Defeating fear
I know you all are sick of Prop8, but this isn't about Prop8, except as a symptom.
I want us to think about what provokes people into fear. Because I put it to you that the separatist instinct that we are seeing playing out across the country, dividing "us" and "them", is about fear and insecurity, about division, rather than common ground.
The election of America's first black president has triggered more than 200 hate-related incidents, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a record in modern presidential elections. Moreover, the white nationalist movement, bemoaning an election that confirmed voters' comfort with a multiracial demography, expects Mr. Obama's election to be a potent recruiting tool; one that watchdog groups warn could give new impetus to a mostly defanged fringe element.
The article goes on to discuss that a sense of disenfranchisement in some Southern and other whites leads to a potential for violent response against Obama and people of color. We can't forget that the Oklahoma City bombings were done by our own citizens, and not scary foreigners. (Note that I am not talking about legitimate political disagreements, but the hysterical reactions and threats driven by the worst of identity politics.)
Item
The theologically conservative Diocese of Fort Worth voted Saturday to split from the liberal-leaning Episcopal Church, the fourth traditional diocese to do so in a long-running debate over the Bible, gay relationships and other issues. About 80 percent of clergy and parishioners in the Texas diocese supported the break in a series of votes at a diocesan convention.
It's amazing to me how much press it gets that a small fraction of the Episcopalians are splitting off. Although the leaving party may claim it's about more than just the "gay issue", in fact the doctrine of the Episcopal church hasn't changed--you know, God, Jesus, Trinity, all that. They simply can't stand that women and gays are now ordained, so they elevate sexuality to a core doctrine. It looks like desperately trying to hold on to the past, where women and gays both knew their places and father figures (always white men) channeled authority.
Item:
In a recent email urging supporters to attack the Governor for his comments, Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council had this to say: "Since Election Day, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has made statements supporting demonstrations against Proposition 8, and urging California 's Supreme Court to block the amendment's enforcement. Condoning street protests and supporting judicial activist scams to overturn a popularly approved state constitutional amendment approaches advocacy of anarchy. Gov. Schwarzenegger is playing a dangerous game, and it needs to stop. Now."
Attempts to suppress peaceful dissent is a major symptom of fear, wouldn't you say? Tens of thousands of gays and their allies have marched peacefully, and perfectly legally, to express an opinion. There were no riots in the streets. What are they afraid of?
So, what is it that is so ingrained in the human instinct that some of us need to feel "above" someone else? That people feel threatened by change, or inclusion, sufficient to use acts of violence and words of hate to support their views? Is it that if someone else is special, we aren't? This sounds like the jealousy of a small child when a new sibling comes home from the hospital--only with the weapons of adulthood.
Some time ago, I wrote about ambiguity and argued that fundamentalists respond the way they do because of their discomfort with things ambiguous. Here, I will add that I think fear is also a component.
In these undeniably frightening economic and social times, it is a natural instinct to barricade the doors against what we see as the marauding hoardes, whatever "side" we are on. Yet it is precisely now that we need to take the risk to open the door and realize that the "hoardes" are just starving neighbors, and people just like us.
With gun sales on the upswing, and right wing groups advocating the elimination of free speech, these are indeed perilous times. There are also demagogues cynically fanning the flames of fear and hatred , to gain or consolidate power.
But now is the true challenge, of living our humane values in the face of fear and violence--not by excluding the fearful, but by trying to reach them. All of us must try build bridges, whether liberal or conservative, religious or atheist, gay or straight. It's when we view each other as "The Other", with labels instead of common humanity, that the danger exists.
(Cross posted with some editing from Friends of Jake and Daily Kos)





IT: You are right to find alarming the fear that prompts these righteous zealots to rail against peaceful protests that would call them to account for their bigotry and hypocrisy.
I find equally alarming their assertion that Schwarznegger is "...supporting judicial activist scams to overturn a popularly approved state constitutional amendment (in a way that) approaches advocacy of anarchy."
Perkins expresses a mouthful here. His understanding of the Republic is perhaps most keenly expressed in two phrases reproduced and translated thusly:
1.) "...judicial activist scams..." (In other words: "And just who does the Supreme Court think they are! - pretending they have the authority to tell a good Christian like me what is right and wrong. Imagine that!"); and
2.) "Popularly approved state constitutional amendment." (In other words: "Mob rule trumps any effort to Constitutionally define Human Rights, especially if God is on your side.")
And he has the balls to accuse the Governor of promoting anarchy. Sheesh!
I am reminded of the headline in a Sydney newspaper that appeared during the time of the Clinton Impeachment. It read: "Thank God We Got the Convicts whiled the US Got the Puritans."
November 25, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, there is a scary lack of understanding of a constitutional democracy.
Desegregation relied on activist judges. If it had been put to the vote, the south would still be segregated.
Mr Perkins clearly has not considered the dangerous precedent of putting a minority's rights to majority vote.
Whose marriage do we vote on next?
November 25, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry I missed this post when it came out, IT.
Indeed, I was thinking this morning... about marriage and how they used to insist on a blood test. And what if now they insisted on a DNA test, to make people prove their sex before marriage??? (I mean the people who want to be sure they control who can or can't marry.)
And that made me wonder..... if I were to have a sex change (just a thought experiment, mind you), then somehow my legal sex would be reassigned. Right? Or do I just change my name to a male name? (TheraPer, I suppose) And then, with my sex change and my name change, I could go and marry a woman, right?
So.... if a transexual can marry (can they?)... And some have stayed married after the sex change, haven't they? Then somehow... we've already got a "loophole" going ...
Or am I barking up the wrong tree? Cuz if I am, then what about the people who are "married" and have a sex change? Will their marriage become the subject of the next vote?
Wonderful post by the way!
November 29, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your thought experiment depends on the state, TheraP. In some states, if you undergo a sex change you are allowed to change the sex on your birth certificate. You "become" the other sex legally. So you, born as a woman, in those states could become a man and marry a woman.
In other states, this is not allowed. So, in those states, you could become a man physically, but would still be considered a woman. So you could marry a man, not a woman.
It's a mess, regardless, since it is inconsistent and variable. Basically what it says is that for transsexuals, in some states they can marry if they are gay, and in some states they can marry if they are straight.
Additionally, how "much" of a sex change is required? Does it have to be surgical, or will drugs suffice? Or self-identification? Also variable.
The inconsistency with which our transgendered and transsexual brothers and sisters are treated shows how crazy it is to try to dictate any of this.
Two people, not related, love each other. Fine, let them marry. NOTHING has to change in law for this to happen.
Seems pretty obvious to me!
November 29, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I'm with you! And thanks for the info. It just makes the whole who "controls" marriage thing all the more bizarre!
Besides, what happens to the person moves from state to state? Does it undo marriages?
I agree. Let one "person" marry another "person." Without examining the chromosomes first!
November 29, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink