Interesting numbers
Exploradora
In the history of Christianity, few if any believers understood what they were about. I mean, think about Christ's version of the Golden Rule, and think about Matthew 25. It would seem that those who, in ages past, put the torch to their neighbors as witches, would hope others would do the same. Of course, they were also confident that they were not witches, and therefore the others would not do the same. The reason they did these awful things to other human beings is simple: they thought they had to in order to get into Heaven: "
If I don't save your soul--" (e.g. by setting you on fire) "--
then Jesus Christ won't save mine."
Another aspect of it is something that comes up in ethnic and gender considerations in the United States. For most people, equality is a step up from their prior condition; for the ruling classes, though, it is a step down. The idea of being equal to their neighbors is abhorrent, and violates the privilege they are accustomed to. This is why conservative Christians complain about being oppressed. Now add to that the "Christian math" of equality. I explained it recently, but I don't remember which topic. Its easer to ... er ... anyway: if there's five of us at the table, a Christian, a Jew, an atheist, a Hindu, and a Muslim, equality suggests that we all get one vote, or 20%, right? Except the conservative Christians seem to look at it as "Christian" and "infidel", so instead of 20% of the vote, they want 50%. One for you, one for me; one for him, one for me; one for her, one for me; one for them, one for me ... and so on.
It's not so much that they
want to be evil, but as their traditions suggest, they just can't help it.
As to the specific focus on homosexuality, it's something they can use to thwart progress. Among the right wing, the conservative Christians are still a minority, and they are the most effective version of a true "opposition party" in American society. Their job, essentially, is to keep throwing monkeys at the wrench, and demanding that society come screeching to a halt in order to accommodate them. On the one hand, the focus on homosexuality easily scares voters who don't understand their gay neighbors. To the other, they're seeking a sublimated incestuous gratification by focusing so much on the idea of "the children". Their focus on children might seem to suggest sublimated pedophilia, but that's not quite it. Parents wish to guide every aspect of their children's lives; after all, they are so instructed by their faith. And that includes sexuality. Once upon a time, families decided for their daughters whom to marry. Now, it's enough for them to take comfort in the idea that they get to decide who f@cks their daughters. Frankly, I find it rather creepy. To wit, a co-worker, several years ago, knocked up his girlfriend. When he found out he had a daughter on the way, I listened to him obsess over protecting her. It was down to when she could date, what he was going to do to the first boy who defiled her, what kind of underwear he would let her wear .... Absolutely
creepy. Fast-forward, and now I have a four year-old daughter. I'm aware of such questions; she's not wearing thongs any time soon, but I'm not going to spend any real thought on such details. I'll deal with whatever comes up when it comes up. And if she'd rather chow chick, I'm not going to worry about it. Literally, I find that whole Christian obsession with family and sexuality
creepy. My daughter's maternal grandparents are freaky Christians, and about the third time I heard from her mother what the grandparents thought about this and that having to do with sex, I said, "Whoever wants to step up and sexualize my daughter's outlook can answer to me." If something I do or fail to do screws up her outlook, I'll deal with it. The breadth and power of sublimation is huge with the Christian bunch. They believe they were born into sin. Rather than getting over it and moving on with life, they sublimate their sins and trust in Jesus. And this eternal obsession with sexuality is part of the outcome of that trust. It's what faith brings.
Elsewhere in her discussion of Helms's legislation, Butler delineates the same slide from homosexuality to pedophilia to sadomasochism that informs Measure 9:
"The exploitation of children" comes [immediately after sadomasochism in the text of Helms's legislation], at which point I begin to wonder: what reasons are there for grouping these three categories together? Do they lead to each other, as if the breaking of one taboo necessitates a virtual riot of perversion? Or is there, implicit in the sequencing and syntax of this legal text, a figure of the homosexual, apparently male, who practices sadomasochism and preys on young boys, or who practices sadomasochism with young boys, a homosexuality which is perhaps defined as sadomasochism and the exploitation of children? Perhaps this is an effort to define restrictively the sexual exploiter of children as the sadomasochistic male homosexual in order, quite conveniently, to locate the source of child sexual abuse outside the home, safeguarding the family as the unregulated sexual property of the father? (Butler 116)
Clearly, this construction of the family has a long history in the American New Right. To take Butler's interpretation a bit further, the family may be said to be consolidated, if not constituted, by this very fantasy. Indeed, the "ideological rearguard action" (Watney 43) which is the family in late twentieth-century America can be seen as the product of a series of similar fabrications. The discourse of "Family Values" rarely articulates what these values might be, but spends a great deal of time asserting that various people or social formations (homosexuals, feminism, single motherhood) are a threat to them .... (
Kent)
Ain't that just a
little creepy? But remember: they truly believe they were born into sin. They quite literally can't help themselves; for some things, it's best to trust in Jesus. Or something like that.
____________________
Notes:
