The Politics of Sin (and vice-versa)
Dateline: July 03, 1998
This week's feature concerns homosexuality and some of the recent political disturbances caused by disagreement on that issue. Homosexuality is a topic I expect to return to every so often. Why? What is the connection between homosexuality and agnosticism or atheism? Ironically, there really is no inherent connection between the two - instead, the connection is forced upon us from the outside. It is the same self-righteous religionists insisting that they communicate with the words of their One True God who attack both groups, homosexuals and atheists. For that reason, I believe that it is important for all atheists to understand the nature of the most recent attacks and why exactly they pose a threat to us, hetero- and homosexual, as well.
Bigotry against homosexuality in American society runs strong and deep - ever fed in fear and paranoia by traditional Christianity. Atheists may not be any more liked that homosexuals, but we have rarely (if ever) experienced the direct hatred and discrimination which has plagued others. This is to be expected, as conservative, traditional Christianity has too often been a force supporting social injustice like slavery, segregation, and the repression of women. Whenever our society has attempted to move forward, large numbers have done their best to maintain the status quo or move backward - usually supporting their opinions with their interpretations of the Bible.
Not every society has been like this - in some, homosexuality was treated more as an honor than a perversion, even as a special gift from a deity. Homosexual men were sometimes granted the role of shaman or holy man. Unfortunately, such societies have been rare.
Some conservative religionists wish to label homosexuals as ill or mentally disturbed, but this position is no longer tenable. From a scientific or medical standpoint, it is not possible to consider homosexuality an illness or disability - and so churches which persist in such condemnations are either acting out of ignorance or their leaders think themselves privy to some special sort of expertise unavailable to the rest of us. Others attempt to label homosexuals as sexually depraved and horribly sinful - they cannot imagine that homosexual relations could be valued or enjoyable, and so recoil in disgust. But it should be clear that no genuine shared love between two adults can be truly "unnatural" - and how can a religious tradition which has promoted circumcision and celibacy condemn any sexual practice as "unnatural?" Any practice which occurs across most cultures and even in other mammalian species like homosexuality is certainly not a malfunction.
The story of Lott
Creating renewed heat about this issue has been our venerable Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott who, during a televised interview, stated that homosexuality is a "sin" and that it is also a disease akin to alcoholism, sexual addiction, and kleptomania. Lott has been justly criticized for his statements - as should be clear from above, only unadulterated ignorance supports the opinion that homosexuality is a "disease" requiring some sort of treatment. Religious extremists have predictably leapt to the defense of the Southern Baptist Senator (who has, to my knowledge, not yet commented on the recent decision by the Southern Baptist Convention that women must "submit graciously" to the leadership of their husbands - yet another socially regressive policy which I have commented on).
Americans for Truth, a misnamed organization opposed to many basic rights for homosexuals, has praised Sen. Lott and claimed that the idea of homosexuality being wrong is an "obvious truth shared by millions and millions of Americans." That opinion may indeed be shared by many Americans, but while I'm sure that a similar number may share the sentiments about women expressed by the Southern Baptist Convention, that alone doesn't make it an "obvious truth." How many Christians lived and died by the "obvious truth" that blacks were fit only for servitude?
But the mere fact that Sen. Lott felt compelled to make his statements indicates that they aren't really "obvious truths" after all. He certainly wouldn't have bothered to make them 20 years ago - so why not? Rearguard action. Increasing numbers of people just aren't buying into his brand of extremist religion and are questioning the basis for such traditional moralizing. Twenty years ago, just about everybody would have believed his comments - they would have been "obvious" and not worth mentioning. Now, people recognize that homosexuality isn't a disease and isn't necessarily immoral - it isn't "obvious" any more, and people like Lott need to attract attention to themselves by promoting such outdated ideas.
The Family Research Council has also come out in support of Sen. Lott, saying that he spoke the "truth" and that it is astonishing that people would condemn "...a simple reaffirmation of a 2,000 year old Biblical teaching." With that sort of standard in force at the FRC, how long will it be before they begin "reaffirming" the biblical teachings of slavery and child abuse? Lott's religious Southern Baptists forebearers helped precipitate the Civil War, marching to battle loudly quoting the Book of Ephesians "Slaves, obey your masters."
The FRC apparently object to critics calling Lott's statements "backward" and "extreme" - but since the shoe fits, I suggest they wear it. Atheists and freethinkers are often accustomed to critiquing the backwardness of what commonly goes under the title "theology" and many religionists join us - unfortunately, though, not enough. Lott and his various supporters seem to share a common theological vision with Pat Robertson of a vengeful God who curses nations and strikes down immoral cities with meteors and hurricanes. Such are the depths to which American Christianity has sunk in the modern age. No, wait - that sort of belief has been a part of Christianity for centuries. So it isn't a matter of having sunk to new depths, it's just that they haven't yet climbed up out of the hole of superstition which many of us have left behind. Unfortunately, in adherence to their rigid ideology, they are attempting to take the Republican party and American politics right along with them.
This debate reveals once again some of the deep splits within the Republican Party. There is a huge libertarian strain running through the party, and they object to the fact that so may of the leaders are pandering to a small, extremist segment. Rev. Don Wildmon of the American Family Association recently spoke to Republican leaders and told them that unless they kept in line with his religio-fascist views, he'd leave the Republican party and take his supporters with him. I think they should let him go and say "good riddance."
Unfortunately, this year we face off-year elections, when turnout is traditionally low. That puts a premium on firing up the hard-core supporters, the ones who "will stand out in the rain for you." The best way to get such loyalists excited is to exploit their fear and anger, hard to do when a booming economy has most voters feeling secure and satisfied. That leaves the "holy trinity" of right-wing issues dear to the religious right: attacking abortion, promoting prayer and harassing homosexuals. A strategy of some Republican leaders is thus made clear: they intend to make gay bashing a central part of their election campaign this fall. Fob James won his run-off primary in Alabama on June 30 on a platform of just those issues. That might be an effective way of energizing conservative Christians, a key part of the GOP. But it has a destructive and divisive impact on American politics as a whole, and it should be repudiated by rational party members.
A few Republicans have been courageous enough to oppose right-wing hate- mongering. Sen. Alfonse D'Amato wrote that "I am embarrassed that our Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, is seen to be the force behind this injustice." But he is in the minority. At the Texas GOP convention earlier in June month, the Log Cabin Republicans (a group of gay Republicans) were barred from having an exhibit booth - even though a full 50 members had already been elected as convention delegates or alternates. Robert Black, the state party spokesman, called the Log Cabin Republicans a "hate group" and compared them to the Ku Klux Klan. "We don't allow pedophiles, transvestites and cross-dressers, either," intoned this enlightened politician. I'm surprised he didn't include atheists in his litany of villains, but I'm sure it was just an oversight.
Matters of Foreign Policy
But what does all of this mean for the rest of us? Atheists and nonbelievers of all stripes will generally find discussion about "sin" to be rather meaningless. "Sin" in Christianity is most basically defined as "disobedience to God" - but since we don't believe in any gods, the idea of disobeying a particular god is actually a bit ridiculous. Clearly the far-out statements of the Religious Right are fit fodder for criticism, regardless who says them. Some people seem to mistake a right to freedom of speech with a right to freedom from criticism, but that just isn't the way it works. Lott may have a right to say and think whatever he wants, no matter how silly - and the rest of us have the same right to point out just how silly it really is.
But is there any practical importance to this debate? As I stated in my essay on the Southern Baptist Convention, ideas have consequences. These ideas are not simply relevant to those who count themselves among Southern Baptist congregations, but instead of a vital importance to the rest of us - especially since they are being articulated by some our highest elected representatives. Evidence of this is immediately apparent in the controversy surrounding President Clinton's nominee for Ambassador to Luxembourg, James Hormel.
The problem is, Mr. Hormel is gay, and Sen. Lott is refusing to allow the Senate to even vote on him. No honest discussions have been held on this matter, and Lott's comments in his interview make it plain why: he is putting is personal religious bigotry ahead of national interests. It's no wonder White House Spokesman Mike McCurry has said that Lott's comments show "how difficult it is to do rational work in Washington." Sadly, Lott is not alone - Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) has chimed in on his behalf, saying that an openly gay man is unfit and unqualified to be an ambassador because he promotes "immoral behavior." This he admits is based solely on the Bible.
No, it is not easy to do rational work in Washington with people like these representing us. Is anyone else besides me bothered that the work of the nation is being openly based on some people's narrow interpretation of the Bible? Make no mistake: it is a narrow interpretation. Lott's comments were aimed at homosexuality in general, not specifically at homosexual behavior. Lott and his supporters are in a definite religious minority (or I hope they are), as most churches have progressed at least as far as condemning only homosexual sex and not the fact of simply being attracted to a member of the same sex. Lott is, in fact, declaring the mere temptation to "sin" is itself a "sin," and he doesn't speak for all Christians when he does so. Besides, wasn't Jesus himself tempted?
Now we see exactly why we nonbelievers should not only be concerned by the extremist and regressive statements made by religious groups like the SBC and AFA about homosexuals, but by the general treatment of homosexuals in society. They, like atheists, stand on the fringes of tolerance and acceptance in a religiously dominated society; and like atheists, they are treated badly simply because of religious prejudice and bigotry. When our government starts moralizing about homosexuality and treating them differently due to narrow interpretations of the Bible, we all suffer. As Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) stated, Hormel is entitled to "due process" and that "...all men are created equal as a matter of public policy or should be." Lott, Nickles, and others have deliberately abandoned this policy, and that does not bode well for our future.
How long will it be before our elected representatives starting saying things like atheists are unfit and unqualified for public service due to our "immoral behavior" of nonbelief?
Oh, wait - former President George Bush already said that while President.
Maybe it's later than we think.
|
Make your opinions be heard on the Bulletin Board or Chat Room! |
