Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Archbishop Desmond Tutu has a powerful op-ed piece in the Washington Post opposing the trend of increasingly draconian anti-gay laws in various countries in Africa -- most obviously the pending law in Uganda.
And he makes a very interesting statement in the essay that made me think back to last spring when I got to meet him and the conversation that we had that day among a small group of students, clergy and a few others, like me, who were lucky enough to get invited to the gathering. He writes:
Our lesbian and gay brothers and sisters across Africa are living in fear.And they are living in hiding -- away from care, away from the protection the state should offer to every citizen and away from health care in the AIDS era, when all of us, especially Africans, need access to essential HIV services. That this pandering to intolerance is being done by politicians looking for scapegoats for their failures is not surprising. But it is a great wrong. An even larger offense is that it is being done in the name of God. Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God.
He said much the same thing in our conversation that day, and he focused very much on the example of Jesus himself -- on his commandment to love one another and on stories of Jesus protecting the oppressed and so forth. I did not ask him then, though I would like to have had the chance, to ask him how he deals with the various verses from the Old Testament and from Paul that condemn homosexuality.
There are different ways to deal with them, of course. One way is to attempt to reinterpret them to make it seem as though they were not really anti-gay at all. I have read many such attempts to rationalize those verses away and found none of them the least bit convincing. I don't think there is really any serious doubt that the Israelites of the Old Testament really did think homosexuality to be a terrible thing and, naturally, their God just happened to back up that view.
Since I do not believe in any god that left behind any revelation, I obviously do not believe that Bishop Tutu or anyone else worships a homophobic God. But if one believes that the Bible is an accurate record of a revelation from God then it also seems obvious to me that the God of the Old Testament, at least, is highly hateful toward gays -- which is why, frankly, Christianity would make a lot more sense to me if it were to jettison the barbaric Old Testament altogether.
There are other ways to rationalize such things, of course. My old friend Henry Neufeld, if I remember correctly from conversations long ago, would say that he just doesn't believe such verses really were given by God as commands. For him, the Bible being "inspired" does not mean that everything in it actually reflects the views of God but merely that it reflects the attempts of a people over a long period of time to come to terms with God. But as a genuine Hebrew scholar, I doubt he would disagree that the ancient Hebrews and their scriptures really did include a harsh condemnation of homosexuality.
But ultimately, does any of this matter? Not really. Bishop Tutu and I end up at the same place -- strong support for the equal rights and dignity of all people, gay or straight -- from different starting points. And it is that conclusion, not how we got there, that really matters. And I am able to draw inspiration, just as he does, from the words of Christ even while he believes him to be the son of God and I do not.
The statement attributed to Jesus that "whatever you do to the least of these, my brothers, you do unto me also" is a powerful statement of human compassion and empathy. It is no less powerful to me because I do not believe Jesus was anything but a man. Indeed, it would be no less powerful to me even if Jesus did not exist at all -- we do, after all, take inspiration from the ideas of fictional characters in literature just as we do from real people.
What ultimately matters to me is that we end up on the correct side of these fights over equality. I don't really care what inspired Bishop Tutu to get there or whether that path was perfectly rational or consistent. I care only that he lends his strong and credible voice to the chorus calling for all people to be treated as equal under the law. As a man who put his life on the line for racial equality, his words have a weight that few of us, least of all me, can match.
Politics
Comments
I've been reading posts here for several years; I think that was the best one I've read. Better even then the MSU Spartans posts. (Go Spartans!)
Posted by: JimV | March 16, 2010 9:37 AM
Since Ed mentioned my name I thought I would note that he has correctly stated my position to the degree of accuracy that is possible within a single paragraph. It's refreshing to be correctly quoted!
I do find attempts to make certain biblical statements pro-gay to be very unconvincing and also misplaced. Further, once we have accomplished that, what do we do with commands to genocide?
The Bible is a very human book, no matter how much I may believe (and I do) that God can speak through it.
Posted by: Henry Neufeld | March 16, 2010 10:06 AM
Oops! Just in case someone misunderstands, my "refreshing to be correctly quoted" does not refer to my ever having been incorrectly quoted by Ed, but I have been misquoted over the past week by a few other people, so I'm frustrated.
