Aaaargh, Heeheehee & Wailing time, folks
Ok, so I've been catching up on some of the less-frequented blogs on my bookmarks list. We are all aware that extreme positions and intolerance rule the world. Yes, Will, "men have lost their reason". But some have lost it more than others. Blogger Michael informs his readers that The Vatican has blacklisted Amnesty International. Here's the relevant quote from his post.
The Vatican has urged all Catholics to stop donating money to Amnesty International. Why you might ask, would the Catholic Church do such a thing? Have amnesty been embezzling charitable donations? Have they been found guilty of wide scale child abuse? No, don’t be silly. Amnesty have simply stated that they are in “support of abortion for women when their health is in danger or human rights are violated, especially in cases of rape or incest.”I wonder if the decision was taken unanimously when the goup of sixty-nine bishops (lovingly known as VAT 69) met last. OK ... but while the Vatican is at one end of the spectrum, this other church is a gasser! Moving on ... Bush’s nominee for surgeon general, Dr. James Holsinger, has argued that homosexuality is a disease that can be cured. Stephen Colbert takes him on, while comment-writer ctbrandon has this to say: Anyways, I am glad someone is working on a cure for gayness. Now if we could just get a cure for being black, poor, or non christian, this country could get back to being the nation of freedom that we once were!!!! :-) And, of course, many blogs are beginning to comment upon 'The Rushdie Affair - Part 2' (soon to be made into a movie called A Knight to Remember). This act by the Queen promises more violence, political opportunism, idiocy and outrageous statements like the one justifying suicide bombing made (and, later, denied) by - as the BBC refers to him - "Mr. Ul Haq". (The 'loo' is silent!). To be fair to him, withdrawal is part of the governing team's strategy. Right now I wish that someone else whose image often haunts my mind had practiced it.
posted by Zakintosh at 6/19/2007 08:13:00 AM
13 Comments:
This whole Rushdie brouhaha is fueled by a combination of burnt out "leaders" and guilt-ridden punters, both eager for any opportunity to demonstrate cathartically for something (nobody is quite sure what) they believe in.
I will add that I am neither what in our land of the puritanical is so pithily termed a "fundo", nor do I belong to that equally intolerant bunch of self-righteous old farts at the other end of the ideological spectrum that I call "ffundophobes".
It's this attempt to capture and/or hold on to the moral high ground that I find so laughable and at the same time so demoralising (pls excuse the pun). Whither moderation and a willingness to listen to (and even contemplate the possibility of accepting) another's point of view?
19 June, 2007 13:10
Why is it that everyone feels the need to control others - the Vatican banning Amnesty International just exposes the Vatican's stupidity and nothing else. Forget the good stuff they do. How dare they disagree with the Vatican on abortion - even if their viewpoint is more humane?
As for curing homosexuality, how about trying to cure greed and corruption and violent behaviour? Or is homosexuality a worse thing?
And yet again Salman Rushdie is back in our lives. Why is it that we care whether he is knighted or not? If he is called Sir Rushdie, how does it affect our lives? All our problems are now no longer important and everyone is issuing statements on Muslim sentiment being hurt. As for the crazy statement justifying suicide bombing, what I want to know is when Ejaz ul Haq said this, why did no-one in government or opposition speak up?
19 June, 2007 15:11
Pardon my pedantry, but he'd actually be known as Sir Salman or, more likely, Sir Solomon (because of his er... wisdom, of course).
19 June, 2007 17:19
:-) thanks for the correction - yes of course he will be known as Sir Salman
19 June, 2007 19:37
Laughed out aloud at the movie title and the revelation about Mr. Ul Haq's real name...Good thing no one was around...lest there be an edict against your truly, as well...
:D
19 June, 2007 23:58
Er...I meant to say yours truly, of course...
20 June, 2007 00:01
First the ‘Aaargh’
Yes Zakintosh, the men at the vatican lost it all just as the mullahs have. It’s okay for rape victims to suffer or those women whose lives are seriously endangered by pregnancy to die – rather murdered by criminal neglect, than have an abortion. Amnesty International and other organisations that are really working for the betterment of human lives and rights can go take a long walk on a short pier!
The solution probably lies in the abolition of the clergy of all ilks, or a woman Pope and a woman as the Imam of the Kaaba!
Moving on to ‘Heeheehee’
Colbert’s take was HILARIOUS!
However on a more serious note, there have been many scientific studies researching the absence or presence of a biological basis of homosexuality.
Karen Hooker executed the first psychological test done to test for biological determinism in 1957. As a result of Hooker's finding, the APA removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders in 1973. In 1975 it then released a public statement that homosexuality was not a mental disorder. In 1994, two decades later, the APA finally stated, "...homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity. It is the way a portion of the population expresses human love and sexuality".
The following was also part of another statement:
"Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture." Statement on Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, 1994-JUL.
