Thomas Schmidt writes,
"An acquaintance at the office, or a neighbor, approaches you and says, "You're a religious person--tell me, what do you think of all this homosexuality stuff?"
"You reply, "Well, I think the Bible is pretty clear that such activity is inappropriate." You think you have made a simple statement expressing your belief in the authority of Scripture. But what the other person hears may be altogether different."
"To many people today, it is as though you had said, "Well, I think that the Bible makes it pretty clear that light-skinned people are superior to dark-skinned people." Why? Because for increasing numbers of people, sexuality is no longer a moral issue but a civil rights issue."
"How did the shift occur from morality to rights, and why has it proven persuasive? In the broadest terms, we might consider developments in Western and especially American culture. Begin with the affirmation that all people are created equal, and continue with the principle that the state should not rule in matters of personal conscience. Implication: the state should protect privacy."
"But then--and here's the rub--gradually remove the notion of a universal standard by which to evaluate behavior (the Judeo-Christian tradition), and people are left to evaluate their own behavior, which is all equally moral because it is all equally legal. The flip side of this is that it becomes immoral--and it could actually become illegal--to express intolerance, and the definition of intolerance could extend to any challenge to a legally protected behavior or opinion."
"The confusion between what is legal and what is moral, and the emergence of tolerance as the supreme virtue, stands behind most of the important issues being debated today... Within this cultural climate of confusion, in the past few decades there has been considerable civil rights legislation for minorities and women... the key issue in the link with civil rights is the issue of choice. Is homosexuality something you are, like being black or elderly or handicapped or female, or is it something you do, like adultery or polygamy or incest? Those who practice these latter behaviors have certainly been discriminated against... but they are not linked to the civil rights movement."
"An acquaintance at the office, or a neighbor, approaches you and says, "You're a religious person--tell me, what do you think of all this homosexuality stuff?"
"You reply, "Well, I think the Bible is pretty clear that such activity is inappropriate." You think you have made a simple statement expressing your belief in the authority of Scripture. But what the other person hears may be altogether different."
"To many people today, it is as though you had said, "Well, I think that the Bible makes it pretty clear that light-skinned people are superior to dark-skinned people." Why? Because for increasing numbers of people, sexuality is no longer a moral issue but a civil rights issue."
"How did the shift occur from morality to rights, and why has it proven persuasive? In the broadest terms, we might consider developments in Western and especially American culture. Begin with the affirmation that all people are created equal, and continue with the principle that the state should not rule in matters of personal conscience. Implication: the state should protect privacy."
"But then--and here's the rub--gradually remove the notion of a universal standard by which to evaluate behavior (the Judeo-Christian tradition), and people are left to evaluate their own behavior, which is all equally moral because it is all equally legal. The flip side of this is that it becomes immoral--and it could actually become illegal--to express intolerance, and the definition of intolerance could extend to any challenge to a legally protected behavior or opinion."
"The confusion between what is legal and what is moral, and the emergence of tolerance as the supreme virtue, stands behind most of the important issues being debated today... Within this cultural climate of confusion, in the past few decades there has been considerable civil rights legislation for minorities and women... the key issue in the link with civil rights is the issue of choice. Is homosexuality something you are, like being black or elderly or handicapped or female, or is it something you do, like adultery or polygamy or incest? Those who practice these latter behaviors have certainly been discriminated against... but they are not linked to the civil rights movement."
"... It is important to understand that public tolerance dramatically
increases when people are convinced that a desire for same sex intimacy is
biologically driven... the mass media persistently portrays, and the public
increasingly adopts, a view that homosexuals do not do, but are. If they are,
and they experience oppression similar to that of minorities and women, then we
must accept them--even celebrate them--to the same degree."
"It is simplistic, and counterproductive in the moral debate, to blame the portrayal of homosexuality as biologically determined on a conspiracy between homosexual activists and the social liberals who dominate the media. What is more important is to understand how this portrayal changes public opinion. There are at least two factors at work."
"One is the popular myth that science deals only in absolute, objective truths, real things that grow in little dishes after being warmed up over little burners. By contrast theologians and ethicists are pathetic characters endlessly arguing over vague abstractions. We may bring them into discussion for color or comic relief, but everyone knows where truth comes from. The priestly garment of our age has become the white lab coat."
"The second factor at work in changing public opinion is the simplification of issues for mass consumption, especially in television... Few people have the patience for a thorough presentation of a complex issue, even if such a presentation is offered. Instead, news programs sustain interest by giving the extreme positions of an issue, and statements are measured for their value as sound bites. Thus, when a new study appears suggesting that, say, twins are likely to have same sex orientation, the televised result is predictable."
"A ten-second, unqualified summary of the research is followed by the image of a scientist who tells us that "we are excited at the possibilities presented by this new finding." Back to the news room, where the anchor informs us that "the gay community reacted enthusiastically to the news" and presents the leader of a political action group who proclaims that "this confirms what we have always known about ourselves, that our sexuality is a part of who we are." Finally, we see an angry fundamentalist who asserts that "these are the lies perpetuated by the sinful servants of Sodom." All of this in approximately thirty seconds, and then we are swept away... to an ad."
"So it is that the neighbor or the coworker is unimpressed, even offended by the Christian who claims that disapproval of homosexuality is based on the Bible. But that is only one problem. What may come as a surprise to many readers, and what is in fact the focus of this book, is not the debate between Christians and secularists about homosexuality, but the debate between Christians and Christians about homosexuality."
"It is simplistic, and counterproductive in the moral debate, to blame the portrayal of homosexuality as biologically determined on a conspiracy between homosexual activists and the social liberals who dominate the media. What is more important is to understand how this portrayal changes public opinion. There are at least two factors at work."
"One is the popular myth that science deals only in absolute, objective truths, real things that grow in little dishes after being warmed up over little burners. By contrast theologians and ethicists are pathetic characters endlessly arguing over vague abstractions. We may bring them into discussion for color or comic relief, but everyone knows where truth comes from. The priestly garment of our age has become the white lab coat."
"The second factor at work in changing public opinion is the simplification of issues for mass consumption, especially in television... Few people have the patience for a thorough presentation of a complex issue, even if such a presentation is offered. Instead, news programs sustain interest by giving the extreme positions of an issue, and statements are measured for their value as sound bites. Thus, when a new study appears suggesting that, say, twins are likely to have same sex orientation, the televised result is predictable."
"A ten-second, unqualified summary of the research is followed by the image of a scientist who tells us that "we are excited at the possibilities presented by this new finding." Back to the news room, where the anchor informs us that "the gay community reacted enthusiastically to the news" and presents the leader of a political action group who proclaims that "this confirms what we have always known about ourselves, that our sexuality is a part of who we are." Finally, we see an angry fundamentalist who asserts that "these are the lies perpetuated by the sinful servants of Sodom." All of this in approximately thirty seconds, and then we are swept away... to an ad."
"So it is that the neighbor or the coworker is unimpressed, even offended by the Christian who claims that disapproval of homosexuality is based on the Bible. But that is only one problem. What may come as a surprise to many readers, and what is in fact the focus of this book, is not the debate between Christians and secularists about homosexuality, but the debate between Christians and Christians about homosexuality."
________________________________________
--Thomas Schmidt, Straight and Narrow?: Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexual Debate, 1995.
No comments:
Post a Comment