On Free Speech: In-Tolerance 2

Funny how last week I talked about the fraudulent idea of "free speech" as it's used to protect all sorts of nasty villains and bullies.

And then another rampage happens. And dozens upon dozens of youth are murdered viciously by another raving lunatic who has been inspired by some crazy manifestos. Including The Unabomber.

And anti-Muslim blogs not unlike Pam Geller's and Robert Spencer's.

If you've not had a chance to check out Atlas Shrugged, please don't. It's full of vile hatred and conspiracies against Muslims and any people group associated with them. The type that spew outrage about the so-called Ground Zero Mosque and that allege that every evil committed on God's green earth is done by Muslims or their sympathizers.

And the mass murderer linked to her site fifteen times in his "manifesto".

Of course, she is very defensive about this. And now every time another suicide bomber goes off, she wonders what liberal blogger inspired him/her.

Sadly, she doesn't really seem to understand that the policies of First World nations in Yemen, Gaza, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq are more responsible for pulling the triggers than possibly any other direct or indirect influence. Poverty is and breeds violence.

But Geller, like most relatively wealthy Americans, doesn't understand this. Glenn Beck obviously doesn't get this. And so he blames the victims - again - calling their political camp an indoctrination space just like the Hitler youth. (Yes, we all know he says Hitler like Rudy says 9/11, like fish need water, etc.)

The scary part? I saw some people criticize it, and then, out of the woodwork, others were coming out and saying what an inspiration he is. Not apologizing. Not stepping away from. But just short of deifying.

And those that were criticizing him? Apparently, they were actively seeking to censor the voice of reason and dissent on behalf of their Dear Leader, Barack Obama.

Yeah...

I really have no interest in a "debate" with Beck, Limbaugh, Geller or any of their uber-paranoid ditto-heads. There's no point trying to dialogue with blinders. And the mainstream has never really fallen for their claptrap either way. Besides, my heart can only take so much pressure. Rather, I want to look at some take-away lessons:

1) It's not worth engaging with people who fail basic logic. Unless you are good friends with them. And then you have no choice but to do so.

2) The vast majority of the American people are not crazy. They may, for a short period of time, buy into a crazy notion. They may believe that it's high time for the US to default on its loans, if convinced by what's seen as "common sense." Most people are too busy working and living their lives to think deeply and passionately about policies and the parlor games of politics. Those of us who tend to spend our free time doing exactly that (and have wasted innumerable hours both in face and online doing exactly that)

3) Bullying should never be tolerated. Yet, it is generally championed in American society, where Competition is King and the loudest and most explosive voice usually triumphs. To defeat the crazies, we do not need a louder voice, we just need a clearer voice. The marathon of public opinion goes to the one who is calm, reasonable, and clear (cf. McCain V Obama)

4) Take notes from those who call out bullying clearly (like Rachel Held Evans did when addressing Mark Driscoll, and then Grace from Are Women Human did in RHE's defense after she was attacked for taking on the boys club), and from those who speak gracefully when under fire (I also think that Rachel does this well, too).

In-Tolerance

A few days ago, our friend Alise (aka, Allison) Wright said:

• Alise McCoy Wright

  If you equate gay and lesbian relationships with sex with animals or children, I'm not very interested in talking to you. #intolerant

The ensuing dialog got me to write my very own status:

Jason M Dye

Who passed around the memo that says that tolerance (willing to abide with those who are different than you) is supposed to mean blind support for intolerance? If someone hates others for their differences, and then makes up willfully ignorant excuses as to why he hates them, I *don't* have to put up with that bull****.

Among the many interesting discussions we had around this and around the ensuing discussions that followed was a little foray into what the word tolerance actually means.And this is where I disagree with many. When some talk of tolerance, they are speaking in a First Amendment sense: The right of people to speak whatever they believe or want to say without government interference.

In the First Amendment sense, of course, everybody has that right. What I don't like is the idea that because somebody has a right to say whatever they feel like (a radio talk show host repeats the term, "Ni**er, Ni**er, Ni**er", for instance, or a blogger says that homosexuals want more rights than straight people, because they want to "gay-marry" on top "straight-marry"), that I'm supposed to - as an enlightened, tolerant fellow - accept their statements without criticizing them.

photo © 2009 Howe Kee Wong | more info (via: Wylio)They argue that it's the only tolerant thing to do. Apparently, they don't understand the essence of tolerance, just some sort of self-serving form of it.

