Not a politically correct post

[trixtah]

So, we liberal leftie types are supposed to tolerate difference, and accept individuality and yadda yadda. Well, I think we mostly do try. But after this Proposition 8 thing - and actually, I'm not a person who is interested in fighting for gay marriage, per se - it's time to point the finger and say that tolerating difference is fine up until the point that others start to impinge on our lives.

I hate what the LDS church is doing. I dislike the Mormon hierarchy and most of their doctrines. I think their interference in politics is dangerous, unethical and frankly revolting. There are plenty of people around who hate the Scientologists and what they do. Ok, they prey on vulnerable people, run questionable programmes, and try and scalp lots of money off the gullible. This is pretty much in common with plenty of religious/cult practice. As far as I know, however, they do not interfere in national politics, except to try and protect their tax-free status by maintaining they are a religion, and using copyright law to censor people.

I think the LDS, Catholic and Open Brethren (the latter, especially in the antipodes) churches are some of the more pernicious influences in the political landscape. They demand all the privileges of their status as religious bodies, while using their special influence on people's lives to attempt to direct their political choices. While demanding those legal privileges, they do their best to avoid any areas of the law of the land (taxes, anti-discrimination legislation, etc) that don't suit them, because, really, they only answer to a superior Law (the one that they invented).

They have a dangerous ethos that is like the Bush/Monroe Doctrine of ethics - we feel threatened, so we will invade your privacy and your rights, and we will do our best to create law that supports our particular line of moral judgement. It disgusts me and angers me.

I know people who are Catholic, and Mormon, and even a former Open Brethren. Most of them are decent people who say "live and let live", even if they don't precisely approve of my lifestyle. That's fine. I don't need their approval, I need their non-interference (where my life doesn't impact on theirs). What I don't understand is how such decent people can support institutions that go out of their way to interfere in my life. I don't know how they can revere the individuals who run these institutions and who make the decisions to invade my domain.

I know some of their members are "fighting from within" to achieve change (and look at the changes in the Anglican church over these last 30 years) - but now, in the present, regarding that vast majority in such institutions who support their political aims, tithe, attend services and cheer the hatred, and who then go along to the ballot box, just as their pastor has told them, and vote to take away our rights... right now, they disgust me. I don't ask for their acceptance, support or love. I want to live my life. I would love to be tolerant and say that I will be happy to let them live theirs. But when a prime focus of these churches, the Catholic, the Mormon, the Brethren, and many others, seems to be to deny me the right to live my life, then, I'm afraid, my tolerance for the quirks of others, and my tolerance of their living their lives at the expense of mine, disappears without a trace.

There are some words by Oliver Wendell Holmes that these churches could do to remember (in non-gendered language):

The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.

If we swap "fist" with "unmandated political influence", and "nose" with "life", the analogy is obvious. In sum, butt the fuck out, and I will accord the same courtesy in return.

Comments

[saluqi.livejournal.com]

The thing I find hard about this is how close to home it is. Before the marriage debates started it was easier to ignore the fact that many heterosexual people truly think they are better and their relationships are better.

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

Before the marriage debates started it was easier to ignore the fact that many heterosexual people truly think they are better and their relationships are better.

Exactly. I mean, hell, I've been homophobically abused to my face in the last decade, and spat at for being a dyke in my early twenties. Individual fuckwititude doesn't surprise me. But it is truly interesting how an issue like this, which comes after the advances we have made in so many ways, shows the underlying level of disdain that still remains towards us and our relationships. It shouldn't be a shock to realise the amount of entitlement that privileged groups still feel belongs to them... but hell, this kind of thing truly rubs it in our faces.

[baglieg.livejournal.com]

Hell yes.

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

:-/

I've felt that way for many, many years.

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

Yes, so have I. But I also thought that some of their bullshit influence had been mitigated by queer political gains. I suppose we still have anti-discrimination legislation still, but I'm just appalled that a bunch of voters can remove a right that had been previously granted to a significant minority. Meh.

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

Very meh, yeah.

GRRRR actually.

Here it wasn't even a bunch of voters, it was some wedge politics playing hetboys in parliament prevented us getting that right.

(oh yeah, I shoud mention that if I marry it would only be to a woman)

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

The interesting legal issue is whether a majority of Californian voters can, in fact, remove a right previously granted to a minority. Nothing in Prop 8 even begins to address the arguments underlying the earlier decision to grant same-sex marriage in CA.

[mmegaera.livejournal.com]

The problem is, their religion mandates that they impinge on others' freedoms. They call it "saving" you, and claim that you're impinging on their religious freedom if you object to them doing it. I grew up Southern Baptist, so I'm very familiar with this phenomenon.

No matter what anyone does, they're never going to understand that they're taking rights that aren't theirs by doing this. And since they're the majority in so many places, we're basically screwed.

And, yes, I hate it, too.

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the Monroe Doctrine of the soul. Bleah. I was tempted to include Baptists as part of my naming-and-shaming rant, but I've not had much direct experience with them myself. They tend to have a much more low-key presence in the antipodes (they're even defined as a centrist church).

And I think this is one of the drawbacks of democracies, where the majority can dictate the rights of a significant minority. I'm glad I live in places where religion is a very minor (although mouthy) part of the political discourse.

[mmegaera.livejournal.com]

I agree with you about that drawback of democracies. The problem is, the alternatives to democracy have so many more [wry g].

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

Yes, that is the problem, unfortunately. :-)

[countrycousin.livejournal.com]

Have you seen Teresa Nielsen Hayden's account of her difficulties with LDS? Gender discrimination was a significant factor.

If not, it is here:
http://nielsenhayden.com/GodandI.html

short version is on
http://www.salamandersociety.com/blacksheep/

search for her name.

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

Yes, I certainly have read that essay - fascinating. I've also read Sonia Johnston's account of being active in the LDS church during the ERA battle in the 70s. Unbelievable that they excommunicate people for their political beliefs/activities.

[buddleia.livejournal.com]

Oh, thank you. I vastly prefer this discussion to the miserable crap I've been hearing around that 'black people hate gays'. F'fuck's sake.

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

Yes, that really really shits me. The simple answer is that black (and Polynesian, in NZ) communities tend to be much bigger churchgoers than us godless honkies. And they're very involved with their churches in a community way. I think pointing the finger at the pulpit, again, is a more relevant exercise there.

[jekni.livejournal.com]

I find this Proposition as offensive as the meddling of the former Federal Govt in the ACT's civil union legislation. Yes I am hetero; yes, I am in a straight monogamous marriage - but that doesn't mean I am in any way threatened if any of my friends (or family - my oldest nephew is gay) wish to formalise their relationship in any way they choose. Gahhh! These people make me want to throw things - and throw up!

I think I'm going to have to put the Neilsen-Hayden link on my page. That was one awesome story!

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't understand this bullshit about having to "protect" marriage. If us godless queers were standing outside of their churches with flamethrowers preventing them from reaching the altar (hm, there's an idea), perhaps they might have something to be worried about.

I can't pretend to understand the mentality of these people.

[ilikerivers.livejournal.com]

Oh hell yes. I wish religion stayed the fuck out of politics. Bloody right-wing idiots rubbing propaganda lies in people's faces that say I'm not allowed rights because I'm gay. I'm sick of being a second class citizen and having to correct people when they say 'he' about my partner, of being confused as my brother-in-laws 'wife or girlfriend' yesterday three times when we are both gay.