MORE MAN OR MORMAN?: A note on religion and sexual preference

Once again, the Guardian provides an interesting take on American politics with this article on "fundagenalism" (a great word which shall soon be added to the queer dictionary project).  Their quick definition of the term is as follows:

"What do fundagelicals instinctively oppose? Gay marriage, abortion, gun control, taxes, the UN (and the currently top-rated candidate for anti-Christ, Kofi Annan), withdrawal from Iraq, Michael Moore, Janet Jackson's left breast. "

I could not have put this better myself.  Why are these people in control of American politics?  Are they really the majority?  That's hard for me to grasp.  I have come to realize that I fundamentally (the puns and the parantheticals are increasing rapidly) do not understand the religious right.  It is not as though I do not have any background in religion.  From birth through my final days of high school I attended a Southern Baptist church, learned the great songs (like Onward Christian Soldiers) and was baptised. 

While this whole queer sexuality thing offered me a convienent reason to leave the church altogether, I always felt out of place there. I was an inquisitive child and found it necessary to question those who claimed to have some superior knowledge, not just for the sake of being contrary but so that I could understand my own beliefs.  I remember asking my Sunday school teacher about dinosaurs and how that fit into the Bible's teaching.  I remember asking why God did not like other religions.  I remember asking why women were necessarily inferior.  No one really answered me.  Of course, this makes me wonder if I would still be a church-going Southern Baptist who, like all fundagentils, hate homos and other parts of the evil "liberal agenda" or if my mind simply works differently.

I thank God (!) that I am queer so that I could realize much earlier that the questions I had about religion should not be ignored.  I try really hard to think as a conservative Christian would to think through arguments that would persuade them that they are wrong.  Try as I might, thinking as a fundagentil is much harder than it seems.  Perhaps I ought to take an intellectual journey to a Mormon church...

On a related note, I saw a horrible gay-themed movie last night about a Mormon boy on his mission who discovers his sexuality after living across the hall from a hot gay boy.  The movie story line was so cheesy and predictable that several people in the audience moaned at the most cliche moments.   However, there were two redeeming scenes.  One, of course, was the obligatory sex scene which was brief but hot nonetheless (see photos of the characters here).  The other was a series of questions the homo and his fag hag asked the Mormons:

1. WHAT IS YOUR CHURCH'S STANCE ON BLACKS?

Answer: "We let blacks become priests in 1978." That's right, the Mormon's got a phone call from God saying, "Let blacks in!"  That's the one thing that is great about Mormonism...they can get revalations that change their doctrine.  Maybe God will call about homos soon.

2. WHAT ABOUT WOMEN?

Answer: "Women have their role in the home." 

3. HOW DOES YOUR CHURCH FEEL ABOUT GAY RIGHTS?

Answer: ...well I won't post the answer because it will just illustrate how horribly predictable this movie was but I am sure you can imagine that the response was not positive.

These are good questions but, since the Mormon church and similar religions seem to be doing a great job recruiting, people seem to either not care about the response or are able to ignore these issues.  With more gays coming out, even those from religious backgrounds, more people will not be able to ignore the issue and, hopefully, the church will have to question its own dogma.

10:49:31 PM    

...THE CONCLUSION

While I work on that link to the full document, I shall post the conclusion of my paper on queer ecology.  Here it is:

Foucauldian queer theory questions the logic of the sexual order embedded in contemporary discourses.  This contemporary philosophical standpoint offers an important critique of dominant uses of the term “natural” and thus can help foster a uniquely queer environmental ethic.  Heterosexual culture’s ability to interpret itself as an expression of true human nature in opposition to queer culture puts into question, for queer theorist, the very stability of the term.  As I asked at the beginning: Who gets to define nature? For the queer theorist, that “who” is whoever interacts with the environment in such a way as to reformulate or reiterate norms and assumptions. As Foucauldian queer theory reveals, the terms “queer” and “nature” do not have a precise or exact definition but has been defined in concert with changing modes of power.  The queer has been related to elements that humans traditionally seek to expunge: parasites, the wild, the sinful, etcetera.  Similarly, as shown in recent ecophilosophical texts, nature that does not prove to be of any immediate benefit for humans, are viewed as expugnable.  Unlike either the anthropocentric or biocentric views, which are merely dueling dichotomies, queer theory is an individual expression within the matrix of human plurality.

 

Rescuing these terms from their dominant associations requires a new way of seeing. Rather than viewing ontological claims about nature or queers as statements of truth, we must be critical of these claims in an effort to be open to alternate readings.  Nature and humanity are rich texts.  When we allow an identity claim to inform our reading of them we may foreclose possible legitimate expressions of diversity or plurality that may allow for a valuable redefinition of symbiosis.  Unlike anthropocentrism or biocentrism, a queer ecology is not a metanarrative or code of ethics, as such, but a process by which we may think the world once more.

12:52:42 AM    ;comment []  trackback []