- Joined
- Nov 10, 2009
- Messages
- 10,361
- Reaction score
- 1,032
- Location
- In your mind
- Website
- maxoneverything.wordpress.com
Sorry, but this is a truly humongous post, and I don't really feel like a TL; DR. We're writers, and should like to read anyway. If this is too long for you, well, there are other more fun and interesting posts I guess.
However, BenPanced’s post from the other day jolted me into thinking about this subject, and for me it works like this - when I need to think about something, the best way is to write about it. That forces you to structure things, and to consider the alternatives.
The question that I posed myself was this: who is the prime opposition to LGBT rights in the United States, and why is that opposition so strong compared to places like the UK or Sweden or Germany? There are many sides to the answer I arrived at after my long thinking.
The opposition are the churches
The who is easy enough to identify. It is the Christian churches of our differing countries that provide the main opposition to increased LGBT-rights. It does not really matter what kind of church we’re talking about. It can be the Swedish Lutheran Church or the Roman Catholic one. It can be the German Presbyterian or the Dutch Methodist ones.
In the centre, there is always a church in the lead, together with their allies in other denominations. There is no difference between the United States and Europe in this matter. In the UK the main opposition is the Anglican Church together with their junior partners in the Roman Catholic Church and the other denominations. In Spain the main opposition is the Roman Catholic Church, in coalition with the smaller denominations in that country.
The fight for our rights is therefore a fight against the churches’ influence, no matter where the fight takes place. That is the main thing one has to understand, and that’s why you can’t really compromise with the churches and “debate” civilly. The fundamental rights of an individual are not up for debate, and it’s not something to talk about.
A sidetrack here is necessary, as it’s important to differentiate with an individual’s belief in a deity and the organisation called ‘the church’. This is what I’m talking about when I say ‘the church’ throughout this post. I am talking about the organisation, not the individual members that are faithful to their deity.
It’s nobody’s business to argue about religiosity in an individual, and the LGBT-fight can never stoop to ad hominem against churchgoers. It’s a fight against the organisations, and the influence of the organisations in the political spheres.
It’s a fundamental right to be stupid, to be racist, and to be homophobic. It is however not a fundamental right to be able to force everyone else to be racist, dumb or homophobic by way of laws and tradition. Anyone that tries to do that needs to be met with vigilance, with resistance, and with defeat. It’s a fundamental right to behave like an idiot, but it’s not a fundamental right for the idiocy to win.
The churches and the state
How come so many European countries have seen more LGBT-liberation than the United States? Why are the Churches less effective in the UK than in the US? I think that the chief reason for this is that the separation of Church and state is much stronger in many parts of Europe, despite the uncodified nature of it and despite monarchs and presidents being prominent figureheads of the Churches.
Despite strong bonds between the states and the churches in Europe, the separation does not depend on laws but on popular sentiment and tradition. In effect, European voters punish overt displays of religiosity in public office, while US voters punish lack of overt religiosity. Therefore it is easier to win over the churches here in Europe, even in staunchly conservative countries like Portugal.
The principle of separation has become much stronger and more resilient over here because it’s built into the psychology of the voters, and therefore the power of the churches is much diminished. This is in contrast to the US where the separation is codified into law, but where there is a requirement of overt religiosity to be considered for public office.
The Roman Catholic Church branded the UK as the moral wasteland because the churches have no influence, despite the fact that the Queen is the head of the Anglican Church. The churches in the United States have direct influence over the politicians despite the constitution requiring separation, because the voters expect it to be so.
The churches and politics
Since an overt religiosity is required by the voters in the United States, it becomes self-interest for politicians to conform to that religiosity, regardless of political affiliation. This is one of the reasons why, I think, that LGBT-people have such a hard time in the United States. With the weak separation of church and state, the churches have a large influence over policy formation in the political spheres.
This is, after all, a reason why the republican party pretty much has been co-opted by the religious right, and why the religious right has such an extraordinary influence over the party, to the detriment of all political debate about social issues like LGBT-rights. Even the political opposition needs to toe the religious line, and not confront the religiosity of the religious right because their religiosity is considered goodness.
With a political requirement for religiosity from all political figures, a debate about the nature of religiosity is effectively killed because it would be political suicide to debate it. Therefore, natural bipartisan alliances between LGBT-rights champions in both the left and the right become impossible, and the churches influence is strengthened and preserved.
I point to the fact that California’s Proposition 8 was defeated by conservatives in the Log cabin republicans and the conservative appointees to the benches in the federal district where Proposition 8 was argued.
However, an alliance between democrats and republicans is impossible for many reasons, not least because certain churches have managed to paint the democrats as against god. The opposition to the churches influence is broken down into much smaller units that tend to fight on their own. The opposition to the churches become much weaker.
