Digital Jesus.
Of the countless reasons why religion and homosexuality don’t mix, the most striking is the use of language around the thorny imagery of what people do to each other in bed. Or in the bushes. Or in the sauna. Apparently, the Catholic Church - the greatest finger pointer, even of the twenty-first century, must have some idea of what we queers get up to. Surely those naughty thoughts and images must predicate every argument and damnation they have about being Queer? After all, homosexuality is a sin that would have to be first ‘imagined’ by everyone in this particular belief system – a system whose wealth has been syphoned around what are referred to as ‘the areas of systematic abuse of the unrepresented’ All, apparently, by gods own representatives, themselves.
Of the countless reasons why religion and homosexuality don’t mix, the most striking is the use of language around the thorny imagery of what people do to each other in bed. Or in the bushes. Or in the sauna. Apparently, the Catholic Church - the greatest finger pointer, even of the twenty-first century, must have some idea of what we queers get up to. Surely those naughty thoughts and images must predicate every argument and damnation they have about being Queer? After all, homosexuality is a sin that would have to be first ‘imagined’ by everyone in this particular belief system – a system whose wealth has been syphoned around what are referred to as ‘the areas of systematic abuse of the unrepresented’ All, apparently, by gods own representatives, themselves.
The first childhood seduction is the church
itself. The building, the effect on the senses, the candlelight, the shadows; images
of love, beauty and pain juxtaposed within the same version of religious iconography,
the confusion that results. The profusion of writhing naked bodies, Christ
being merely one, only compound this confusion of the carnal and the spiritual.
But religious imagery and terminology have
been proven to be the most potent of marketing tools. As a system of control
with its roots embedded firmly in the fifth century, Christianity hasn’t done that
badly at all. Speaking from my post-capitalist pulpit, I can trace it’s
diversification into all forms of power, from the broken Nazi crucifix, the
Swastika, chosen for similar reasons, to the burning crosses of the KKK (Angry
‘hot’ anonymous Christians).
Now we’ve arrived at the god to end all
gods. Actual (not ‘spiritual’) surveillance by an omniscient form that requires
no belief for its operating system - other than the purchasing of expensive
hardware for a system that does not require fear but compliance. We now
genuflect to the techno computer god where you air your confessionals openly and
are required to have them distributed and reinterpreted across the cyber heavens.
It was an obvious extension of this for
crypto-hippies like Steve Jobs, to incorporate similar religious language into
Apple’s own ‘System of Control’ - the Macintosh. At its inception, inappropriate
computer terminology like ‘icon’ and ‘font’ were bandied about and are still in
use today. Back then, if two computers were to communicate with each other they
had to be ‘blessed’ first – the equivalent of obtaining a WiFi password today. Now
of course we have Mac Temples in every city where we can talk to genius priests
as the cult spreads without end.
Of course, of all the major methods of obtaining
our information, Facebook in particular doesn’t rely on cow-towing to the great
god Zuckerberg - he merely observes with passing glances as the Shakespearian
and Machiavellian narratives play out around him. And since everything is
stored, we no longer have the need to confess or even be corrected. In fact, the
NSA and GCHQ assure us about the element of ‘freedom’ from having to defending
ourselves. Nevertheless, both Zuckerberg and Jobs between them command(ed) more
respect than Christ and God the Father combined.
Do these gods have a doctrine? Are the
Christians rebelling against Zuckerberg for usurping godly control? Of course
not. Did Steve Jobs have an adverse or negative opinion of Homosexuality? I
very much doubt it – as long as everyone accessed their depravities on a piece
of his hardware, he couldn’t give a flying pixel. The new god technology had
already moved on from what people do or don’t do with their bodies – the real currency
lies in what they do with their minds. It’s
a bit like Descartes never died - I tweet therefore I am. After all, they can
already guess what the Homos do with their bodies by their behavior and what
they say online. Euck – close that window for gawd’s sake - the world’s looking
in at us.
I think the writer Christopher Bryant nailed
it recently when he stated that Homosexuality is a fact of nature whereas
Christianity is a lifestyle choice. This is the final inversion of a system of
control that has gone on far too long already. Technology has played its part
by expanding this system of thought, from the original AOL queer ‘Romper Rooms’
which gave voices a new internationalism, to proving that the Turin shroud could
have once a table cloth in a brothel.
What we are seeing now (via the new holy
father) is apparently a corporate disowning of homo-hating by the Catholic
Church. This isn’t because all those poor boys were actually once ordained because they were gay; but rather that inclusivity
for a dying system needs all the help and financial support it can muster. The
race for mind control has finally been lost by Christianity and won by
technology. And as soon as a new hateful sect appears over the course of a
decade or so, a counter movement can crush it in a single computer posting. Praise
the lords.
Anyway, I have no responsibility over a
Christian’s lifestyle choice, just leave me with what is, and always has been,
a totally natural sexual identity. However I chose to define that.
Click on link below for published version:
Digital Jesus. Bauer. Gscene. December 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment