If a Mormon believes that cigarette smoking is sinful, is that Mormon a hateful bigot?
If an Evangelical Christian believes that drinking alcohol is sinful, is he a hateful bigot?
If a Catholic believes that sex outside of marriage is a sin, is he a hateful bigot?
If an Orthodox Jew believes that masturbation is sinful, is he a hateful bigot?
If a Buddhist believes that all war is bad and there is no justification for any war, ever, is he an intolerant bigot?
Okay. So why is it that if a Presbyterian thinks homosexuality is sinful, he's a hateful bigot?
While I am definitely a fan of Jeff Jarvis, I have to ask him: why shouldn't I think he's a hateful bigot for his obvious contempt and intolerance toward people whose religious views he doesn't share?
Maybe being a former Presbyterian gives him a right to be so harsh. Then again, I'm a former Presbyterian too, and I don't have such contempt for my former coreligionists. I wonder why he does. I mean, if you disagree, there's a very simple solution: don't be a Presbyterian. I found that an awfully easy solution myself. Not a single person tackled me on my way out the door and tried to force me to stay.
I thought that, you know, in a pluralistic and liberal society, we were supposed to respect each other's religious views. Including ones we disagreed with.
By the way, I shouldn't have to say this, but: I don't think any of the above-mentioned behaviors are sinful. Except, perhaps, for the bile-spewing toward people who don't share my religious views.
Dean,
I would think that the answer is obvious: yes, such a Presbyterian is an intolerant bigot.
The corollary, though, is either that the phrase doesn't mean quite what it sounds like, or so is Mr Jarvis, as well as everyone else.
But tolerance is not a virtue, only tolerance of what should be tolerated is (if you don't believe this, try pretending that tolerance of violent little girl rape is a virtue).
If you think that being a bigot is always bad, try not being a bigot towards neo-nazis who want to kill all of the Jews, the Catholics, the Gypsies, and, well, everyone else, too.
Virtually all of us are intolerant bigots, at least when it comes to people who believe that we should be slaughtered like animals. Calling someone an intolerant bigot is an empty insult -- it's saying that they're not a nihilist.
Alternatively, it's a different way to merely say that you disagree with them.
Either way, it isn't saying much.
Er, what about the bit about the hate?
It's how the individual would act on that belief that would provide the definitive answer as to whether they were a hateful bigot or not.
I think this is just another variation of the "label" game that goes on. If you disagree with someone, but don't have any better argument against them you label them as "hysterical" or having a "phobia" or now being a "hateful bigot."
(1) People use all these political insults very loosely, which is most annoying.
(2) Bigotry is wholly tolerable as long as the bigot has no political power, and even then is tolerable if it is clear that personal views do not colour the manner in which an elected office is carried out. But if bigotry leads to efforts to discriminate, then it is wrong -- and it's what (among other things) the 14th Amendment is there to prevent. Of course, the line between intention and outcome is hard to define, as the history of Supreme Court rulings on all aspects of racial discrimination, especially school desegregation from Brown onwards show.
(3) Senator Santorum's comments, however, do not fall into any of these categories. He has a belief (which is not excludive to Presbyterians) that certain kinds of behaviour are not in the public interest. Why he thinks that might or might not derive from prejudice, but he claims his positions are rational, and they need to be addressed on the same level (accusations of bigotry do not address his arguments). As it happens I think he is quite wrong on several counts (and would refer anyone interested to the long debates on Making Light), but I also think there are reasons why it will always be possible to make such arguments and I have looked at this issue on my own blog.
Dean,
I really shouldn't post so late at night. When I was writing my post I really thought that the phrase was intolerant bigot, not hateful bigot.
everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs - or their secular ones, for that matter. and no, i would not refer to anyone as a "bigot" (particularly a hateful one) if they thought sex outside of marriage was immoral, or masterbation a sin.
i do, however, think it wrong to think it proper to have laws making it illegal for consenting adults to engage in any sort of sexual behavior.
furthermore ... comparing those who wish to engage in "unusual" sexual practices to people who have sex with animals, etc., IS insulting.
"hateful bigot"? too harsh and not accurate. "stupid and wishing for government intervention where it does NOT belong" is a more apt description.
Well, Jeff Jarvis's piece seems strangely... overheated. "Our American Taliban"??! I mean, come on, I could say many things about the Presbyterian Church-- some of them perhaps heated and angry-- but anyone who can seriously play connect-a-dot between Presbyterianism and Islamic fundamentalism...
Oh, please! I mean, I understand fully how someone who is, or once was, close to the Presbyterian Church (USA), could fly off the handle at the denomination and its ongoing soap opera of ecclesiastical infighting. Frustrating, the Presbyterian Church can sometimes be. But the Taliban, it is not.
And I say that as an ordained Presbyterian minister.
Jarvis cites a news story regarding a Presbytery judicial commission which has found a Cincinnati area pastor guilty of performing gay marriages, in violation of the Presbyterian constitution. I'll quote the title of the news article, since Jarvis didn't: "Pastor rebuked in gay-marriage case: But penalty the lightest possible."
In other words, no hands were amputated and nobody was pelted with stones. Under the Rules of Discipline in the Presbyterian Book of Order, there are four levels of rebuke: at the upper end of the scale, a minister can be defrocked. But here's the scoop on the case under question:
In other words, the minister was told publicly, "No, you can't do that." The case will be appealed from the Presbytery level to the Synod level, and from the Synod to the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly.
As I see has already been mentioned in the comments over on Jeff Jarvis's blog, Jarvis gives no sense of the fact that there are many Presbyterians on either side of the debate over gay and lesbian issues in the church. From my own experience I might add, there are many good, decent, reasonable, loving Presbyterians on either side of the issue. This is not a war of the children of light versus the children of darkness. This is a conflict which, since about 1990, has been argued, debated, studied, voted upon, discussed, debated some more, voted upon once again... between Presbyterians who honestly and sincerely take one side of the issue, and Presbyterians who honestly and sincerely take the other side of the issue.
The debate has sometimes been painful. I won't try to pretend it hasn't. Wrestling seriously with real-life issues often is painful. It's been painful, for Presbyterians on either side of these issues. But if you've seen this process of debate within the Presbyterian system close-up, as I have, it is less reminiscent of a public beheading in Saudi Arabia, and more reminiscent of the duller moments on CSPAN. I can understand somebody venting against the Presbyterian Church-- I do that myself from time to time. But the Presbyterian Church (USA), the moral equivalent of Islamic fundamentalism??! *Sigh*...
I would like to point out that Santorum was and continues to be misquoted. He did not use the word "gay" in his statement. He was saying that if the Supreme Court starts legislating bedroom activies from the bench then the whole can of worms opens up. His whole point was that they should not be legislating at all - it's not their job. And, Constitutionally speaking he is correct. No where does the constitution guarantee us a right to privacy.
So therefore, "stupid and wishing for government intervention where it does NOT belong" is a more apt description, that is a completely WRONG description as well.
The Supreme Court shouldn't be legislating from the bench - that is his point and he is right.
Paul Burgess is right...the ordination of gays (as deacons and elders) and the performing of same-sex marriages have been issues that the Presbyterian Church USA has struggled with for over 10 years. I'm an "associate" (i.e. inactive) member of Mt. Auburn, and the congregation has been declared "irregular" since before I joined.
For what it's worth, most of the members of that church would have been content to have things stay the way they were, which is to say as a pluralistic stalemate. Obviously, performing a marriage between two men or two women isn't something done in most Presbyterian churches, although a surprising number of pastors will perform "holy unions"--marriages in everything but name, and a semantic evasion from my point of view.
I think it's instructive that this issue was brought into a legalistic forum not by Mt. Auburn or Rev. Van Kuiken, but instead by a lawyer in California. There has been push and pull on both sides of the issue, but this time the push was on the conservative side, and from someone who, frankly, has no direct knowledge of the particular circumsances at this church. It's also clear that the local body that heard the case has no stomach for defrocking Van Kuiken or kicking Mt. Auburn out of the denomination.
I suppose that's the essence of compromise, in that it left nobody satisfied. I think you're right that Jarvis made a leap that's unsupported by the facts. On the other hand, we should all be aware that the Presbyterian church is far from unified on this subject.
Chris
"furthermore ... comparing those who wish to engage in "unusual" sexual practices to people who have sex with animals, etc., IS insulting."
I think this misrepresents the issue in question. There was no comparison made. The comment refers to the inevitable effect of a SCOTUS ruling. If the court rules that legislation prohibiting private adult consentual behavior is unconstitutional they rule laws against bestiality (likely) and incest (definitely) unconstitutional by that very act.
How can these other actions not fall under the same categories? Bestiality might still be prohibited under animal abuse laws, but that can be challenged since the animals obviously engage in sex acts with each other. Incest between adult siblings will be made legal by any ruling using the "private adult consentual" standard.
Until you are ready to accept this outcome the standard above is not sufficient. Either state that you accept this outcome or state how you believe the standard should be changed. You can't campaign on this standard and at the same time pretend it has no other ramifications.