Posted by: Henry Neufeld | March 16, 2010 10:08 AM
Henry-
Glad I got it right. I remember quite well our conversations on this -- and it blows my mind to think that they took place nearly 20 years ago now! Henry and I first met on the Compuserve religion forum (along with Andrea and Troy Britain, who also comment here). And I remember being quite surprised by Henry's more liberal theology. I was used to only fundamentalists. I'd have my handy dandy list of Bible contradictions and atrocities and I'd tick them off and he'd say, "Yep, you're right. That's clearly a contradiction." And it irritated me at first because he wasn't following the script in my head. In my head, he was supposed to say, "No, the Bible is perfect and inerrant, you're wrong." I look back on it with amusement now.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 16, 2010 10:30 AM
But Ed, our favorite heddle has "proven" to us all that it is possible to be both contradictory and inerrant when you want the Bible to be so.
(I recognize that this is similar to the, "I bet X would say Y if X were here," meme, but I just couldn't help it. Any chance to bring up heddle-logic is almost impossible to pass up.)
Posted by: mercurianferret | March 16, 2010 10:42 AM
I also should probably apologize for setting him up for his views to be attacked here, as they will certainly be.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 16, 2010 10:47 AM
Mercurianferret, what have you done? Don't you know that if you name him he will come?
Posted by: Matty | March 16, 2010 10:57 AM
Of what possible use are beliefs if not to be attacked? What fun would I have if nobody ever attacked my beliefs?
People who propose blasphemy laws are incomprehensible to me. What good is all that agreement?
Posted by: Henry Neufeld | March 16, 2010 11:12 AM
@6: meh, his views seem too vague to properly attack - although I might be curious how he decides which bits of the Bible are "god speaking through it" and which are just products of humans.
Posted by: Deen | March 16, 2010 11:12 AM
Ed, I agree with JimV that this is one of yhour great posts, but I have to qauibble -- and that is all that I am doing -- with your comments about the Hebrew Bible, which, I'm afraid, betray your fundie upbringing. It is 'barbaric' only from the literalist, 'the Bible says it; that settles it' perspective of Christianity. But the idea that Scripture is a 'book of answers' has never been the perspective of (the majority of) Judaism, which sees it as a 'book of questions' to be argued over, explored, debated, etc. with each generation reaching a deeper understanding of a meaning never fully to be undrstood. (This is one reason why, while I would deny that eiher religion is 'true' because gods don't exist, I have more respect for Judaism than I do for most versions of Christianity.)
In fact, much of what you and Archbishop Tutu respect in the message of Jesus -- whether he is real or fictional (won't get into that one here) -- is inherently Jewish and is very similar to the teachings of Hillel.
The 'less likable' side of Christianity -- as well as its tendency to take single sentences and even phrases into monstrosities like the Rapture or, more traditionally, the Virgin Birth -- is a later invention and comes from Paul, Matthew's desperate 'source bending,' and the hack who got his rendering of the common literary form of the time, apocalyptic writing (actually a form equivalent to the "Aesopian language" of samizdat) taken far too literally.
This is why, despite their acceptance of that 'barbaric book' most of the branches of Judaism other than the Orthodox are much more gay-acceptant (as is Israel) than are any literalist versions of Christianity.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | March 16, 2010 11:30 AM
This is the same old problem with religion in general and the Bible specifically. You know: good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things. If you have a Desmond Tutu, religion becomes a force for good. If you have a Fred Phelps... well, you get my drift. With a complex, inconsistent and self-contradicting mess such as the Bible as a whole, it all comes down to the moral compass and the perceived authority of the person who interpretes it. It's nothing but a giant inkblot test.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | March 16, 2010 11:32 AM
I should mention that my comment@10 was written before I read Henry and Ed's colloquy. I am an 'amateur at everything' and hope that my comments 'got it right' but Henry would be better able to comment on that.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | March 16, 2010 11:35 AM
Jeez, folks.
THERE IS NO GOD. THERE IS NO GOD. THERE IS NO GOD.
Don't waste your life and opportunities living in superstition.
Unless, of course, you are an uneducated idiot. Then, by all means, worship away, fools.
