Chris Broussard is for lack of a better word a bigot

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

Jthig, your comments here and elsewhere on this subject are pretty moderate, and while I sincerely appreciate that, I think you're falling into the trap of 'false equivalence'. That's not a dead horse-argument you're beating, it's more of a jackass's argument, and frankly you seem a lot more intelligent than that. I'm going to disagree that Broussard's comments don't reveal underlying bigotry. Here's why.

If someone says to you: "I think it's a sin for people of different races to get married.", or "I believe it goes against biblical teaching for a woman to work outside the home, or for a woman to have a position of authority over a man.", do you fail to understand what they're saying and where they're coming from? Do you reserve judgment about such a person's racial bigotry or religious sexism, and assume that they have a reasoned basis for their views, even if they don't go on to explain that basis to you?

I can't believe that you would. In fact, I think that most people, whether they agree with such views or not, understand immediately what the person saying such things thinks about matters of race and gender equality. And I also think that most people today would regard such views as racially bigoted and sexually chauvinistic, whether the speaker grounds the views in scripture or not.

Same with Broussard's comments. True, he didn't equate homosexuality with pedophilia, bestiality or polygamy as bigots of old would have (and as many still do). He has moderated his views for public consumption such that he only equates homosexuality with the lighter, milder 'sins' of sex outside marriage, adultery, and whatever he understands 'fornication' to mean. (According to some fundamentalists, he could've added the sins of contraception and masturbation, but he might've been laughed off the public stage.) But he still couches the rationale for his views as being from a religious perspective, by saying "As a Christian....", and by condemning homosexuality as "unrepentant sin" and "living in open rebellion to God". He doesn't nuance his opinion as to whether it was based on Old Testament Levitical law, or New Testament (just to make things interesting), but it doesn't matter--either way, resorting to religious texts as a justification for condemning social behavior just makes the bigotry religiously-grounded bigotry. And as we all know, that's the most traditional kind. (FYI: I imagine you know this already, but the origin of the term 'bigot' in 16th-century France referred to people who held particularly sanctimonious religious views, and who observed them hypocritically; thus bigotry, religion and hypocrisy have long been intimately intertwined in a kind of vile three-way.)

So you say, "Okay, big deal. He made an ill-advised, ill-timed comment. You say it's bigotry, I say it's not. No harm, no foul. We'll just have to agree to disagree." And to a point, I can agree. In the bigger scheme of things, Broussard's comments probably only added to the list of slurs and hateful comments that closeted gay teens endure every day, and because they came from a distance, the sting was probably minimal, or at least one among many for the day. Broussard's comments, while repugnant, probably don't shift the public debate in anti-gay bigots' favor. His comments only resonated with the shrinking audience of anti-gay fundamentalist evangelical bigots, and he looked like such an utter fool, that in the big picture he probably turned off more neutral people. ESPN apologizes (sort of) and Broussard tries to sidestep the blowback by fake-apologizing (sort of).

But as you point out, Jthig, public condemnations of homosexuality as 'sin', 'evil' and 'disordered' DO have consequences, sometimes violent, sometimes fatal. In the recent marriage equality debate in France, the archbishop of Paris observed that extending marriage rights to homosexuals would be how "..a violent society develops...". About the same time, the leader of the main political group opposing the impending marriage equality legislation threatened French President Hollande by saying: "Hollande wants blood, and he will get it." Bullets and gunpowder were mailed to some French legislators, and shortly thereafter there occurred in France a spate of extremely violent gay bashings in which gay men were attacked, and had their faces beaten into bloody pulp while having anti-gay slurs shouted at them. An as of Friday, the Archbishop of San Francisco (and convicted drunk driver) Salvatore Cordileone published a response to passage of marriage equality in Rhode Island in which he asserted that secular law can mean nothing over church tradition and teaching. A religious leader stacks the kindling, a political extremist pours the gas, and thugs on the street light the match.

Even worse, are the involvements of Western anti-gay fundamentalist groups in countries like Uganda and Ethiopia, who go and stir up hatred against gays and lesbians, and help anti-gay politicians in these countries craft legislation criminalizing homosexuality (not homosexual acts, homosexual EXISTENCE), punishable by death. And this is not just something from years back, it's ongoing, and going on today.

