Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

Syndicate contentRSS

Some people are religious. Get over it!

The proposed "ex-gay" bus advert was offensive, but gay Christians face a genuine dilemma.

New Statesman
The ad, backed by the Core Issues Trust, which stated: "Not gay! Ex-gay, post-gay and proud. Get over it!"

Boris Johnson stepped in yesterday to stop the "battle of the buses", banning a campaign by the Core Issue Trust -- which promotes controversial therapies designed to turn gay people straight  -- and the evangelical pressure group Anglican Mainstream. The decision is likely to increase feelings of persecution and marginalisation among a minority of traditionally-minded, and increasingly assertive, Christians. 

Johnson told the Guardian that his London was "intolerant of intolerance". The proposed slogan ("Not gay! Ex-gay, Post-gay and proud. Get over it!"), whatever its intention, was at least open to interpretation as an assertion of crude homophobia, or at least of heteronormative triumphalism.  It was intended, however, as a direct riposte to similar-looking advertisements being run by Stonewall with the slogan "Some people are gay. Get over it!" -- a campaign that implicitly targets opponents of gay marriage as reactionary bigots unable to come to terms with the modern world.

Some bigots may, indeed, hide behind religion.  Yet Stonewall's slogan, it strikes, me, misses an important point, which is that some people, who are gay, cannot "get over it" that easily.  A devout religious believer, who belongs to a tradition that says firmly that homosexuality is wrong, but who feels a strong inclination towards members of the same sex, is faced with an agonising dilemma.  Demands to "get over it", while not directly aimed at such people, can easily come across as insensitive and bullying.

Say you're a young gay Catholic.  The Pope has said, quite firmly, that homosexuality is "intrinsically disordered" and represents an "inclination towards an intrinsic moral evil".  Well then, ignore the Pope: many Catholics do, after all, when it comes to birth control, and some gay Catholics will be comfortable with that option.  But not all, because obedience to church teaching is, for many Catholics, a crucial dimension of their faith.  At the very least, so long as Catholic teaching remains what it is (and there's no evidence of any change on the horizon) many gay Catholics will feel conflicted.

Or say you're a Bible-believing Evangelical, and your reading of scripture tells you that homosexual practices are an abomination unto the Lord.  That isn't the only way to interpret the Bible, of course, and some gay Christians are fortunate enough to belong to churches that are welcoming of their sexuality.  But some of the Biblical verses that speak about same-sex sex are pretty plain, to say the least.

And of course commitment to a religious faith involves more than just intellectual assent to a set of belief-propositions.  It involves heart and soul, family and community.  There may be partners and children involved, if a gay believer has already "chosen" to ignore their same-sex inclinations.  Leaving all these things is not just potentially traumatic, it may well be something that the believer, however painful their internal struggles with sexuality, is not willing to contemplate.  And yet their inner turmoil is damaging to themselves and to those around them.

There's no reliable evidence that the therapy being promoted by the Core Issues Trust is effective in changing people's inner sexual drive; there's some evidence that it has helped some people to suppress their gay feelings and to function more comfortably in heterosexual relationships.  And this may be enough.  Human sexuality is not fixed at birth.  It's also more fluid for some people than for others.  There's no doubt that there are, in fact, self-described "ex-gay" or "post-gay" Christians, many of whom do indeed claim to have been helped by these therapies.  The Rev Peter Ould is perhaps the most prominent British example.  He has written:

I’m post-gay because I chose to leave “gay” behind. I chose to no longer accept “gay” as an explanation of who I was and instead to begin a journey away from it. I chose to do so because I was convinced from the Scriptures that “gay” wasn’t a suitable way to describe myself, that it wasn’t a valid way for a Christian to establish identity.

Ould's choice to "leave gay behind" is not the same thing as choosing his sexuality.  Rather, he chose to prioritise his understanding of his faith over his sexual inclinations.  Or perhaps it would be better to say that he felt a strong inner conviction of his need to do so.  Because, as the law and society have increasingly come to recognise in recent years, religious identity is deeply rooted.  It is part of "who people are", how they relate to the world around them, how they conceive of themselves.

Of course, many people change their religion, abandon religion altogether or discover it for the first time.  But for many who make such a transition the process involves moments of existential crisis and a slow, difficult adjustment to a new way of life and a new set of social relationships.  The consumerist language of choice simply doesn't do it justice.

The fact is that neither faith nor sexuality are a "choice".   And some people are religious.  Get over it!

128 comments

JeremiahVaughan's picture

I think homosexuality has given society a remarkable topic about which we can discuss deep and often hard to comprehend aspects of religion and sexuality and human existence. We too often discard that opportunity for deep and enlightening discussion by arguing about how hateful or wrong the other side is. I hope more articles from various angles will treat the subject more like this article has. http://www.squidoo.com/best-double-jogging-strollers-reviews

Tom Fairfield's picture

In 2003, we implemented a SAP Enterprise Resource Planning system and are continuing to roll this system out to our larger international subsidiaries. Francis Daily disposable contact lenses were first approved for use in the United States in 1994. This is certainly nothing anyone wanted, but with the various changes in our manufacturing of goods and pollutants from products, it was bound to occur. see more at usaoakleys

kate john's picture

God should be worshiped without any evidence....... and if someone wise starts finding the evidences then he will find alot alot and alot ........ because our life is also an evidence of God......... barca Tickets

Lakers's picture

Thank you for this article, it's needed. There are a whole slew of people who are abused by the fact that our conversation too often defines gays by their sex lives or pretends that someone can't be a "full" or "natural" person without having gay sex if they feel attraction toward their own gender. This article is pretty balanced and skeptically looks at both extremes, pretending gay can be whisked away or pretending that a person can't live well without their sexuality.

I think homosexuality has given society a remarkable topic about which we can discuss deep and often hard to comprehend aspects of religion and sexuality and human existence. We too often discard that opportunity for deep and enlightening discussion by arguing about how hateful or wrong the other side is. I hope more articles from various angles will treat the subject more like this article has.

New statesmanfreedemocrat's picture

This is the one true God giving all credulous irrational religious people the last and final revelation. I have decided in my omniscience and omnipotence that my joke on homo sapiens has gone on quite long enough. It is now time for you to grow up and get over all religion. So my final commandment is renounce all religion and religious faith and wholeheartedly embrace self-responsibility, science, education, vegetarianism and secular humanism.

freethinking's picture

Gay folks can be just as self-deluded as other folks. And some folks will be Christians.

Okay ... so ?

Pagan?'s picture

Hello, if this has been written before I apologise, I have not read all comments. Surely to be given an honest choice would be to be bought up without any knowledge of any Faith and then get to decide.

GordyB's picture

Other posters have already made the point, but I feel it can't be over-emphasised: Of course adhering to a religion is a choice!! The fact a person is brought up within a religion- I refuse to use the disingenuous term "faith"- doesn't mean they can't walk away; statistics show that only half of children of religious parents will retain their religion.

Having said that, I had hoped on the basis of the headline that you were going to make a rather more sensible point: That some (many) believers will remain such in spite of all evidence to the contrary, and that it's not worth getting your knickers in a twist trying to change their minds.

mcmac's picture

Interesting that so many people have made the same point. What did you understand from the second to last paragraph in the piece?

Why won't you use the word faith?

John Cheese's picture

@jankers: Oh jankers, I see you're still cranky, nothing changes.. Collectively, we're trying to lift ourselves up out of the muck & all you focus on is a sexual act. bonkers...

jankaas's picture

go away John.

John Cheese's picture

We all do jankers, you've stumbled on a theological point..wow! Cranky is ugly..

jankaas's picture

.

scampy's picture

A hundred or even a thousand years from now men who place their reproductive organ up another mans waste pipe will be regarded as perverts by far and away the worlds population.
Just like being left handed? get over it?
God made man in his own image? get over it?
Get some therapy? judge Judy.

jankaas's picture

and how will those men who like to place their reproductive organ up a woman's waste pipe be regarded in this future of yours?

Malt's picture

@ Jan

All perversions will be answered to in Spirit World, where we will return to after our earthly death. There is no physical love there, as we will have sloughed off the physical body and the earthly need for procreation or other desires of the flesh.

John Cheese's picture

As an American, I love the fact that I live in a country and in an age where I can seek & worship God as I please, without any official Church interference or middlemen to dictate to me. Pure freedom as a seeker with freedom of information. Love others & love God. Obey the Bible's instructions like a child- it's that simple. In reality, no one has it figured out, we are all guessing what is right.

Malt's picture

@ John Cheese

As a Brit, I love the fact that I can have my own hotline to God without any Church or State influence or interference. As a spiritualist, one doesn't need a bible, building or minister to pray , or to be thankful. It's that simple, and I and thousands of others have worked it out.

John Cheese's picture

@malt: That's great! It's the whiners & cranky folk that take away religious rights that get to me...

Malt's picture

@ John Cheese

Worry not, it's all in God's hands, we can only do the best we can in the time that's allotted to us. Have you read Sylvia Browne's book, "End of Days", last chapter puts some perspective on everything. God bless you, and everyone else, because we are all of the same Divine Spirit, whether they realise it or not.

Demosthenes's picture

..."worship God as I please"... yes, worship YOUR god, but if in this purportedly great America you wish to worship a god other than your approved one, then you might face cynicism, hostility, and ridicule, and if you attempt to build a space within which you might practice that worship, you should be prepared for prevarications and denial of building permits etc etc. All because we choose not to worship your god ? And god forbid we worship no god at all...

Silican's picture

Of course religion is "not a choice". And when Pol Pot's henchmen were clubbing his opponents to death they were' not making a choice, they were following their religious orders. Belief is the unassailable corrupter of logic.

Silican's picture

Some people are logical, get over it.

New Stateswoman's picture

@ Silly Can

There's logical thinking, and then there's lateral thinking, according to Edward de Bono. Logic is limited to straight line thinking, a bit like constructivism, needs a leader, and for everyone else to agree. Baaa, baaa.

TuesdayWednesday's picture

Please provide evidence for how faith or religion is not a choice? If it is not a choice as you say then that suggests it is forced upon people, effectively abuse and indoctrination.

So where do you religious people who reject reason stand on the matter?

Is faith a choice? Where you are allowed to pick your god(s) objectively given free information about what each religion means.

OR

Is faith not a choice? It is something that is forced on you without your conscious involvement?

Either way, you have to be absolutely crazy to accept it.

mcmac's picture

Are you religious? Do you believe in god? Do you believe in heaven

Lets assume you don't. From tomorrow why don't you choose to believe in salvation of your immortal soul through the teachings of Jesus Christ. I don't mean go through the motions, I mean believe that the most important thing in your life is your faith. Need longer, how about next week, could you do it by then? Next year?

I couldn't.

TuesdayWednesday's picture

It is impossible; I think logically using reason, truth, fact and evidence to determine what is correct in life, and base my moral judgements on what I have learned from societal practices (good and bad).

Why on earth would anyone choose faith? It is totally incomprehensible to any person of sanity who follows reason and scientific method.

CHALLENGE YOUR BELIEFS, FAITH IS A CHOICE, THERE IS NO DEBATE ON THE MATTER.

mcmac's picture

In you're own words, it's impossible for you to choose religion as a way of life. It isn't a choice for you....

Your unshakable belief in 'reason' & 'scientific method' is how some religious people feel about their beliefs. It's not something you can necessarily choose to change one way or another..

The fact you don't understand or share their belief, shouldn't stop you understanding the point that's being made here, what with all that reason, scientific method and sanity you've got.

TuesdayWednesday's picture

It isn't at all, if you follow the "scientific method" it is impossible to have faith. Fairly basic stuff, read up on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

mcmac's picture

LOL, cheeky git.

I thought you were asking about choice, now you've drifted off into religion vs science.

I'm not sure you've understood Nelson's piece at all. Your" THERE IS NO DEBATE ON THE MATTER" kills any pretence of being a follower of science or logic. As soon as you stop asking questions and testing your own opinions you're just another one of them, not one of us at all.

TuesdayWednesday's picture

If you can show evidence to ask the questions then the debate is re-opened, as yet there is none.

