As I look at comments made here over the last few days, a thought flashes through my mind like a huge neon sign: how far we have fallen!
The culture war is real, and it has heated up in last few years. I see it not only as a sign of moral and spiritual decline but also as a decline in just plain common sense. I can only wonder what my grandparents would think if they were alive today. I do not think that they could even conceive of having such conversations, let alone finding anyone taking them seriously.
[At this point somebody will say that our great-great-grandparents would have been equally dumbfounded about the abolition of slavery and equal rights for all races. I dispute that historically, since there were people since the very beginning of our country who wanted to abolish slavery, my ancestors among them. I also dispute the relevance of it, since neither of the hot potatoes in America, abortion and same-sex marriage, has much to do with race. In fact, I consider it specious logic and dubious morality to compare these issues with racial problems.]
Behold the result of the Enlightenment! Or perhaps it has not reached its full fruition. That’s a thought I’d rather not pursue very far.
People who uphold traditional morals are called bigots and haters and sociopaths. What I wonder is when the detractors of conservative, evangelical Christianity plan to do to “cure” us? Are we far from a new Inquisition–a politically correct one? Will it be long before the things I write on this blog will be classed as hate crimes, and people like me will be sent to “retraining” centers? We have already seen folks sent to “sensitivity classes.”
I’m convinced that we simply cannot have a civil conversation about the two hot-button issues in the United State–the life of the unborn and the definition of marriage. Since both sides consider the other side completely wrong and even completely immoral, I do not know how we can proceed.
From my perspective the best way is to hash it out democratically. That’s probably the best that we can do. As the Constitution outlines, these questions should be (and should have been) settled by state and local governments as provided for in their own constitutions and laws. I really don’t see any other way forward in the debate that is both just and right.
How about you?
20 responses so far ↓
Spherical Time // July 9, 2009 at 1:37 pm |
RG: As I look at comments made here over the last few days, a thought flashes through my mind like a huge neon sign: how far we have fallen!
Yup. I think something similar.
RG: What I wonder is when the detractors of conservative, evangelical Christianity plan to do to “cure” us?
We’re pluralists. But then again, I guess we’re lucky. We don’t have to wonder what your side will do to try to “cure” us. Or declare war on us.
jesurgislac // July 9, 2009 at 1:57 pm |
The culture war is real, and it has heated up in last few years. I see it not only as a sign of moral and spiritual decline but also as a decline in just plain common sense.
I absolutely agree. But if you have that level of self-awareness about your lack of common sense and your moral and spiritual decline, why are you not trying to change?
Since both sides consider the other side completely wrong and even completely immoral, I do not know how we can proceed.
Well, you can try to reverse your own self-acknowledged spiritual and moral decline. After all, if you truly believe that God doesn’t hate gay people, the only right thing to do would be to live and act as if you didn’t, either.
(With regard to the life of the unborn: I agree it’s tragic that the pro-life movement is so absolutely indifferent to fetal health and fetal life, preferring to persecute and harass pregnant women.)
Jay Burns // July 9, 2009 at 5:01 pm |
Wow. You can really tell who hates who when you read the comments. I honestly love your blog RG. It has grown very heated in recent months. Almost to the point where I hesitate to post because I know I’ll instantly be attacked. Not that I mind, I’m okay with that. I just don’t have the time to check back enough to respond in a timely manner to those who would seek to discredit me with attacks on the individual as opposed to the thoughts presented.
Scott Erb // July 9, 2009 at 10:12 pm |
I think in practical terms the culture war is over, and the libertarian streak in US society is on top. But perhaps it’s regional. Even conservatives in Maine often support gay marriage. But in other parts of the country it’s different.
The enlightenment indeed biases us against tradition, religion, and anything other than pure reason and rational thought. Upholding traditional mores for the sake of tradition is, in enlightenment thought, irrational.
But while disagreement is OK on these issues, the idea is force. Allowing gay marriage hurts no Christian conservatives. They do not have to change their practices or live differently. They are only “hurt” because others have more freedom. However NOT allowing gay marriage hurts and mistreats a whole segment of society. So it seems to me that, unless Christian conservatives can point to a direct harm by allowing others to have state sanctioned marriage, it appears they simply want to impose their morals on those who do not share them.
