Homosexual despotism

Throughout the past week, which also coincided with the beginning of the month of Ramadan, we debated the Ankara Bar Association's filing of a criminal complaint against the President of Religious Affairs over the content of a sermon he delivered. It was almost exactly a debate reminiscent of the old Ramadans.

If we say "old Ramadans," we do not mean the Ramadans of our childhood, but the Ramadans of only a few years ago, when secularist panic-attackers would launch their assault with the first tarawih, as if waiting for the iftar cannon. These debates, which had almost become a rite of Ramadan, were in fact emotional reactions against the Muslimness, flaring up all the more in Ramadan, of a society that could never be secularized. That is why there was in fact no chance of any sane debate taking place.

A section of people were laying bare the complexes that had become a grudge in the deepest depths of their hearts against religion and religiosity. Is that not the nature of the matter? Who in this country can conduct a sane debate against religion, anyway? When it comes to religion, nation and nationality, the ideas or counter-ideas laid out are caught in the pincers of people's love and hatred. This field deserves to be treated as a serious psychological case rather than as a subject of philosophy or science. Why do religious acts disturb sinners? Or conversely, why do the religious show more interest in the sin of sinners when they could be pursuing their own good deeds? After which transformations do we keep our eyes on what we have left behind? One of the famous complexes Dostoevsky sets out in his novels, for example: why do sinners, especially, greet the possibility that priests and men of religion have committed a sin as great glad tidings?

Undoubtedly, the Ankara Bar Association's outburst defending homosexuality against religion is a matter of complex far beyond this. The subject has ceased to be a demand for the rights and freedoms of homosexuality and has turned into a new and despotic desire for power that would penetrate even religion. What kind of complex or psychology is behind the reaction the Ankara Bar Association gave to the sermon of the President of Religious Affairs, the esteemed Prof. Dr. Ali Erbaş, in which he warned against adultery and sodomy as "major sins"? The complex that makes a person so ignorant about religion and at the same time so furious needs to be examined well.

Is there a single servant of God among the mosque congregation, or even the Friday congregation, or even the festival prayer congregation, who would find Mr. Erbaş's sermon strange, or who could understand it as hate speech and hostility against anyone? There is not. Because everyone knows that Ali Erbaş is not speaking on his own account; he is voicing directly the most basic prohibitions of the Qur'an and of Islam. The person who comes to the mosque is in fact prepared to hear these things. Erbaş merely reminds. Islam prohibits both adultery and homosexuality, and it also draws attention to those aspects of them that corrupt the fabric of society and corrupt progeny and tilth. Religion has the ideal of a healthy society; part of morality consists of the codes that build this healthy society.

This is something that will be hard to understand for those who think of individual freedoms as equivalent to irresponsibility and who take their pleasures, their whims and desires as their guide. Today there is a heap of signs showing how homosexuality, in particular, destroys the social fabric, how it destroys family life and, in the end, corrupts the tilth. These signs have not just appeared, but it is as plain as day what it costs wherever homosexuality has spread, been legitimized and, not content with that, tried to take the whole of society captive.

It is also a fact that in Europe this has almost turned into a new moral norm, and that homosexuality has gone beyond being a matter of freedom and reached a scale at which it interferes in other people's lives, norms and beliefs. And that today, in politics, culture, finance and the business world, even in science, the homosexual lobby has become more powerful and influential than the legendary Jewish lobby... It is evident that the one field in which the homosexual lobby, which maintains its influence in all these areas, has not been able to get its new normative order accepted is religion. In fact, the homosexual lobby in Europe has, by one means or another, almost established this domination it desired over Christianity. Priests today shy away from making homosexuality, which both Judaism and Christianity plainly regard as a sin, the subject of their sermons, because they avoid the curse of homosexual power.

In the field of science, the way has been closed to any thesis in art, sociology, psychiatry, psychology and medical science that would characterize homosexuality as an illness or a deviance. Today, putting forward such a thesis in these scientific fields carries a sanction, a price, set by homosexual power. What happened to a psychiatrist in Germany who dared to do so is well known.

Essentially, although Islam, as religion and counsel, prohibits this to believers and warns against it, in the field of law it does not envisage a society in which what everyone does is interfered with within the framework of the privacy of private life. On the contrary, the norm of Islam on this matter, which warns equally against prying into private life, has granted people a certain sphere of freedom. It appears that the socialization and encouragement of sin has been considered a much graver sin than the sin itself.

In Turkey, too, no one is interested in what people do in their own private lives. But it seems that what the homosexual lobby demands is not even freedom but to determine everyone's life according to its own rules, to bring about a homosexual society.

This lobby displays an imperial attitude in every field of art, in cinema, in music, in the toy sector, toward homosexualizing children and encouraging people toward homosexuality. In most of the films watched by the whole family, with parents and children, a homosexual relationship is presented as a normality at some irrelevant point. The subject has long since ceased to be a simple matter of rights and freedoms of homosexuals who are scorned and looked down upon here and there, and has already turned into a serious homosexual despotism.

Look, it has even come between people and God and has reached the audacity of determining what is lawful and unlawful.

You will appreciate that the desire to determine the lawful and the unlawful is the last stage of despotism, a desire for self-deification, if we are to put it in the language of political theology. May God protect us.