The relationship between religion and people is akin to that of a drug dealer to a user: The more dependent the latter becomes on the former, the more power the former wields over them.
Why does the Church obsess over matters of sex and human relationships? Why does it insist on imposing its views on family, marriage, and children? Why does it shun homosexuality and concern itself with it so much, while turning a blind eye to a range of social issues such as the abuse of women and children, social inequality, infringed rights, and the impoverishment of whole sections of society in favour of vast wealth?
Why does it focus its attention on marriage issues, protesting the rights of children in same-sex couples that are… overturned by the Mitsotakis’ bill? Here’s a telling excerpt from the recent decision of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, expressing its opposition to the government-promoted law:
“The bill not only abolishes bioethical norms, Christian values, and Greek family traditions but also overturns the rights of future children and the roles of genders as elements of social cohesion – and this concerns everyone, even those who do not accept Christian morals. The question that remains unanswered is ultimately: What is the real reason for this decision that radically changes the institution of marriage and the status of parenthood, and why is it promoted with such persistence?”.
Close by, of course, is the Archbishop of Cyprus: “Same-sex marriage abolishes the Gospel,” he says. “We preach to the world to avoid any deviation from God’s law”. Even those who do not recognize it?
All together in the blender: Bioethics(!), Christian values, “Greek” tradition and the roles of genders in society: These are what they claim the bill “overturns”, changing the institution of marriage and… the status of parenthood. However, today not only the type of family that the Church likes exists; there is civil marriage (which it does not recognise), while children are being raised in single-parent or same-sex families. Should they continue to be deprived of their rights so as not to undermine the… “cohesion of society” as understood by the Holy Synod? It even wonders why the bill “is promoted with such persistence”, while it unreasonably insists on issues that do not concern it, but only concern how other people want to live their lives.
So, why does the Church constantly want to have a say in what others do, especially on matters of human relationships, sex, and children? Because only by controlling people’s lives does it gain power and authority. It’s the well-known relationship of the drug dealer (the “opium of the people” in this case) with the user: The more the latter depends on the former, the more power the former has over them. Of course, the clergy know well that things are changing, that they are losing the game day by day. They are aware that a direct confrontation with the government and society will not have the same outcomes as in the past. Hence, they limit themselves to sending a letter with their views to the Parliament and announcing them in the churches with a leaflet “To the People”.
The initial idea of Archbishop Ieronymos regarding a referendum remained theoretical. On one hand, because human rights are not subject to a referendum, and on the other, because it is highly doubtful whether it would win. One of the reasons they are concerned is because they know that some of their flock are homosexuals, many of whom are closeted. With the opportunity of this law, voices in society were also heard for the separation of Church and State, a prospect that historically disturbs not only the former but also the representatives of the latter. Mitsotakis risks alienating his conservative voters, but he probably judges that he has more to lose if he gives in to the reactions. The Greek society “is evolving and moving forward”, as President Sakellaropoulou stated. It’s a significant social issue that needs resolution, regardless of what the “hard” right within his party says.
It’s impressive how some think. Here’s a small example, from New Democracy MP Evripides Stylianides: “A woman who has decided despite her gender identity [sic] to adopt a child, is acceptable both legally and socially,” he stated. And if she makes the same decision with her partner? “No, it cannot be a joint decision. Because then you’re adopting a different family model that I do not want”. He does not want it!
Since when does his opinion matter in what someone else wants, and why should his opinion concern anyone?
