Deus semper maior!

Nytt försök om familjerådgivningen

Av någon orsak tog Hufvudstadsbladet inte in den insändare om familjerådgivningen som jag publicerade på bloggen 17.6.09, efter att ha sänt den till Hbl. Kanske den ansågs alltför Borgå-centrerad, fast jag nog tycker att den var rätt allmängiltig. Sifferexemplet var förstås från Borgå, men själva principen gäller nog också annanstans.

En annan möjlighet är att Hbl inte gillade att jag publicerade den på bloggen. De har en princip om att deras insändare inte får vara publicerade tidigare i andra dagstidningar - men min blogg är ju ingen dagstidning, förstås.

Vare därmed hur som helst; jag skickade idag in den till Borgåbladet. Få se hur de gör.

http://karlafhallstrom.blogspot.com/2009/06/om-familjeradgivningen.html


Om debattklimat och ärlighet

Inför senaste biskopsval för tre år sedan deltog jag i domprosteriets diskussionstillfälle om de sju olika kandidaterna. Där sade jag högt att det i valet fanns sex goda kandidater; underförstått att Henrik Perret var den sjunde, olämpliga kandidaten.

Det blev ett stort hallå om saken på mötet. Kontentan var: "Så får man inte säga!" Och det kan väl hända att jag överträdde konvenansens regelverk. Ändå ser jag denna reaktion som beklaglig, ja, rentav farlig.

Om vi skall kunna få en ärlig debatt i vårt stift och i vår kyrka, måste väl också obekväma åsikter få ventileras. Ingen annan behöver ju omfatta dem, men att lägga locket på debatten är en kultur som inte (längre) borde få förekomma. Om jag anser att Perret är olämplig som biskop (för att nu ta det nämnda exemplet), ska jag inte behöva hymla och säga att vi nog alla är vänner, och alla nog egentligen har samma åsikt i alla fall. En sådan förljugen låtsas-enighet är farligare än att vi är av olika åsikt emellanåt.

Personliga påhopp ska naturligtvis undvikas i möjligaste mån. Men ett biskopsval är just ett personval, och därför kan man inte undvika att diskutera personer. All diskussion är ju inte påhopp.

Vi får återkomma till vad detta innebär för årets biskopsval...



On the Jamaican homophobic society

Through Aqurette and the Box Turtle Bulletin (BTB), I found an AP article dated 20 July 2009, entitled Gays live - and die - in fear in Jamaica. This is terrible, but enlightening, reading for those who paint a rosy picture of freeminded Jamaican potheads. A few excerpts:

*

Even now, about three years after a near-fatal gay bashing, Sherman gets jittery at dusk. On bad days, his blood quickens, his eyes dart, and he seeks refuge indoors.
A group of men kicked him and slashed him with knives for being a "batty boy" — a slang term for gay men — after he left a party before dawn in October 2006. They sliced his throat, torso, and back, hissed anti-gay epithets, and left him for dead on a Kingston corner. [...]

Many in this highly Christian nation perceive homosexuality as a sin, and insist violence against gays is blown out of proportion by gay activists. Some say Jamaica tolerates homosexuality as long as it is not advertised — a tropical version of former President Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for the U.S. military.
Jamaica's most prominent evangelical pastor, Bishop Herro Blair, said he sympathizes with those who face intolerance, but that homosexuals themselves are actually behind most of the attacks reported against them. [...]

Perhaps playing to anti-gay constituents, politicians routinely rail against homosexuals. During a parliamentary session in February, lawmaker Ernest Smith of the ruling Jamaica Labor Party stressed that gays were "brazen," "abusive," and "violent," and expressed anxiety that the police force was "overrun by homosexuals."
A few weeks later, Prime Minister Bruce Golding described gay advocates as "perhaps the most organized lobby in the world" and vowed to keep Jamaica's "buggery law" — punishable by 10 years — on the books. During a BBC interview last year, Golding vowed to never allow gays in his Cabinet.
The dread of homosexuality is so all-encompassing that many Jamaican men refuse to get digital rectal examinations for prostate cancer, even those whose disease is advanced, said Dr. Trevor Tulloch of St. Andrews Hospital.
"Because it is a homophobic society, there's such a fear of the sexual implications of having the exam that men won't seek out help," said Tulloch, adding Jamaica has a soaring rate of prostate cancer because men won't be screened. [...]

Sherman, meanwhile, is simply trying to move on with his life. But he said he will always remember how, after his attack, patrolmen roughly lifted his bloodied body out of their squad car when a man admonished them for aiding a "batty boy." A woman shamed them into driving him to a hospital; they stuffed him in the car's trunk.

*

The BTB comments:

*

So predominant is hatred of gay people there that it outweighs basic decency - simple compassion you’d show a dog.

*

Shameful. And even more shameful, of course, is the fact that the churches seem to endorse this behaviour. At least, by not speaking out against it.



Anglicans and GLBT

Last week, two sets of news concerning Anglicans and GLBT hit the world.

*

The first one dealt with a letter sent by two English bishops, Christopher Hill and John Hind, to the Swedish archbishop, Anders Wejryd. ++Anders had sent a letter informing the Porvoo churches about the Church of Sweden's stance on gay marriage, and the English letter was a response to this.

In effect, the bishops Hill and Hind (oh, so diplomatically!) threatened the Church of Sweden with ecumenical repercussions if the Swedes wouldn't desist accepting gays as Christians and full members of the Body of Christ. This has created quite an uproar in Sweden, where some see it as an interference in internal matters, while others (happily saying "I told you so") predict the downfall of the Church of Sweden and of the Porvoo Communion.

