On 'Love', Worship and Intolerance

In the event that you are endemically superstitious, parochial or intransigent to purely in-experiential and hypothetical philosophical enquiry – I suggest you read no further than this syllable.

If you harbor legitimate fears that demons (or their close relations) will take hold of you on reading ‘unrighteous’ words, or that the good Lord will revoke his licence of protection for the felony of unsanctioned literary indulgence – for your spiritual vitality, do abstain. 

Alas – for the sustenance of the sympathetic (or I hope, at best, indifferent) opinion you possess of me, and the (I would have myself believe) unblemished reputation I hold in the public cornea – please tack that visual tail of curiosity back between your mental legs and exit this resource-locator.

For the thicker-skinned and less trivial, you’re welcome to unmoor this ship together with me.

A couple of years ago, a bunch of melodramatic pranksters filed a petition with a local court in the American state of Missouri, demanding the right for federal and constitutional recognition of their religion, to wit – Satanism.

They cited the ‘freedom of worship’ clause of the American Constitution, which provides for the democratic tolerance and civil acceptance of a man’s choice of god, as long as this doesn’t infringe on the rights of his fellows to worship.

The petition was rudely and summarily dismissed.

In a related incident of litigious wackiness – in the sixth decade of the previous century, about 1957, a middle-aged woman in Vermont, having been dragged to court on charges of bestiality, filed a legal suit demanding the privilege of ‘sexual diversity’ – in her view a right guaranteed constitutionally to all American Citizens.

The lover she had in mind was her life-long companion and bosom friend, a one Scooby – who also happened to be an otherwise frightful Doberman.

As before, the case was flung out of the courtroom with as much sneering as contempt, from the bench.

As it turned out – the land of the free, home to democracy and the shores of liberty, had some ‘moral standards’ after all.

A perfunctory skimming of such incidents certainly serves to highlight how eccentric the world we live in can be, and the ridiculous effrontery of the litigants provides good comic-relief after a strenuous day at one’s job – but are there, as well, subterranean issues that may warrant investigation? (Philosophical at least, if not forensic.)

Let’s start with the second case – the nauseating attempt by a human being to seek legal protection to copulate with her pet dog.

(You may dash to the lavatory and throw-up at this point. We can pick the thread up from there when, and if, you do return.)

In justifying the petition, the woman’s lawyer cited the then still nascent, but increasingly auspicious advocacy for gay rights.

She argued that, if homosexual men and women had the right to sexual relations and marriage, why then did pet-owners not have the same rights over their chosen lovers?

The prosecution responded by arguing that, ‘‘Legal homosexual relations are based on mutual consent between the parties – is it possible for a dog to consent to intercourse with its owner?’’

The defendant’s response – ‘‘in marriages, heterosexual or homosexual, neither of the spouses own each other; unlike in a bestial relationship, where one of the ‘partners’ actually legally owns the other.’’

She compared it to slavery – where white slave masters were widely famed for the rampant rape of black slave-women without any legal consequence. 

After-all, at the time, slaves weren’t even considered human.

This, she argued, amounted to bestiality – and yet was fully countenanced by American society and its laws (or lack thereof) at the time.

The defendant’s lawyer went on to ask, ‘‘do humans ever ask permission, or seek the consent of cows and sheep before they are slaughtered? What is more harmful to animals, being eaten, or being ‘loved’?’’

The judge, quite exasperated, interjected loudly – ‘‘But we eat animals for survival, not merely for pleasure!’’

And in a comical rejoinder, the defendant quipped, ‘‘But your Honor – I need intercourse to survive, who are you to deny me that right!?’’

She was, as I’m sure you’ve guessed, thrown out for contempt of court, notwithstanding vociferous protestations about intolerance, sexual-orientation and her ‘right to love WHOMSOEVER she chose’.

                                                            * * * * * 

Returning to our preliminary anecdote, the one on the proponents of Satanism, and without laboring through the details of court proceedings, it suffices to say that the litigants’ day in court turned out as futile as that of our dog-loving woman.

The Satanists cited the diversity of religions in the country, most of them mutually incompatible and explicitly inimical in their doctrines, and demanded the right to be officially recognized as a faith-group, too.

Since everyone accepts each other’s god publicly, (even when they privately scoff at, and insult each other as infidels), why shouldn’t their chosen god be accepted as well, they argued.

If it is okay for ‘God’ to go by different names depending on what your holy book, parent, or country of birth dictates – Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, Yahweh etc – why couldn’t theirs be called Satan?

