It
was sometime in 1985 and I was just coming out of the cocoon of indifference to
the ways of society, international relationships, realpolitik etc. I think I am
still at the threshold.
I
knew about the Nobel Peace Prize and was not too enamored of it. Don’t get me
wrong; I was not too worried about who did not get it, like M K Gandhi, but about
those who got it, like Menachem Begin.
I
had not heard of Archbishop Desmond Tutu before that fateful day when I was
brought kicking and screaming to hear the then latest Nobel Peace Prize winner,
at the University of Kentucky. A big yawn it will be I had decided, but it was
not to be.
I
was aware, many thanks to a friend who wanted to invest in gold but stayed away
from Krugerand coins, about Apartheid. And, that day, in that lecture, I heard
Desmond Tutu and knew that I have to listen to him, despite his being a Nobel
Peace Prize winner.
During
this period I was also becoming an atheist, slowly but steadily. But, within
that tradition, listening approvingly to a Christian priest is taboo. But Tutu’s
attraction was irresistible. Then, I swallowed the cognitive dissonance in me,
developed my atheism to a higher level and also started listening to Tutu ever
more intently.
Today
that dissonance has almost melted away.
I
read that Tutu had said that he “would not worship a God who is homophobic …”.
This is the Tutu I was waiting for. The real Tutu, the real humanist, the “peace
icon”. Tutu said, “”I would much rather go to the other place.” Perhaps he
could not get himself to say that he would prefer hell to heaven if the latter
were populated by homophobic biggies, do-gooders and other such. Hence, “the
other place.”
Now,
I have to make a connection, between the Semitic God and homophobia, to cement
Tutu’s position in the pantheon of the religion-averse. In this task I suborn
Richard Dawkins (who else?). In his book The
God Delusion (ISBN 0593058259) Dawkins quotes Genesis 19:7-8 (p. 240).
“I
pray you brethren [the Sodomites Lot is trying to flee from], do not so
wickedly [sodomize the Angels who had come to warn Lot]. Behold now, I have two
daughters which have not known men [virgins]; let me, I pray you, bring them
out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do
nothing; for therefore they came under the shadow of my roof.”
Read
whatever you will of the above, but remember, in God’s eyes Lot is virtue
incarnate! The Christian religious have used precisely this as their
justification for homophobia.
Even
as a priest of high standing, it appears that Tutu may not have attached much
to the highlighted words from the “Good Book” thus far. But now he is doing so.
He has, as per reports, “condemned use of religious justification for anti-gay
prejudice.” That is, he implicitly rejects God’s teaching and God Himself, by
refusing to enter His abode, Heaven.
This
is the day I was waiting for, for 28 years.
Raghuram
Ekambaram
6 comments:
It's not religion that's changing. Tutu has changed. An individual has changed. That's all. And that's the tragedy.
The tragedy is that Tutu's religion, the Catholic Church, still maintains the age-old stand on sex and related affairs.
Yes, absolutely right ... it is the individual who has given me this comfort, and hope too that other individuals will change too. The post is focused on the religion (or, at least tried to focus on the individual).
RE
It is time Government got on with other things than worry about an individual's sexual preference and sexual needs. Time they legalised prostitution and sam sex marriages
I don't see the connection between prostitution and same sex marriage, Balu. Of course,, the issue here is the rights of LGBT in all their dimensions and homophobia.
RE
I don't quite understand why should the Government have a problem if somebody wants to engage the service of a CSW. They can never prevent it and if somebody is desperate for it, so be it. In that context I meant it
Balu,
The way you put it, there is of course no problem. But, there are other ways of looking at the issue, more or less of equal validity.
If sex is being sold to satisfy one's hunger for luxury goods (high society call girls, say) that is one thing. But, if for basic sustenance, then it becomes a matter of exploitation, and I am not bringing in the issue of morality.
In the latter case, it is the woman alone who is responsible for the potential outcome(s). The government has a duty to mediate this asymmetry.
You may be surprised that even now there are people who question the logic behind the government's campaign against smoking. This curtails the individual's liberty is the argument. The other side of the coin is the government may be called upon to provide assistance to cancer patients (heavy smokers and lung cancer patients, excessive tobacco chewers and mouth cancer and such). The government may also be thinking of the lost economic productivity of a citizen suffering from cancer, caused likely by smoking / tobacco chewing.
These are difficult questions to address in binary. I do not know where I stand but I do know which way I lean. I am a liberal who values government staying away from the decisions of the individual, but which side of the fence I fall on is pretty much issue-based. I live with this cognitive dissonance within me.
The post is to celebrate the fact that my internal dissonance about Tutu is now gone!
RE
Post a Comment