Nathan Bond's TART Remarks

Religion: Respect? Ridicule!

Apologise!

with one comment

“I’ve not had my ‘pology”, said Hudson sulkily…

It’s a character in a Sherlock Holmes story, The Gloria Scott, who demanded an apology.

Everybody wants an apology.

Ye gods and faeries, the Xhosa wants Liza (Elizabeth II of that little island off the French coast) to apologise for killing King Hintsa in 1835. Actually, it’s the CEO of the Xhosa Royal Council explaining why Xhosa King Sigcawu wants the apology, but such are the details that can easily derail an excellent tale.

Some “Boers” want Liza to apologise for Kitchener’s Scorched Earth Policy.

I wonder that the sons of Abel are not filing a class action against the spawn of Cain. The sons of Ishmael, of course, have been demanding an apology from Sarah’s lot since that indefatigable celestial courier, arch angel Gabriel, spoke to a young Mohammad in a cave near the base of Mount Hira around 1,400 years ago. All this whilst the real scoundrel, Abe, is somewhere in Paradise, copulating at will no doubt.

‘Pologies. Silver bullets, to be sure.

Take confession. It’s the singlemost brilliant con ever conceived: You screw up, summat awful even, and all you have to do is enter a box the size of a standup coffin and tell some bloke unseen in an adjacent box what you did and… it never happened!

Protestants, of course, have a pocket edition – just mumble your ‘pology on the go and the celestial laundry kicks in. There’s sure to be an Android app… Perhaps here’s a gap for RIM?

Take the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Atrocities were even re-enacted, and the Arch moved to mewling, and all was forgiven.

Everybody wants a ‘pology. Everybody is prejudiced. Ag shame.

Personally, I’d like to see “god”, with manifestations from Allah to Zeus, to issue a blanket apology for, well, for… “everything” and let us get the fuck on with things.

The one thing the almighty especially needs to apologise for is that paronomasia by Jesus, when he somehow convinced Peter that he was the rock… how us Earthlings have suffered that jape!

Yesterday, columnist Stephen Mulholland published his latest, Same-sex parents have a special duty to their children, and elicited incandescent fury from no less personages than constitutional expert Pierre de Vos and xyresic academic and radio talk show host Eusebius McKaiser, who also interviewed the shameless columnist.

And all the usual suspect disfavoured lined up for a piece of the carcass of he who would dare say that same-sex parenting was “neither the norm nor ultimately desirable”, or words to that effect.

Mulholland, I suspect, was making the point that families usually consist of a daddy, a mommy, and some offspring that tend to resemble the parents. When the children of same-sex parents become aware of their picture looking different to the pictures of their peers, some explanation should be forthcoming. And, to be sure, there are many more traditional daddy and mommy pictures about than daddy and daddy, or mommy and mommy, ones.

Nothing at all wrong with the alternate picture. But it’s a picture not seen as often as the traditional one.

And, I suspect, Mulholland suspects, rightly or wrongly, that such alternate picture may not necessarily be preferable in a gallery of traditionals. Being a columnist, Mulholland expressed his view.

And then Mulholland was Tarantinoed by morally outraged individuals – how can anything gay possibly be the subject of criticism!?

The columnist made the mistake of defending his position, and the howling wolves moved in for the kill; questioning even his argumentative skill.

Doubtlessly I will be berated, with heads shaken in queer discombobulation, for “missing the point”. I’m not. The real issue is that it should not matter an iota whether another is white, black, yellow or sallow; straight – if ever there was an apt misnomer; gay; or bisexual; religious or not,

Anybody who has ever read any of my relevant postings on this blog know without a veleity of doubt that I regard people of whatever sexual orientation as “normal”, as being human; that I have fought gay bias with a vengeance. My position is that “straight” is “abnormal” for “gays”. Ya’all know this. My record grants me standing in this matter.

Bear in mind that being an atheist is frowned upon much more than being gay. I can speak to discrimination as few can. In the community where I live, I know of some five atheists: we are… “abnormal”.

I don’t explode with indignation when I’m called an atheist; or when some slight against atheism is made. I am not threatened, or ridiculed, or embarrassed, or outraged, or weakened, or compromised.

Here’s the thing: Every time a gay person flares up against any hint of gay criticism, being gay is yet again questioned.

Mulholland did not question homosexuality. His soi-disant stoners did.

Antiscians we are. That’s all the difference.

What is “the norm”? I propose the norm is what works – different things for different people. But there are more believers than “non-believers”; more heterosexual parent couples than not. It’s not “right”, “wrong”, “acceptable”, “unacceptable”… It just is.

