Mischaraterizing the Viewpoints and Motives of the Religious Right

(Written before the Supreme Court struck down Texas’ Sodomy Law)

In a letter that appeared on Andrew Sullivan’’s Blog Site a religious conservative complained that the views of the Religious Right were "mischaracterized." The writer stated that:

It is either disingenuous or at best self-deluded on the part of a religious conservative to complain that their views are mischaracterized. In the writer’’s protest his/her comments exhibit some explicit examples of how religious conservatives continue to mischaracterize the viewpoints and motives of Gay people and those who support them. For instance, the use of the term "homosexual agenda" along with another favorite of religious conservatives, "homosexual lifestyle" are both inventions of those who object to granting homosexuals the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It is shameful to see that acceptance of these rights continues to grow in other countries, while in the U.S., with it’’s historical commitment to equal rights for all people, the United States continues to lag behind more progressive societies.

Listen closely, religious conservatives, There is no "Gay Agenda." There is perhaps a "Gay Agendum" although that also is not a term used by those who seek equal rights for homosexuals. But if there is a single agendum insisted upon by Gay people and those who support them, it is the acknowledgment that Gay men and lesbians are a class of people in the United States who are discriminated against in violation of the specific Constitutional prohibition of discriminating against any special "class" of people.

Religious conservatives insist that homosexuals do not constitute a "class" of people. In Colorado, Texas, Wyoming and other states that have refused to include "sexual orientation" to the list of those protected from hate crimes the reasoning is that homosexuals are not a "class," but merely a group attempting to "self identify" themselves as a class in order to claim "special rights:" a convoluted rationale that fails any test of logic.

Having asserted that the objection to granting full human rights to Gay people is based on "principal," the writer continues by asserting: "Not fear, ignorance, hatred or even puritanism." Before examining the basis of this claim to principal, however, let’’s take a look at the four subjects that the writer claims are not part of the objection.

Fear. By its very definition the word "homophobia" means fear of homosexuality. In this case "fear" does not necessarily mean a homophobe is scared, in the sense that he or she is afraid that a homosexual will break into his or her home and redecorate it against his or her will, or even that he or she thinks they have something to fear in unwelcomed sexual advances from Gay men and lesbians, at least not more so that heterosexuals are prone to make unwelcome advances against members of the opposite sex. The answer to that sort of fear is to learn to say "No!" and if that doesn’’t work, take the same actions prescribed for any act of sexual harassment.

Fear, however, as it most often describes homophobia, is the fear of having one’’s own sexual orientation questioned because of association with homosexuals, or in condoning homosexuality whether in the form of homosexual acts, or even of accepting that some people are by nature homosexual. The recent statement by the retiring bishop of Texas, Claude Payne, and the coadjutor, Don A. Wemberly, is a perfect example of this kind of homophobia. The bishops stated that they will vote against approval of the new bishop-elect of New Hampshire, Fr. V. Gene Robinson because the election of an openly Gay man "simultaneously funnels the creative energy of the faithful away from mission into internal conflict."

Remember that a similar rationale was made in the 1960's against the integration of Blacks into the full life of the Church, as well as the rationale (which is still being used) in protesting the ordination of women as priests and bishops. It is cynical to insist that avoiding "internal conflict" takes precedence over proclaiming the Gospel to all sorts and conditions of men (in the old sexist language of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, which goes all the way back to the Church of England 1662 BCP.)

Surely neither Bishop Payne nor Bishop Wemberly "fear" sexual harassment from Gay men or Lesbians. What they do fear is the conservative backlash, and the probable economic impact, from conservative lay people and clergy within the Diocese of Texas. They also have reason to fear the reaction of their conservative peers in the House of Bishops. They must know, however, that justice and charity towards the many homosexual men and women among the faithful demands a different response to the election of someone chosen by the people of New Hampshire to lead the their diocese. Presumably Bishops Payne and Wemberly must know that their refusal to approve Fr. Robinson’’s election will also have the effect of "simultaneously funnel[ing] the creative energy of the faithful away from mission into internal conflict." Why is the funneling of creative energy into internal conflict of no consequence in the Diocese of New Hampshire and other more progressive parts of the Episcopal Church? Internal conflict is a fact of life in the church and is already funneling creative energy away from mission. Why must a decision be made that favors the least loving, least progressive elements of the Anglican communion? If we are no longer afraid of racism and opposition to women throughout the world, why are we still homophobic about accepting the legitimate place of homosexuals in the Church?

The homophobia of the retiring bishop of Texas is particularly regrettable because he has ample reason to understand the inner conflict of those dear to him who must live with the knowledge that he is publicly seems more concerned with internal conflict within the church than with the inner conflict caused when one is not a full, unqualified membership in the Church he leads.

Ignorance. To continue to hold to discredited beliefs about the nature of homosexuality is at best self-inflicted ignorance, nothing more than a willful decision to discount anything that conflicts with one’’s ideology in spite of contrary evidence. It is ignorance to claim that child molestation is inextricably bound up with homosexuality. Scientific data established a long time ago that most child molestation is heterosexual (in the neighborhood of 90%) and the vast majority of those are cases of heterosexual men molesting their own daughters. Another myth of the religious right is that homosexuality is chosen, that one can control what sex he or she is attracted to, or that sexual orientation can be changed by faith, counseling, medication, or will power. Such claims are bunk and have been proved to be bunk over and over again. Claims of having changed from homosexual orientation to heterosexual orientation have been consistently proved false. This, however, does not prevent the religious right from continuing to make claims to the contrary in a deliberate attempt to "mischaracterize" factual evidence. There is an old expression that ignorance can be cured but stupidity is forever. For the religious right to continue to make claims based on ignorance speaks for itself.