Posted by: Bill | March 16, 2010 11:42 AM
Although in this I'm out of my depth in the shallow end I have a vague memory of reading that Jesus and Hillel were near contemporaries and that the new testament authors probably took stuff either from Hillel himself or the particular tradition/school that he came from. Is this anywhere near accurate?
Posted by: Matty | March 16, 2010 11:45 AM
Desmond Tutu has been a consistent and powerful voice for homosexual equality for some time now. Likewise his native South Africa is on the forefront of the gay rights movement. Many people are not aware that South Africa was the first nation in the world to write protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation into its constitution. It was also among the first to legally recognize same-sex marriage. Leaders like Bishop Tutu are what have made that progress possible. I am grateful for everything he’s done to make South Africa a beacon of hope and his continuing effort to bring that light to the rest of Africa.
The way I see it, like most believers he’s created a god in his own image. What I’ve seen of his god reflects very favorably on Desmond Tutu. If there are folks who want to call him an enemy simply because of his faith, I can only be jealous. With enemies like that, who would need friends?
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 16, 2010 11:46 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | March 16, 2010 11:49 AM
There are people who will call somebody an enemy just for being religious, even if they agree with you on every political issue. You can usually find a few in the Pharyngula comments.
Posted by: Brandon | March 16, 2010 11:52 AM
Henry Neufeld in #8:
I love it! I love it so much I might just steal it. (I'll try to give more or less proper credit, of course.) I've tried to say similar things in the past, but thie quote is a keeper!
Paul
Posted by: prn | March 16, 2010 11:56 AM
Yes, because Jesus was Jewish and Gospels are meditations on the meaning of Jesus in light of Jewish scripture. Jewish scripture was the frame of reference and the so-called New Testament represents the continuing efforts to purse those questions in the context of early communities of believers in Jesus as messiah. The idea of literalism and infallibility is absurd not only because of the numerous contradictions in the texts, but because some of the beliefs described are self-evidently unjust and immoral. But this should not be surprising if we understand these texts as the evolving efforts of human beings to wrestle with the meaning and implications of God in their lives.
Whether you believe in God or not, Prup's description of the Jewish texts reflects their place in the lives of Jews. And if you step outside fundie circles, there are plenty of Christians who see the post-Jesus texts as an extension of the same process. The newer texts also depict communities wrestling with continuing questions about the meaning and implications of God in their lives, but seen through the lens of Jesus as the Jewish messiah.
Posted by: Dr X | March 16, 2010 12:00 PM
Having been raised an Episcopalian, I was fortunate to have Bishop Tutu as a role model while growing up. Even as I fell away from organized religion because of all the bad examples out there, I could appreciate his good works.
Posted by: Freemage | March 16, 2010 12:03 PM
I did not ask him then, though I would like to have had the chance, to ask him how he deals with the various verses from the Old Testament and from Paul that condemn homosexuality.
If you're a Christian, then you should probably deal with the issue the same way Christ dealt with it: use common sense and common decency in your approach to the OT law. If a law makes sense, and breaking it causes predictable harm (such as "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not steal"), then you should obey it; but if it's no longer useful, or its continued enforcement clearly does more harm than good (such as all those ancient tribal codes from Leviticus, including the gay-bashing stuff), then you can safely disregard it and place the teachings of Jesus ahead of them on the priority scale. Seriously, folks, it's really not that hard a call, and Christ himself offered plenty of examples, in his own actions, for us to follow. Use your best judgement, do the right thing whenever possible, and if you get called out for breaking this or that obscure sub-clause of this or that law, just explain your actions and be prepared to take the heat for it.
One of the reasons Christ was cricified was that he broke some OT laws and pissed off a lot of people who cared more about OT law than about doing the right thing in the real world. Christ wasn't wrong to do that back then, and his followers aren't wrong to do the same thing today.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 16, 2010 12:05 PM
Herod, that's an interesting choice of interpretations. But no, that is not what I meant. Brandon was pretty close. As I seem to be on an inverted colloquialism kick today, if the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 16, 2010 12:12 PM
There have been several comments on contrasting the teachings of Jesus with those of Hebrew scripture. I would simply note that the New Testament will make much more sense if understood from the perspective of Hebrew scripture and early Judaism.
At the same time, the New Testament is not always all that easy. There are some of the statements of Paul, there is Revelation, which can be seen as rather bloodthirsty.
I don't want to get into a full-blown doctrinal discussion in the comments, but I also reject sola scriptura or the Bible only. Reason is critical. I don't think any book, no matter how we describe it, makes us into the persons we are. A book can help or hinder, but the way one thinks about the book(s) makes the difference.
@Raging Bee - I would want to add that I don't think Jesus thought he was breaking OT law. Rather, he had a disagreement with others as to what the law demanded. The intensity of his disputes with the Pharisees do not indicate a great gulf between their views; rather, they indicate two rather close positions in debate, as only such similar groups can manage it. I would also note that the major reason for the crucifixion is more likely that he threatened Roman authority and peace by his behavior. The Romans were unlikely to crucify someone over a dispute about Jewish law.
Posted by: Henry Neufeld | March 16, 2010 12:42 PM
I would want to add that I don't think Jesus thought he was breaking OT law. Rather, he had a disagreement with others as to what the law demanded.
He didn't reject OT law in its entirety, or say it was crap or evil; but he did explicitly violate some specific rules (i.e., by healing people on the Sabbath, which he then had to explain when called out on it); he very pointedly said one could mindlessly obey every sub-clause every day without doing any good or getting any closer to God; and he also said, IIRC, "The Sabbath was made for Man, and not Man for the Sabbath."
I would also note that the major reason for the crucifixion is more likely that he threatened Roman authority and peace by his behavior. The Romans were unlikely to crucify someone over a dispute about Jewish law.
As I understand it, Christ was crucified by a coalition of Roman and Jewish reactionaries: Jesus caused a bit of unrest among the Jews by taking a less-than-rigidly-obedient approach to Jewish law; the Romans were alarmed by the unrest and misunderstood the nature of Jesus' objectives, so they looked to the Jews to "do something;" and lots of Jews, who were also alarmed by Jesus' "radical" teachings, supported crucifixion, either because they didn't like having their laws questioned, or because they wanted to prevent the Romans doing something more drastic, like impose a puppet regime and start crushing Jewish society as a whole. So no, the Romans didn't crucify Christ DIRECTLY "over a dispute about Jewish law," but they crucified him because they thought a dispute about Jewish law would pose a threat to their political order.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 16, 2010 1:01 PM
I have a co-worker who fits this mold fairly well. We've had some interesting conversations. I think it is really good for me to get reminded of the non-douchey side of theism from time to time.
Hilariously, my co-worker considers himself a "conservative Christian" because he feels that the original message of the Christian church in the first couple of centuries after its founding was one of love and egalitarianism -- so what you and I and most everybody else would label as a very liberal theology, he considers to be "conservative". heh.
Posted by: James Sweet | March 16, 2010 1:04 PM
The sole one that I find convincing is that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was more a result of a failure to adhere to Jewish laws regarding hospitality and care of travelers, with the sodomy being somewhat of a secondary issue. I have found that argument reasonably compelling.
But that still leaves you with Leviticus and Paul and all that other stuff. And I agree that the arguments trying to rationalize those away are deeply unconvincing. ("Abomination" just means "not done by tradition"? Then why is the penalty death?)
Posted by: James Sweet | March 16, 2010 1:10 PM
I always interpreted the Leviticus rules as referring specifically to man-on-man rape, as gay consensual sex would have been almost unheard of in that region. Since the men of Sodom had a policy of raping any visitor who stopped by, I don't think the meteorite was meant as a commentary on gay marriage.
Posted by: Brandon | March 16, 2010 1:15 PM
Henry Nuefeld @ 23:
I used to be a fairly steady reader of early Christianity, mostly its historiography rather than its theology. I read Vanderbilt Divinity school's NT prof, Amy-Jill Levine's The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus. (I linked to my review of this book.). She supposedly distinguishes herself given she's also a scholar of Jewish history as well. Do you have any opinion regarding the veracity of her work?
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 16, 2010 1:38 PM
Maybe you didn't notice, but death was a common penalty back then for pretty much everything, even really minor stuff. When your society has very limited resources and no sophisticated birth control, life itself becomes a privilege. While I'm certainly no Biblical apologist, I do have an interest in linguistics, and the translation that gave us "abomination" probably didn't mean it in the modern sense of that word.
