Widening one pothole on in the intersection to fill another: Religious Conservativism and its practical effects

With all of the news regarding George Rekers and what he did or did not do with his rentboy, I got to thinking about how popular religious, conservative figures actually end up contributing to the social maladies that they are supposed to be fighting.  I especially thought about it in relation to several prominent religious conservative politicians in my home state of Minnesota.  Current Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, US Representative Michelle Bachmann, and Republican Gubernatorial candidate/Current State Representative Tom Emmer all have expressed anti-gay attitudes in their legislative habits.  How do their actions contribute to social maladies like homelessness, drug abuse, and sex-work trafficking?

I was originally going to write a headline for this article that read "Pawlenty, Bachmann, and Emmer linked to sex trade and drug dealing in Loring Park", but I thought better of it.  While the headline would be attention-grabbing, I don't have the direct evidence to back it up. 

What I do have is circumstantial at best, but I think it is compelling.

• Fact: Governor Tim Pawlenty has vetoed any pro-Gay legislation when it has come up

• Pawlenty has vetoed a number of LGBT-rights bills in his career as governor. He vetoed a bill to beef up anti-bullying efforts in schools; legislation that would give control to local municipalities in deciding who could receive domestic partner benefits (twice vetoed); and a bill would have expanded current laws that allow for the use of sick time to care for spouses and dependent children including same-sex couples.

• Fact: Due to his refusal to raise taxes, he has cut various educational, health and government assistance programs.  While the legislature has proposed many versions of the budget, Mr. Pawlenty has rejected them and sent them back because they did not include cuts he favored.  According to Minnesota Senator Ken Kelash, the delay in approving a budget has resulted in the legislature being required to make even more cuts because a Federal grant will not arrive in time to affect the budget shortfall.
• Pawlenty, Bachmann and Emmer have all campaigned to remove various LGBT rights or block granting them.  In 2003 and 2006, Michelle Bachmann introduced an anti-gay marriage amendment (which failed both times) and has made multiple antigay statements, implying that LGBT people are child molesters and are sexually dysfunctional.
• Pawlenty and Bachmann are both self-identified conservative, evangelical Christians. While I have not seen anything from Emmer identifying his beliefs, his campaign certainly seems in line with Pawlenty's and Bachmann's publicly expressed opinions.
• A 20-40% of the homeless youth in America are homeless due to anti-gay attitudes in their families.  Some ran away; others were kicked out.  Conservative, evangelical Christians often kick their children out when they find out that they are gay, and express other anti-gay attitudes as well.  These attitudes are given credence by the various statments from Mr. Pawlenty, Ms. Bachmann, and Mr. Emmer.
• Because these young people are kicked out of their homes due to conservative attitudes, and no safety net due to the budget cuts, they struggle to provide for basic needs--food, shelter.  Education falls to the wayside and they often drop out of school, further complicating the issue.  Now they have no skills to get better paying jobs and work their way up. 
• They turn to sex work and drug dealing because those "jobs" don't require an education, and are often lucrative for short periods.

In conclusion,  by publicly making anti-gay statements, taking anti-gay political actions, and cutting the various saftey net programs, Minnesota's GOP stars are contributing to the decline of society.
Share

Sunday Drive: Back to Rome

The Gospels of Matthew (8:5-13) and Luke (7:1-10) both have accounts of this story, and according to Helminiak, both seem to have been drawn from the same original Greek source. In the story, a Roman centurion comes to Jesus, asking Him to heal his slave. What is interesting about this is the original Greek wording. There are two different phrases that are both translated as ‘slave’— entimos pais and dulos. Entimos Pais is could be translated as “my son”, “my boy” or “honored servant.” That phrase has also been used in other non-Biblical documents to refer to a slave who was his master’s gay lover. While the idea of sexual slavery is repugnant to us today, it was common in the culture of the time. The basic way of forming familial relationships outside of one’s ‘birth’ family was a commercial transaction. ‘Wives’ of the day, and concubines for that matter, were often sexual slaves and treated as their husband’s property. Likewise, a man interested in sharing a similar relationship with another man purchased a pais.

