One of the greatest weaknesses of an opinionist is the inability to be unbiased and balanced in his or her passion-driven conjectures –which is not too much of a surprise since facts are sacred and opinions are commonplace.
Ask the road side mechanic or the street hawker what his or her thought is about a topical issue and it would be a rarity to receive an answer like: "Abeg, no vex o, I no sabi wetin the matta be so I no go fit talk my own" (I'm sorry, but I don't have information about this subject so I can't give an opinion). Rather people just feel compelled as a matter of pretension to deep-thinking to offer their twokobo (and really, some opinions come that cheap) views on subjects they have no clue about or are analysing from the prism of the opinionist's world-view.
A few days back, I read on a popular Nigerian blog that a certain Pentecostal pastor had made spiritual assertions (it wasn't stated whether during a church sermon, in an audio or a visual recording) that oral sex, lesbianism, prostitution, adultery, fornication, bestiality and incest were potential 'human glory robbers' (my paraphrase).
"Homosexualism, lesbianism, beslialism (sic) and incest will disfigure your glory. God hates them. Prostitution, adultery and fornication will grieve a glorious destiny.
May I equally add that men and women sucking their private parts are damaging their glories. Demonic partners have done a lot of havoc through this act.
Honestly, it is simply unhygienic and dirty". While I hold personal spiritual opinions (like I said, everyone has something to say about anything) vis-a-vis the statement quoted above and credited to the 21st century minister of the Gospel, it was the blogger's comment which basically poohpoohed the minister's tirade that caught my attention.
The blogger's view is that if oral sex is condemned with those adjectives used in the minister's sermon (?), then 'unhygienic' and 'dirty' is it for her.
A couple of entries later on the same blog, the blogger went on to draw attention to Rowland Jide Macaulay, a U.Kbased, but locally detested openly-gay Pentecostal pastor (not the previously mentioned pastor o) of Nigerian origin.
While categorically stating that sexual orientation wasn't exactly a big issue, the blog made reference to born-again (?) pastors of the same sex marrying each other openly and queried the wisdom of a Man of God who knows 'God and the scripture, someone who should lead people to the right path in life; is it okay to be shacking up with other men, and doing it openly?'
I don't have qualms with how anyone chooses to get their sexual kicks or heighten under-the-sheets experiences. But surely, there are general rules about what is considered personal sexual preference and what is downright perverse.
The problem is with each sophisticated development of the sexual appetite, people just come up with more innovations in how they express their desires.
Which is why I encourage dynamism in thought processes –there really is no hard and fast rule to life. It is like fashion; what is trend today may altogether become fashion faux pas tomorrow if you get too comfortable with the style. Now, both blog entries I mentioned got me thinking on two levels. One, a while earlier, she had opened another 'man of God' up to the crossfire of her followers who sent in comments for or against oral sex and few of the commentators virulently gave unflattering blanket 'opinions' of preachers. I thought; how convenient it is to shun the tenets and teachings of Christianity when it expects compliance from us.
On the other hand, it is easy for us to lay 'heavy yokes' of human expectation upon our 'men-of-God' who we acknowledge only by lip-service and then put them in the court of public opinion the moment they fall short of our expectations. Pray, tell, would it have been more acceptable for the pastor to be living secretly in sin with his male partner and not be open about it?
There is really no room for selective discrimination or hiding prejudice under the cloak of so-longas- homosexuals-don't-disturb-me-I-cantolerate- them. What happens the day a lesbian decides to make an aggressive pass at you –the latent prejudice will come to fore, that's the likely outcome.
Allow me to bring my argument even closer home. In my family is this young, bubbly and outspoken female relative whose feisty personality frequently throws her into conflicts with her otherwise unostentatious and timorous mother. By reason of the intimacy shared between me and this family, I've often had to play the role of peace-broker in their many mother-daughter frays –and almost all the time, discretion and understanding of our cultural values guides me to rule in favour of the mother.
They've had quarrels over everything from the kind of clothes her daughter opts for (the mum is into our native designs); hair styles (mum would rather native designs like 'didi' and 'shuku' to hair weaves); how her daughter relates with friends, to which neighbour the daughter greets or does not greet. Believe me, it goes on and on.
Then one 'blessed day' (as we say in local parlance), I saw her mother in a state of partial undress and observed she was adorned around the derriere and upper arm area with local tattoo symbols… the tattoos looked well-worn for years but decoratively done all the same. Upon my enquiry, she bashfully revealed they were done as part of her beauty enhancement in youthful days. That was the opening to go at her for giving her children flak for considering getting a tattoo…
let's be truthful, what is the difference both body arts? We pass over the opportunity of global cultural relevance and significance because practices from yore-days are never sustained nor passed on to coming generations.
When the Whiteman now comes with a re-packaged variation of what may have been ours initially and sell to our children who lap it up, we shout 'neocolonisation' and 'western-influence'! Maybe what we should be doing is to be more reflective and thorough with our thoughts before we speak; my opinion strictly. Love and peace for the weekend!