So to me it’s an easy issue — side with those who want to expand freedom and equal rights, and not with those who want to force others to live according to their particular moral beliefs. Why use the state in that manner?
Scott Erb // July 10, 2009 at 1:25 pm |
By the way, I am a critic of enlightenment thought in part because of how it privileges the rational and neglects both sentiment and any conception of something transcendent and spiritual. So far the main critics have been the post-modernists, who are basically skeptics who show the limits of reason, but stay within the rational discourse to the point that they don’t think it’s possible to construct an alternative. I think an alternative is possible that has room for religion, though do you really think it’s necessary to use the power of the state to try to force traditional values on people? Not recognizing gay marriage isn’t a protection of tradition, but an enforcement of those traditions on those who do not wish to follow them. Should the state play that role?
Scott Erb // July 10, 2009 at 8:38 pm |
I keeping adding to this…but today those opposing Maine’s new gay marriage law got it on the ballot for September, and it will be decided by public referendum. There is no clear sense of who will win at this point — public opinion seems more on the pro-gay marriage side, but it will depend a lot on voter turn out.
My question: Given that this was not decided by a court, but first by the democratically elected state legislature, followed by an opportunity for the people to approve or disapprove, IF Maine does vote to keep it’s gay marriage law, is this the kind of democratic process that you think should be used to work this out (i.e., not just a court ruling)?
renaissanceguy // July 10, 2009 at 9:38 pm |
Scott, yes. As much as I would not like it, I can accept a constitutionally-sound process for deciding what the law will be. I do not like it at all when the courts do an end run around the legislatures and the people.
jesurgislac // July 11, 2009 at 2:58 am |
I do not like it at all when the courts do an end run around the legislatures and the people.
So you feel that the Supreme Court of the US made the right decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857 – in accordance with the will of the legislatures and the people – but the wrong decision in Loving vs. Virginia in 1967, where they “did an end-run around the legislatures and the people”.
It’s interesting how much more revealing your comments are than the posts you write. I note you omitted to mention your belief that black people – or interracial couples – shouldn’t be allowed to appeal to the courts, against racist legislation or against the will of the prejudiced majority – in that article you wrote trying to convince us that you’re not really racist. You just don’t like the idea of “equality and justice for all” one little bit.
Scott Erb // July 11, 2009 at 1:11 pm |
Jesurgislac and RG are talking past each other. RG believes he is taking a stand that is normal, shared by most people in his faith and throughout history, and while he doesn’t personally dislike gay people, he simply doesn’t want to change marriage, which he sees as a radical departure from tradition. Jesurgislac sees RG’s comments about same sex parents and couples as being tremendously heartless and hateful, not giving them the same status as loving partners and parents, insinuating that they are not equal or valuable people, but somehow inferior. It angers Jesurgislac as much as the treatment of blacks angered King back in the 60s.
Now, regardless of who you think is right, it seems to me there can be no viable communication unless RG makes a real effort to understand just what his words mean to Jesurgislac (not just a nod and ‘that’s not what I mean,’ but truly tries to empathize with how his words can cause that), and Jesurgislac tries to empathize with the idea of protecting tradition and seeing gay marriage as a wild departure from tradition, contrary to what his faith considers correct, and a radical alteration of a basic social institution: marriage.
Obviously, I support gay marriage and equality — I’m going to help work to make sure the law passed here in Maine doesn’t get repealed in a referendum. But with emotional issues like this (or abortion) I think it’s really important that people try to empathize and understand why people can stridently and with passion hold the position opposite to their own. Only from that point can productive discussion proceed.
jesurgislac // July 11, 2009 at 6:03 pm |
Jesurgislac tries to empathize with the idea of protecting tradition and seeing gay marriage as a wild departure from tradition, contrary to what his faith considers correct, and a radical alteration of a basic social institution: marriage.
Would you have suggested to Mildred Loving in 1959 that she try to empathize with the idea of protecting tradition and seeing interracial marriage as a wild departure from tradition, contrary to what the Christian opponents of interracial marriage considered correct? Seriously: do you think you would have told her she should try to “empathize” with the white people who thought she shouldn’t be allowed to legally marry the man of her choice, because she was black and Richard Loving was white?
I think it’s really important that people try to empathize and understand why people can stridently and with passion hold the position opposite to their own.