As a distinction, the centurion’s other servants are designated ‘duloi’. Helminiak also indicates that the ‘son’ interpretation is out because Luke’s account also designates the pais as a dulos. In other words, he was definitely a slave. Entimos indicates that the boy is very dear to the centurion. Some might say that he wanted simply to protect his investment, but centurions were wealthy. They could go buy other slaves. Perhaps this pais held a key position in the household, but the wording indicates that this slave is also young, and given his age, the most probable interpretation is that this ‘dear slave’ had an emotional bond with the Centurion. This story is significant because Jesus did not condemn the Centurion. Rather, he marveled at his faith, and declared him an example of it.

Share

Sunday Drive: Let's go to David's house

Now that we've seen refutations of the "Clobber Passage" texts, let's look at some affirming passages:

King David and Jonathan


David and Jonathan’s relationship is often described as a deep, platonic friendship. However, I have a different interpretation of this story.

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle

The terminology used here—“the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David and Jonathan loved him as his own soul”—and the description of the behavior (stripping down and giving all of his clothing and weapons, and even his belt to David) does not sound like just platonic love in my book. A prince’s clothing and weapons were important symbols of his status. Imagine the passage if David had been a woman:

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of Eve, and Jonathan loved her as his own soul. And Saul took her that day, and would let her go no more home to her father's house. Then Jonathan and Eve made a covenant, because he loved her as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to Eve, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle

Had David been female, no one would question that Jonathan loved her, and their story would be celebrated as a great love. Since David was male, cultural censorship kicks in and the relationship is sanitized to ‘deep platonic friendship’.

Later, when he learns Jonathan was killed David says

“I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”

Again, that doesn’t sound like they were ‘just friends.’

Share

Religios Conservatives, Heterosexism and Heteronormativism

In the progressive blogosphere, I've seen many posts lately concerning US Evangelicals involvement in introducing an anti-gay law in Uganda, the pedophile abuse cases in the Catholic Church (and that church's response) and transphobic statements even in LGBT-supportive circles.  While these stories may seem unrelated, there are a couple of common threads: Religion, Heterosexism, and Heteronormativism.

Often when commenting on the hatred expressed in cases like this, the term "homophobia" is blamed.  However, that word is inaccurate.  "Homophobia", according to Wikipedia, is the

"irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals",or individuals perceived to be homosexual; it is also defined as "unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality", "fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men", as well as "behavior based on such a feeling".

Many times when conservatives are confronted with being homophobic, they retort "I'm not afraid of homosexuals.  I have many homosexual friends.  That doesn't mean I approve of what they do," or something similar. More accurate wording would be "Heterosexism" or "Heteronormativisim".  To paraphrase Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, heterosexism is the system of "laws, customs and beliefs that perpetuate prejudicial treatment" of non-heterosexuals, namely lesbians, gays, and bisexuals.  Heteronormativisim, likewise, is the system that perpetuates

a set of lifestyle norms which indicate or imply that (1) people fall into only one of two distinct and complementary sexes (male and female) with each having certain natural roles in life, and that (2) heterosexuality is the only normal sexual orientation, thus making sexual and marital relations appropriate only between members of the opposite sex. Consequently, a heteronormative view is one that promotes alignment of biological sex, gender identity, and gender roles to the gender binary

which encompasses lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex individuals, among others.  Some of those others include working mothers, house-husbands, and polyamorous couples.  There are more examples but you get the idea.

Now that I've explained these terms, it's not hard to see just how it relates to the topic of this post.  One section that exhibits these attitudes, and has tried to encode them into the US' body of laws is the Religious Right.  Organizations like Phillys Schlafly's Eagle Forum, the Concerned "Women" of America (Women is in quotes because I have yet to see a female spokesperson for the group), Exodus international, NARTH and many others actively promote heterosexist and heteronormative views.  They are free to their opinions, but "the right to swing your fist ends at my nose."  When they start trying to directly influence legislation, here or elsewhere, then they've crossed the line.

Share

Sunday Drive: A Quick Stop at the Temple and then on to Rome

Deuteronomy 23:17-18 None of the daughters of Israel shall be a temple prostitute; none of the sons of Israel shall be a temple prostitute. You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are abhorrent to the LORD your God.

