(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

and part two. sorry if it is too particular, but I was trying for clarity

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

But then I hear the some people say allowing homosexuals to exist freely will makes God angry at the nation and jepordizes everyone; or jepordizes their immoratal soul ( and hey, if one accords that belief equal respect then who in their right mind can say that an immortal soul means less than another person's earthly safety. But if there is no immortal soul... you get the idea). I am fine with those who say that homosexuality is wrong and then truly leave it up to their God to sort out. I do think that there is some responsibilty for those who feel that way to make it clear what "wrong" means when they know that if left unclear then some will take it to mean, "homosexuality is wrong so let us take steps against homosexuals" The diffenece between having an opinion and giving that opinion the weight of earthly consequences gets way overlooked. And part of the problem is that the Christians who believe that they are to emulate compassion and save the judging for God and those who decide that they are called to judge go by the same name. So when the non-religious side says Christian with a sneer it isolates those who believe the same as they do. Just the words mean different things to them. And somehow for most people words mean more than or are equivalent to reality. And I have seen people who feel caught in the middle and would take the "sinners" side but the compassion dries up when the name calling starts and it is just because they don't take a second to consider arising from pain or need are less considered than what one is feeling. Sometimes it seems like some really cold blooded person or group is playing on human nature and pushes at the right times to keep the lack of understanding going. If people don't reach out they can't unite and things will never change. I understand this. But I also understand that the ones fighting for survival and dignity now are the desparate ones. They have less luxury and ability to reach out. How do you legislate that ohers really try to empathize instead of reacting immediately to a percieved harshness?

What do you do when idealogies are set up so that no competing idealogy can coexist with them. Equal respect becomes an impossibility. And that is the situation as it is being set up and pushed by many. And my ability to respect ends there. Perhaps it is a flaw. But giving equality to those who would use any tactic to destroy you is - well, it only makes sense if you believe in something greater that will reward the sacrifice just because it is made. Common sense says that taking the high road while others fight dirty usually ends in defeat. And knowing one did the "right thing" is very cold comfort - especially when the ones who use what you are against you cites your misery as proof that you are wrong. And that is where the biggest problem with hate speech comes in. It allows enough people to shed any guilt, any feeling of responibilty for the suffering of others - because if "those people" would just be like everyone else then they wouldn't suffer. It masks the cause of the suffering. Well constructed hate speech molds things in such a way so that it makes it sound like the consequences are natural, not a result of human decision. It literally makes it okay for the people to act on their prejudices. Not even conciously. Many people don't grasp a cause if it remains unnamed. So they attach the cause to something that is named. It is not even a matter of intelligence. It is a natural mode of thinking that is very predominant - largely because the educational system trains people to respond to sequential thought. I know enough to take advantage of this when I want. Multimillion dollar think tanks probably have it perfected, you know.

And I'm rambling. I'm not trying to be difficult. This is just one of the areas where my idealistic side and my pragmatic, cynical side meet head on and I can't find an answer that satisifes myself. I would welcome any comments or suggestions. Adding new thoughs to the equation is the best way to see a path that was hidden before.

Re: and part two. sorry if it is too particular, but I was trying for clarity

[badsede.livejournal.com]

I must honestly admit, my idealism usually wins out against my pragmatism, and that is going to influence all of my opinions. In the end, you may find that it all comes back to that. I find myself in the Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety camp. I grew up on the losing side of the discrimination equation, so my whole worldview is formed by that. It was only when I refused to compromise that I found personal peace .. even if I found myself more at odds with the world. So, within my perspective, the compromise requires me to sacrifice who i am.

And of course, I was raised in a faith tradition that focused on the narrow path. The idea of personal sacrifice in the name of my priorities and values is a natural, not a foreign concept. I don't expect any one else to go along with that same mindset, but it is mine, so all of my opinions will reflect it.

I don't know if that really provides any answers, but it might make my position make more sense. I understand that the idealistic path that I propose requires personal sacrifice and compassion - and even moreso for those not in the asshat camp, no matter what other camp they may be in - but to me no other course is acceptable. To me, all other courses are to admit defeat and are just an attempt to be one of the ones who loses the least .. to rule in hell so to speak.

I would rather make the good fight. But as you said, if you believe in that higher power, that is easier.