Join Ology today. Sign in and connect with others who share your interests

Breaking political news? Don't worry, we'll fix it.
• Created by: Brett Warner
16031
Followers623
Reactions1631
Posts2453
PoliticOlogy
Live
Stream
STATS
16031
Posts 2453
Comments 662
Loves 914
Hates 493
Hmms 224
TOP POSTS
Washington, New Jersey Battle Over Gay Marriage Bills
Washington, New Jersey Battle Over Gay Marriage Bills
The Ology Team .
561
Video: Justin Timberlake Sings Otis Redding For President Obama
Video: Justin Timberlake Sings Otis Redding For President Obama
Brett Warner
330
Earn An iPad And More With The New Ology Rewards Program
Earn An iPad And More With The New Ology Rewards Program
Brett Warner
289
Ready Morrissey's Brutal Margaret Thatcher Obituary
Ready Morrissey's Brutal Margaret Thatcher Obituary
Brett Warner
120
Video: President Obama Praises Led Zeppelin At Kennedy Center Honors
Video: President Obama Praises Led Zeppelin At Kennedy Center Honors
Brett Warner
105
Morrissey Isn't Happy With How The Media Is Remembering Margaret Thatcher
Morrissey Isn't Happy With How The Media Is Remembering Margaret Thatcher
Brett Warner
94
Get Ready To Love A Brand New Ology.com...
Get Ready To Love A Brand New Ology.com...
Terron R. Moore
68
New Pussy Riot Documentary Coming To Sundance 2013
New Pussy Riot Documentary Coming To Sundance 2013
Brett Warner
41
Earn An iPad And More With The New Ology Rewards Program
Earn An iPad And More With The New Ology Rewards Program
Brett Warner
39
Watch J.K. Rowling Discuss 'The Casual Vacancy' On 'The Daily Show'
Watch J.K. Rowling Discuss 'The Casual Vacancy' On 'The Daily Show'
Brett Warner
7
TOP TAGS

politicology

1
SHOUTBOX 1

SIGN IN TO CHAT!
Enjoying PoliticOlogy? Join the community today to contribute and get the latest updates.
Agree to our Terms of Service
Agree to our Terms of Service
x

Roots of Prejudice, Part 1: The Survival of Intolerance

Brian Murphy
Atheism
3 Comments

Residents of North Carolina voted overwhelmingly to amend their state constitution last Tuesday to include a ban on same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships, reminding us that despite recent court victories, the fight for equality is far from over in the US. But in a society that has recently struggled through the Civil Rights movement, why do we fail to apply lessons of past inequalities to present demands for equal rights? Why are we slow to understand the injustice of selectively legislating against one group of people, who in most cases haven’t even attained “separate but equal” status under the law? 

To comprehend why some are still denied the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, one must analyze the constituency of those supporting such prohibitions. A telling microcosm of this widespread practice was captured on camera just weeks before the NC vote.  

Sean Harris, the Pastor of Berean Baptist Church (Fayetteville, North Carolina) was filmed suggesting that fathers give their sons "a good punch" if they show signs of being a homosexual (supported by laughter of some members of the congregation). Harris went on to stress the importance of gender roles in the family:

You were made by god to be a male and you’re going to be a male.  And when your daughter starts acting too butch, you rein her in. And you say 'oh no, oh no sweetheart'…you can play sports…but sometime you’re going to act like a girl and walk like a girl and talk like a girl and smell like a girl and that means you’re going to be beautiful and you’re going to be attractive; you’re going to dress yourself up.

Most media sources framed the story around Harris' language that encouraged parents to hit children, however this focus on child abuse was misdirected. The press missed an important opportunity to investigate a driving force behind the propagation of gay and lesbian prejudice. 

The problem lies not with one man speaking candidly about homosexuality, but with entire subpopulations of people who barricade themselves in ideological pockets of America where their inherited intolerance is safely reinforced among others in their community. And inscribed on the pillars of many of these communities is an unalterable word of God, which in pretty clear terms adamantly opposes homosexual behavior.  

