(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

Thanks to griffen for linking to this piece from the Los Angeles Times. I want to examine it.

Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant.

Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality.

No, it's only her bigotry that compels her to speak out against homosexuality, because there is no commandment or requirement of the Christian faith to do so.

The only passages in the Bible on homosexuality relevant to Christians are Romans 1 and I Corinthians 6, and these indicate Paul's opinion that homosexuals do not have a place in the Kingdom of Heaven. They do not require Christians to speak out against them, just to avoid associating with them.

But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation.

Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she's demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy.

What exactly is "religious expression"? Is that the right to wear a cross, or a burqa, or a pentagram? The right to spend a moment out of every day in class saying a prayer?

Does it include the right to make proclamations that, directly or otherwise, promote hatred?

There is no "right" to avoid being offended. All of us are exposed, all the time, to statements that offend us. We cannot ban speech on the basis that it offends someone.

And believe it or not, that is not the rationale behind bans on hate speech.

What makes hate speech problematic is not that it offends someone. What makes it problematic is that it promotes a social power imbalance rooted in violence, exploitation, and discrimination. A target of hate speech is not simply "offended" or "put-off;" hate speech can trigger a post-traumatic stress response, which causes anxiety and other major mental health issues.

Not only that, but it cultivates an environment where people feel safe and entitled to commit acts of aggression and even violence against members of an oppressed class. The homophobic sentiment in our society is so strong (and hardly needs bolstering) that fully 84% of queer people report being verbally harassed and insulted, and over a quarter are physically assaulted.

There is, whether some want to admit it or not, a social power imbalance favoring heterosexuality. Queer people are at a distinct economic disadvantage (in spite of the stereotype of queer people as affluent), are much more likely to be the targets of violence, and as a direct result of societal homophobia have a higher incidence of mental health problems.

So, what Ruth Malhotra wants, in effect, is the right to contribute to my mental illness, and to encourage people to beat, fire, insult, and marginalize me. And, taking that a step further, i think that she and people like her are quite aware of the effects her hate speech will have. They are in fact counting on it, because they want us to feel ashamed of who we are, they want us to go into hiding because that is most beneficial to them.

With her lawsuit, the 22-year-old student joins a growing campaign to force public schools, state colleges and private workplaces to eliminate policies protecting gays and lesbians from harassment. The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all.

The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. "Christians," he said, "are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian."

"Because it's not enough to have our religious holidays off, to have churches on every street corner, to have strong influence over the political party in power, to have our religious beliefs upheld as the foundation of our culture and society!"

In that spirit, the Christian Legal Society, an association of judges and lawyers, has formed a national group to challenge tolerance policies in federal court. Several nonprofit law firms — backed by major ministries such as Focus on the Family and Campus Crusade for Christ — already take on such cases for free.

Like the old addage says, follow the money. In this case, it's not simply about privilege, it's also about profit. This issue is a huge moneymaker for the Chaliban. Organizations like these are in the business of promoting hatred, and so long as this will continue to win them big donations and profits, they are going to keep it up.

Queer people make an excellent target because we have so little in the way of resources to fight back. And when we finally do have some victory, however small, the Chaliban is right there "in the name of equality" to intimidate us into silence with statements that they know will trigger stress and anxiety in us. (See how this works?)

The legal argument is straightforward: Policies intended to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination end up discriminating against conservative Christians. Evangelicals have been suspended for wearing anti-gay T-shirts to high school, fired for denouncing Gay Pride Month at work, reprimanded for refusing to attend diversity training. When they protest tolerance codes, they're labeled intolerant.

Why on earth are they wearing anti-gay t-shirts to high school?

A recent survey by the Anti-Defamation League found that 64% of American adults — including 80% of evangelical Christians — agreed with the statement "Religion is under attack in this country."

"The message is, you're free to worship as you like, but don't you dare talk about it outside the four walls of your church," said Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Assn. Center for Law and Policy, which represents Christians who feel harassed.

I think many people do feel harassed, but i suspect that the whole "Christians are persecuted in the US" thing is a ploy to divert anger from where it should really be -- on the people who are actually harassing and oppressing them. Do you think it's me with my obscure blog, or is it corporations who have reduced employee benefits, promoted bankruptcy "reform," and who charge usurious fees and interest on credit?

Critics dismiss such talk as a right-wing fundraising ploy. "They're trying to develop a persecution complex," said Jeremy Gunn, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.

Others fear the banner of religious liberty could be used to justify all manner of harassment.

"What if a person felt their religious view was that African Americans shouldn't mingle with Caucasians, or that women shouldn't work?" asked Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay rights group Lambda Legal.

Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor responds to such criticism angrily. He says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different — a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.

It may be a choice, but that is still not an excuse to engage in oppression.

Suppose it is a choice. Suppose it is an immoral choice, one for which someone will actually be sent to hell. What is the most effective way to lead people out of sin? Is it to oppress them at every turn and browbeat them at every corner? Think about how effective it has been for me... do i strike you as someone likely to turn to Jay-zus any minute? So this strategy of harassing queer people does not even make sense.

It is only being done because people are making money at it.

By equating homosexuality with race, Baylor said, tolerance policies put conservative evangelicals in the same category as racists.

Where they belong.

He predicts the government will one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that preach homosexuality is sinful or that refuse to hire gays and lesbians.

The tax-exempt status thing is worthwhile if churches are, you know, feeding the hungry and clothing the poor and comforting the distressed. When they become involved in politics, they're in a different business entirely.

"Think how marginalized racists are," said Baylor, who directs the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom. "If we don't address this now, it will only get worse."

Worse? Or BETTER?

Comments

[alobar.livejournal.com]

Christians like torture. They were raised on it. Christians feel they ass was saved and they got a ticket to heaven because of torture and murder. I suspect this is why they condone torturing of others. Maybe they should be elevated to the staus of martyr? [Just in case that last sentence is unclear, it is humor, so please don't rat me out to the gestapo (Homeland Security).]

[c3fyn.livejournal.com]

Indeed, hence my post earlier today. I mean...what's their primary religious symbol?

I think the Gestapo guy is the one sitting in the back with the Go Libertarians t-shirt and the Legalize It! sticker on his folder. Don't tell anybody.

[akycha.livejournal.com]

Worse? Or BETTER?

I don't know whether you meant to be funny, but I read that in Zim-voice and it made me feel much better after reading such a horrible defense of hate-speech (by which I refer to the original article, of course, not your eloquent deconstruction of it).

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

It was intentional. (I need an Invader Zim icon for moments like this.)

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Have it - I animated this one from the show.

[c3fyn.livejournal.com]

I keep hoping that there is a sane majority out there which will eventually just turn their backs on these folks, and all the hub-bub will be over, because such an overwhelming majority will recognize them (bigots) for what they are (people-who-wear-sheets-and-burn-crosses-in-the-night). Apparently I'm pissing up a rope.

*sigh*

And still, not a one can answer me this, why a deity of cosmic heft and scope would give half a rat's ass who did what with whom where so long as it was consensual. As a friend said, they declared The Age of Reason several centuries too soon.

[alobar.livejournal.com]

> I keep hoping that there is a sane majority out there

If there was a same majority, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and a thousand others would all be impeached, tried for treason, then executed.

[herbalgrrl.livejournal.com]

"A target of hate speech is not simply "offended" or "put-off;" hate speech can trigger a post-traumatic stress response, which causes anxiety and other major mental health issues. "


Many things can & do trigger me. That's my responsibility to worry about. I'd rather have the hate speech in the open, where I can see who the haters are. Now crossing a line from speech into action- that's a whole 'nother thing.

[contentlove.livejournal.com]

This is exactly where I'm at with it.

[alobar.livejournal.com]

The problem being that hate speech is very often a prelude to action.

Some years back, during MArdi Gas week, a group of Christian zealots were screaming at a Tarot reader thru bullhorns at close range. That, in itself, is something I would call assault. But then one of the Christains ran foward, and threw over the table of the reader, scattering cards all over the Square. The police refused to arrest the dude, saying that he "only bumped into the table accidentally." Lots more petty violence ensued since the cops were permitting it. The Christians only backed off when several of them got the crap beaten out of them by some gutterpunks. Someone also sprayed lighter fluid on the big banner which read "God hates Gays" then set it on fire.

Hate speech promotes violence, and violent reaction to violence. Where Christians outnumber the people they hate, they are more apt to win a violent confrontation.

[contentlove.livejournal.com]

When it turns to action, that's the problem, not before.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I agree that i like to know who the haters are. The problem is, that when they see their thoughts of hatred being expressed, and especially being upheld as acceptable values in society, i believe it amplifies that hatred beyond what it would be otherwise. Speech and action in this case are intricately interconnected. I wish there was a way to know who the bigots are without allowing them to bolster hatred -- and especially the courage to act violently on hatred -- in one another.

[amazonatheart.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you're on my flist again...It's usually your posts that wake me up from this sleep called America...and bring me back to the realities of the situation..

[badsede.livejournal.com]

I read this today and it greatly disappointed me.

There is a genuine concern that people are having their voices silenced. The fact that teaching that homosexual acts are sinful from a pulpit is chategorized as hate speech in places like Canada is a disquieting thought. That expressing an opinion can be criminalized is a very, very troubling thought to me. That the government or workplaces can require indoctrination into a political ideology is very troubling to me .. especially as my ideology is so frequently at odds with both ends of the political spectrum.

But the people in this article are hardly the poster children for that concern. They are the worst example of the this troubling trend mentioned above, those using that concern as a mask for their hate.

But frankly, I don't think that even hate speech should be criminalized. We should be able to say whatever we want. If the law is the only thing that keeps us civil, then our society is pretty far gone already. It is little different than the alarmingly increasing trend of parents calling in the police because their children won't obey. Is it wrong? Certainly. But this is just another example of legislating morality. It doesn't solve the problem, just addresses the converse symptom of it. It is exactly what I was talking about before, the dominionism is just different, but it is dominionism all the same.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

The fact that teaching that homosexual acts are sinful from a pulpit is chategorized as hate speech in places like Canada is a disquieting thought.