I do understand why RG stridently and with passion holds the position that lesbians and gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry, are selfish if they want to have children, and their children shouldn’t be born and deserve legal discrimination: he’s a homophobic bigot. I just don’t empathize with that position.
Scott Erb // July 11, 2009 at 9:16 pm |
I think the tone I’d use is more akin to MLK’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” where he tries to wake up even sympathetic whites to just how evil the prejudice is. Also, back 100 years ago (or more recent) there were many good people who were also racist. They bought into a mindset and logic that seemed defined by their culture and tradition. A lot of good people have biased views against gays. Heck, studying Germany I can say categorically that there were a lot of good people who became Nazis and supported Hitler. (Not that I’m comparing RG to that!) I start from the premise that good people can have misguided beliefs, and labeling them tends to create more heat than light.
But that’s just me. I do not expect you to adopt my style, nor am I saying you’re doing anything wrong. I’m ENFP, after all
Us “P’s” tend not to judge.
jesurgislac // July 12, 2009 at 2:13 am |
Actually, looking back: you wrote “there can be no viable communication” – and you are right about that. RG is so locked into the idea that lesbian and gay people are his absolute inferiors, loathed by God and man, etc, that he doesn’t comprehend how his comments and assertions are insulting and abusive – though he plainly sees that when I take his assertions about what same-sex marriage/relationships/parenting are like, and presume that this is what he thinks about all marriage/relationships/parenting, that this is descriptive of a sick and sociopathic mindset.
But the US has gone through this before, decades ago: bigots just like RG loathed the idea of interracial marriage being lawful, could not understand why they would have to accept it, and argued that God hated it and it was a necessary part of Christianity to oppose interracial marriage.
What happened was not that people “empathized” with these bigots (or that these bigots came to “empathize” with the people they themselves despised): what happened was simply that, as RG puts it, the courts did an end-run around the people and the legislature, and 42 years ago declared that marriage was a basic civil right, essential to (I love this phrase) “the orderly pursuit of happiness” . RG has made clear he thinks that was a bad decision – that the state and the will of the majority ought to rule as to which marriages are acceptable and which ought not to be allowed. (It possibly explains RG’s personal loathing for Barack Obama, given Obama is the child of an interracial marriage.) He’s also explicitly said he rejects the idea that marriage is a basic civil right, or that there’s any injustice or discrimination in telling Mildred and Richard Loving that if they wanted to get married, they should ditch each other and find a person of the legal race to marry.
Communication won’t happen. But, the Constitution of the United States, according to the principles on which the Founders designed it (RG has evidently never read the Madison Papers) protects the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority: the right of a minority group to appeal to the courts for justice and receive it despite the objections of the voting majority, may seem objectionable to RG – but is in fact absolutely Constitutional.
renaissanceguy // July 12, 2009 at 8:14 am |
Jes: “RG is so locked into the idea that lesbian and gay people are his absolute inferiors. . .”
Wrong. I regard them as my equals, at least. Some are superior to me in certain ways. Some are smarter, some are better looking, some are more athletic, etc. I ackwledge it. My views on marriage have nothing to do with anyone’s being inferior to me.
If you do not like to play chess, you should not join the chess club. It does not mean that you are inferior to people who play chess; you just have different interests. If you do not want to unite with a member of the opposite sex, then you are not really interested in marriage. You are interested in something else, and that is fine with me as a fellow citizen of a free country. It does not make you inferior to me.
Jes: “. . .loathed by God and man. . .”
Wrong. Loved by God and should be loved by man. It does not follow that when you love somebody you must approve of everything that they do. God, the God of the Bible, has standards that He wants people to live by, although He loves them even when or if they do not.
Jes: “. . .that he doesn’t comprehend how his comments and assertions are insulting and abusive. . .”
Actually, I understand very well why people might find them insulting. It is never pleasant to have somebody disagree with something that we believe or or do or–worse yet–something that we believe ourselves to be. Inasmuch as many homosexual people see their behavior as an intrinsic part of their identity, I can understand very well how they take my beliefs as insulting and abusive. I’m sorry for that, but it does not change my decision to stand up for what I believe is right.
What I wish above all is that homosexual people would see themselves as human beings first, and see their sexual attraction as a tangential aspect of themselves rather than as their identity. Of course, it’s their right to define themselves anyway that they want, and I mean that on an individual basis.