Many, especially supporters of gay rights, will pacify their consciences by writing this off as an isolated incident; that these are the words of one ill-tempered preacher who misspoke during an otherwise uneventful gathering.  But this type of passive-aggressive persecution in religious communities is more widespread than most are willing to admit. One simply needs to read the official positions of the major US religious sects toward marriage to understand the breadth of this problem. 

In defense of their position, these groups have successfully blanketed their bigotry with persecution claims of their own—that although gay and lesbian couples have a right to live as they please, they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else—and thus to preserve marriage, laws must be forged that prevent homosexuals from enjoying the benefits of such an institution. And under the illusion of being attacked, traditional marriage proponents come out of the closet angry (for lack of a better phrase).  

And many do not stop at marriage. In some heavily populated Christian states, civil unions are not recognized, health benefits are denied to same sex couples, hospital visitation rights are denied to loved ones of the same gender, and despite appalling divorce rates among heterosexual parents, homosexual couples are said to be unable to provide children with a "family environment" at home.

Of course, Mr. Harris has every right to preach intolerance, just as those who attend his sermons have every right to listen to and believe such teachings. This leads me to the take-away message: anti-gay sentiment was not abolished by the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. The battle for equality will continue into our future, and its duration will be entirely dependent on our willingness to fight against those who are the major supporters of institutionalized hatred.    

At the epicenter of this struggle is the education of our children.  Under a paranoia-stricken protective flock of parents, few among them will be exposed to the fruits of diversity, and fewer still will experience the fortune of having their beliefs challenged. Children are being raised in communities without ever having a gay friend, and thus will remain devoid of empathy toward the emotional pain that their beliefs will cause some day.

A diverse and often conflicting array of ideas is to be expected in a pluralistic society. Discussion and debate are welcomed. Compromise is encouraged. However placing limits on the rights of a minority through legislation is nothing short of selective persecution, and should be met with an equal mass of activism aimed directly at educating its intended victims, namely our children. We must protect and instill that which was declared upon our nation’s founding – that we all have inalienable rights, the most basic of which is the pursuit of happiness. 

---------------------

Brian T. Murphy is an Assistant Professor of Medicinal Chemistry at the University of Illinois at Chicago.  Follow him on Twitter @WritesOfMurph


Comments (3)

giggle profile picture
giggle monster: i concur. what gives the church the right to decide what a "legal marriage" should be? i believe in separation of church and state. the church can require whatever it pleases of its voluntary members, but they have no right to push those requirements into general law.
August 7, 2012
Brian profile picture
Brian Murphy: Nice points (especially the last one).

Attention must be given to the fact that in many states (NC in this case), citizens went out of their way to ban civil unions and deny benefits to homosexuals. Bigoted? Absolutely. And in Part 2 next week, I'll attempt to explore the hypothesis that asks "why"...
May 16, 2012
--------- profile picture
--------- ----: I disagree with your arguments. The church's (and I speak loosely since not all churches are equal, in agreement, or of the same denomination) position on defining marriage is not a grand masquerade to hide bigotry; but rather the preservation of an idea. Many components of a church are not solely based on the scriptures it preaches from but from the individuals who interpret those readings. An idea was captured from those readings that defines their interpretation of "marriage." Now if the "church" was truly separate form the "government" then marriage would solely be recognized by religious people and there would be no "civil" marriages. You can't have it both ways. In an ideal world marriage would be a union between to loving people, that's it. But because we have married (excuse the pun) the idea of this aspect of religion into everyday law and society, it becomes a proponent of civil rights of completely different make-up than past movements; religion was not the base factor. Now, I'm not arguing against gay marriage. In fact I am a huge supporter of gay marriage in the eyes of the government regardless of religious background. I'm just pointing out that churches don't hate gay marriage; they hate the common acceptance of a different belief that redefines their idea of a family unit. But hey, this is why we have Modern Family right?

What bothered me from that quote from Sean Harris though was the idea of "boxing" people into specific labels whether they be associated to gender or not. The idea that homosexuality is tied into gender identity is wrong. Gender identity is completely different than sexuality. Gender identity is the idea of a girl identifying herself as female and a boy identifying himself as male. Making your daughter less "butch" has nothing to do with whether she loves girls.
May 16, 2012