As i understand it, that's only one possible interpretation of the law there against hate speech, not one that (AFAIK) has actually been implemented.


That expressing an opinion can be criminalized is a very, very troubling thought to me.

I'm not a huge fan of authoritarian solutions either, because inevitably any edifice we create to solve this problem will become a problem in itself. There is much potential for abuse when legal restrictions are enacted.

The ultimate solution is to teach people to be compassionate, considerate, and respectful of one another. But people who are being beaten, harassed, and discriminated against cannot afford to wait for the great utopian society to come about. We need to protect ourselves.


We should be able to say whatever we want.

Ideally, yes, we should. Ideally, hateful statements would not have fertile ground in which to take root.


If the law is the only thing that keeps us civil, then our society is pretty far gone already.

YES, our society is very far gone.

[badsede.livejournal.com]

As i understand it, that's only one possible interpretation of the law there against hate speech, not one that (AFAIK) has actually been implemented.

As I understand it, it has already been implemented. And the fact that it could even be questionable is disconcerting to me.

because inevitably any edifice we create to solve this problem will become a problem in itself.

Exactly. All it does is change the perpetrator.

But people who are being beaten, harassed, and discriminated against cannot afford to wait for the great utopian society to come about. We need to protect ourselves.

Then that is what our laws should address. And even discrimination laws make me uneasy. When it is public money, I am fine with it, public money should not be favoring one political ideology or demographic over another. But when they begin to be enforced in the private sector, or be applied to what can enacted in the public sphere outside of public funding, then I am worried.

[nobody-.livejournal.com]

The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. "Christians," he said, "are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian."

Reading shit like this makes me want to explode in rage.

It baffles me how such an extraordinarily privileged group in this country can whine about how they're being oppressed. And of course, it's a whole other level of disgusting how fundamentalist Christians have completely perverted the religion they claim to hold so dear. Every reason for them not to do this shit is right there in the Bible. It's all so fucking dishonest. Gah.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

I have some pagan friends that believe people should be skyclad 24/7, but unfortunately laws do not permit it. If this woman wins her lawsuit, maybe they can finally go to school and work naked.

[gramina.livejournal.com]

"The message is, you're free to worship as you like, but don't you dare talk about it outside the four walls of your church," said Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Assn. Center for Law and Policy, which represents Christians who feel harassed.

Mt. 5:21-22, 43-45
"You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.'
But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, 'Raqa,' will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, 'You fool,' will be liable to fiery Gehenna.

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,
that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.

Mt. 25:34-46
Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'
Then the righteous 16 will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'
And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'
Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'
Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?'
He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.'
And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Whose religion is it they feel they can't talk about...? 'Cause it doesn't sound to me like it's Christianity at all.

[stacymckenna.livejournal.com]

The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all.
Gah! What the fuck...

As AMERICANS we are obligated to allow others around us to engage in their belief systems and personal choices (including homo/transexuality for those who consider that a choice) as long as they are not endangering us personally. Christians do not have the right to talk about how the non-Christians are going to burn in hell for not believing in Christ as their savior. Other religions don't have the right to talk about how Christians will suffer whatever "non-chosen-people" consequence awaits them. We don't have the right to condemn people for wearing garb of their native cultures/religion as long as it meets the law/employer's requirements for decency. We don't have a right to force people to agree with our perspective.

Now, I can see where they will argue that tolerance education is forcing them to agree in conflict with their religion. Well-taught tolerance classes *don't do that*. They teach that we can't discriminate within certain environments (like a place of business, a publicly funded place of education, a privately funded place of education that decrees a chosen standard fo conduct, etc.). They don't teach that you have to ACCEPT/APPROVE OF them or their choices, but that you have to peacefully coexist with them in certain places. If you want to go out into the middle of town and spew rhetoric there, go right ahead. But as long as you're on school grounds, and the people who run that school say "We only allow such and such behavior" then you're stuck. And don't expect them to allow their name to be in any way way associated with a club or group that contradicts said codes of conduct. If you want to form such a club, do it without their name and/or resources, and don't be surprised if they don't allow you to promote it/hold events on their property. If you don't like it, find a school (country?) that caters to your chosen speech/beliefs.

[idunn.livejournal.com]

What's interesting is that Jesus was telling the religious people of his time to get off their high horses and stop seeing so many damn labels - he went off to teach and hang out with Gentiles, lepers, and prostitutes, groups of people who were rejected by society for being who they were.

Some people clearly aren't learning from the very person they claim to follow.

[pretzelsalt.livejournal.com]

exactly.

or the whole picking and choosing of what is to be followed literally and what isn't.

The part of Genesis they don't want you to see

[idunn.livejournal.com]

And lo! on the seventh day, God said, "Loathe the homosexual, but don't take me too seriously about that rule in Leviticus regarding shrimp. Shrimp is gooooooood. Pork chops is gooooooood."

And it was gooooood.

[alobar.livejournal.com]

I read this earlier today
http://heron61.livejournal.com/398293.html
and wondered if you saw much discrimination in the gay community by the log cabin republicans?