Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Consistency and Prejudice

Sunday afternoon, late, I discovered a blogswarm titled 'Blog against Theocracy'. First I'd ever heard of blogswarms, but then, there's a lot about blogging I'm learning by doing. My initial good feelings were quickly soured though, for while many of the blog posts were well-researched and thoughtfully written, many settled for promoting religious prejudice instead.

Over and over again "Christians this" and "Christians that" as if Christians were some vast collection of clones, the ultimate super-organism comprised of millions, billions in the long term, of people who believe, feel, do, think exactly the same thing about everything.

We are not. Having grown up in a conservative denomination of Christianity, my father a minister, I've seen first hand just how much diversity there is in thought, belief and deeds within even a single congregation with very explicit and precise statements of faith. When one then considers the huge range of disagreement over just about every possible detail, assumption, conclusion, interpretation among the various sects of Christianity - it becomes pretty darned safe to say:

When you really look at what individual Christians believe, there are as many understandings of what Christianity believes as there are Christians.

Blaming all Christians for supporting homophobia, the Iraq war, or anything else, is prejudice. Focus on the specifics, the harm, the ideas, processes and the profits.

I realize that it can be difficult to define terms, when rebuking something, with complete accuracy. One cannot add enough modifying terms to completely eliminate overly broad generalizations. But, there is a huge difference between "Christians believe homosexuality is sin" and "Conservative Christians believe - - -" and even more with "Some Conservative Christians believe - - -" or "Those Conservative Christians who believe - - -". There is a real challenge to find the appropriate level of specificity.

For those who do write about the abusive skeins of Christianity, there are options that are far more accurate than the blanket "Christians". You can use "Conservative Christians" and be more accurate, though there are exceptions at that level. You can use "Evangelical Conservative Christians" to increase specificity, though there will still be exceptions. Terms like "dominationist" and "dominionist" work well, for they focus on the specific mindset of seeking control over others. I'm rather partial to the term "theofascists". And the catch-all "Some" leaves plenty of room for all of the exceptions, while acknowledging that there are real examples that fit the accusation to follow.

But the blanket generalization about Christians that some atheists make are no different from the blanket generalizations made by some conservative Christians about homosexuals, or the blanket generalizations made by some light-skinned people about dark-skinned people, etc.

I would just ignore it, but there is a real problem involved here. When someone who is not religious engages in the same dominationist tactic as employed by some religious people, even to criticize them, he or she has actually affirmed their behavior.

And, trust me, from years and years of experience - the Pat Robertsons and Fred Phelps don't want or seek anyone else's approval - they seek affirmation and repetition of their behavior. If they can get you to revile and harass others, to employ prejudice and advocate discrimination, that's all the really matters, for it makes their own abusive acts acceptable.

The guess 'homosexuality is sin' is not really about "what the Bible says" and especially not about "what would Jesus do". It is about something far more primal than that.

Most living organism engage in some form of dominance behavior. Beetles fight for mates or food, coral polyps fight for space and sunlight, meerkats fight for social dominance within their group, and with other groups for territory. Presented as a formula, one way of expressing it is:

Seek dominance by harming others for personal gain

Harming others can be significant as violence, as intangible as insults and false accusations, as pervasive as laws and imprisonment. In very social organisms, like humans, it can be enough just to harm someone's reputation, to malign their appearance in the eyes of the rest of the community. The rewards of dominance can be as extreme as theocracy, and other forms of autocratic control over people's very lives, as intangible as feeling better than others, or feeling less a sinner. It can be material as well: let's not forget the many conservative christians who use their condemnation of homosexuality to make money. It can be an increased status within the social group, or simply the exclusion of competitors.

This is the core process beneath any prejudice - racial prejudice, anti-semitism, misogyny, homophobia. A group of people actively seeking to harm others for their own personal gain.

And sadly, that process is also at work in claims that revile all Christians, or that, as has happened to me, dismiss us as mentally ill, stupid, delusional, etc. Someone is seeking dominance over others by harming them with negative labels. It isn't honest, it isn't helpful, it actually encourages and supports every other flavor of prejudice.

And, by employing that particular process to attack Christians in total, just as homophobes use it to attack GLBTQ people in total, or racists use it to attack people of color,

those who make such 'Christians this' and 'Christians that' claims are supporting what actually does matter to theocrats - the use of power to achieve material goals at the expense of others.

I'm opposed to theofascism, but also opposed to atheofascism as well.

There is one other, huge problem with defining Christians by those Christians who violate the civil rights, humanity, physical bodies of others. Since they tend to claim that they have "the truth" about God, when someone says "look, that anti-gay legislation, that's Christianity" even in rebuke, he or she is confirming the very premise that dominationist Christians are trying to establish in order to achieve domination. They need to define Christianity in their terms, to pre-silence rebuke.

It is important to remember that dominationist Christians are no less capable of reason than anyone else. Sure, those who stand to gain the most materially may be all but unreachable, but, the people in the pews, if given accurate information, are capable of analysis, reason, and consideration. But it does have to presented within their context, and with at least a moderate about of tolerance for their faith, and some trust that they are reporting their own experiences accurately.

After all, we cannot expect them to trust GLBTQ people's accounts of their own lives, after rejecting out of hand the religious experiences (not interpretation, but experience) of religious people. I would like to see those of us who stand up against any prejudice, to be so much more specific and accurate, careful and precise, that the lies of those who condemn homosexuality, or mock Judaism, or defame women, or vilify people of color - stand out in stark and ugly contrast.