Like the verses in Leviticus last week, these verses deal with temple prostitution, not a loving committed relationship.

Romans 1: 21-28

If we follow [this] passage, step-by-step, we find Paul is moving through a logical progression. He is talking about people who:

1. Refused to acknowledge and glorify God. (v. 21)
2. Began worshipping idols (images of created things, rather than the Creator). (v. 23)
3. Were more interested in earthly pursuits than spiritual pursuits. (v. 25)
4. Gave up their natural, i.e., innate, passion for the opposite sex in an unbounded search for pleasure. (v. 26-27)
5. Lived lives full of covetousness, malice, envy, strife, slander, disrespect for parents, pride, and hatred of God. (v. 29-31)

The model of homosexual behavior Paul was addressing here is explicitly associated with idol worship (probably temple prostitution) and with people who, in an unbridled search for pleasure (or because of religious rituals associated with their idolatry), broke away from their natural sexual orientation, participating in promiscuous sex with anyone available.

There are, no doubt, modern people who engage in homosexual sex for reasons similar to those identified in Romans 1. If someone began with a clear heterosexual orientation, but rejected God and began experimenting with gay sex simply as a way of experiencing a new set of pleasures, then this passage may apply to that person. But this is not the experience of the vast majority of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. (Miner and Connoley, The Children are Free)

Most of the GLBT people of faith I have met, have felt called to worship the Lord but were attracted to members of the same sex, nevertheless. They were not people looking for thrills and pursuing their own desires. Actually, those GLBT people would be guilty of this kind of sin if they stay in the closet and attempt to marry partners of the opposite sex because they are naturally attracted to people of the same gender.

Share

Sunday Drive: Leviticus Law Library

Leviticus 18 and 20

Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20: 13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Both of these verses seem like straightforward condemnations against any homosexual behavior. However, we need to consider what was happening in the world of the Israelites at the time these rules were issued. The book of Leviticus is a series of rules for the Israelite priesthood and laity to ensure ritual purity. Elsewhere in this book we find listings of ‘unclean’ foods, requirements for priestly vestments (no blended fibers), and requirements for males to cleanse oneself after incidental contact with women who are having their menstrual period. No one makes the argument that these laws have any application today; in fact, the arguments for rejecting these laws are often based on their historical and religious context.

In the case of the verses quoted above, let’s look at the historical and religious contexts. The laws presented in chapters 18 and 20 are meant to prevent the Israelites from doing what the Egyptians and the Canaanites did.

What did the Canaanites do?

Sunday Drive: Construction at Sodom and Gomorrah

Believe it or not, the Bible only has 6 verses in it that explicitly mention homosexual behavior, and none of those verses describe anything resembling a loving, committed gay relationship.  Case in point: Sodom and Gomorrah.

Gen 19:1-9 tells the story of the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah. The term ‘sodomy’ as a reference for anal sex comes from this story because that sex act is often performed by gay men. In the story, some angels come to Sodom and spend the night with Abraham’s nephew, Lot. The men of the town come to Lot’s door to ask him to turn the angels over to them “so that we may know them." Lot asks the men not to be so wicked and offers his daughters instead, but they refuse and threaten to break down his door. Later, because the cities were so wicked, they were destroyed.


The word translated “to know” in Verse 5 is also used in Judges 19 to indicate that they raped a woman to death. Lot was more familiar with the men of Sodom and Gomorrah than we are. Would he have offered his daughters to people whom he knew were gay? Even in the most conservative estimates, the gay population is only a fraction of the entire group. It is more probable that he knew the men in the group were heterosexual, and that this ‘knowing’ was a reference to rape and sexual degradation.

These two wicked towns are mentioned other places in the bible, and nowhere does it mention that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. Rather, it indicates that the sin was inhospitality. Take Ezekiel for instance:

This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.

Whether you lump homosexual activity in with ‘abominable things’ or not, this passage deals with homosexual rape—not two individuals in a loving, committed relationship.