Posted by: catgirl | March 16, 2010 1:39 PM
And the argument on the other side, of course, is that the method does indeed matter -- over the long run, and when considered within a larger framework. Bishop Tutu is on the "right side" by what amounts to chance. There is no conclusive way to demonstrate that one method of Biblical interpretation is closer to God's intention than another method, for the same reason there is no way to show that one method of astrological readings is more valid than another method.
What we're left with, then, is arguing over which version of religion is more reasonable -- from a secular standpoint. And then we come in and say "yes, that's what God wants!" God wants His followers, to be just as reality and world-based, as if they were good-willed atheists. God is a humanist.
It's nice when it works, but the point of special revelation is that it's ....special. With special facts which have to be revealed, and these change the moral conclusions. You don't need to read the stars accurately in order to discover that "today is a good day to get to those projects you've been putting off." And we don't need a God come to earth to tell us to "love one another." It's .... helpful.
The cost for the extra oomph of inspiration, however, is that the message from heaven might tell us something we don't already find reasonable. That is, it won't tell everybody. Only the faithful. A smaller group of faithful.
Posted by: Sastra | March 16, 2010 1:50 PM
Michael Heath @28 : I haven't read that but it is on my list. It was strongly recommended by my pastor in a recent conversation. I would note that my expertise tends more toward Hebrew scripture as part of Ancient Near Eastern literature than to the New Testament, though obviously I find that interesting as well.
Posted by: Henry Neufeld | March 16, 2010 2:59 PM
This view is not nearly so rare among Christians as some non-theists seem to think. Certainly it's my own view, and seeing it reflected in Henry's writings was what led me to become a regular reader of his blog. It's always seemed to me that this notion that the records gathered and preserved in the Bible "reflect . . . the attempts of a people over a long period of time to come to terms with God" is one that non-theists could also agree with, making at least a small space of common ground.
As for insisting that various Biblical references to male/male sex acts say anything relevant about homosexuality as we know it today - an unchosen inclination that leads easily to loving, stable relationships - I can't agree with that.
The Sodom story was clearly more about hospitality than about sexual behavior, the Leviticus laws reflect concerns of political, tribal, and family domination where the sex act was one performed by a dominant male upon his property, and Paul's comments are part of an ongoing concern about temple prostitution. None of them show the slightest empathy or understanding for any sort of same sex relationship, but that just isn't the same as a claim that the Bible condemns loving gay/lesbian relationships as we know them today.
Separating the Biblical views of sex, based on ignorance and politics, from the modern views of sexual relationships can be a powerful support for public recognition of same-sex marriage, and the dignity and worth of gay/lesbian relationships. For that reason, I really do not understand the repeated insistence by some of those I know support gay marriage that we should all agree that modern same-sex relationships are being condemned in Bible verses written by people entirely ignorant of such relationships.
Posted by: JuliaL | March 16, 2010 3:04 PM
Interesting argument, though I would content that NOM is pretty fucking ignorant about modern loving same-sex relationships, and they still manage to oppose it...
I don't think most of us are saying that view is "rare"... but we are saying that the opposite view is also not particularly rare, i.e. there is no shortage of Christians who, even if not Biblical literalists per se, are not comfortable admitting that there is a lot of contradictory BS in the Bible.
In any case, it is definitely good for us non-theists to be reminded about the good people on the other side of the fence from time to time. Not that this makes me any less vocal a critic of Christianity and of religion in general (I think that folks like you and Henry would be good people with or without religion), but it's just good for our sanity :D
Posted by: James Sweet | March 16, 2010 3:20 PM
Abby Normal wrote:
I think this is an extraordinarily important point and it really helped to crystalize my own thoughts on this. I've said a million times that a book like the Bible (or the Quran, for that matter) contains adequate justification for pretty much anything you'd like it to justify. If you're a cruel, hateful person you will find more than enough hatred and cruelty in it to justify your views; if you're a decent, caring person you will find more than enough caring and decency in it to justify your views. Which version of God we choose is really determined more by our personality type than by anything in the book itself. We invent our own gods that reflect our own biases.