What I wish secondarily is that homosexual people would decide if they want to be treated the same as other people or differently from other people. Other people don’t need special parades, a special month, special “hate crimes” laws or anything else to validate them. Other people realize that children are the offspring of a man and a woman.
I would love to see homosexual people accept themselves and be accepted by others as human beings who just happen to have an unusual sexual orientation. They should be able to live their lives, engage in their careers, pursue their interests and just live in peace with everyone.
“. . .that this is descriptive of a sick and sociopathic mindset. . .”
I can’t even wrap my mind around the concept of thinking a person sick because he understands that there is a difference between an X chromosome and a Y chromosome or between the male reproductive organs and the female reproductive organs. I would call it rational, myself.
Jes: “. . .bigots just like RG loathed the idea of interracial marriage being lawful. . .”
Where to begin? I have never loathed the idea of interracial marriage in my life. In fact, I have vociferously attacked people who have told me that they are against it.
But it’s a bad comparison. Polls show that the majority of African Americans do not appreciate it. To compare a person’s skin color with a person’s sexual behavior just doesn’t make sense. In fact, it is completely ridiculous. A black man is still a man, and a black woman is still a woman.
When people were prohibited from marrying a person outside of their “race,” that was a prohibition of certain men marrying certain women (and vice versa). That’s nothing like saying that a man can “marry” a man or that a woman can “marry” a woman, which is essentially changing the definition of marriage.
Besides, the whole concept of “race” is scientifically untenable to start with, at least in terms of absolute dividing lines between one race and another. Human chromosomes are human chromosomes, no matter what specific physical traits people exhibit.
Jes: “. . .that God hated it and it was a necessary part of Christianity to oppose interracial marriage. . .”
And they were wrong, and it’s pretty obvious. The Bible does not forbid interracial marriage; in fact, the Bible explicitly contradicts such thinking. It indicates that before God matters such as race do not matter, and it tells of righteous people who engaged in interracial marriages. (Sometimes people point to God’s prohibition of the Israelites from marrying outside their own people, but they forget that their was a conversion process whereby people from other races from outside of Israel could be adopted into the nation and the into their religion.)
That’s a different kettle of fish from the stand that Catholics and Evangelicals take on homosexuality, since it is expressly forbidden in the Bible. Only the most painfully twisted hermeneutics can make the Bible say anything but that homosexual behavior is a sin.
“. . .RG has made clear he thinks that was a bad decision. . .”
No I have not. I said nothing about it. Now I will.
I wish that the Supreme Court had not called marriage a “basic human right” in that decision. That doesn’t make any sense to me, as I understand the notion of rights. I can see that “marriage” as a traditional custom might be considered a right, but I do not see how state-certified marriage could be. It’s a privilege granted by the state that qualified people can certify and register their marriage with the civil authorities.
Because the Supreme Court based the decision on the Fourteenth Amendment, I think it was a fairly sound decision. I certainly agree with allowing people of any race or ethnicity to marry–if the state allows anyone to have a state-sanctioned marriage.
Ultimately, I would have prefered that laws be rewritten by state legislatures to do away with earlier anti-miscegenation laws. That is the Constitutional way that laws are to be written. The courts were not established in America in order to rule by fiat.
“. . .RG’s personal loathing for Barack Obama. . .”
I do not loath him one bit. I totally disagree with almost every political principle he endorses, however. As I have said before, if disagreement is loathing, then you obviously loath a lot of people yourself. Physician, heal thyself.
Since you mentioned Obama, isn’t it odd that he identifies with the “race” of the father who abandoned him and not with the “race” of the mother and the grandparents who supported him and loved him? Just thinking out loud.
“. . .or that there’s any injustice or discrimination in telling Mildred and Richard Loving that if they wanted to get married, they should ditch each other and find a person of the legal race to marry. . .”
That is a lie and it is the exact opposite of what I believe. Please do not lie about me or about whay I write.
“. . .(RG has evidently never read the Madison Papers) . . .”
Yes, I have read the Federalist Papers by James Madison, which is exactly why I argue that laws should be written mostly be state legislatures, and not by the Supreme Court of the United States. I do understand the idea of protecting the rights of the minority, but to James Madison, I absolutely guarantee that it did not refer to homosexual people or to calling a same-sex relationship a marriage. If it did, then we would not be arguing about it in 2009.
