Archbishop Desmond Tutu has long been recognised for his timely questioning of powerful institutions where they appear to do harm. In a recent BBC radio interview, to be broadcast on Tuesday, he turned his attention to the Anglican Church, saying the institution was "extraordinarily homophobic" and "almost obsessed" with human sexuality. Tutu called for a more welcoming approach from the church's leadership.
In a world where it seems we often let subtle (or even extreme) discrimination pass without comment, it is critical that influential figures such as Tutu feel able to question societal indifference - and to scrutinise institutional practices that perpetuate bigotry. Thus Tutu's stance should arguably give hope not just to gay rights campaigners, but to anyone who values free speech and the spirit of democratic enquiry.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Day Thirty-Eight: Tutu takes a stand
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
This is very welcome.
Pity people like Tutu can't take the Conservative charge 'homosexuality is a choice' head on, though. He says 'no, it's involuntary', trying to move conservatives from condemnation to sympathy. It would be even better if he could say 'so what if it is?', moving them on to full acceptance.
But there's still a reason to be hopeful: he's probably trying to move minds as fast as they will travel, so that's good values guided by good sense in the same person...
Desmond Tutu has taken many courageous stands on contentious issues, but too often his is a voice crying in the wilderness. Like racism, homophobia is everywhere apparent - and, as Smiley says, minds will only travel so far, so fast. But he must be applauded for doing what he can.
Nevertheless, I find his reasoning rather strange. He says "If God as they say is homophobic I wouldn't worship that God." But how does the concept of an all-loving God fit the reality of tsunami, HIV/AIDS and the suffering of the innocent? I find Tutu the pugnacious humanitarian much more persuasive than the Tutu the Christian apologist.
Yes, I agree, Harry - some of his language was a little odd. I think he was probably trying to choose his various words (and arguments) carefully in an attempt to influence those he thinks may be listening - and the result may not be entirely logical. I think his motives here are humanitarian (ideological and practical), but he feels he must address the Church directly with this in mind (theological). He may have been on safer ground if he'd stuck to some of the other strands in his argument - e.g. it's immoral to persecute people and there are other more pressing issues with which the Church should concern itself (and show some real leadership).
E
Post a Comment