What they are asking for is not only NOT tolerance, it's also not Freedom of Speech.

In grade school, we were taught that each one has the right to express himself, to make herself heard, unencumbered by the federal government (though I'm not quite sure how that works in broadcast - since it's obviously not unencumbered by federal regulations...). While there are other censors out there (monied interests, for instance; gatekeepers; self-preservation), the main idea that most of us growing up with an American education have been taught is that we live in a marketplace of ideas. This marketplace is a sort of competition in the open fields where the best ideas try to outshine each other to grab the American conscience.

photo © 2006 Glen | more info (via: Wylio)As flawed as this comparison truly is (for one, its need for retail / consumer analogies), it is still the best picture we collectively share for how FoS works. For every Neo-Nazi that floats an idea out, an anti-racist can respond to it in a million other ways. It's not intolerant if the anti-racist objects to the racist's claims. That's actually free speech in practice. That's the idea of the marketplace of ideas.

The intolerance would come if the anti-racist would criminalize the racist before the racist did anything violent - recognizing however that some forms of speech/expression are violent calls of aggression (the 'n****r' word in certain circumstances. Calling out for armed rebellion, for others). This is especially true among racists.

Intolerance isn't even that, however. Intolerance says that the majority population cannot live with a minority population for fear of contamination. Intolerance tells the minority population that the other populations are dangerous/stupid/insane and therefore should not be lived with. This is where war begins - racial/religious/ethnic/cultural differences are not accepted as being different, but being worse and less-than-human.

What we need is more tolerance. Not more hateful/hurtful ideas being bandied about. Nor the excuse that not accepting those hateful ideas is, in itself, intolerant. But actual, living, breathing tolerance.

Then maybe we could move on to hearing each other out and living in community.

How Children Learn Nasty Stuff from Us

Dan Savage (the NorthWest-based Sex Columnist known for being particularly crass in a field of crass-ness) had a particularly strong column last week on Christians' relationships with anti-gay bullying. Some of his points for those of us who need to listen the most may have been missed in his offensive efforts of calling the writer out, but they are poignant and for those of us who can stomach such insults, they need to be listened to. Slightly edited version is at the end of this blog.

However, I want to take some time to re-envision what this may mean for us Christians.

Imagine that your children are in school in a land where Christians are openly mocked and persecuted. Not the persecution-lite that some radio pundits and mass-mail fliers try to convince us is increasing in this country. (They were saying the same thing when I was a child, about basically the same situations. But I was a Christian then just as now and I can honestly say, I was never truly persecuted. However, as a teacher, I did see real, malignant persecution for sexually ambiguous young men. It broke my heart). Occasionally being teased for being a virgin in the locker room is hardly the same as the verbal, emotional, physical, sexual onslaught that, say, homosexual children receive on a daily, hourly basis. Let's put aside the concerns that homosexuality is learned or biological, because as Christians, we choose. So we know that choice shouldn't be a justification for persecution.

Now, imagine living in an area where Christians are outcasts, blamed for all sorts of things that we can't possibly be responsible for: polluting the minds of young children, if not doing worse; promoting a secret, clandestine agenda;looking to convert innocents and drag them from their family and traditions. In fact, it seems entirely plausible to me that WE are actually doing the things we are accusing the LGBT community as a whole of doing, even as they're mostly just trying to get a hold on the confusion-matrix that is school, life, hormones, family...

And your children go to school. And they're bumped into lockers for being at the least moderately associated with Christianity. They're called all sorts of names, the sorts of names that I just promised a friend I'd try not to repeat. Constant barrage, constant butt of highly embarrassing jokes. Being roughed up in the halls regularly; being sexually assaulted constantly. Derision. Mockery.

And you're talking with your next door neighbors about these problems. And they're basically decent folks. Keep to themselves, keep a clean manor, music is down low; they're not shout-y people like some of the other guys. But you know that their kids are roughing up your kids. Even leaders amongst the anti-Christian bullies.