Also, the churches influence on politics in the US cannot be opened for debates in any serious manner, and therefore natural alliances on points of policy like gay marriage can’t be entered into because the political price would be too high for both the republican and democratic allies.
The only hope is separate legal fights for the constitutionality of policy, rather than a political alliance to finally overturn the pernicious influences of the churches. This is one reason why an outspoken ally like President Obama appears to do nothing in office. The political price for doing the right thing is too high, and therefore only lip-service is offered instead of action.
One of the consequences of all this is that the nature of LGBT-people is a respectable political debating point, and the dehumanization of LGBT-people is a valid political aim. In the midst of the suicides, when the debates were at its high point, Washington Post offered commentary space to the Family Research Institute, one of the most pernicious organisations out there, because WP wanted to offer the opposing view.
While they would never offer David Duke space to argue for racism as a valid and respectable political view, most media outlets are perfectly willing to let organisations like that to argue freely for LGBT-people as subhuman.
The churches influence kill people
Let’s stay on the suicides for a bit. As I said, just a few months ago, there was a spate of suicides by kids on the front pages. Why it got attention now is anyone’s guess, but the suicides were just as frequent two years ago, and will be as frequent two years from now. But now they were talked about, but something strange happened.
It morphed into a ‘bullying problem’ in specific schools, and all attention was focused on the bullies in the school yards. If it wasn’t so bad, it could be described as a brilliant move of deflection because now we could talk about mean and bad individuals in the school yards, and ignore the real problem.
That problem is with church influence over politics in the United States. Gay and transgender kids are not bullied because they are gay and transgender, but because the school boards and the school administrations and the town halls have defined gay and transgender as bad, and because they enact policy to specifically exclude LGBT-kids from normal protections.
While fat, black, bad sighted, or otherwise challenged kids were protected by the schools themselves or by their parents, LGBT-kids have been excluded from everything as a matter of policy enacted by politicians in the school boards or in the town halls, and the champions of that exclusion are the churches.
Attempts to right that, and include gay and transgender kids under some kind of protection schemes are hindered by the churches’ vociferous opposition. Prevention schemes are hindered because of the churches belief that homosexuality is a sin, and that accessory to death takes place in the halls of political power, as well as in reinforcing the idea that homosexuality is a sin within the general population. That is where the problem lies, and that is where it needs to be solved.
These deaths take place in that shadow, below visibility, but you might as well have the churches build the crosses and hang the children on the crosses, because the logical conclusion based on the opposition to protection and the furtherance of the ideal of oppression is that it is acceptable that children die if they are LGBT.
A misery in solitude
Again, while black kids, fat kids, kids with glasses, or kids that have some kind of quirk that their environment finds pick-worthy have a network they can rely on. They can go home to their parents and ask for help, and not have to factor in whether their parents will freak out.
They have a shoulder to cry on. They have parents that will think nothing of going to the school boards and raise hell, or go to the media and expose racism or something. Doing so will call down the wrath of public opinion on the right people. Even neglectful parents will not suddenly start to neglect these kids because of their orientation.
LGBT-kids have none of that, and it is even so that if they go home and ask for help from their parents, the parents might flip out and force the kid to church to pray his sins away. All blame will land on the kid. Even if the parents do not go to this extreme, the presumption will be that homosexuality or transgender is bad, and the parents might not do what is right for their child.
So, the LGBT-fight is not comparable to other kind of civil rights fights. It is a struggle we do alone, until we find external allies in LGBT-organisations. It is a terrible weight on kids to break the isolation, and dare to accept their natures. We are black, white, Jewish, Indian, and Persian. We are blonde, brunettes, have blue eyes or brown. We are alone until we get help, and we have to struggle to overcome our own selves before we can get help.
The fight has to go on, in the right place
We that have come a bit on the way have to see that, and not get bogged down in detail or partisanship, to be brutally frank. We have to deny parents the right to raise their kids as they see fit, and intervene without permission to help. We have to sneak messages of hope through the barriers that the community and the parents have erected around these kids.
And we have to realize where the fight has to take place, and have a holistic view of it. Allowing people to focus on say the school yard, and exclude all else, is a mistake. The fight is in the town halls, the state legislatures, the federal halls of power. And it is a fight that needs to break the churches influence in the political spheres, even if that costs political capital.
Until the churches influence is attacked head on, it will be a hard and tough fight that we will most likely lose, because the churches will presume the mantle of goodness, and present themselves as the faith of love and kindness – even as the invisible crosses are erected, and even as kids and adults alike are hoisted up on them.