The judge firmly declared that they were ‘ungodly’ men who were threatening America’s age-old relationship with God!

Which God, they asked?

The God who created the earth, the (professedly Christian) judge replied.

They asked if the judge acknowledged Allah to be this God.

He said he did.

‘‘If you acknowledge Allah to be this God, your Honor’’ they politely inquired, ‘‘do you observe the five pillars of Islam?’’

Red-faced and infuriated, the judge threw the insolent chaps out of his courtroom.

Their appeals to higher courts have since got smothered in the legalistic rigmarole that is the American legal system (true to its kinship to justice systems world-over).

                                                            * * * * * 

Only last week, I was chatting over a pair of frothing mugs with an (self-proclaimed of course) ‘open-minded’, tolerant, progressive and libertarian colleague, call him Omollo – who thinks men should have the right to self-determination, individual and collective.

The discourse eventually (but not without a little help from me) gravitated toward a discussion on religion and homosexuality.

I asked him what right Ugandan Pastors have to burn shrines, persecute native spiritualists as agents of Lucifer, and through their numerical advantage and lobby-power with the state, declare the practice of African traditional faiths ungodly and thus unconstitutional.

He responded, ‘‘But African traditionalists are evil and practice witchcraft, they are bound for hell.’’

‘‘Don’t Christians think Hindus are bound for hell as well?’’ I retorted, ‘‘Why isn’t Hinduism unconstitutional?’’

‘‘No Manzi, don’t be silly. Christians don’t believe Hindus are going to hell, we all believe in the same God. He just goes by a different name in India …’’

‘‘But doesn’t Jesus say no one can reach the father, save through him; being the Way, Truth and Life … do Hindus accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, the precondition for eternal life?’’

‘‘Not really, but the Bible shouldn’t be read literally … Jesus was talking about something indirect …’’

‘‘Indirect …?’’

‘‘Yes, indirect. Anyway, God’s ways are mysterious, we are not meant to question. If you question too much, you become confused …’’

This coming from a self-proclaimed free-thinker, I had no choice but to change the subject.

Also, while Omollo is a Christian, I knew he fancies himself a styled-up modernist believer who thinks, like an increasing number, that homosexuality isn’t necessarily sinful in God’s eyes, and is a matter of lifestyle preference.

‘‘Omollo, does this mean bestiality is also a lifestyle preference …?’’ I queried innocently, seeking genuine enlightenment.

‘‘Of course not,’’ he cut me short, ‘‘bestiality is unnatural and abominable!’’

‘‘Quite true,’’ I agreed, ‘‘Quite true. So what makes homosexuality natural?’’

‘‘There is a gene that was discovered that causes it …’’

‘‘This is why we should accept it. Because of the ‘discovered’ gene?’’

‘‘It’s a good-enough basis …’’

‘‘Do you know that there is a ‘gene’ that was supposedly discovered, responsible for pedophilia?’’

‘‘No …’’

‘‘Would you accept bestiality if a gene was discovered for it …’’

‘‘No, of course not …’’

‘‘So you are intolerant …’’

‘‘No, I’m not intolerant. I am very tolerant, but to a certain extent ...’’

‘‘To a certain extent? So, how do you know where to stop being tolerant?’’

‘‘One has to draw the line somewhere ...’’

‘‘How does one know where to draw the line?’’

‘‘The Holy Spirit, as always if you seek him, grants you guidance ...’’

‘‘Omollo, you surely can't be serious ....?’’

‘‘Dead serious is what I am!’’

‘‘Look - what I am trying to establish is why you keep waiving the touchstone of morality. If homosexuality is to be legitimized, then nothing should stand in the way of maize-philia ... ’’

‘‘That's a slippery slope argument that you're positing ...’’

‘‘I agree, it runs the risk of being a camel with its nose under Ahmed's tent. But assuredly there's a logical consistency to it ... ’’

‘‘The essential concepts differ. It's more complicated than that ...’’

‘‘I am surprised when homosexuals and heterosexuals conveniently bury their hatchets to make common cause against practitioners of bestiality; or when the worshipers of Baal ally with those of Yahweh to persecute Satanists ... there is a glaring hypocrisy in the coalition, don't you think?’’

‘‘No there isn't ...’’

‘‘I mean, do homosexuals have any moral authority to be opposed to bestiality? From a Christian stand-point, do Buddhists have any moral right to speak against Satanism? ’’

‘‘Manzi, I think you are tired. Go home and rest ...’’

And true to my word, rest I did. 

Who would I be, to reject such good advice?