I think the English bishops have every right to communicate with the Swedes and inform them of their thoughts in a matter where the Swedes first took the initiative. The Swedes, however, have an equal right to ignore the English, if they choose to do so. Ecumenism doesn't mean that everyone should do the same thing, but that we all should look to what unites us, rather that to that which divides us.

*

The other Anglican news was that on 17 July, the Episcopal Church in the USA (ECUSA), which is part of the Anglican Communion, authorized bishops to bless same-sex unions and research an official prayer for the ceremonies. This moved the church closer to accepting gay relationships despite turmoil over the issue in the Anglican family. The Anglican spiritual leader, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, has struggled to keep the communion unified.

Anglican leaders had pressed the ECUSA for a moratorium on electing more gay bishops than Gene Robinson, elected in 2003, and asked the church not to develop an official prayer for same-gender couples. But the measure adopted Friday by the Episcopal General Convention noted the growing number of U.S. states that allow gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships, and gave bishops in those regions discretion to provide a “generous pastoral response” to couples in local parishes.

The 2 million-member Episcopal Church earlier in the week approved a resolution opening the doors to ordain gay men and women as clergy. These and related issues have already prompted some congregations to leave the Episcopal fold and form the rival Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) that claims 100,000 believers. Anglican churches in regions like Africa have broken ties with their more liberal U.S. brethren.

Here, too, the split is unfortunate, but the Episcopalians must do what they think is right. As must their opponents, of course.


Hávamál 6

Över sitt förstånd
skall man stolt ej vara,
fasthellre i väsendet varsam!
När en klok och sluten
kommer till gården,
sällan den försiktige sig skadar,
ty osvikligare vän
man aldrig får
än mycket mannavett.

Hávamál - Den höges sång

Erik Brates översättning 1913 från fornisländskan


Aqurette om homofob teologi

På bloggen Antigayretorik har bloggaren Aqurette tagit del i en debatt. Tor Billgren (som bloggar på Antigayretorik) citerar Aqurette i ett inlägg (hängde ni med?). Här följer ett utdrag:

* De "teologiska argument" som framförs bygger på en homofobisk tolkningstradition och har mycket lite stöd i texterna som åberopas. I Tredje Mosebok står bara att män inte ska ligga med män som med kvinnor. Det står i anslutning till en lång och utförlig beskrivning av de regler som gäller för hur män ska ligga med kvinnor och måste naturligtvis läsas i sin kontext. Detta gör inte den där majoriteten kristna som du hänvisar till. De väljer den för homosexuella mest ofördelaktiga tolkningen i syfte att legitimera sina egna åsikter om homosexualitet. De väljer att vara homofober och skyller på Gud.

* Läser man Romarbrevet och Paulus texter noggrant så märker man att han skriver om heterosexuella som straffas med homosexualitet. Det onaturliga ligger i att de får lustar som går emot deras natur. Vem vet, om Gud blir arg under Pride så kanske han straffar bögarna med heterosexuella drifter som går emot deras natur. Det vore i så fall jämförbart med det straff som Gud gav männen och kvinnorna i Paulus text. Men de homofobiska teologerna väljer att kasta om texten så att straffet blir synden. Men eftersom vi har texten så kan varje homosexuell man och kvinna stå stark i förvissningen om att den synd Paulus beskriver är avgudadyrkan, för vilken alltså de heterosexuella straffas med för dem onaturliga homosexuella drifter. *

Jag citerar detta också på Hbt-bibeln. Tack till Aqurette och Billgren!

Länkar: http://karlafhallstrom.blogspot.com/2009/07/aqurette-om-homofob-teologi.html



Lithuania's new law against information

On July 14, 2009, the Seimas (the Lithuanian parliament) voted to pass a law that bans information on homosexuality, bad hygiene, gambling and hypnosis (among other things) in schools or in media accessible by young people. The law, titled 'Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information', includes "the propaganda of homosexuality [or] bisexuality" as a detrimental factor on young people.

In June, the then-President Valdas Adamkus vetoed the law, but the 141-member Seimas has the power to override him and did so with a vote of 87-6. It is expected the law will come into force on March 1st, 2010.

On July 12, the country's new President, the former European Commissioner Dalia Grybauskaitë, came into office. She has voiced her opposition to this law, but is rather powerless to do anything about it. Many Human Rights organisations - e.g. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch - have expressed their concern about the significant narrowing of the rights to free speech and to information, that this law entails. The blogger Aqurette comments:
* The irony is that Lithuania fought long and hard for its independence from the Soviet Union. Freedom of speech was at the top of the agenda. And now, after eighteen years of post-communist democracy, it introduces a law that bans free speech. Joseph Stalin would be so proud.*

And we certainly wouldn't want to disappoint him, now, would we?

What really worries me, however, is the attempt (within the EU) to legislate moral issues. That has never worked and it will never work. If something is sinful, a sinner will try it. Making sin illegal can't cure the incurable. And since we all are sinners, it is obvious to me that we try to legislate away not our own sin, but our neighbour's. This is not how lawmaking should work.

While laws reflect the morals of the legislators, the laws themselves should be concerned with actions that hurt others in some way, not with trying to enforce moral behaviour on those that haven't the same values or basis for their morals as the legislators have. If morals are to be influenced or changed, you should use information, not legislation.