Tolerating the Intolerant!

This week the UK gay rights group, Stonewall, published its list of the top gay-friendly UK employers. I was somewhat surprised that The Christian Institute (TCI) ran with the story highlighting the prominence of the various UK police forces.  TCI is a conservative Evangelical UK institution known for opposing  gay rights.

Unfortunately the TCI quickly switched the content to the recent investigations of Christians. Therefore in my opinion, although they do not say it out right, by implication that more gay people in the police force is leading to persecution of Christians; that the gay community has a vendetta against Christians; the police and society in general is becoming intolerant of Christians.

This is very disappointing to link persecution of Christians with the improvement of diversity in the police force this way. The two are unrelated.  The police are finally taking homophobic hate crime seriously - and so they should.

TCI Silence on the "Kill-The-Gays" Bill

I do think it a little rich to go on about tolerance when the TCI has said nothing (from what I can make out) on the Ugandan "Kill-The-Gays" bill. Sorry, but the TCI's silence is so deafening that one cannot hear its own complaint about intolerance.

Additionally, some the "Christian" comments on the TCI's Facebook page show little of the tolerance the TCI wants the police and others to show Christians. Postings there use pejorative terms, e.g., "perversion", "correct path", "sin", "immorality", etc. These terms are not in line with tolerance and they maintain stereotypes & prejudices (see below).

Tolerating Intolerance

I agree that some people in the gay community show hate & animosity towards Christians (I've been at the receiving end of it myself), and this is sometimes hypocritical.

However, what the TCI and others appear to be asking for is, "You need to be tolerant of my intolerance of you."

This discredits Christians immediately as they are bound to Christ's command, "Do to others as you would like them to do to you."

Therefore Christians cannot legitimately use the philosopher Rawl's statement that society must tolerate the intolerant:

Rawls concludes that a just society must be tolerant; therefore, the intolerant must be tolerated, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls qualifies this conclusion by insisting ... that society and its social institutions have a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance. Hence, the intolerant must be tolerated but only insofar as they do not endanger the tolerant society and its institutions. 

Wikipedia (16/1/2010 20:33) Tolerance

Homosexuals vs Christians

The gay community are really saying that on tolerance, Christians need to take the log out of their eye before taking the spec of dust out of someone else's.

The vast majority of intolerance & prejudice I see today is still directed by the straight community at the gay community:

• I hear much about people being subjected to homophobic bulling at school (whether they are gay or not) as "gay" is an acceptable pejorative word. I hear much of straight people who assault, rape & murder gays for just being who they are. I also hear many cases of people loosing their jobs or thrown out of their houses for being gay (by homophobic landlords, by law in the Ugandan "kill-the-gays" bill, or because they cannot afford the taxes when their partner dies).
• I hear little of people bullied at school for just being straight or gay people assaulting, raping & murdering straight people just because they are straight. I hear very few situations of people loosing their jobs or being thrown out of their houses because they are straight or committed adultery.

Maybe that is why the gay community:

• Remain suspicious of Christians & report them to the police.
• Think Christians have "blood on their hands" until they break their silence on homophobia and heterosexism and, they accepted that they are responsible for feeding homophobia because of their pejorative views that homosexuality is an inherently evil sexuality & all same-sex behavior is wrong.

Jesus Confronted Sin

Yes, the Bible is replete with Jesus for one confronting sin ... of all sin. Even if one does accept that all same-sex behaviour is wrong, one is applying two standards maintaining that heterosexual behaviour is a private matter and that homosexual behaviour is a public matter (as some Christians maintain). I still cannot understand why some Christians feel that homosexuality is a special kind of sin ... if it is a sin?

Jesus was also without sin!  That placed him in a much stronger moral position to confront sin.

Additionally, the Christian right need to realise that not all Christians regard homosexuality as a sin. Secular society most certainly do not: their professional bodies will guide their assessment of what is right and wrong, e.g., The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers and the Royal College of Psychiatrists. All of these organisations consistently state that homosexuality is not a choice.

But What Of Christian's Rights

On TCI's Facebook page, one of its supporters posted:

A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'

He then continues:

You can apply the above to militant Islam [sic], the rampant homosexual lobby [sic] or any other totalitarian ideology... but... its OUR silence that allows our FREEDOMS to disappear!

The scary thing is that the poster sounded so much like I did 10-15 years ago. I have learned to be careful with these types of arguments. I agree that Christians need to stand up for their faith ... as Christ commanded them to.

