One Voice Among Many
Fred wrote:
All is not well. You are conspicuous in not blogging about the rise of Islam worldwide, and its threat to the sort of liberal democracy you champion. I wonder what your thoughts are, and if you are willing to do anything about the threat.
To the extent that I see Islam as a threat to my gay lifestyle and my liberal democratic lifestyle (to the limited extent that it can be practiced under the current Republican administration), it's actually Islamic fundamentalism that I see as the threat, and I see little difference really between the threat from Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism in this country. Both as gay lifestylist and atheist, I find any sort of religious fundamentalism to be a grave threat.
In a broad way, then, I'm more inclined to speak out against religious fundamentalism in the US, usually by mocking it since snarky witticisms are my natural weapon. If we can't defend ourselves against religious fundamentalism in this country, I don't seem much hope (personally) in helping fellow gay lifestylists in Islamic strongholds, but I feel that raising my voice against injustice in the US adds my voice to those speaking out about injustice around the world. I'm disinclined to address myself specifically towards Islamic fundamentalism, because it tends to facilitate the agenda of Christian fundamentalists who believe that their dead messiah should have dominion over Islam's dead messiah. I think both groups use their religions as an excuse for the cruelty and oppression that they seem so much to enjoy regardless.
Besides, I cannot fight all fights. I may be conspicuously silent on some of these topics but there can be any number of reasons. One I've just mentioned. Another is that the horror is sometimes too great for me to look on directly — and remember, I'm talking about the brutal beliefs and actions of all religious fundamentalists. I think that ever since I had my heart attack in 2004, from which I evidently did not die, some horrors are just too visceral for me to tolerate contemplating and I am forced to leave them to others. For the last several years I have felt that my emotional dynamic range has been severely suppressed; I've had enough challenges of my own that I don't have a lot of empathic reserve to share with others. I don't like it but it's my current reality.
Besides, there is a near-infinity of things that I am conspicuously silent about, so I don't see why the horrible persecution of gay lifestylists in fundamentalist-Islamic states should attract my attention more than the horrible persecution of gay lifestylists in Gambia, or Nigeria, or Poland, or Russia, or Laramie, Wyoming. Sometimes my attention is drawn in those directions, usually when I feel that I might have something unique or interesting or enlightening to say, or when it's all just too much and I can't keep my anger in check, even though it's not good for me.
Shining light on these incidents is very, very important, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to. There are many blogs kept by bloggers who are much more adept at paying attention to current news on gay-related topics and commenting on it than I am; my attention wanders far too easily for me to make a commitment to being a "news blog".
These are the ones I read regularly these days (in alphabetical order). They do an excellent job of keeping me plugged in to the news of the gay lifestyle and happenings around the world.
Silence on my part does not usually signal complicity or acceptance or even lack of interest. I don't think it really signifies anything, in most cases at least. There are rare occasions when I think silence on my part is preferable to the snark I'd just written and I whisk those posts quickly into the bit bucket, but usually it only means that whatever thing you can think of that I'm not writing about is simply another of the infinite number of things I'm not writing about.
And in a smaller way, I'm sure there are any number of additional reasons that might be interesting to write about but that escape me as sit here writing about these.*
———-
* I'd better stop there because my mind is starting to wander into thoughts about Jorge Luis Borges' "Library of Babel", which Daniel Dennett reused so effectively in Darwin's Dangerous Idea as the "Library of Mendel". Why? Oh, that's beyond the scope of this blog posting but you might glean some hints from reading my book note, if you feel so inclined. The Borges story, by the way, is very peculiar but worth reading for the idea, which incites all sorts of ideas. I've just started reading Greg Bear's City at the End of Time, and I'm hoping for some of the same stimulation–and I'll be really irritated if I don't get through it all before it has to return to the library.†
==========
†I'd say that that footnote amply demonstrates why it can be difficult for me, quite often, to keep just one idea in mind all the way to the end of a posting about it. Sheesh. Or maybe I should write "Good grief!", since we're barely a week away from our production of "You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown". Did I mention already that I'm playing the part of Schroeder?‡
~~~~~~~~~~
‡ The song "Beethoven Day" is my big number. Although the tempo is a little on the slow side for my taste, I really like the way one Royce G. Garrison (not otherwise known to me) sings it in this version. If you're in a Charlie-Brown mood, you might also want to search YouTube for "Book Report" (Act I finale in current revised version) or "Happiness" (Act II finale).
6 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Friday, 10 October 2008 at 04.47
Permalink
Thank you for the thoughtful comments.
>>>>…I see little difference really between the threat from Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism in this country.
In arguments of this sort, I think it is important to quantify the relative dangers, and be alert to the direction (gradient?) of change. In our mostly Christian country, the crackpot fundamentalists are outliers, and getting less all the time, whereas big percentages of the growing Muslim population seem to sign on with that level of "earnestness".
I wonder if making the US more Gay friendly might be a moot point (deck chairs on the Titanic) if Western Christendom is slipping under the demographic waves, to be replaced by what we see rising in Europe.
on Friday, 10 October 2008 at 10.21
Permalink
Here's a sort of syllogism I ponder:
)A robust Christianity is a good defense against the spread of medieval Islam.
)The advancement of the Gay agenda requires the dismantling of this robust Christianity.
)As the Gay agenda advances, it needs to spell out how they will defend against a spreading Islam in the place of the robust Christianity they are supplanting.
Some of my thoughts go along these lines:
>If Christianity is robust, it should be able to stand against the challenge from the Gay community.
>Christian influence is probably waning in spite of pressure from homosexuals.
>When homosexuality is touted as an alternate lifestyle, they need to offer an alternative response to these external threats. Otherwise they are just hedonistic looters behind the carcass of mainstream society as it crumbles.
>It's probably unfair of me to demand of Gays, "So you want acceptance? Fine. Show me how you will solve the World's problems, then I might consider your petition."
on Friday, 10 October 2008 at 17.38
Permalink
It's an interesting enough chain of thought, I suppose, although I feel the need to point out that the Homosexual Agenda (HA!), as operated by the Militant Homosexual Lobby, is not actually vying with Christian Fundamentalism for world domination, although the reverse does seem to be true and I'm not sure how that works. So I'm not sure that we of the HA! are really on the hook for solving the world's problems — which doesn't mean that we couldn't, of course.
If we can defeat Christian Fundamentalism, I don't think that the Islamic Menace should pose much of a challenge; their fashion sense is virtually nonexistent. We offer faaabulosity, fashion, and fun — and, as the Fundamentalists are discovering, none can resist our siren song.
Yes, it's undoubtedly unfair of you, Fred, but we of the HA! will probably be there to mop up the mess once all the Fundamentalists finish killing each other, just like the Democrats always have to mop up the mess after Republican administrations.
on Saturday, 11 October 2008 at 09.23
Permalink
>>>>…just like the Democrats always have to mop up the mess after Republican administrations.
I am an admirer of clean floors, so more power to the mop wielders. However, I see as many, or more, D's on the floor as R's.
on Saturday, 11 October 2008 at 15.13
Permalink
We know you do, Fred, and that's why we admire you for your keen and vivid imagination.
on Saturday, 11 October 2008 at 23.26
Permalink
Just wait until I start telling you about the spiders that are crawling on me.