Very basic

TuesdayWednesday's picture

PS back to the original post (and I suspect you might actually be Nelson), it is such an awful piece of writing, it leads any person who reads it to challenge the quite ridiculous statements in it:

That faith is not a choice, that is frankly obscene.

mcmac's picture

"Of course, many people change their religion, abandon religion altogether or discover it for the first time. But for many who make such a transition the process involves moments of existential crisis and a slow, difficult adjustment to a new way of life and a new set of social relationships. The consumerist language of choice simply doesn't do it justice."

Is what he said.

You yourself have said the same thing. For you to make the transition would involve a change so extreme that you said it's not a choice for you, it's an impossibility. You're agreeing with him,

The fact that you can't understand how a religious person can feel as strongly about their philosophy for life as you do about yours is irrelevant. The fact that they are 'wrong' and there is no god is irrelevant. They do believe.

TuesdayWednesday's picture

You are right on one thing, I was wrong when I said it would be impossible for me to have faith, if confronted with evidence to the contrary.

For any religious person who actually considers the evidence against their faith, they then have the choice to lose their faith.

They don't just have faith, they weren't born with faith. They acquired it,generally due to deep indoctrination; it may be difficult to shake, but they do have a choice to seek alternatives, they have a choice whether or not to keep their faith, they have a choice to consider another.

Faith is a human construction, it isn't seen in other animals like homosexuality is, it developed as humans did socially. To consider it something that is solid, immovable or stable is naive and illogical, as it is 100% a human social construction, which affects individuals differently depending on the environment they are brought up into, and live in. The only thing (that's a lie too actually there are many) that is preventing people from realising they have a choice is idiotic pseudo-scientific arguments from crap writers like the one above.

Homosexuality on the other hand is at least in part genetically attributed and is present across species, it is not something that the organism chooses, they are born with it, there is no choice. To put these elements on a par in one sentence completely dis-empowers any previous well-meaning arguments.

It is simple really, faith is a choice, homosexuality is not.

Get over it.

madamedelajojo's picture

What 'evidence' do you have 'against' the existence of God? There is none. I'm with you on homosexuality having a genetic component and have no issues with gay people. But to claim that all faith is incompatible with science and hard reason, is really degrading your argument. Decide what your agenda is... the rights of gay people or slandering religion?

mcmac's picture

Your kidding arn't you?

Any one claiming sceince and 'hard reason' as an argument should be embarrassed to ask "What 'evidence' do you have 'against' the existence of God?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

mcmac's picture

You're still agreeing with Nelson. You could only choose religion if you were presented with evidence according to scientific method, is another way of saying it's impossible for you to choose faith... or at least would involve the "moments of existential crisis" that Nelson mentioned.

In theory I could choose to become a Catholic believer next Tuesday, but it's about as likely as me changing sexuality. The same is true for you.

TuesdayWednesday's picture

You are Nelson, it's fairly obvious.

I no, I do not agree with you. Maybe you should read up on social constructivism.

New Stateswoman's picture

Would that be the social constructivism where one person says boo, and the whole group say boo as well, like a flock of birds taking to the air or a flock of sheep jumping over an imaginary obstacle? Where does original thought and creativity come into that theory?

TuesdayWednesday's picture

Well no that does';t describe SC at all; but your last sentence, indeed, that is what people indoctrinated by faith are indeed in most cases lacking.

New Stateswoman's picture

Well, lucky neither pertain to me! Especially not given to sweeping statements, like you are.

rain's picture

Religion is a invention of the powerful to feed the gullible in-order to enrich them further. Religion should never be actively encouraged: either should we allow religious hocus pocus to poison the minds of the next generation. Militant Atheists are here to stay; get over it!!

Natacha's picture

NELSON;

"There's no reliable evidence that the therapy being promoted by the Core Issues Trust is effective in changing people's inner sexual drive; there's some evidence that it has helped some people to suppress their gay feelings and to function more comfortably in heterosexual relationships."

This hogwash cannot be permitted to go unchallenged. You are effectively guilty of dihonesty and disingenuousness by omission here.

I have never seen any evidence that these so-called "therapies" work by making anyone able to suppress their sexuality. In fact these "therapies" are not supported by any psychological or psychiatric theory at all and therapists have been disciplined for attempting them with clients.