And it makes you wonder, whether some of the proud and unabashed bigots posting here (Dude?) would vote for such legislation in their state, or in the United States, if they thought they could get by with it, if they thought they had the support for it. Is the only thing holding people like this back broader public support? Will they just resort to individual acts of violence against individual gays or lesbians instead? I'm not that concerned about a guy like Dude. He sounds like he's too old to be very dangerous, even if he wanted to. But what about his impressionable teen-aged son(s), with still-developing impulse control? What about the kids he indoctrinates in Sunday School, or in his Boy Scout troop, or the ones he coaches on a youth basketball team? How will the teen-aged kids react to the derogatory slurs that you can be sure he throws around in their presence? Will it make them think it's okay to bully that gay kid at school? Or if they get a little alcohol in them when they're older, will they go beat up a gay man somewhere? Just for kicks?

Words matter. Just dressing up your bigoted views to make them more respectable for public airing doesn't obviate the underlying bigotry. And bigotry (or even just the dissemination of negative attitudes towards gays and lesbians, if that's what you want to call it) breeds hate. Hate corrodes, sometimes slowly, sometimes explosively. I can't imagine that a truly decent person of whatever faith would want to stand by while words like 'sin' and 'evil' and 'disordered' get rained down on gay teens, or on impressionable young teens who might grow up to harm them.

This is well thought out and reasoned post. But the issue I have with tying bigotry to belief and not to attitude and actions is that you leave no room for disagreement. Where is the room for one's personal belief system? You're basically saying that society decides which core issue are foundational and are not allowed to be disagreed with. And I just flatly disagree.

Christians also believe that being married to more than one woman is a sin. Are they all bigoted against the polygamist community? Some sects of Christianity believe that consuming alcohol is a sin. Mormons believe that consuming coffee and tea is forbidden. Are all these people bigots?

Having a belief system doesn't make someone a bigot. How you express those opinions and what actions those opinions cause are what determine whether you have hate in your heart towards those that you disagree with.

I wholeheartedly agree that public condemnation of homosexuality is a dangerous issue, because of our unfortunate history and the fundamentalistic Christian's all-too-frequent inability to following Jesus' teaching of loving the sinner and hating the sin. Which is why I cringe when someone like Broussard takes to the airways and says the things he said. But I cringe just as much when people who are simply trying to live the life they have chosen and express the views they believe in are accused of being hateful and bigoted for daring to have an opinion that doesn't match the majority of society.

When you compare homophobia to racism, I think you miss the mark (and not because of the choice vs biology debate). I think you miss the mark because racism, by its very nature, was always presented in actions and hatred. No one would ever try to make the argument that being black is "wrong", unless they were also attaching to that to an action of hatred or violence. No one ever had an opportunity to try to convince an African American that they should change...because that was impossible. So the issue of belief vs hatred/judgement was never there.

However, with homosexuality (as with all other actions that some consider sins), you have what some view as a choice. And even with the evidence of biology, many Christians would argue that many people are biologically disposed to other "harmful lifestyles" such as drug addiction or alcoholism. So some Christians, based on their chosen faith, will take the opportunity to express their desire for change without attaching hate or prejudice with it. And those that would peacefully do so should be allowed without being accused of being bigoted.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by jthig32

...the issue I have with tying bigotry to belief and not to attitude and actions is that you leave no room for disagreement. Where is the room for one's personal belief system? ....Having a belief system doesn't make someone a bigot. How you express those opinions and what actions those opinions cause are what determine whether you have hate in your heart towards those that you disagree with.....But I cringe just as much when people who are simply trying to live the life they have chosen and express the views they believe in are accused of being hateful and bigoted for daring to have an opinion that doesn't match the majority of society.

However, with homosexuality (as with all other actions that some consider sins), you have what some view as a choice. And even with the evidence of biology, many Christians would argue that many people are biologically disposed to other "harmful lifestyles" such as drug addiction or alcoholism. So some Christians, based on their chosen faith, will take the opportunity to express their desire for change without attaching hate or prejudice with it. And those that would peacefully do so should be allowed without being accused of being bigoted.

You covered a lot of ground thoughtfully in your post, and I am thinking about several things that you said. I'm not addressing all of the points that you made here, but I may later. Excerpted above (for space) are the ideas I wanted to respond to.

I think we agree that bigotry doesn’t always manifest in actions, let alone violence. But you seem to want to separate belief from action by saying that if a belief doesn’t result in an overt expression, that the belief itself isn’t bigoted. Having a belief system doesn't make a person a bigot; having a bigoted belief system is what makes a person a bigot.