And they respond, "Now, you guys can live over there and pray your little prayers to your Magical Sky Fairy in peace, and we can do something worthwhile and valuable in peace and we should be all okay. It's really too bad that's happening to your children. But we don't tell our kids to bully your kids. That wouldn't be very nice or neighborly. It's against our moral code to do so.

"I'm actually a bit offended," they continue, adding injury to insult by their mock pain, "that you'd suggest that we would possibly persuade our children to aggravate your children. Maybe if you people didn't try to be all Christian, what with your going to church and stuff, and wanting to be married and hang out at the ice cream shop like normal people... Maybe they wouldn't be targeted. But that's not our fault."

That's the same sort of semi-human/back-handed disregard that we're feeding in our Christian community about Gay/Lesbian/Bi-sexual/Transgendered people. How do our children internalize such talk? Seriously??

Q: I was listening to the radio yesterday morning, and I heard an interview with you about your It Gets Better campaign. I was saddened by and frustrated with your comments regarding people of faith and their perpetuation of bullying. As someone who loves the Lord and does not support gay marriage, I can honestly say I was heartbroken to hear about the young man who took his own life.

If your message is that we shouldn't judge people based on their sexual preference, how do you justify judging entire groups of people for any other reason (including their faith)? There is no part of me that took any pleasure in what happened to that young man, and I know for a fact that's true of many other people who disagree with your viewpoint.

To that end, to imply that I would somehow encourage my children to mock, hurt, or intimidate another person for any reason is completely unfounded and offensive. Being a follower of Christ is, above all things, a recognition that we are all imperfect, fallible, and in desperate need of a savior. We cannot believe that we are better or more worthy than other people....

—L.R.

A: I'm sorry your feelings were hurt by my comments.

No, wait. I'm not. Gay kids are dying. So let's try to keep things in perspective: fuck your feelings.

A question: Do you "support" atheist marriage? Interfaith marriage? Divorce and remarriage? All are legal, all go against Christian and/or traditional ideas about marriage, and yet there's no "Christian" movement to deny marriage rights to atheists or people marrying outside their respective faiths or people divorcing and remarrying...

Sorry, L.R., but so long as you support the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples, it's clear that you do believe that some people—straight people—are "better or more worthy" than others.

And—sorry—but you are partly responsible for the bullying and physical violence being visited on vulnerable LGBT children. The kids of people who see gay people as sinful or damaged or disordered and unworthy of full civil equality—even if those people strive to express their bigotry in the politest possible way (at least when they happen to be addressing a gay person)—learn to see gay people as sinful, damaged, disordered, and unworthy. And while there may not be any gay adults or couples where you live, or at your church, or in your workplace, I promise you that there are gay and lesbian children in your schools. And while you can only attack gays and lesbians at the ballot box, nice and impersonally, your children have the option of attacking actual gays and lesbians, in person, in real time.

Real gay and lesbian children. Not political abstractions, not "sinners." Gay and lesbian children.

... The dehumanizing bigotries that fall from the lips of "faithful Christians" and the lies about us vomited out from the pulpits of churches that "faithful Christians" drag their kids to on Sundays give your children license to verbally abuse, humiliate, and condemn the gay children they encounter at school. And many of your children—having listened to mom and dad talk about how gay marriage is a threat to family and how gay sex makes their magic sky friend Jesus cry—feel justified in physically abusing the LGBT children they encounter in their schools. You don't have to explicitly "encourage [your] children to mock, hurt, or intimidate" queer kids. Your encouragement—along with your hatred and fear—is implicit. It's here, it's clear, and we're seeing the fruits of it: dead children.

Oh, and those same dehumanizing bigotries that fill your straight children with hate? They fill your gay children with suicidal despair. And you have the nerve to ask me to be more careful with my words?

Did that hurt to hear? Good. But it couldn't have hurt nearly as much as what was said and done to Asher Brown and Justin Aaberg and Billy Lucas and Cody Barker and Seth Walsh and others—day in, day out for years—at schools filled with bigoted little monsters created not in the image of a loving God but in the image of the hateful and false "followers of Christ" they call mom and dad.