There’s a deplorable non profit organization called FORSA who are fighting for their right to discriminate against others, in the name of “freedom of religion”.

I kid you not. Taking the cue from deplorable white trash Americans like Kim Davis who became infamous for refusing to grant marriage licenses to same sex couples because of personal religious objections, these people, whose group stands for Freedom of Religion South Africa, are fighting for the same thing.

Here’s their Facebook page. Their main purpose seems to be opposing a civil union amendment bill which would not allow state employed civil servants to opt out of approving same sex unions. In other words, they believe that freedom of religion means that they can impose their homophobia, which they use religion to justify, on others. So they are fighting for the right to discriminate against others based on “religious” beliefs, exactly the opposite of what freedom of religion is actually about. And as such bigots always do, they are crying Christian persecution, playing the victim while they fight for the right to victimize others.

15-10-2018 08-47-18

Note the wording of their status above. They make it about themselves, as if their rights are being suppressed. (They aren’t.) Incidentally, I only managed two perfectly reasonable comments there before being blocked.

My second comment was a reply on my comment thread (My screenshot above was immediately after posting it and doesn’t show the reactions and replies), to clarify what this is, as I see it, to someone who claimed that asking them to approve such unions is the same as forcing a Muslim to serve bacon. (A false equivalence anyway. In reality, them refusing to do their jobs is more like Muslims and Jews forcing everyone not to eat bacon because their religions oppose it.)

Here’s the thing: Freedom of religion is about the freedom to practice your religion, and the same goes for all other religions or lack of religion. (Nobody is stopping these people from practicing Christianity.) It does not mean you can impose your beliefs on everyone else. Anyone refusing to do their job is committing a fireable offense. It is misconduct, and I know how I would handle such people. It’s quite simple: Final written warning the first time, and if they do it again, immediate termination of employment.

This is not new to South Africa. Under apartheid, I heard several Christians arguing that racial segregation was backed by the Bible. That’s what bigots do – they use their religion to justify their oppression, and they will find ways of reading their prejudices into their religious texts, regardless of which religion they practice.

There’s a bigger picture here… Emboldened by the openly fascist, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, tyrannical US president Donald Trump and the wave of white is right straight male evangelical Christian repugnance that he extolls, this flood of bigotry is spreading worldwide. Anti immigrant, anti feminist, anti black, anti LGBT… it’s everywhere.


It’s OK to rape women? But not men because that would be gay and against God’s plan?

In this post, I will discuss homophobia and religion (and throw in a little misogyny too), as well as the moralistic fallacy.

Recently homophobia among religious conservatives has been especially popular, thanks to the law legalizing gay marriage in the US. But let’s look a little closer at the go-to Bible verse to justify hatred of LGBT people. Let’s examine the source:

Genesis 19:1-9

Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. And he said, “Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant’s house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.” They said however, “No, but we shall spend the night in the square.” Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.

Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.” But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. “Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.” But they said, “Stand aside.” Furthermore, they said, “This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.” So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door.

So the crowd is gay because they want to rape the two male angels. But as for Lot, the righteous man who God saved, notice what he did? He offered the gay rapists his two virgin female daughters. (Yes, the word “female” is redundant here, but no more so than this ancient nonsense used to justify bigotry.)

So what is that nonsense actually saying? Don’t rape men (especially if they’re angels), rape girls, because women are inferior anyway. So it is OK to rape women, but raping men is a sin. Of course as a conservative Christian, you must totally ignore that Lot offered them women, because that messes with the whole gay hating agenda.

Later on, Lot’s wife looks back and is turned to a pillar of salt for opposing God’s will. So why did she turn back? Was she lusting for the gay rapists?

It should be pretty clear that to read this and come out with the idea that homosexuality is sinful, you have to ignore all the problems with the passage, some of which are:

  • Do gay male rapists like girls?
  • Women are inferior?
  • Rape of girls is OK?
  • Rape of men is not?
  • The “righteous” man offers his innocent daughters to be gang-raped, and no judgement is made on his morals?

In other words, to read that and conclude that homosexuality is wrong, you have to already believe it to be so. You read your preconceived idea that being gay should be condemned right into the passage and then use it to justify your prejudice, ignoring the glaring problems with the passage, even though they should be enough to conclude that the whole thing is bullshit. You don’t get your morals from your bible or your religion, you take the “morals” that you already have and impose them on your religion. This is the moralistic fallacy, the idea that morals come from God. If that were true, all religious cultures would have exactly the same morals. But they don’t.

In this case, the “morals” are quite despicable. You have to read those passages really selectively to use them to justify your homophobia. But the irony is that most Christians probably don’t read their own bible at all. They just accept that being gay is against God’s will. The best way to understand how nonsensical the bible is, is to read it.