I am all for a member of a minority appealing to the courts, if that person has legal or constitutional standing. I do not agree with the courts making decisions with no explicit basis in any law or in the Constitution. In such a case, they should refer the matter back to state legislatures or to the Congress to write appropriate legislation, which is their job.
Scott Erb // July 12, 2009 at 10:32 am |
But in 1963 someone could have written “I wish blacks could see themselves as human beings first, and not needing marches on Washington or ‘I have a Dream’ speeches.’
Fact: Homosexuality is recognized as natural by the medical community and the psychiatric community. It is false to say it’s just a behavior. You can believe it’s just a behavior, but the evidence and expert analysis contradicts that. In fact, homosexuality is normal in most species, it simply is part of what humanity is, no different than skin color or gender.
Also, Obama distinctly identifies with both blacks and whites, I don’t know why you claim he only identifies with his father’s race.
We are all human. Genetics apparently gives some of us different capacities, different skin colors, and different sexual orientations. It’s been difficult to get majorities to recognize the legitimacy of the minority. Things are changing in terms of homosexuality. Young people are increasingly tolerant and recognizing that it’s OK for gays to be open, part of the community, parents, and married. The kind of changes we’re seeing in laws would have been unthinkable 20 years ago. It’s very much like what happened with race in the 1960s.
And the bottom line — and the point you can’t ever seem to address, RG — is that allowing gays to have state sanctioned marriage does no harm to anyone. It doesn’t force religions to do gay marriages, it doesn’t mean anything except the gay couple down the street who call themselves married anyway now can have a legal paper from the state giving them the rights of any other couple. That hurts no one.
Why would you want to use the power of the state to limit the freedom of others, when the exercise of that freedom does no harm to anyone else, including yourself? It does not seem rational.
Also, I think it’s not how far we’ve fallen, as you said, it’s how far we are rising. As much as I am critical of enlightenment thought, it has helped us throw off the shackles of an irrational set of traditions and behaviors, including unequal rights for men and women, segregation of races, and a whole host of irrational inequities, including how gays are treated.
Should legislatures rather than courts decide this? I don’t know. It’s preferable, but sometimes individual rights need to trump the tyranny of the majority.
languagelover // July 12, 2009 at 12:56 pm |
Scott. I love reading your arguments. They are well reasoned and polite. It’s the kind of arguing that could win people over to your side.
helenl // July 12, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
Why do we need sides, languagelover?
renaissanceguy // July 12, 2009 at 8:35 pm |
We don’t Helen, everyone can come over to my side. Voila! No more sides.
Just kidding.
jesurgislac // July 13, 2009 at 4:00 am |
Why do we need sides, languagelover?
Because so long as there are bigots, there need to be people willing to oppose them.
jesurgislac // July 13, 2009 at 4:06 am |
I can’t even wrap my mind around the concept of thinking a person sick because he understands that there is a difference between an X chromosome and a Y chromosome or between the male reproductive organs and the female reproductive organs.
I can’t get my head round the idea that you see it as normal and natural that you should get to inspect your neighbor’s reproductive organs like meat, and, like a farmer, get to decide whether or not they should be allowed to breed. And you claim you don’t regard the people whose bodies you evaluate in this impersonal way as your inferiors?
Ultimately, I would have prefered that laws be rewritten by state legislatures to do away with earlier anti-miscegenation laws. That is the Constitutional way that laws are to be written. The courts were not established in America in order to rule by fiat.
So it was acceptable to you that Mildred and Richard Loving should have been forced to wait until a majority in Virginia – at least in the legislature – was okay with their getting married? If this is your idea of “support” for interracial marriage – go away and wait until white folks are okay with you, your right to choose your own partner is no right at all –
- the whole thing is very much a slaveholder’s attitude, isn’t it? Mildred Loving ought to have asked permission of her betters before she was allowed to marry Richard Loving. Lesbians and gays have their genitals judged by you to decide that they’re not allowed to marry. In your mind, neither their bodies nor their lives are truly their own: you are their superior, and you get to judge.
This is what Republicans think of families « Jesurgislac’s Journal // December 11, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
[...] inaudible, unwanted problems who should never have been born. (About six months ago I had a depressing series of discussions with Renaissance Guy, one of the breed of right-wing “Christians” who hold it to be an [...]