We need to keep a holistic view always, and not allow ourselves to bog down in details that will deflect from the fight in the right spheres. That’s how we’re doing it in Europe, and that’s how it needs to be done in the US. We have had an easier time of it because religion has not had such a big influence on our politics for half a century.
However, BenPanced’s post from the other day jolted me into thinking about this subject, and for me it works like this - when I need to think about something, the best way is to write about it. That forces you to structure things, and to consider the alternatives.
The question that I posed myself was this: who is the prime opposition to LGBT rights in the United States, and why is that opposition so strong compared to places like the UK or Sweden or Germany? There are many sides to the answer I arrived at after my long thinking.
The opposition are the churches
The who is easy enough to identify. It is the Christian churches of our differing countries that provide the main opposition to increased LGBT-rights. It does not really matter what kind of church we’re talking about. It can be the Swedish Lutheran Church or the Roman Catholic one. It can be the German Presbyterian or the Dutch Methodist ones.
In the centre, there is always a church in the lead, together with their allies in other denominations. There is no difference between the United States and Europe in this matter. In the UK the main opposition is the Anglican Church together with their junior partners in the Roman Catholic Church and the other denominations. In Spain the main opposition is the Roman Catholic Church, in coalition with the smaller denominations in that country.
The fight for our rights is therefore a fight against the churches’ influence, no matter where the fight takes place. That is the main thing one has to understand, and that’s why you can’t really compromise with the churches and “debate” civilly. The fundamental rights of an individual are not up for debate, and it’s not something to talk about.
A sidetrack here is necessary, as it’s important to differentiate with an individual’s belief in a deity and the organisation called ‘the church’. This is what I’m talking about when I say ‘the church’ throughout this post. I am talking about the organisation, not the individual members that are faithful to their deity.
It’s nobody’s business to argue about religiosity in an individual, and the LGBT-fight can never stoop to ad hominem against churchgoers. It’s a fight against the organisations, and the influence of the organisations in the political spheres.
It’s a fundamental right to be stupid, to be racist, and to be homophobic. It is however not a fundamental right to be able to force everyone else to be racist, dumb or homophobic by way of laws and tradition. Anyone that tries to do that needs to be met with vigilance, with resistance, and with defeat. It’s a fundamental right to behave like an idiot, but it’s not a fundamental right for the idiocy to win.
The churches and the state
How come so many European countries have seen more LGBT-liberation than the United States? Why are the Churches less effective in the UK than in the US? I think that the chief reason for this is that the separation of Church and state is much stronger in many parts of Europe, despite the uncodified nature of it and despite monarchs and presidents being prominent figureheads of the Churches.
Despite strong bonds between the states and the churches in Europe, the separation does not depend on laws but on popular sentiment and tradition. In effect, European voters punish overt displays of religiosity in public office, while US voters punish lack of overt religiosity. Therefore it is easier to win over the churches here in Europe, even in staunchly conservative countries like Portugal.
The principle of separation has become much stronger and more resilient over here because it’s built into the psychology of the voters, and therefore the power of the churches is much diminished. This is in contrast to the US where the separation is codified into law, but where there is a requirement of overt religiosity to be considered for public office.
The Roman Catholic Church branded the UK as the moral wasteland because the churches have no influence, despite the fact that the Queen is the head of the Anglican Church. The churches in the United States have direct influence over the politicians despite the constitution requiring separation, because the voters expect it to be so.
The churches and politics
Since an overt religiosity is required by the voters in the United States, it becomes self-interest for politicians to conform to that religiosity, regardless of political affiliation. This is one of the reasons why, I think, that LGBT-people have such a hard time in the United States. With the weak separation of church and state, the churches have a large influence over policy formation in the political spheres.
This is, after all, a reason why the republican party pretty much has been co-opted by the religious right, and why the religious right has such an extraordinary influence over the party, to the detriment of all political debate about social issues like LGBT-rights. Even the political opposition needs to toe the religious line, and not confront the religiosity of the religious right because their religiosity is considered goodness.
With a political requirement for religiosity from all political figures, a debate about the nature of religiosity is effectively killed because it would be political suicide to debate it. Therefore, natural bipartisan alliances between LGBT-rights champions in both the left and the right become impossible, and the churches influence is strengthened and preserved.
I point to the fact that California’s Proposition 8 was defeated by conservatives in the Log cabin republicans and the conservative appointees to the benches in the federal district where Proposition 8 was argued.
However, an alliance between democrats and republicans is impossible for many reasons, not least because certain churches have managed to paint the democrats as against god. The opposition to the churches influence is broken down into much smaller units that tend to fight on their own. The opposition to the churches become much weaker.
Also, the churches influence on politics in the US cannot be opened for debates in any serious manner, and therefore natural alliances on points of policy like gay marriage can’t be entered into because the political price would be too high for both the republican and democratic allies.