However, the Muslim and homosexual communities could also use this argument for their rights against "militant", "rampant" and "totalitarian [Christian] ideology" ... and others.

We live in a multi-cultural secular society where our respective rights will compete. I do not wish to live in a Muslim theocracy any more than a Muslim wants to live in a Christian theocracy.

This is why tolerance is so important. Tolerance does not mean that we acquiescingly condone the other person's belief system or views; that we are compromising our own beliefs.

We agree to disagree and respect each other's rights. We ensure that everyone is treated equally under the secular laws of the country.

However, Rawls' limit on tolerance (above) needs to be applied as it should have been with the Nazi's!

Gays Crying Wolf

At the same time, I do believe that the gay community does need to be careful they do not abuse their new found respect. They must be careful not to report any which incident they are offended at; otherwise they may find that the police no longer will take their complaints seriously when truly needed.

_________________________

_________________________

"Should gays be executed?"

"Should homosexuals be executed?" was the opening question on the BBC' Word Service's Africa Have Your Say programme on 15 December 2009. It created a furore in the UK. The BBC quickly back peddled, ditching the offending title and replacing it with "Should Uganda debate gay execution?"

Too late ... the damage was done.  Apart from the hate parade that the BBC moderators allowed, many complained that their license fee should not be used to discuss the existence of a minority group.

The BBC then issued two apologies ... of sorts. The first was from David Stead and the second from Peter Horrocks.

Regrettably, the apologies amount to nothing more than, "We're sorry you were offended but we were right to do it." As such, I'm unable to accept the apology. In fact, I find it rather patronising as it makes out that myself and others are simply over reacting.

In one of the Facebook groups, someone posted:

"If it wasn't for the BBC world service you would probably not be aware of this gross human rights abuse, this alone makes it worth your licence fee."

Fore mostly I wish to make absolutely clear that I fully support debate on the Ugandan proposed Member's bill. However, I am completely against the manner in which the BBC went about it.  Like many others I was already aware of this bill's existence and the BBC did a huge disservice for gay rights in Africa.

_________________________

While I agree that the editor attempted to place the question in context, by starting with the original question, they made a serious and contemptible error in judgement:

Firstly, for the Editors to even admit that they "thought long and hard about using this question which prompted a lot of internal debate", and then changed the question when people started objecting, smacks of incompetence and unprofessional-ism.

Secondly, neither the initial question nor the revised question had anything to do with the Ugandan Member's Bill. The bill calls for the death penalty in the case of aggravated Homosexual assault. Nor did the debate address the other significant issues in the bill, including:

• the fact that a Ugandan committing a homosexual act in another country where it is legal, could be extradited back to Uganda to face prosecution; or
• that friends and family members could be jailed for not reporting homosexual activity.

Surely then, if the intention was to foster debate as the Editor's "apology" claims, there were other more relevant points to use in a more responsible manner? Therefore, to me, this appears to be nothing more than a cheep and ill thought out attempt to grab headlines or attention.

Thirdly, the initial question is deeply rooted in a homophobic attitude that executing gay people for just being gay is even plausible and therefore debatable. All this did was give homophobic people a platform to voice their views in an semi-controlled manner. I did note that the BBC moderators even allowed generalised statements against homosexuals that had nothing to do with the Ugandan issue.

Finally, posing the question, "Should homosexuals be executed?", risks normalising the question. It should always remain heinous and never up for debate. Jennie Kermode's article makes this point very well.

_________________________

If you think my objection disproportional, then I would like to refer to the BBC's  Brand/Ross/Sachs issue: Brand was fired, Ross sanctioned and others lost their jobs. Yet they only insulted one person. However, the BBC still defends their decision to debate if an entire group of people should be executed for a characteristic they have no control over.

The BBC would never run a poll on whether Jews should be bombed as a solution to the Palestinian issue! Yet again, the BBC has demonstrated that they regard gay rights as the black sheep in the equality fold; paying more sensitivity to others. So much for impartiality.

The problem with brushing something under the carpet is that it leaves a bump for people to trip over later. Within three weeks the BBC had to revise another headline: "Malawi gay couple to face justice after engagement"! This time the change was replacing "justice" with "court". While this may not be the same order of magnitude as the "execute gays" fiasco, for this lack of impartiality to reoccur so soon just beggars belief!

I concur entirely with Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, the gay rights organisation,

"Given the near invisibility of so many gay issues from BBC news and current affairs - including recent murders of gay people - it does seem odd that the BBC should invite people to contribute to their web forum asking if gay people should face execution. It is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain the idea that the BBC should receive £230 million from lesbian and gay licensee fee payers every year".

