Perhaps I’ll have a subtantive post later today, depending on time…
But, meanwhile, a few interesting stories I’ve read around the Pagan (and not-Pagan–both polytheist and “religiously unaligned” or of other religions) blog-a-rama, particularly over at Patheos.com.
And, you can sing “‘Round the Pagan Blogosphere” to the following tune, if you like!:
It’s ear-worming me, so what sort of blog host would I be if I didn’t share my pain with y’all? 😉
First, let’s see where Antinous is showing up elsewhere on the net: over at My Sun Sets to Rise Again, “A is for Antinous” (amongst other things!). Before today, I was not aware of the work of this particular individual, but in the entry I linked to above, there is a lovely translation of the Obelisk of Antinous. Check it out!
Next, a whole pile of matters from Patheos.com (and not just the Pagan channel) that have to do with queerness in one form or another.
Next, Aine Llewellyn tackles the issue of tokenism as argument for theological inclusiveness and thus non-revision with “But We Have A Queer!” His discussion is spot-on, I think, and should be read by everyone–especially those who are not queer themselves but who think they are queer allies because they have queer friends or co-religionists without re-examining the subtly homophobic or overtly heterosexist natures of their theological constructions.
At the Get Religion blog, the issue of the religious angle on the recent Boy Scouts of America discussion on rescinding the ban on gays in scouting is discussed. You can guess who the dissenters are in that question, I think…
And, while I don’t make a habit of linking to blogs and blog posts that I find homophobic (if I did, I’d not have time to do anything else in my life at all), I’m going to do so here, because it is an example of what Aine was talking about above. Here it is. (All I’m going to say on it is that it’s on Patheos.com on the Evangelical channel.) The writer argues that even though his church and his personal feelings are that homosexuality is sinful and that gay marriage will lead to the destruction of society (he says that directly!), that theological position is neither evil nor homophobic. Okay: maybe it’s not “evil” (though it is stupid, rude, and not at all loving, despite whatever else he tries to argue contrarily), but it is by definition “homophobic,” and one cannot argue otherwise. It always amazes me how often biblical fundamentalists fail to understand the literal terms they use, despite literalism being so second-nature and “required” in their religious viewpoint.
So, if you have a few moments, and the desire to do so, go and read these other posts, and comment on them if you feel moved to do so (but try and be polite even in your critiques, if indeed you wish to express critiques, please!).
And, alas, it seems that the latter’s blog posts (all of them) don’t allow comments, which I find rather cowardly considering the stance he takes. You have to write an e-mail to him, I guess, if you want to respond. I don’t know if I will, but I might…