Hatred. Of course no one wants to own up to hating. It’’s a bad thing nobody wants to be accused of and the religious right defends itself with the formula; "Hate the sin and not the sinner." No one has yet explained satisfactorily how that is done. The fact is that hate is one of the most vicious weapons used by the religious right. When people of the stature of the Senator from Mississippi, Trent Lott, or the Senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum say things publicly that hold Gay men and Lesbians up for ridicule and disparagement, it is only a short step for someone with a simpler, less nuanced mentality to decide it’’s perfectly acceptable to beat Matthew Shepherd to death outside Laramie, Wyoming. Wyoming, as previously noted, is among those states that still refuse to add "sexual orientation" to the list of hate crimes. Why? Because that would be admitting that sexual orientation is a special "class" of citizen to whom equal rights must be guaranteed under the Constitution. They can be attacked verbally and legally as a "class" but they can not be given legal protection as a "class."

Puritanism. Those who decide what is and what is not puritanical, and then try to impose their standards on the rest of the world do not limit themselves to homosexuality, but when they do find examples of public indecency, homosexuals and their activities are always included as major offenders. It makes no difference that only a small minority of Gay men and Lesbians in the United States and around the world rush each year to have public intercourse at Southern Decadence Festival in New Orleans. The fact that some do (and the fact that some heterosexuals also exhibit public behavior in the streets of the French Quarter that would be outrageous in Dallas) does not mean that sexual excess or exhibitionism is an inextricable part of the "homosexual lifestyle" so feared by the religious right. There is no such thing as a "homosexual lifestyle." The lifestyles of homosexuals cover as broad a spectrum as those of heterosexuals. As a matter of fact, there is nothing common among homosexuals at all except their sexual orientation towards members of their own sex, which by no means constitutes a "lifestyle."

Principal. Finally we come to this matter of "principal" upon which all the religious conservatives’’ objections to homosexuality rest. "We simply believe what the Bible (both Old and New Testament) has to say about homosexuality." From the standpoint of the religious conservative, this is the "slam dunk." The argument sine qua non. The final defense for all their objections to accepting homosexuals as a "class." The proof positive. The unarguable. God said it. I believe it. That ends it.

The assertion, if it were not delivered with such sincere, straight-faced conviction, would be laughable. In the first place, homosexuality is not the only contested issue in Biblical interpretation, it is merely the one upon which all religious conservatives can agree. In the full text of the letter in Andrew Sullivan’’s blog site, the writer says: "You may find it strange that some Christians actually take the Bible seriously, but we do. Quite honestly, I don't know how you can be a Christian and simply ignore what the Bible teaches. Either it's the word of God or it is not. If it's half and half, which half is which?"

Taking the Bible seriously is not a strange idea. What is strange is the notion that the religious right owns the sole right to interpret what the Bible says. Literal interpretation of scripture has not been the norm for at least the last 75 years in most Christian denominations and is not taught as normative in any except the most conservative seminaries. Biblical scholarship and archeology provide examples that are hard to contest (other than as an act of faith in the literal truth of the Bible) that the Bible must be interpreted with an understanding of its history in order to be understood its authority for a well-ordered Christian life.

To ask how one can honestly be Christian and ignore what the Bible teaches is arrogant and self-serving in the extreme. In today’’s pluralistic society, it is insufferable to assert that what the Bible teaches can only be discerned by the religious right. To try and enforce legally such an assertion violates a Constitutional provision that once was the bedrock Christian conservatism: the separation of Church and State.

If a religious conservative is troubled by the question of whether or not scripture is the word of God, and if he or she is in a quandary about which half is God’’s word and which half is not, then the religious conservative has my sympathy for painting himself into a corner. But for him or her to impose legally his own certitude of what the Bible teaches on those who do not share the conservative’’s view, crosses the line of religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.

Christian believers of whatever persuasion have the absolute right to decide for themselves what the Bible teaches or if they wish, to accept the dictates of their denomination. That right can never be legally abridged under the Constitution. Imposing a religious conservative interpretation by law is exactly the problem that we in the United States view with such horror in theocratic Islamic states such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, and until recently Afghanistan.

The attitude of religious conservatives in this country toward homosexuals is identical to conservative Islam in prohibiting women to work outside the home, get an education, go about unveiled, or for men or women to listen to music of their choice and read what they please. I hope that we can avoid the religious right’’s vision of an American Taliban in which everyone will be forced to conform to the conservatives’’ own, narrow understanding of God’’s word.

Whether or not one objects to granting equal rights to homosexuals on religious grounds or not, the fact remains that it is religious opinion, and under the Constitution it has no place whatever in withholding equal rights by the law from homosexuals or, since the condition can not be separated from the act, from the free exercise of those rights, especially in the privacy of their own homes. Doing so does violence to the Constitutional guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness all American should be able to enjoy.