There is a lot of evidence that most those subjected to these "therapies" have ended up being depressed, suicidal and sufferiug from low self-esteem. Indeed these appear to be the most common outcomes of these "therapies" such that people subjected to them can more reasonably be described as "victims" than patients.

There now exists a growing number of people in the US, where these 'Therapies" have been used for a longer time, of ex-ex-gay people coming out and telling the world that these therapies do not work.

These are all inconvenient facts which you have omitted from your article, an article which I find dishonest and disingenuous in the extreme for these reasons. I also find your (unevidenced) justification for these methods quite offensive since they are still used, in parts of bible belt North America on transgender children.

In the end your religious belief is a matter of choice, your sexuality and gender identity is not. I find particularly disturbing the way you have deliberately misinterpreted the Stonewall slogan "get over it!". It is the leaders of these religious groupings who need to change their ways, and to stop insisting on narrow and highly disputed interpretations of minutiae of small print in religious texts rather than following the headline recommendations.

jankaas's picture

that group Core Issues Trust appear now to know their own Bible, or perhaps it's just more evidence that Christians by nature aren't very funny. this advice from Proverbs 16:18 sinks their turgid slogan;

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Andrew J Chandler's picture

Thank you so much for this. Literally, an answer to my prayers on this subject, which has been tearing me apart in mind and soul, if not in body. I'm very glad that someone is at last writing about what it's like to be gay, or bisexual, and a Bible-believing Christian. Even if we leave aside the Old Testament, we cannot ignore the words of Jesus on marriage (Matthew 19). When I've posted about this before, the proponents of same-sex marriage, including some calling themselves Christians, have seemed ignorant of these. Is this not a clear example of prejudice? Also, many of us have campaigned in our churches for decades, sung in public that we're 'glad to be gay' and argued with less tolerant members of our congregations, long before many aggressive church-bashers were born. All humans are religious, just as we all have a gender. If anyone is deluded enough to think that spiritual space in their life is empty, they should look again. Maybe it's full of hatred of Christians or organised religion. That's why they have to make such a point of it! I'm all in favour of civil partnerships for both heterosexual and same-sex couples who don't believe in Christian marriage and all in favour of Christian marriages for couples who want to start families and Christian covenants for those who simply want to form a partnership of equal spouses in the sight of God, whatever their gender, or blessings for those who want their civil partnership to have a Christian blessing in Church. I'm also in favour of 'common law' marriage for those who simply want to live with each other, even have children, without involving either the Church or the state. Does that make me a bigot? Because I try to live my life according to the words and actions of Jesus in the gospels? When he spoke from the cross he said, 'Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they are doing!' Those who accuse Christians of not caring for, or loving their gay brothers and sisters, should ask themselves if it is not they, themselves, who lack understanding and compassion. As Christians, we are called upon to take up our cross, be crucified and forgive. By comparison, it's easy for non-believers to stand by the cross, laughing and hurling hatred and abuse at the crucified Christ, who forgives them.

DMyers's picture

You are suggesting that spirituality and religiosity are the same thing: they are not. There is definitely a spiritual side to life, but it does not involve fictional gods. Activities such as meditation and yoga are spiritual; belief in a deity which apparently communicates with us is borderline schizophrenia. Spirituality concerns our inner self and how we connect with the world; religion is about behavioural control of others.

Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley's picture

Perhaps we could look at this Core Issue Trust -- as promoting and perpetuating the so-called "core issues" too many people trust in first ie before the true love and mercy of God.

I understand the bible has no word for homosexuality. The old testament tells a terrible story of a bunch of people trying to break into Lots house so they could get to "know" his visitors - But who are we to assume the story is about predatory sexual practices? I've read that bit loads of times and what strikes me as most important is the fact that Lot's hospitality and his ability to safeguard the privacy of his visitors in his own domain was at risk ( full stop).

Further, the word "unnatural" used at times in the Bible to describe relationships could mean anything - Let's face it, in those days and even now there are cultures that simply cannot handle anything, especially production and reproductive practices out of the proverbial box - by which I mean the boxes, forms and classifications normally used..o dear.