So when I say that I am not the least bit bothered by Bishop Tutu's religious views as long as we end up on the same side of these vital moral issues, I am really just saying that I find him to be a much better person than I find those who worship a cruel and vindictive God. Since I do not believe any of those gods exist anyway, what I am really judging is the other person as a person. And I'll take Bishop Tutu on my team over Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps not because I like his god better -- I don't believe his god exists anymore than I believe Phelps' god exists -- but because I like him better.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 16, 2010 3:38 PM
I expect that many of them do so because they believe the Bible condemns such relationships, and therefore there is nothing to learn or understand. Also, some of their ignorance is of the virulent refuse-to-see-or-understand information readily available to them, very different from Biblical writers who did not have modern knowledge available to them.
The Old Testament forbids people with certain disabilities or conditions (including women during menstruation) from having the same rights as others. And yet I never hear of those fighting for the rights of the disabled, or of menstruating women, going around insisting the Bible defines such people even today as second class citizens; I don't hear them making a point of arguing that the only way to give the diable or menstruating women full rights is to ignore the Bible, or stop being a Christian or theistic Jew.
Instead, we all take for granted that the Biblical restrictions against such people were tribal ritual matters based at least in part on ignorance about such conditions. And we don't muddy the waters by arguing that the Biblical verses even apply to such conditions as we understand those conditions today. So what's with the gay marriage supporters who go around remarking on how the Bible condemns modern gay relationships, when clearly the Biblical writers were no more knowledgable about sexual orientation than they were about disabilities or menstruation?
Posted by: JuliaL | March 16, 2010 3:38 PM
Actually "genocide" is an extinct form of cake. So if you translate the ancient Hebrew correctly, God commands the Israelites to throw their enemies a party! It actually ties well with love thy neighbor and throw him a party which was also edited out during the dark ages when there wasn't enough light to party.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 16, 2010 3:40 PM
dogmeatib @ 36:
dogmeatib channeling modusoperandi? He's been appealing to my somewhat dormant desire for wise-ass humor as well.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 16, 2010 3:55 PM
I have a bit of a head cold, pressure must be activating the wise-ass humor part of my brain. Enjoy while it lasts. ;o)
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 16, 2010 4:13 PM
Abby Normal wrote:
I would modify this slightly since I suspect that many believers especially younger ones follow a god created in some one else's image (e.g., parent, pastor, other leader).
Desmond Tutu does have an advantage in that Anglicanism is not suppose to be sola scripture but to be based on scripture, reason, and tradition (often referred to as the three legs) and to be fairly accepting of diversity of belief. Admittedly it does lead to Bishop Tutu calling for lgtb rights on one side and Bishop Akinola calling for throwing them and their supporters in prison on the other.
Possible book: "Godless Morality: Keeping Religion out of Ethics" by Richard Holloway (retired head of the Scottish Episcopal Church).
Posted by: Erp | March 16, 2010 4:16 PM
Michael Heath "dogmeatib channeling modusoperandi? He's been appealing to my somewhat dormant desire for wise-ass humor as well."
It's simplest, I find, to use a manner of speech that both amuses you while you make a real point.
[lengthy pause]
I'm still working on that last part.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 16, 2010 4:39 PM
I realized some years ago that people largely create God in their own image (which then tells you a lot about the person). Non-coincidentally, that was about the time I realized I didn't need this God-belief cluttering up my head any more ;-).
Re Sastra @30: That's a point I'd also considered (there's an analogy there to scientific epistemology: you must not merely be right, you must justify your conclusion). Trouble is, I'm not convinced that secular ethical systems are so robust, either. Moral behaviour arises from the emotional side of our psychology, and placing it on a rational basis seems to be an intractable problem. I personally don't like seeing people suffer, and I can make a reasonable pragmatic case that the best way to promote my own long-term happiness and freedom is to ensure that everyone else has the same (or at least a decent shot at it). But I don't think I could make a principled argument against a powerful sociopath determined to get his own way, except to say that the rest of us will stop him if we can. However, moral and political philosophy is a large subject which I've never studied formally.