The only hope is separate legal fights for the constitutionality of policy, rather than a political alliance to finally overturn the pernicious influences of the churches. This is one reason why an outspoken ally like President Obama appears to do nothing in office. The political price for doing the right thing is too high, and therefore only lip-service is offered instead of action.
One of the consequences of all this is that the nature of LGBT-people is a respectable political debating point, and the dehumanization of LGBT-people is a valid political aim. In the midst of the suicides, when the debates were at its high point, Washington Post offered commentary space to the Family Research Institute, one of the most pernicious organisations out there, because WP wanted to offer the opposing view.
While they would never offer David Duke space to argue for racism as a valid and respectable political view, most media outlets are perfectly willing to let organisations like that to argue freely for LGBT-people as subhuman.
The churches influence kill people
Let’s stay on the suicides for a bit. As I said, just a few months ago, there was a spate of suicides by kids on the front pages. Why it got attention now is anyone’s guess, but the suicides were just as frequent two years ago, and will be as frequent two years from now. But now they were talked about, but something strange happened.
It morphed into a ‘bullying problem’ in specific schools, and all attention was focused on the bullies in the school yards. If it wasn’t so bad, it could be described as a brilliant move of deflection because now we could talk about mean and bad individuals in the school yards, and ignore the real problem.
That problem is with church influence over politics in the United States. Gay and transgender kids are not bullied because they are gay and transgender, but because the school boards and the school administrations and the town halls have defined gay and transgender as bad, and because they enact policy to specifically exclude LGBT-kids from normal protections.
While fat, black, bad sighted, or otherwise challenged kids were protected by the schools themselves or by their parents, LGBT-kids have been excluded from everything as a matter of policy enacted by politicians in the school boards or in the town halls, and the champions of that exclusion are the churches.
Attempts to right that, and include gay and transgender kids under some kind of protection schemes are hindered by the churches’ vociferous opposition. Prevention schemes are hindered because of the churches belief that homosexuality is a sin, and that accessory to death takes place in the halls of political power, as well as in reinforcing the idea that homosexuality is a sin within the general population. That is where the problem lies, and that is where it needs to be solved.
These deaths take place in that shadow, below visibility, but you might as well have the churches build the crosses and hang the children on the crosses, because the logical conclusion based on the opposition to protection and the furtherance of the ideal of oppression is that it is acceptable that children die if they are LGBT.
A misery in solitude
Again, while black kids, fat kids, kids with glasses, or kids that have some kind of quirk that their environment finds pick-worthy have a network they can rely on. They can go home to their parents and ask for help, and not have to factor in whether their parents will freak out.
They have a shoulder to cry on. They have parents that will think nothing of going to the school boards and raise hell, or go to the media and expose racism or something. Doing so will call down the wrath of public opinion on the right people. Even neglectful parents will not suddenly start to neglect these kids because of their orientation.
LGBT-kids have none of that, and it is even so that if they go home and ask for help from their parents, the parents might flip out and force the kid to church to pray his sins away. All blame will land on the kid. Even if the parents do not go to this extreme, the presumption will be that homosexuality or transgender is bad, and the parents might not do what is right for their child.
So, the LGBT-fight is not comparable to other kind of civil rights fights. It is a struggle we do alone, until we find external allies in LGBT-organisations. It is a terrible weight on kids to break the isolation, and dare to accept their natures. We are black, white, Jewish, Indian, and Persian. We are blonde, brunettes, have blue eyes or brown. We are alone until we get help, and we have to struggle to overcome our own selves before we can get help.
The fight has to go on, in the right place
We that have come a bit on the way have to see that, and not get bogged down in detail or partisanship, to be brutally frank. We have to deny parents the right to raise their kids as they see fit, and intervene without permission to help. We have to sneak messages of hope through the barriers that the community and the parents have erected around these kids.
And we have to realize where the fight has to take place, and have a holistic view of it. Allowing people to focus on say the school yard, and exclude all else, is a mistake. The fight is in the town halls, the state legislatures, the federal halls of power. And it is a fight that needs to break the churches influence in the political spheres, even if that costs political capital.
Until the churches influence is attacked head on, it will be a hard and tough fight that we will most likely lose, because the churches will presume the mantle of goodness, and present themselves as the faith of love and kindness – even as the invisible crosses are erected, and even as kids and adults alike are hoisted up on them.
We need to keep a holistic view always, and not allow ourselves to bog down in details that will deflect from the fight in the right spheres. That’s how we’re doing it in Europe, and that’s how it needs to be done in the US. We have had an easier time of it because religion has not had such a big influence on our politics for half a century.