Telegraph (17/12/2009) BBC causes storm by asking if gay people should face execution

I feel strongly that even an out right apology is not sufficient. This was a very serious error of judgement and those responsible should be disciplined. I do not wish to have my license fee funding such debates nor the salaries of editors and producers who thought long and hard over it.

_________________________

At the time of writing this blog, the BBC had issued no further apology nor taken any further action. OFCOM the regulator has written back to me stating they cannot deal with the issue and referred me to the BBC Trust.  I've already written to the Trust and still awaiting their response.

_________________________

_________________________

Is Homosexuality a Simple Choice?

The anti-gay lobby vehemently defend that homosexuality is a choice as it justifies so much of their view that homosexuality is purely a moral issue, it can change and should be changed. Therefore, in some cases, they regard that it is acceptable to legislate against homosexuals, e.g., the Ugandan “anti-gay” bill. For the gay rights and equality lobby, the aspect of choice is vehemently denied as they believe it is key to understanding why homosexuality cannot be nor should it be changed. Therefore human rights protect homosexuals and anti-discrimination laws are so important to protect them as a minority group. Both sides begin with apparently mutually exclusive presuppositions without trying to understand each other and what is informing each other's views.

From my own perspective, I to started with the presupposition that one's sexual orientation was a choice. However, over time I have reconsidered this position in light of what I have found both in the scriptures and modern psychology. I now regard that one's sexual identity (homosexual, heterosexual or somewhere in between) cannot be regarded as a simple choice; that there is no big dial on someone's chest that can be flicked between heterosexual or homosexual, or left somewhere between the two. In some ways I acknowledge that the simple “choice” presupposition was a lot easier as I could view life as black and white. However, my own life experiences have taught me that life is not monochrome.

However, I believe that there are elements of choice when considering how people behave in response to their sexual identity.

Now that I have declared my presupposition, I will attempt to justify it.

_________________________

In modern psychology, sexuality is not just about sex, as it

"refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions."
APA Website (2009) Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality, (page 2)

Other equally respectable psychological bodies in other countries concur.

Modern psychology understands that our sexuality is core to our being. This is not dissimilar to the Christian understanding that, as we are created in the image of a triune God, we are relational beings and specifically we are designed to be in life-long partnerships.

The above APA definition establishes two important factors, 1) a person's sense of sexual identity and 2) related behaviours.

1) A Person's Sense of Sexual Identity

One's sense of sexual identity is understood to be a somewhere on a continuum between total heterosexuality on the one end and total homosexuality on the other.

Both sides of the debate throw various studies, documents and web sites at each other that supposedly offer conclusive proof that one's sexuality is either a choice or it is not. Both sides then accuse the other of not being willing to face the facts and will do anything to justify their position.

Given all these various studies, I can only conclude that there is no conclusive proof why some people's sexual identity is towards the one end or somewhere in the middle of the sexual identity continuum. However, what is clear is that

"most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
APA Website (2009) Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,(page 3)

Even the controversial "ex-gay" author Richard Cohen acknowledges that one's sexual orientation is not a simple matter of choice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVf_11FRurk

For example, anti-gay people reference an APA conference paper in a Focus on the Family Action video clip supporting the view that people can leave homosexuality. The problem I have with this video clip is that the presenter only states that people can adopt heterosexual behaviours in some cases. I still find nothing in this video that suggests the authors successfully altered the patients' sexual identity. The “treatment” was only able to change the patients' behaviour. This is an important distinction that is highlighted in a CNN article on an APA report into these treatments: Programs to change gays to straights don't work, report says

In another example, someone in a Facebook discussion proposed a study “proving” that homosexuality is a choice:

“... homosexuality is a behavior, it is a choice. Studies have been done to prove this. George Ebner and George Rice of the University of Western Ontario have found no evidence in the "X" chromosome that a person is born homosexual or heterosexual. The reason for using the "X" chromosome is males have a "X" and "Y" chromosome and females have two "X" chromosomes. Due to the fact that both males and females practice homosexuality their only choice of finding the genetic code would be in the "X" chromosome.”

I have not been able to get hold of this report, but I suspect that Ebner & Rice did not conclude from their study that, de facto all homosexuality is not genetic and, therefore has to be a choice. Nor do I think that Ebner & Rice would state that their study precludes other genetic factors that may influence one's sexuality. Rather, I believe their study merely could not find any correlation between the “X” chromosome and homosexuality. Finally, this person's defence of “choice” also failed to distinguish between identity and behaviour, which is often the case for both sides of the argument.

If we understand sin (what is right and wrong) to relate to how we behave (both thoughts and actions) towards God, ourselves and each other, then one's sense of one's sexual identity cannot in itself be a sin or evil. Sexual identity is not a behaviour. Therefore it has to be neutral of the concept of sin or what is evil.

Some may point out that God “designed” us to be in male-female relationships; anything else is a “perversion” of that design. However, we need to acknowledge that not everyone experiences the world as it is “designed”. Most blind people (and others with “handicaps”) do not regard themselves as disabled. Rather, they feel they are “other-ly enabled” and most certainly not unnatural. Just because their experience in this world (in which humans are “designed” to have sight) is different, does not make the way they exist any less valid. Their “other-ly ability” is merely a characteristic of who they are; it is neutral of the concept of sin and not a perversion of sight.

Therefore, I feel that it is important to note that one's sexual identity is merely a human characteristic; it cannot be by its nature a "choice".

_______________________________

2) Related Behaviours

So modern psychology draws a distinction between a person's sexual identity and how they behave according to their identity. Some Christians acknowledge this distinction with the statement, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." (In another blog I'll discuss why I have come to believe this still remains a pejorative hetero-sexist statement.)

There is little dispute that our behaviour does include an element of choice and our behaviour can change.

“Behavior […] refers to the actions or reactions of an object or organism, usually in relation to the environment. Behavior can be conscious or subconscious, overt or covert, and voluntary or involuntary.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavior

2.1) If we begin with heterosexual behaviour. Not all heterosexual sexual behaviour is regarded as acceptable. In the case of such behaviours as rape, paedophilia and bestiality, both secular people & people of faith generally regard these as abusive behaviours. These behaviours are based on dominance and they are not based on mutual consent. Generally, where secular and sacred are divided is on the questions of:

• Does all heterosexual consensual sexual behaviour have to take place within a loving & committed relationship otherwise it is potentially selfish, e.g., if two people consensually agree to sex on a one night stand?
• What is the nature of a loving & committed relationship in which this behaviour can take place, e.g., common law, marriage?
• How should people behave sexually when these relationships break up, e.g., divorce and remarriage?

In a modern, multi-cultural and secular society we agree to disagree on these choices of behaviour but we do not discriminate against others who disagree. Generally, heterosexuals do not loose their jobs because they had sex before they are married, they are not thrown into prison because they committed adultery, they are not given twin rooms because they book into a hotel with different surnames and unmarried titles, nor do they loose their home because they are not married or cannot afford estate taxes when their life-partner dies.

Additionally, heterosexuality is not condemned as evil because some (even if it were a majority) practise unsafe sex or have multiple sexual partners.

2.2) Homosexual behaviour is in no way dissimilar. It to involves the concepts of mutual consent, love and commitment. This is why I understand the gay community's anger when their loving & committed relationships, based on mutual consent between two adults, are compared with rape, paedophilia and bestiality. While some Christians and others may feel that same-sex behaviour based on loving, committed and consensual relationships still are a sin, it remains entirely inappropriate, prejudicial and unjust to compare these with abusive, domineering, non-consensual and selfish behaviours.

Similarly homosexual behaviour also includes elements of choice. The point here is that those whose sexual identity is homosexual may choose:

• heterosexual behaviours (and some of these may regard themselves as ex-gay),
• to abstain from either (celibacy), or
• to consensually act on their sexual identity whether or not within a loving and committed relationship.

Again, in a modern, multi-cultural and secular society, we all owe it to our common humanity to respect each other's choices even if they disagree with our own understanding of what is right and wrong, provided of course that such behaviour is not abusive.

I cannot understand why some Christians & others seem to think that homosexuality and/or homosexual behaviours are a special kind of sin (assuming they are sin), and therefore it is acceptable to introduce legislation against homosexuals, e.g., the Ugandan anti-gay bill.

This is why, as a Christian, I find myself having to support gay rights and their call for equality.

__________________________

To conclude, Archbishop Tutu summed it up well:

"It is a perversion if you say to me that a person chooses to be homosexual. You must be crazy to choose a way of life that exposes you to a kind of hatred. It's like saying you choose to be black in a race-infected society." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7100295.stm

Therefore, I maintain that in the light of modern psychology and other considerations, for anyone to insist that human sexuality is a simple choice between heterosexuality or homosexuality is a gross over simplification. It is akin to insisting the Earth is flat and, the solar system & universe revolves around it.