But returning to Tutu, I think the dilemma he poses for "assertive" atheists (which includes me, at least some of the time) is this: he's a good man using his moral street-cred and position of influence to advance a good cause, and more power to him for it. But at the same time, we can't help pointing out that we reject a lot of the basis of his moral authority: there simply is no God who commands us to either love OR hate homosexuals; gays don't deserve equal rights because they are "children of God just like us", we must attempt to ground that rights assertion in secular reasonings (eg. Rawlsian, utilitarian, etc); the church whose social influence he is here and now using for good has in other places and times been used for oppression, largely at the whims of the local political environment.
Now since I unhesitatingly privilege right action over right belief in moral matters (in explicit rejection of the fundamentalist emphasis of faith over works), I consider myself to be on the same "side" as Tutu (at least on this issue). But that doesn't make the other issue completely go away.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | March 16, 2010 5:19 PM
Ed wrote:
I agree ... but only to a point. Then I have a significant disagreement.
Sure, within every church or sect there is going to be a range of attitudes and interpretations, and this is where you see people picking and choosing the interpretation that reflects their personality type. But, in general, the version of God which most people "choose" is a reflection of their environment, upbringing, and community loyalties. Their doctrine then comes handed to them, with ready-made apologetics, rationalizations, and simplistic analogies.
So you don't really get a comfortable "good people pick nice religions and bad people pick bad religions." The people in "good" religions and the people in "bad" religions are more or less indistinguishable from each other, when you simply deal with them as people and don't get into specifically religious matters.
So if you are a decent, caring person who belongs to an authoritarian sect, you will understand how authoritarian, rigid rules are really quite decent and caring, when viewed from the right perspective. You will discover that what others call homophobia, you can honestly call realism and humility. And it will still come down to God's love. Even if you advocate stoning, there is a way you can see how it comes down to God's love.
Our biases don't always invent the God: sometimes they invent the excuses for the God we already have.
Posted by: Sastra | March 16, 2010 5:31 PM
Pfft. The question about the apostle Paul is easily answered - remember Ted Haggard? Well, Paul - like Ted - was definitely heterosexual - that is if you define heterosexual ...
As for the Old Testament - even the New Testament has later clauses inserted to say that the old testament is no more, the new order is in, that old one is only for those filthy god-killing Jews. Well, maybe not quite in that language - that's more Old Testament style language.
Posted by: MadScientist | March 16, 2010 5:39 PM
Just read the article and it is indeed brilliant. Does anyone know how widely this piece has been published in Africa where it could do the most good?
Posted by: Matty | March 16, 2010 6:14 PM
Thank you, Ed.
Posted by: Susan | March 16, 2010 10:00 PM
Paul himself dealt with Paul quite handily. The first leg of 1 Corinthians makes it clear--if you're listening to a teacher, and that teacher is saying something counter to the teachings of Christ, then ditch the teacher. Christ hated hypocrites (comprised of temple merchants, Satan, and the occasional thick-headed Apostle), and that was about it, so if Paul says to hate anyone on any other basis, Paul loses.
Posted by: Freemage | March 16, 2010 11:39 PM
@17
"There are people who will call somebody an enemy just for being religious, even if they agree with you on every political issue. You can usually find a few in the Pharyngula comments."
That's because being religious means being at least a bit silly in the head if not a complete nut.. Too much of these make a dangerous world to live in.
And quite strange conversation as well, you know; like the kid who had too much x..
Posted by: rijkswaanvijand | March 19, 2010 7:49 PM
Well, Mr. Tutu is absolutely no authority on morality. Who knows what he meant? If he means that homosexual practice is acceptable to God and Christianity then he fails dismally-these are the dumb dogs that do not bark when they should. If he meant that we should treat homosexuals kindly, then he is correct. God loves everyone and seeks to save all from their sins. If they hold fast to their sins, be it homosexuality or whatever, then they will be destroyed in the end. It is simple as that. The Bible is our rule of faith on every moral issue, not man.
Posted by: Ron D Henderson | March 19, 2010 7:54 PM
Except that the Bible was written by men, and the rules you want to enforce were dreamt up by men, not a super-being. Which makes them just as prone to error as any other man-made rules.
Posted by: Taz | March 19, 2010 8:20 PM
I think he *did* ditch the Old Testament.
Posted by: Christine | March 20, 2010 5:37 PM