sindre-almost

There was an obscure article in a newspaper a few days ago about a christmas celebrations, normally this would not be featured on the front page of any newspaper, unless it’s being hosted and preformed by transvestites, now suddenly it is controversial and front page news. Now I’m going to resist commenting the obvious here, but in the article there was a small comment.

Christians for Truth, an independent religious group, had asked the city council to cancel the “Pink Christmas,” [...]

source: The Associated Press also seen at Verdens Gang

the Christians for Truth sounds a bit redundant doesn’t it , considering that one of the ten commandments is “thou shalt not lie” [1] So are christians who are not a member considered to be frivolous when it comes to this particular commandment, to such an extent that some of them (christians) felt they needed an organization to make a stand against it. If so what’s next “Christians against killing” well maybe not, one never knows when the next crusade will happen and it would be a bit stupid then to be a member of a group that was in direct conflict with the actions of a crusade.

Now on to the obvious commentary; the transvestites put on what can be readily described as a nativity play, the event was sponsored by the city council of Amsterdam (someone in that council deserves a thank you card), with the not so insignificant amount of 15,000 euro. This of course made it even more controversial. the Christians for Truth demanded that the city council withdrew the support.

What I don’t get is that there are so many fractions of christianity, and they all seem to be quite tolerable when it comes to other fractions. Even those who used to be a bit controversial themselves, such as the mormons which at one point allowed men to have more than one wife (as of 1890 this was no longer accepted). But there are others, and they are for the most part tolerated by other fractions. However as soon as persons from the gay side of life starts doing something remotely religious it does have a tendency to get mentioned in the press, and some organization will comment on how it is perverting their religion. Now if it was their religion as in implying ownership of it, I think there might be some other religious groups out there who might want to make a note of that. Because they are not saying that it is perverting their fractions interpretation of the religion. No, they usually just mention christianity as a singular identity, as in the christian way of life or other such phrases, usually also mentioning core family values and tradition.  

There is no singular christian identity, there are a multitude of them, and like it or not, some christians are gay, and if there is to be a singular christian identity, these will be included in it. (This was not the exact point I was going to make, but to be honest, there racket here at my parents house makes it difficult to concentrate)

I will simply conclude that the christians for truth and other organizations should let things like this pass them by uncommented and unless it causes them harm directly, tolerate it. There is room enough for everyone in this world (at least for now)

Notes:

[1] Actually it is “[...]Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbour.”