A person can just as easily be bigoted against a specific racial or ethnic group by considering them as ‘inferior’ (or ‘undeserving’ or ‘sinful’). A bigoted belief can just as easily manifest itself in a condescension toward groups (e.g., the tag line of Dubya’s NCLB “…soft bigotry of lowered expectations…” alludes to that); or in an unwilllingness to act (e.g., unwillingness to fund social, educational or healthcare programs, unwillingness to recognize equal legal rights). These are beliefs that don’t necessarily always get translated into actions. But even if people who hold these beliefs don’t act overtly on the belief, isn’t the belief itself still bigoted? So what’s the difference in a person who commits bigoted acts and a person who holds bigoted beliefs? (Opportunity? Time?)

I suppose it becomes easier to see the bigotry when people articulate those opinions socially, and easier still when they act in a hostile or condescending manner to the people they consider inferior (or sinful). But does being patronizingly polite to someone whom you consider inferior because of their race (or culture, or sexual identity) mean you aren’t a bigot? “Some of my best friends are….!” (Or Broussard: “But I’m not bigoted! I even play basketball with a sinful gay-sinning sinner!”) It may be bigotry of lesser degree, but it’s still rooted in bigoted belief. Call it what you will.

So I don’t really agree that you need to see overt expressions of negativity or hostility in order to recognize the bigotedness of a belief. Bigotry at its core is about holding on to irrationally negative beliefs about a specific group; and about judging similar actions of two groups differently based on those beliefs; beliefs which may or may not result in overt acts. It’s not just the motivation of the believer, it’s the rationality of the belief. This is where religiously motivated people (fundamentalist evangelicals, for example) fool themselves into believing that they are acting out of love sometimes, when in fact, they’re acting out of irrational disapproval.

I think that you are discussing these questions in good faith, without trying to be offensive, and I respect that. But I’ll give you a case in point: “….even with the evidence of biology, many Christians would argue that many people are biologically disposed to other "harmful lifestyles" such as drug addiction or alcoholism.” Why compare homosexuality to drug addiction or alcoholism; why compare sexuality to a disease or a disorder? Same-sex attraction is not a disorder like sexual compulsion or sexual addiction. Even if the biological evidence is only strongly compelling and not conclusive, for a long time now, mainstream psychiatry and mental health experts have characterized homosexuality as a normal (if numerically distinctive minority) expression of sexuality. What’s more, with all of the highly visible gays and lesbians living productive, successful lives as contributing members of society, living happily and successfully in long-term, stable relationships, raising happy, well-adjusted children, why make a comparison like that? It flies in the face of reality and rationality.

Maybe there was a time, maybe 50 or even as recently as 30 years ago, when gays and lesbians were forced to live more out of sight, that it would be more understandable (not excusable) for a person who didn’t know any gays or lesbians (or didn’t KNOW that they knew them) to continue to hold negative views about them, particularly if the person holding the views were religious and had been exposed to religious teachings characterizing homosexuality as ‘sinful’. But today? In 2013? With so many examples of gays and lesbians openly living normal lives? The negative prejudice is a lot harder to justify, and even harder to overlook.

I know that there are some Christians, some Christian denominations even, (and even some fundamentalist evangelicals as individuals) who have been able to change their view on this, and who regard same sex attraction not as a sinful choice, but as the natural expression of an individual’s sexuality. I can sympathize to a degree that this isn’t necessarily a quick or easy transition, in the same way that it can take an individual many years to come to grips with his/her sexual identity. But there comes a point where it becomes a sort of willful blindness or irrational ignorance of the reality that gays and lesbians have always existed, have always been contributing members of society, and are due the same respect and rights as anyone else.

Holding on to archaic, unjustified, irrational religiously-based tropes in the face of so much evidence about the normalcy and decency of homosexuals is, at best, holding onto a bigoted belief. Publicly condemning homosexuals as sinners; falsely equating them to criminals, psychopaths, and people with diseases or mental disorders; and acting to trying to criminalize homosexuality, or deny legal rights and recognition to gays and lesbians really can’t be called anything other than bigotry.