Rev Graeme Hancocks's picture

It seems to me that this artcle takes as given that a fundamentalist/literalist interpretation of the Christian scriptures is something that applies to all religious people. Most Christians are not fundamentalists/literalists. Anglicanism has long placed an equal emphasis on Tradition, Scripture and Reason in coming to a view on any given subject. I believe many other denominations do so aswell. Most accept the insights of Biblical studies in their understanding of how the Bible came to written and how it is applied today. This is not new - it dates from the early Victorian era. Even prior to this churches and christians well understand allergory and paradox and image. Few religious people I know - and I know a lot as I am a priest - would for instance, agree with St Paul's unquestioning acceptance of slavery ("slaves obey your masters" etc). Let alone all the dietary and ritual cleanliness injunctions in the Old Testament! Fundamentalism/literalism - in the modern sense - is a fairly new phenomena.

As far as homosexuality is conerned,it is true few passages in either Old or New Testaments could be used to support homosexual relationships. But little is actually written about the subject (hard to believe given the attention some evangelical christians and Roman Catholic bishops give the subject). Jesus, for instance, is not recorded as having said anything on the subject.

I would agree with the people who have posted that "Faith is a choice. Those who believe have the choice whether or not to believe or not. Gay, lesbian or bisexual people do not have that choice." I do not know of any gay people who "chose to be gay". They might have at some point have "chosen" to express that by becoming sexually active. But couldnt the same be said of heterosexual men and women?

These bus posters were designed to be controversial. They imply that gay people can be "cured" - strange term to use as it would imply that gay people are "ill" in some sense, yet the people behind the posters also believe that homosexuality is a sin, which is rather contradictory. In truth the groups behind these posters do not like gay people - I have met enough of them in my work to know that. Actually they dislike them intensely for it is a totemic issue for them. Do not be fooled by "love the sinner and hate the sin". They hate gay people. It is this hate that lies behind these posters and the reason that they should be banned (leaving aside the highly dubious claims of "cure"). Positing "some people are gay - get over it" with "some people are religios - get over it" is disengenious to say the least. The views of these people are not the views of all of us who are religious - very far from it. Jones knows this - or at least he should have if he had researched his subject properly.

Keir's picture

Dietary and ritual cleanliness injunctions in the Old Testament pre-figured Christ, do not apply to Christians, and never did! Where do they train clerics these days? No wonder Rowan is stepping down!

Those who suppose that first century slaves should not have obeyed their masters ignore the fact that such behaviour invited flogging or even crucifixion, because that was the Roman response to rebellious slaves.

'Most Christians are not fundamentalists/literalists.'

Literalism is irrelevant (and anyone who insists on literalism is actually antichrist). One does not find figurative sense in 'Do not steal;' neither in the exclusion of homosexuals, and effeminate men, from the church.

'Anglicanism has long placed an equal emphasis on Tradition, Scripture and Reason in coming to a view on any given subject.'

That's a popular myth, and it is backed by neither the Anglican Articles, to which reference was made in the case of Gene Robinson, nor by authentic Anglican teaching. Hooker's 'definitive' but horribly misquoted view was that Scripture has priority; Reason, being that which must necessarily be true, is next to be invoked; while Tradition fills in any remaining doubt, and even then is not to be insisted on as necessarily true.

In the case of homosexuality, the Bible is undoubtedly opposed to homosexuality, and it is untrue that Jesus did not mention it. He referred to (even) the men of Sodom as being less in danger than others of punishment at the Judgment. Reason in the Hookerian sense is hardly applicable, and of course tradition is firmly against homosexuality. So Anglicans are in no position to permit homosexuality of any of their members, bishops or not.

Most denominations, that overtly rejected episcopalianism, have no role for tradition, of course, so have 'only' the OT warning of Sodom and Gomorrah, the moral content of Mosaic Law as guide, and of course the explicit prohibition of the NT.

Quite apart from any personal preference, that seems to be forbidden by Stalinesque 'correctness' today.

Dickie1's picture

Well said sir. I would like to add that organizations like Stonewall are as much one-size-fits-all as anyone else. The so called GBLT (which seems to gain new letters at whim) hardly represents all people. Religion is not the preserve of Christians either. It is natural for a soul to want to escape the confines of bodily experience if we accept Socrates' position on the purpose of philosophy. These arguments are infantile in my view.

Latest tweets