.

It is undeniable that, interpreted a certain way, the text of the bible itself gives license and indeed, command, to do what these Ghanian Christians are doing.

That's the risk of exchange in speech. The bible doesn't offer any final words, it offers a dialogue that unfolds in history. There is always more to be said. So it is not surprising at all that we see all sorts of various "species." Unfortunately some lead into the places of silence and death. We can ask what that means and whether it militates against the truth of the gospels in any degree. But it seems pretty hasty to just declare the fundamentalists/extremists the true heirs of scripture and say, therefore, that religion (whatever that is) has to go.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

It is undeniable that, interpreted a certain way, the text of the bible itself gives license and indeed, command, to do what these Ghanian Christians are doing.

This is true.

However, in order to get that interpretation: one must also interprete the Bible to command the stoning of adulterers, disobedient children, unwed women who cannot prove their virginity, and anyone who works on the Sabbath.

I can only presume that Ghana must not be arresting homosexuals on the sabbath as that would mean that they were working?

[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

This is true.

However, in order to get that interpretation: one must also interprete the Bible to command the stoning of adulterers, disobedient children, unwed women who cannot prove their virginity, and anyone who works on the Sabbath.

I can only presume that Ghana must not be arresting homosexuals on the sabbath as that would mean that they were working?

What? You're arguing against someone who is on your side with this one?



His post makes it pretty clear that he is definitely is not agreeing with it or trying to justify it at all.

[ICTHUS]

Originally Posted by slap_j

I did not deny that they were Christians at all—it isn't my business nor inclination to judge how people identify themselves. What I deny is that it is congruent with the gospels. There is no God behind the back of Jesus who justifies this sort of death-dealing action toward the other (the homosexual in this case).

The Torah, interpreted a certain way (as these Ghanians, and the theonomists, do) disagrees with you. Presumably these folks see the moral/legal imperatives of the Old Testament as binding today. You disagree, clearly, and I'm quite glad that you do - but where's the arbiter who decides which opinion between the two camps is correct?

Yes. Although I think you've got quite a bit of work to do to show that this is particularly religiously motivated and not, as Premdas and Volf suggest, a reflection of "inter-communal antipathies present in the society at large" where religion is wielded as a cudgel. Folks do have motivating interests other than scripture.

Surely they do. But here's the rub with that: in the absence of the idea of a divine command from a supposedly omnipotent/omnibenevolent/omni-etc deity, cultural taboos and such are open to correction from critical moral reasoning (i.e. the kind of reasoning that asks "what's the harm here? None? What's the benefit to allowing people the free expression of their sexual orientation? A great deal? Oh! Well I suppose we shan't be harassing these folk, shall we?") are no longer open to such reasoning. The moment you transcendentalize a given ethical precept by saying that "Almighty God wills it so!" you make it immune to such critical reasoning. As with all religious thinking, this kind of reasoning involves the suspension of critical thinking about morality, and once critical thinking is suspended, all kinds of non-reality based thinking can be accepted as true.

Essentially, were it not for religion giving these folks a religious text with which to baptize their hatred, it could be laid bare to a simple utilitarian argument: "what is the harm? What are the benefits?"

That's the risk of exchange in speech. The bible doesn't offer any final words, it offers a dialogue that unfolds in history. There is always more to be said. So it is not surprising at all that we see all sorts of various "species." Unfortunately some lead into the places of silence and death. We can ask what that means and whether it militates against the truth of the gospels in any degree.

Absolutely. Yet a theonomist maintains to the end a grace-based theology. He defends, quite ardently, 'the gospel' as being by grace alone through faith alone. Yet he still maintains that homosexuals and blasphemers and such must be put to death. So your claim that such conduct 'militates against the truth of the gospels' isn't convincing to those sort of folks, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I can only presume that Ghana must not be arresting homosexuals on the sabbath as that would mean that they were working?

One can hope they would be consistent, but that's for them to worry about, hmm?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Role Modlin

What? You're arguing against someone who is on your side with this one?

Actually, I'd say I was expanding on his position.I didn't think he was agreeing with Ghana's interpretation.

Though I don't argue for or against individual people. I simply argue ideas.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

The Torah, interpreted a certain way (as these Ghanians, and the theonomists, do) disagrees with you. Presumably these folks see the moral/legal imperatives of the Old Testament as binding today.

I don't know if that presumption is warranted. My understanding of theonomy is that it would preclude revolutionary moves as regeneration (broadly speaking) is a requisite of such a system of governance. And, not to dismiss your anxiety, but that's an awfully small school of thought anyway.

You disagree, clearly, and I'm quite glad that you do - but where's the arbiter who decides which opinion between the two camps is correct?

All language is dialogical which means there is no final arbiter. This is no more particular to reading the bible than it is to reading Kafka or Joyce or any other sort of writing.

Essentially, were it not for religion giving these folks a religious text with which to baptize their hatred, it could be laid bare to a simple utilitarian argument: "what is the harm? What are the benefits?"

What does that make "religion"? IIRC, Christopher Hitchens does the same sort of thing. He says there are no real distinctions to be made other than between rational and religious. Which is to say, basically, anything he disagrees with is religious. I mean, I'm sure the Stalinists thought they were being very rational. There is no final arbiter to be found here either.

[athanatos]

Originally Posted by Role Modlin

What? You're arguing against someone who is on your side with this one?



His post makes it pretty clear that he is definitely is not agreeing with it or trying to justify it at all.

I didn't gather that from his post. He was raising a question, given that their interpretation/hermaneutic that got them here probably is not being used consistently; that is, they are probably OK with working on Sabbath. Something wrong here.

[iAmAPeanut]

John 8: 1-11

The overreaction occuring in Ghana sounds a bit like some of the overreactions that took place in Salem, Mass. True, the Bible contains death sentences for homosexuals and adulterers, etc. God gave the law to Moses to show the people the seriousness of their sin, and the holiness of their God.

But then Jesus came along, and with him a new law. The new stuff did not contradict God's law, but added to it, revealing God's plan of forgiveness to a people who were very aware of their sin. The Pharisees presented an adulterous woman to Jesus and waited to see what he would say. He forgave her, #1 because he is God and he has the right to forgive, and #2 because the rest of us are sinners too, and we no longer have the right to stone our fellow man for their problems.

So picture Jesus in Salem, or Ghana, or wherever. Somebody brings to him a homosexual. Let's imagine how he would respond.

[ICTHUS]

Originally Posted by slap_j

I don't know if that presumption is warranted. My understanding of theonomy is that it would preclude revolutionary moves as regeneration (broadly speaking) is a requisite of such a system of governance. And, not to dismiss your anxiety, but that's an awfully small school of thought anyway.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean about theonomy precluding revolutionary moves, but it doesn't matter. I raise the case of theonomy simply because it would have the state use its proverbial sword in the case of certain transgressions of Biblical morality, not unlike the situation unfolding in Ghana.

As for theonomy/dominionism and the works of guys like Rushdoony et al being 'an awfully small school of thought', that may be so, but their works, as Martin points out ("With God On Our Side"), are widely read in the American religious right.

"...In addition, several key leaders have acknowledged an intellectual debt to the theonomists. Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy have endorsed Reconstructionist books. Rushdoony has appeared on Kennedy's television program and the 700 Club several times. Pat Robertson makes frequent use of 'dominion' language; his book, The Secret Kingdom, has often been cited for its theonomy elements; and pluralists were made uncomfortable when, during his presidential campaign, he said he 'would only bring Christians and Jews into the government,' as well as when he later wrote, 'There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world."

All language is dialogical which means there is no final arbiter. This is no more particular to reading the bible than it is to reading Kafka or Joyce or any other sort of writing.

I think a statement like "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death" is sufficiently unambiguous. The issue is with whether it ought to have been obeyed in the first place.

What does that make "religion"? IIRC, Christopher Hitchens does the same sort of thing. He says there are no real distinctions to be made other than between rational and religious. Which is to say, basically, anything he disagrees with is religious. I mean, I'm sure the Stalinists thought they were being very rational. There is no final arbiter to be found here either.

Any belief system applied uncritically can be said to be 'religious' or 'superstitious'. By that definition, Stalinism was a religion because it glorified Stalin himself to the point where he was unimpeachable.