Fri 7 Apr 2006
Is it Intolerant to be Intolerant of the Intolerant?
Posted by Denise under We're Having a Homestudy!For a little while last week, the conversation at the Holt Korea adoption board turned from referrals and travel calls to that most dangerous of Holy Trinities: religion, politics, and sex. Someone posted a poll asking for opinions on Catholic Charities’ decision to stop providing adoption services in Massachusetts. There were a few civilized exchanges, but it wasn’t long before the anti-gay remarks started flying, supported by Bible verses.
I was astounded. Then I thought back to a post on Julia’s blog about an acquaintance who made an remark complaining about the “Gay Agenda” at a book club Julia was hosting. I tried to imagine what would happen if someone came out with a gay-bashing comment at any event on my unglamorous social calendar: kiddie birthday party, weekly doggie play date, movie night with the girls. I think he or she would be shunned: perhaps politely, out of a desire to keep the peace, perhaps not so politely, but shunned nonetheless.
Now, I know I live in a liberal bubble, but honestly: are there still circles (outside of Bible study groups) where remarks like these are NOT received with incredulous gasps?
A few people came forward on the Holt thread to protest the pro-religious, anti-gay comments; sometimes, they protested the tone in which the comments were delivered. Immediately, the religious anti-gays came forward to complain that their religious freedoms were being abridged and their feelings not tolerated:
I often find it interesting that everyone calls for “tolerance”, [sic] but, oftentimes, people with “traditional values” do not garner the same sort of “tolerance” from those who are requiring “tolerance” from them.
A lot of the PUBLIC are religious and few seem to be able to TOLERATE that. It’s getting to the point where it’s the Christians who are being singled out and tolerance never seems to go the other direction. What the gay/lesbian lobby wants is total acceptance in every realm of society.
And…we have a Gay Agenda! What is the nefarious agenda? “Total acceptance”? The horror.
(Do you hear a tiny violin playing a sad, sad song for the poor Christians who are “singled out” for “intolerance”? Those pathetic, repressed people who make up a Moral Majority of the population? Who share their values with the president, the vice-president, and most of both houses of Congress?)
I couldn’t help responding to these comments, but Julie said it on Julia’s thread much better than I said it on the Holt thread:
“Disagreeing with [someone’s] being gay” is just like “disagreeing with someone’s being black,” or blonde, or short…. And if you’re going to disagree with such an immutable human trait — and by the way, if you’re dead set on being judgmental, let’s be precise and say you DISAPPROVE — then own that bigotry. Don’t try to dignify what is, at bedrock, bigotry as a stance deserving of protection and tolerance.”
Straight infertiles and gays have a lot in common, and I would love to see some of the Bible-thumpers get past the “gay as abomination” smokescreen so they could see it. First, we’re all forced to explore “alternative” methods to have children–assisted reproductive technology or adoption. Thus, laws regarding ART that may be established to hurt the “Gay Agenda” can easily hurt the “straight infertile” agenda as well. (Virginia, I’m looking at you.) Also, discriminatory stances against gay parents promote the concept that there is a scientifically valid ideal parenting model. Think about it: if people can be prohibited from adopting because they’re the wrong gender combination, what’s to stop the prohibition of transracial adoption, adoption of a child from a different religious background, or even international adoption? In all those cases, the adoptive placement certainly violates the two-parent, in-country, homogeneous race-and-religion ideal.
I leave you with one last quote from the thread:
Can I feel sad that children are adopted into homes by parents that are not only non-religious, but anti-Christian - absolutely, but I am never without hope that change can happen.
I’m hoping for change, too.
April 8th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
“Can I feel sad that children are adopted into homes by parents that are not only non-religious, but anti-Christian - absolutely, but I am never without hope that change can happen.”
I may throw up.
The fact that children in many states are allowed to languish in the foster care system rather than being placed with loving parents who may happen to be gay or lesbian? Now that’s a real outrage in need of change.
I also love how “religious” and “Christian” appear to be used as synonyms here. Because we all know that the only truly devout people are Christian, right?
April 10th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
There was an article in today’s LA Times about how evangelical Christians are building this framework of persecution as they systematically sue their way of complying with anti-discriminatory laws. I don’t understand how they can complain about people being intolerant of their intolerance, but then again I don’t think of evangelical Christians as being the smartest apples in the bucket. (Yeah, I said it.) As an atheist and as a person who has to share a country with these people, I found that article (and your post) absolutely chilling.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Duh! I meant to say “out of complying.” Clearly I’m not the smartest apple either.
April 11th, 2006 at 11:08 am
I am speechless right now. I just don’t get it. Why is it okay to discriminate against gays? People are people. PERIOD.
April 11th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
As a lifelong Catholic, it is becoming more difficult to defend the church’s use of its time and resources to bash people’s sexual and reproductive choices. One of the first Catholic lessons taught in grade school is that each person is called by God to one of three vocations: married life, single life, or religious life. The church has taken away two of three life choices by denying marriage and now the priesthood to gay people. Refusing to allow gay couples to adopt is ludicrous — if the Catholic church wants to claim a religious exemption from adoption laws, it should have been consistent from the beginning and only adopted children into Catholic families. Taking the stance that all types of families are OK, just not gay couples, undercuts its argument that it is merely furthering religious beliefs rather than advancing its anti-gay agenda.
I cannot understand or support the church’s obsession with sexual choices as the root of all evil. I’m waiting for the day my IVF daughter hears in catechism class that she was created in sin. Does she have less of a soul than her brother because she was created with a doctor’s assistance? There was certainly more prayer involved in her conception!
And, while I’m ranting, why are pro-choice legislators being banned from Holy Communion while pro-death penalty legislators get a pass?
Christianity needs to get back to the business of mercy — feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, and preaching peace. There are larger evils for the churches to resolve than who is sleeping with whom!
April 12th, 2006 at 9:18 am
Best. Post. Ever.
April 23rd, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Amen sister!
We’re using Holt for our China adoption and I almost changed agencies after watching their DVD which had a lot of god talk in it. We’re not Christian (well, we’re lapsed Episcopals but even with the ordination of women and gays, they didn’t seem quite liberal enough for us).
I am intolerant of the intolerant and proud of it!
January 19th, 2007 at 7:52 am
I grew up in a conservative “Christian” foster home with parents who called me very ugly names more times than I can count. Their accusations had no personal or experiental basis, being mere regurgitation of their parents’ world views and nothing else.
Namely, their claim was that only ’sinful’ families would ‘lose’ their children and that these sins would be continued throughout following generations, etc. This destructive name-calling made it difficult for my friends to visit. Once I became an adult, married and expecting our 2nd child, they even made one of their nasty inferences while my husband was present. He was appalled at their behavior.
It was very hurtful and did destroy some relationships early on, but I was determined not to let them chart the course of my life with their negative and judgmental spirit.
We subsequently have cared for a foster child and have even counseled other foster parents. It has been fulfilling and I believe we have taken something very nasty and turned it for good. I cannot say it has been easy to work through and I do remain very cautious in friendships.
After almost 30 years, some of the truths are finally emerging amongst family members and friends, and people are surprised to find out the “do-gooders” were hasty and judgmental, never pausing long enough to gather any facts before gossiping and slandering. Very sad. You would be shocked to discover these pillars of the Christian protestant community are large contributors to many worthwhile ministries, and are viewed as solid members of their local church home.
If I live in depression, discouragement, or judgment because of their nasty attitudes towards families who have encountered illness or some other calamity to the point where they could no longer care for their children, then I have let them win.
If we continue to fund children’s social service agencies in such a way as to wrench helpless children from their extended relatives who are healthy, financially secure, and even anxious to care from them simply because they live out of their immediate county and cause that county to lose a “warm body” for federal funds - then shame on us!
This needs to be changed.