I think the day will eventually come when condemning homosexuals as sinners will carry about as much social weight/stigma as condemning people who divorce as sinners, or condemning single parents as sinners, or condemning people who consume alcohol as sinners. The condemnation will say more about the person doing the condemning than it will about the target. But as things currently stand, the fact that gays and lesbians still have a lot of legal rights in play in this country, and the fact that homosexuals in other parts of the world are subjected to violence and death makes bigoted comments like Broussard’s too dangerous to ignore, and bigoted beliefs manifested in public language too dangerous to be left unengaged.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

Maybe there was a time, maybe 50 or even as recently as 30 years ago, when gays and lesbians were forced to live more out of sight, that it would be more understandable (not excusable) for a person who didn’t know any gays or lesbians (or didn’t KNOW that they knew them) to continue to hold negative views about them, particularly if the person holding the views were religious and had been exposed to religious teachings characterizing homosexuality as ‘sinful’. But today? In 2013?
...
Holding on to archaic, unjustified, irrational religiously-based tropes in the face of so much evidence about the normalcy and decency of homosexuals is, at best, holding onto a bigoted belief.
...
I think the day will eventually come when condemning homosexuals as sinners will carry about as much social weight/stigma as condemning people who divorce as sinners, or condemning single parents as sinners, or condemning people who consume alcohol as sinners. The condemnation will say more about the person doing the condemning than it will about the target.

Do you propose rewriting the Bible or censoring the Church? Does the government get to dictate what religious teachings are now acceptable and which are forbidden? Or are you hoping everyone outgrows the need for Christ entirely? (There is also the extension into other religions, but I won't speculate on their texts.)

It seems like you pine for a world in which pretty much everyone agrees with your viewpoint. Yet you also acknowledge that, not too long ago, pretty much everyone disagreed with your viewpoint. The past world you view as bigoted and needing to be abandoned; yet, your proposed future is portrayed as somehow idyllic.

Why wouldn't it just be a differently-bigoted world? Perhaps you're okay with that, as I suspect quite a few secretly (or not so secretly) would be. But then it seems odd to complain that those you wish to discriminate against aren't excited to help you build your new world order.

Tolerance is simply a flawed foundation for harmony. You either have to tolerate intolerance (and thus never reach harmony), or you fall short of pure tolerance. And trying to force harmony (even under the guise of tolerance) will inevitably risk authoritarianism; if you want everyone singing the same song, you have to mandate the music sheet or silence the ones who differ.

A final point, which I doubt will go over well based on the previous posts, there used to be a PSA on TV where a person watches from a dock as their friend drowns in the lake. The message was something like true friends don't let their friends suffer without saying/doing something. I think it was about smoking or drugs. True Christians believe that the choices we make in life affect our immortal souls. If we love our neighbors as Christ loves us, we can't silently let them ruin their immortal souls out of what we see as a short-sighted desire to enjoy life; death is a certainty and eternity outlasts 120 years of self-fulfillment. Now the proper language isn't Westboro-ish; that is not loving and likely risks the speaker's soul just as much. But it is also not silence or acceptance of the choice.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

Why wouldn't it just be a differently-bigoted world?

There is a stark difference between targeting a demographic and targeting a belief system.

A demographic describes a trait one is born with and cannot (easily) change (i.e. gender, skin color, orientation, etc.) while a belief system is something you are free to change at any moment (i.e. religion, ideology, etc.). There is nothing wrong with voicing dissent toward a belief system one believes to be backward or unenlightened, and it certainly bears no likeness to bigotry against a demographic.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

There is a stark difference between targeting a demographic and targeting a belief system.

A demographic describes a trait one is born with and cannot (easily) change (i.e. gender, skin color, orientation, etc.) while a belief system is something you are free to change at any moment (i.e. religion, ideology, etc.). There is nothing wrong with voicing dissent toward a belief system one believes to be backward or unenlightened, and it certainly bears no likeness to bigotry against a demographic.

So, acceptable bigotry?

Just so we're all on the same page for definitions:

Demographics: the statistical characteristics of human populations (did you mean genetics instead?)

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status.

If these are unacceptable, please propose alternatives.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

So, acceptable bigotry?

No, it's not bigotry. You can't hide your beliefs behind that word just because you don't understand the difference.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

No, it's not bigotry. You can't hide your beliefs behind that word just because you don't understand the difference.

So it's impossible to be bigoted against Muslims? I think some parts of the US immediately post-9/11 belie that.