Lastly, I'm sure that despite my best efforts, I have in the past, and will most likely in the future, slip and post a phrase or sentence that is more generalized than is really necessary or appropriate. For that reason, I have not linked to any specific blog or comment or essay that played the 'Christians this and Christians that' card. The point here is focus, as much as possible, on the processes, the harm, the ideas, and when truly necessary, the specific individuals, and do one's best to avoid criticizing too broadly.

After all, who wants to be just like this guy?

11 comments:

Impossibleape said...

Hi Jon's Friend


Being pro-people (especially marginalized people) is a Jesus kind of thing

I agree with your desire to have Christians face up to how we have marginalized large swaths of the human family.

I will have to spend some more time reading your posts before I endorse your whole program but as far as holding us (Christians) accountable for our hard-headed and hard-hearted ways I say

God Speed

Friend of Jonathan said...

ImpossibleApe

Read, question, challenge as much as you want. The more a person considers any position they take, the better, I think. Even if someone disagrees with my view, the more thought that goes into it, the better.

The whole marginalizing people is such a common phenomena - not just Christians, of course, not just humans, not just primates, etc, etc. I think that the core of God's covenant, and of Christ's ministry, is the encouragement to rise above that whole domination/marginalization process.

Jamie said...

FOJ-

Hey there. I came across your blog because of Jamie Arpin-Ricci's blog and followed the discussion there....

Let me start by saying (from the other discussion) --I agree that comparing homosexuality to slavery HAS to be demeaning and hurtful. I can't speak for anyone but me, but I don't believe that the GLBT community is going to burn in hell based on their sexuality. I'm also disgusted by the way that some Christians have demonized the GLBT community and the results of that, I can only imagine.

So, I have some honest questions for you. I read in your post that you were raised in a conservative denomination. May I ask what the teachings of that denomination were on homosexuality? I ask because I, have always attended/been part of/ been in fellowship with churches/people that have taught that homosexuality is a sin. I have (over the last few years) been re-thinking and questioning MUCH of what I have been taught, not only about homosexuality, but many other things as well. Even when I held to a strong belief that GLBT=sin, I was uncomfortable with it, to be honest.

Now, in the spirit of being honest, I'm just not sure. I don't WANT it to be true, and I recognize that I probably have years of hermeneutical bias to overcome.

So, for those of us that literally been taught all our lives that Scripture teaches homosexuality is sin, what do you suggest for an honest study?

If you were raised in a denomination that taught that homosexuality=sin, what was your journey?

I look forward to dialoguing with you.

Jamie

Friend of Jonathan said...

Jamie,

Some great questions there, which I believe deserve a blog entry, with supporting sources where possible, so I'm going to do just that - devote a day's post to it. But give me a day or two, I work on a post - ponder, research, pray, etc - in advance of composition and publishing.

Impossibleape said...

great questions Jamie

I appreciate your open heart

I hope you weren't offended by my comment that Christians didn't address slavery properly for 1850 years. The comparison was to highlight that we have been slow to do justice and I think the way we Christians have treated GLBTQ over the past two millenia is on much the same basis as we treated other important social issues,like slavery and segregation, like fair and equal treatment of women in our societies

and,
may I add my own personal bone to pick with the churh, how Christians (for the most part) have accepted and particpated in the neglect of and prejudice towards people with disabilities (especially those with intellectual disabilites.)

so many people have been shunned and mistreated in the name of God, it must truly grieve God's heart.

Jamie said...

FOG-

Sounds great. I look forward to it! Take you time, pour your soul/mind into it :)

Jamie

Jamie said...

I, for one, agree that just as we used the bible to endorse slavery, which was wrong, we use the bible to endorse hatred, intolerance and cruelty to the GLBT.

When I was talking about the slavery thing,I was referring to a comment made on another blog that people living a homosexual lifestyle is like being "in slavery" ie...."they need help out of the lifestyle".

Jamie

Friend of Jonathan said...

Presuming that we're thinking of the same blog, I ignored that nasty analogy the first time, but have addressed it in some detail today.

I think I'll the address the analogy, in a broad context, as a blog post of its own. It is an analogy used quite frequently by those people who revile and condemn GLBTQ people, and worth some attention.

Fran / Blue Gal said...

Funny, I thought most of the blogswarm participants were careful NOT to paint us Christians with a wide brush. Linky at the BAT site today. Sorry for the delay.

Friend of Jonathan said...

blue gal

I found many sites in the Blog Against Theocracy that chose to declare things like 'everyone is godless' so I chose a word that conveyed quantity, without conveying comparison against the total, like most. I'm doing my best to be as precise as words allow.

After all, most Christians are not in support of theocracy, but the quantity who are could be considered 'many'. Just as it is perfectly appropriate to be concerned about the many Christians who are seeking to institute theocracy, it is important to be concerned about the many non-religious people who judge and condemn all Christians by the actions of a few.

Thanks for the link, no problem with the delay, it looks you had a great turn-out. I just wish that there had been less Christian-bashing, and more criticism of abuse itself.

I gotta say, I've been bashed, attacked, reviled etc nearly as much for being a Christian, as for being gay.

And I'm tired of liberal non-Christians acting as if liberal and moderate Christians have not been actively resisting and rebuking conservative religiousity for centuries.

Both - the attacks on our faith, and the blindness to our work, create an incentive to disengage and just let to the extremes (there is no god vs. we have the sole Truth about God) duke it out.

Friend of Jonathan said...

One additional thing, Blue Gal,

I was simply using the example of some, many, of the participating blogs as an example of a much larger phenomena, one that occurs in just about every existing media.

I certainly didn't want to convey the impression that only or even most of the participants were engaged in christian-bashing, but simply that it does occur, and then point out the some of the ways that it is counter-productive.