The century old feud between homosexuality and religion has propelled countless wars and debates in a world teeming with ethical diversity. Yet Tuesday night’s lecture, entitled ‘Homosexuality and Religion,’ aimed for the contrary; a harmonious link between the two entities - a position which to many seemed a paradox in and of itself.
Debuted by the Free Thought Society, the lecture featured SBS student Rita El-Haddad, Professor Joshua Anderson, Professor Michael Khoury, and Human Rights Activist Sam, who preferred her to leave her surname a mystery in order to keep her religious affiliation a surprise. The lecture started off by a brief introduction by philosophy student Kareem Zreik, who emphasized that the atmosphere was to be academic and professional, a reminder repeated more than once during the conference.
Rita El-Haddad then continued by stressing the very key point of the lecture, that religion and homosexuality were not necessarily contradicting, and that regardless of your religious viewpoint and affiliation, you should not discriminate toward others just because they differ from you. “What I’m asking of you is to be open-minded.” she said, “It is fine to think that homosexuality is acceptable. It is fine to think that it is unacceptable. You need to have a point of view of understanding and tolerance.”
Philosophy professor Joshua Anderson followed with his take on the subject, which was that sexuality as a whole was not the predominant aspect of religion, and therefore should not be the only thing focused on. “Who has the authority of judgement?” he asked, “especially the condemnation of others.” Professor Anderson then explained the concept of pluralism - a condition in which there are multiple aspects of a whole, such as different religions, cultures, ethnicities, etc. Pluralism, he argued, is in every society, and in order to flourish we need to set aside our differences and tolerate other forms of beliefs and values. After all, he stated “The fundamental principles of religion are tolerance and love of others.”
Professor Michael Khoury was third to speak, and did so from a psychological viewpoint. Having worked for three years in therapy with homosexuals and bisexuals, Khoury described his experience with individuals struggling to answer one question “How can I be gay and religious?” According to Khoury many homosexual people strive for both family acceptance and religious acceptance, but often don’t end up with a so-called ‘happy ending.’
Human right’s activist Sam, exemplified Khoury’s point of view, and spoke of her struggle to admit her homosexuality both on a personal and religious level: “I went through a hard time just trying to fill my life with anything – but there was always emptiness” she said. As a devout Christian Sam was conflicted for years till she finally reconciled her religion and sexuality, after researching Christianity and its position on homosexuality. Sam discovered that there were in fact several sects of Christianity that accepted homosexuality, and according to her, no references in the bible that clearly condemned it. “The God I knew could not hate,” she said,”He was a God of mercy and kindness.”
The panel’s comments fueled nearly and hour’s worth of questions, composed of an audience that was apparently divided. Many of the listeners agreed with their position, and spoke of their individual struggles or their willingness to promote gay rights. Others were not as appeased. The lecture did not truly explore the boundaries of other religions, including Islam, of which many of the audience members felt was equally important. In fact there were several comments from Muslims in the audience who voiced that Islam made clear that homosexuality was forbidden, although one audience member spoke of a sect in Sufism that accepted it. In the end the lecture seemed to promote tolerance more than anything else, an important notion too often forgotten amongst religious prejudices. Rita El-Haddad particularly emphasized this, rounding off the lecture with a point that finally had the whole audience concurring: “Let’s just agree to disagree.”
No comments:
Post a Comment