path: root/culture-wars-why.rst

Culture wars? Why?
##################

:date: 2011-01-11T01:22:00
:tags: culture, desertstream, homosexuality, sociology
:category: faith

We were living as strangers (both me and my wife were born and now live
again in Prague, Czechia) in the United States for couple of years, so
I’ve managed to do couple of faux-pas during my time in Boston. One day,
in very friendly party, among our very nice and lovely neighbors, I’ve
heard one of my neighbors (very nice guy, a budding artist hoping to
finally make it in the arts world) to say: “I just cannot stand all
those fundamentalists around, I think we should be straight and call
them who they are—anti–choice, dictating women what they should do with
their body!” He said it with such passion and hatred in his voice, that
I cannot hold myself (no, I haven’t had in that moment enough courage to
admit that I consider abortion a murder of unborn baby) and replied to
something in the sense, that the name calling is not nice, and how he
would like to be called “anti-life”. I have never in my life heard such
deep silence. All those nice, tolerant, diversity loving Bostonians were
looking at me like at a calf with two heads. I had no time to say, that
I think my point of view was more nuanced … I don't think I would
support reintroduction of the legal ban of abortion (although I believe
that purely from the jurisprudential and legal technology point of view
Roe v. Wade and related decisions are examples of very bad ones), I
think there are many better ways how to decrease number of abortions
than by banning them, etc. I have not got though an opportunity to say
it, because once I was labeled as one of **them** nobody was interested
in hearing my opinions. And it seemed to me nobody was really interested
in the discussion about (dis-)advantages of the anti-abortion law. I was
just starting my PhD program in Law & Society at the Northeastern
University and part of the program were courses in the political
science. I have found that there is a big volume of study about cultural
wars, the biggest one about the history of the alcohol prohibition
movement (if anybody is interested the classical book on the subject,
read Joseph R. Gusfield. Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and The
American Temperance Movement. ISBN 0-252-01312-3). The main conclusion
of these studies (and this one particularly) is that the focus of the
struggle in the prohibition politics wasn’t that much the question of
alcohol itself, but struggle for preservation of status of the
established Anglo-Saxon society threatened by the ongoing immigration
wave of Irish, Italians, and Germans. And best dividing factor between
**us** and **them** was then the attitude towards alcohol, because there
are apparently much more casual non-addicted drinkers of alcohol among
these new nations (where for example a glass of wine or beer is standard
part of dinner) then in the Anglo-Saxon culture, where much bigger share
of population tend to be on extremes in relation to alcohol.
Generalization from the prohibition movement to current cultural wars
was then obvious: these are much more status struggles than struggles
for the issue itself. Should the America be governed and run by
pro-life, marriage defending, gun holding (to mention just few most
obvious examples) Bible belt Christians, or by pro-choice, gay marrying,
anti-gun “Godless” population of coasts? Of course, the question is how
does this rather obvious conclusion (when you think about it) relates to
the topic of this blog. What is the proper Stage four relation to the
cultural wars? It seems to me that if we accept these four stages as
describing something about the groups in the society (and I have hard
time to do it, but for lack of other models, I do accept it), then the
fourth stage believers are back in their uncomfortably lonely position:
on one side there are stage two conservatives fighting for the “Ol’ time
religion” against the slaughter of stage three liberals from the coasts.
And our 4th stage believer is somewhere between them trying to question
firm conclusions and strongholds of both sides. One more piece of
history: I was in Boston when the Massachusetts Supreme Court allowed
gay marriages in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the parliament
was discussing possibility of adopting some kind of “defense of
marriage” amendment which would overrule the court’s decision. Suddenly
whole pro-/anti-gay cultural war was very strictly localized, and the
Boston Commons around Beacon Hill (seat of the government in
Massachusetts) changed into one big battleground of this cultural war.
Majority of participants were local supporters of gay marriage, but
there were substantial groups of opponents mostly coming from the
outside of Massachusetts. I remember watching the posters of both sides
(something about extending human rights from African-Americans to gays,
and on the other side I remember slogan “God hates fags” with some
Biblical quotations by Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, owners of the
website `God Hates Fags`_). I was thoroughly confused by both sides,
which seemed to present these two positions as the only ones possible,
and yet I knew very strongly that I would like to be as far as possible
from both of them. A friend, apparently battling the same thoughts, said
suddenly “This is as close to the Hell as I’ve ever got.” To be specific
and considering the gay marriage issue as an example, let me show what I
would think could be a reasonable thinking of a stage four Christian
(and of course, I don’t think it is the only one, I guess many of you
won’t agree with many of my premises and conclusions; it’s more about a
way of thinking than about particular issues). So, first of all I have
to declare that I believe homosexuality is a sin (in the sense “missing
the best God prepared for us”, not that I would believe homosexuals are
bad people). Although I have never struggled with homosexuality myself,
I have been actively participating in the Desert Stream Ministries (the
inner healing ministry founded and mostly still led by former
homosexuals) and I count some former homosexuals as my friends. However,
I am also persuaded that beating sinners with a big poster “You are a
sinner” usually doesn’t bring healing, and my role is not to persuade
gays to give up on their lifestyle, but to be present and willing to
help them in the moment they decide they would like to find a way back
to the fullness of life God has prepared for them (be it a single life
or eventually even marriage). Given these two premises, I am in the wide
arena of possible conclusions with not very certain opinion on possible
legislative dealing (or non-dealing) with the matter. If I accept as
given, that there are many people who are still living in the homosexual
relationship (or in other words, who haven't accepted God’s plan for
their life yet), then it would be probably humane to make for them
living conditions acceptable. That includes certainly some kind of
official acknowledgment of their relationship allowing them wide variety
of legal advantages otherwise provided by law for husband and wife
(e.g., right to visit each other in hospital, getting sick-leave when
caring for a sick partner, inheritance, let’s abstain for sake of
brevity from discussion on the issue of adoption by gay partners). I
wouldn’t call this legal arrangement “marriage”, because that really
signifies approval of what I believe is not a healthy lifestyle, but
otherwise I would go long way towards making supportive environment for
the life of gay couples. One observation from this side of the Pond. It
is interesting that the “Godless Europe” has in this issue much less
problems than people in America. Given the long history of ateism (and
tendency towards socialism) most European countries have an institute of
some kind of non-marriage official relationship (originally for
heterosexuals who didn't want to have anything to do with Church in
times when marriages were still closely linked to religious ceremony).
They are usually not very popular (I believe every European country has
now as an option secular marriages in the town hall), I think many
Europeans don't even know such institute exists, but their mere
existence made it very easy for most European countries to adopt some
kind of registered partnership for homosexuals as an option and (with
some exceptions) I don't know about much struggle to open classical
marriages to gay couples. Again, I don’t think this is the only possible
solution and I am not willing to defend it with putting on the line my
honor, my property, and my life, but I would love to participate in the
discussion about these questions with other people interested more in
discussion than in cultural wars. However, even more importantly, I
would hope that Christians would be able to distinguish when they are
fighting for The Right Thing™ and when for promotion of their status in
the society. And I am afraid, many times with many Christian
organizations and politicians, I am not persuaded they see it.

.. _God Hates Fags: http://www.godhatesfags.com/