(no subject)
Apr. 11th, 2006 01:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaThanks to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
griffen for linking to this piece from the Los Angeles Times. I want to examine it.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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.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.
Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality.
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.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?
Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she's demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy.
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."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!"
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."
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."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?
"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.
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.It may be a choice, but that is still not an excuse to engage in oppression.
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.
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?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 06:14 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 06:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 06:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 10:01 pm (UTC)If in general, the effects of hate speech are all around you and written in history books (how many people even recognize certain forms of hate speech against women, or hear someone referring to something as "gay" or "insane" or "lame" when they mean "icky" and don't realize how much it reinforces those conditions as being "beneath". Hell, look in the right places and you can even find proof of the effects of anti-certain brands of christianity (perpetrated by other christians). And the degree to which hate speech is normalized, accepted into the culture and seen as the way things are the more the violence increases. And the more the victim is seen as being guilty and deserving of the violence.
One of the things about hate speech is that if it were directed at an individual that person might have a good case for a libel suit.
And strange how these groups don't even recognize the right of certain stores to not say "holidays" instead of "christmas" without calling it an attack.
People need to learn to recognize the difference between freedom to have something and the freedom to strip that something away from everyone else by manipulating a claim to the freedom that one is stripping.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 06:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 08:06 pm (UTC)What if you have a respected (at least among her peers) religious leader who denounces gays/blacks/athiests/men as abominations who have no right to live and thus should be euthanized for their our moral protection. What do you do when her followers and start murdering people. Does she bear any blame for their actions even though she never ordered that any of the people actually specifically be murdered?
That's the gap of legal responsibility that hate speech laws attempt to address. I do not believe that the "post-traumatic stress syndrome" aspect is actually a compelling reason for hate speech laws. It's the promotion of violence against individuals or groups that is the singular important point. Governments have a vested interest in preventing the development of cycles of violence.