Share

Enlightened Catholicism: Reservations About This Notion of "Mental Reservations". The Murphy Report And The Irish Abuse Crisis

Enlightened Catholicism: Reservations About This Notion of "Mental Reservations". The Murphy Report And The Irish Abuse Crisis

Happy belated Thanksgiving to all my readers. I had intended to take the weekend off and keep it light, but this one really needs to be put out there. The Catholic Church is the most famous intersections of Church and State. It is interesting how it will conveniently choose whether it is a National Government and subject to diplomatic protocols or the ruling body of the Catholic Church and therefore subject to the protocols described in Canon law, and neither approach is the correct one for certain issues. I wonder how the Vatican would react if Vatican City were sanctioned by the UN for various human rights offences--the persecution of homosexuals, the abuse of children, the suppression of women . . .

Share

Homophobia: All in "The Family"

http://inchatatime.blogspot.com/2009/11/npr-connects-dots-between-american.html

Now the ultra-conservative, fundamentalist cult "The Family" is not just content to meddle in American politics, but it is exporting its homophobia abroad to countries like Uganda.  Talk about the intersection of Church and State!
Share

Who is the wierd guy standing on the corner of Church street shouting?

Bill Donohue is at it again.  Mr. Donohue is a rabidly conservative, Catholic man who runs what he calls the "Catholic League" defending what he sees as smears and insults to the Catholic Church and its teachings.  This time Mr. Donohue is screeching about the website ChurchOuting.org.  From their website:

For generations, in Catholic churches across the country, LGBT youth are told they should be ashamed of who they are and that they should lead loveless lives as social and religious abominations. The emotional, psychological and spiritual abuse inflicted on them by Catholic priests and our church hierarchy is in reality as damaging as the physical or sexual child abuse anyone would quickly condemn. Yet to this abuse, few raise their voices and say "ENOUGH!"


It is shameful that in many Catholic churches, this abuse is being supported by men, who are gay themselves, leading closeted lives of self-persecution and quiet desperation.

Even more shameful, is that many of these priests, while remaining silent, actually lead duplicitous lives rich with romantic and sexual relationships -- both homosexual and heterosexual.

This hypocrisy must end.

 The website was created partially in response to the Manhattan Declaration.  Joe Jervis of Joe.My.God has the details. 

Share

Wrong Way on Heterosexism Boulevard

One of the most common ways LGBT people get attacked by the conservative Christian Church is through a missaplication of Biblical passages to support a heterosexist viewpoint.  Heterosexism says that anything that is not 'one man, one woman' is abnormal, unhealthy, (insert negative adjective here).  Personally, I think they've come to the wrong conclusion.  The Bible actually affirms gay relationships.

This discussion is very personal to me, because I have been having this discussion with my family as well as with strangers.  Over the next several weeks, I will share with you the research I did, and explain how I came to understand that the Bible that has been used as a weapon to attack me actually is supportive of me.

First up, "God made Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve!"
Share

LGBT Violence at the Corner of Church and State

Today is the Transgender Day of Remembrance, to remember all of the trans-people who have died over the past year—especially in hate crimes. Transphobia and homophobia are interrelated, and both are influenced by misapplied religion. To help ensure that these crimes are investigated properly and not subject to the biases of local authorities, we passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes act. It adds clauses about sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and the perception of those attributes to the classes established in the Hate Crimes act of 1969.
Those protections are very timely. Two stories have been in the news recently that underscore why this legislation was so badly needed, especially with the gender expression clauses:
Angie Zapata
Jorge Steven López Mercado

Unfortunately, our attackers come from both the Church and State sides of the street.
Coming from the State street side:

There is a Republican Senator in Oklahoma who is considering a bill that would allow states to opt out of the Hate Crimes act because it interferes with State's Rights and the freedoms of religion and speech granted by the US Constitution.

And from the Church side:

A group of preachers came and tried to 'incite a hate crime' in Washington DC by reading bible verses.

Both of these examples are easy to brush off as batshit crazy asshats and bigots. However, while these nutjobs are attempting to take our hard-won protections away, they are also creating an atmosphere of hate that is like waving a match around a fireworks factory. Similar haters are promoting Psalm 109:8 as a 'prayer for the President'… How long is it before someone decides they are being called to do God's work and take out an LGBT person or the President? Sadly, it's already happening.