D.F. Swaab conducted the next noteworthy experiment in 1990. At the same time, another scientist, Laura S. Allen made a similar discovery in the hypothalamus as well.
This experiment became the first to document a physiological difference in the anatomical structure of a gay man's brain. Swaab found in his post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains that a portion of the hypothalamus of the brain was structurally different than a heterosexual brain. The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to sexual drive and function. In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of the hypothalamus, termed the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), was found to be twice the size of its heterosexual counterpart.
“Biological Basis for Homosexuality.” Online. 8 April 2003. Available
http://www.geocities.com/southbeach/boardwalk/7151/biobasis.html
Another line of testing at Stanford, done to support the biological perspective are neuroendocrine studies. The neuroendocrine viewpoint's basic hypothesis is that sexual orientation is determined by the early levels (probably prenatal) of androgen on relevant neural structures. If highly exposed to these androgens, the fetus will become masculinized, or attracted to females.
One scientist Dean Hamer examined the possibility of homosexuality being an X-linked trait. He examined the family trees of openly gay men, and thought he saw a maternal link, leading him to investigate his theory of X-linkage. He took 40 DNA samples from homosexual men, and genetically examined them. He found that there was a 'remarkable concordance' for 5 genetic markers on section of the X-Chromosome called Xq28. His findings were dubbed the "gay gene study".
This finding of a possible 'gay gene' prompts a look into two evolutionary concepts, and how they are affected. All this and more can be found freely on the internet. Taylor, Tim. “Current Theories on the Genesis of Homosexuality.” Online. 11 April 2003. Available http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/timt/ papers/twin_studies/theories.html
I can quote scientific studies ad nauseum (already have), and perhaps some of these should be brought to the notice of Dubya’s nominee for Surgeon General, Dr. James Holsinger, so he can get round to tackling more pressing problems relating to poor health care issues in the US of A. Or find a cure for being poor. Leave people’s sexual orientation alone and don’t aspire to finding a cure for it so he can get nominated for the Nobel Prize for Medicine.
The tirade on homosexuality is not only directed at the US surgeon General, but our own people as well who lack sensitivity and understanding of facts.
And now for the wailing:
“ ik roz ka rona ho tau ro lein sabr aawe’
har roz kay ronay ko kahan say jigar aawe’
Our ---- ul Haq is not alone in his stupidity, our (dis) honourable government’s official spokesperson has also spoken, and the British High Commissioner has been SUMMONED to the foreign office to convey the government’s displeasure and dismay over the conferring of knighthood on a great writer.
When will we learn to honour our own, instead of disparaging them?
The latest on this front is that Iran (predictably) and Indonesia have joined the chorus of the mullahs against Sir Soloman,
I personally like Mr. Cowasjee’s letter in the Dawn today 20th June, suggesting Mr. Ul-- ul Haq be provided a special plane so he can personally carry out his mission!!
.
20 June, 2007 21:26
btw, for a flip-side view of Sir Solomon's coin, take a gander at Priyamvada Gopal's Guardian piece of a few days ago:
Sir Salman's long journey
21 June, 2007 14:56
Again, while I admire Rushdie's prolifigate writing (if not the style), I can't help but wonder that if the Muslim world truly wanted to express their displeasure with his knighthood, wouldn't it be better/smarter for them to simply NOT generate additional laudatory publicity for him? I mean, I've been running my house on a generator for the last week, I don't give a flying rat's ass about Rushdie's knighthood, I want the government to fix the freaking power cables and give me electricity again. The opportunism and shallowness of these people never ceases to amaze me. Jackasses, one and all.
As for the Vatican. I met Ratzinger when I was in college. He was a bastard then, and he's a bastard now. Bigot.
22 June, 2007 00:20
"Wee Willie Winkie runs through the town
Eyes tightly closed to the problems all around.
Doesn't see the poverty, misery and shame,
Willie's good, believes in God, and knows he's not to blame!"
[author unknown]
22 June, 2007 04:52
ZAK, you had me on the floor (laughing with this post). your comments are utterly hilarious eg (the 'loo' is silent) is a real cracker!
All have to say is the loo will not be silent much lunger, as the Rushdie knighty naughtiness causes the bearded ones to suffer horrendous uprising from the bottom.
23 June, 2007 21:33
Apologies for the massive spelling errors in my comments, I think it is time got my eyes tested again.
The paragraph should read: "All I have to say is that the 'loo' will not be silent much longer, as the Rushdie knighty naughtiness causes the bearded ones to suffer horrendous uprising from the bottom.
23 June, 2007 21:36
Sorry to intrude but I forgot an 'I' in the first paragraph in my last comment. I thought I'd pass that on right now, so here it is:
'I'
Seriously need my eyes checked...
23 June, 2007 21:41
Post a Comment
<< Home