Drewan Baird

See also:
• David Bullard, Politicsweb, 16 January 2013 – Published on Stephen Mulholland in fairyland
• Eusebius McKaiser, Argus, 8 January 2013 – What is ‘the norm’ when it comes to sexuality?
• Kieran Legg, IOL Lifestyle, 8 January 2013, Article prompts gay rights fury
• Rebecca Davis, Daily Maverick, 8 January 2013 – Heterosexuals: Should we let them raise children?

Tweets:
@lunchout2: Question….if you have an all male dairy herd of 30 head of cattle how long before a) the herd increases b) you’re producing milk?
• Reply by @DrewanBaird: @DrewanBaird: @lunchout2 You bovinist! You know nuttin! Just adopt calves; or donate sperm to make a few. They’ll soon be happily producing milk!

@lunchout2: Another over the top expression of righteous indignation to Mulholland’s “poof-bashing” column. http://t.co/J8ilRnha
• Reply by @GeorgieFB: @lunchout2 hardly an over the top expression- me thinks a suitable amount of indignation at a clearly misplaced ill informed view.
• • Reply by @lunchout2: @GeorgieFB Why is it automatically bigotry if somebody expresses a view with which you disagree? That’s just loony left bullying surely?

Not related, but I can’t resist it… @TheTweetOfGod: 2012 was the hottest year on record for the United States. It’s urgent, people. WE’VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE.

@pierredevos: Strange that there has not been more alarm at SA sending troops to Central African Republic to help prop up the regime. Another Libiya?
• Reply by @DrewanBaird: We’re too busy pussyfooting around gay sensibilities to care about real issues.

@msmkokeli: When Gwede Mantashe’s blue light brigade pushes you off the road. @DrewanBaird answers: We need more gay politicians – they’re just so much more caring. Tell @Eusebius if you see him!

@DrewanBaird: “@IOL: Teen commits suicide after ‘coach abuse’ http://t.co/1E7QefPR” – @Eusebius @pierredevos We really need more gay coaches! Shameful!

@DrewanBaird: “@IOL: Mom killed son over Quran study http://t.co/ozt7h2V5” – @Eusebius See the danger of non gay parenting!!!

@lunchout2: If you have lesbian parents who lights the braai fire and controls the DSTV remote?

@DrewanBaird: @Eusebius protests Mulholland’s opinion with a vengeance. Why? Gays I know are not that sensitive. O, well…

@paulyberk: Mulholland’s choice of topic and his non-execution of said topic says more about his waning powers as a writer than his homophobia.

@lunchout2: Maybe Mulholland has a point. Which gay parent gets to play in the fathers’ cricket match at Michaelhouse?

@lunchout2: So will the gay “community” demand the removal of Mulholland as they did Qwelane? Or are they too busy listening to Abba?

@lunchout2: I’m loving the moral outrage Mulholland’s column has caused among the gibbering classes who have little else to occupy their minds.

@paulyberk: #Mulholland claims that he’s ‘a journalist, not an academic’ which is a strange excuse for not being able to debate the meanings of words.

@JacquesR: “You think they’re tough questions, I think they’re silly questions!” Feats of logic from Mulholland’s vs. @Eusebius: http://t.co/Fem4phgk

@njclelland: “@MarianneThamm: Heterosexuals: Should we let them raise children? http://t.co/OQv8oyn9” Mr Price + Jaegermeister. Made my day @becsplanb

@chrisvick3: Let’s redeploy Stephen Mulholland to Uganda – he could replace Jon Qwelane as ambassador and no-one would notice the difference.

@lunchout2: I do find it sinister when people who call themselves journalists believe Stephen Mulholland should be banned for his opinions.

Written by Nathan Bond

January 7, 2013 at 14:33

Posted in Religion must go!

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Behalwe dat dit n mite is, is daar iets wat vir my vreemd klink aan die opstanding van jesus.
    god is veronderstel om n drie-eenheid te wees; die vader, die seun en die heilige gees. Jesus (die seun)se liggaam, nadat hy aan die kruis gesterf het, was in die grafkelder tot hy weer opgestaan het op die derde dag
    my vraag is dit: watter aspek van jesus het dan vir n paar dae “ter helle” neergedaal? Het jesus dan self ook n siel wat sy liggaam verlaat het?
    Hy kon nie liggaamlik hel toe gegaan het nie want die sentrale idee van die Christelike geloof is dat hy vir ons sondes gesterf het.
    Sou dit dan betken dat god, die vader en god die heilige gees ook siele het?
    Ek sal bly wees as iemand dit vir my kan verduidelik.

    shazee

    February 6, 2015 at 07:49


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: