Buckley, the Danzigs, and nuclear hatred
It’s an understatement to call gay marriage a tricky topic. The latest round of scandal, accusations, and indignation involving the Danzigs includes all the calling cards of politics: hyperbole, making policy personal, and histrionic rhetoric that keeps the flames licking long enough to ignite some future tinder when it becomes available. At least, that’s what the passing of William Buckley made me think.
Take, for example, the only political situation I followed with any kind of vigilance ever: the presidential primary. Two candidates can behave in a very similar fashion, have nearly identical positions, and be downright good folks, but looking at what the media says about the race and what their campaigns say about each other, you’d never know it. Look at Hillary and Obama’s beef about NAFTA in Ohio. Hillary’s indignation at Obama’s negative campaigning knew no bounds, to which he said merely that she was just as guilty. But when I listen to Hillary, I get the sense that she really believes that Obama is a cheater, that his tactics are less upstanding than hers—that her indignation is justified and his is nothing more than an excuse.
That’s the crux of politics, and that’s the crux of the church gay marriage brouhaha. People have a tendency to view their own indignation as justified and dismiss everyone else’s. Which is clearly wrong. Only MY indignation is justified.
You know what you need to really make a topic hot-button in nature? The media. You need a reporter who has access to limited information but who reports “alleged” statements as facts all the same. You need snowballing hearsay about what happened behind closed doors, how silence should be interpreted, and the underlying motivation of total strangers. Better yet, paint the stranger(s) as “the establishment” in some way. It’s always more effective. It avoids all that personal sentiment that untidily interferes with nuclear hatred, allowing instead a surrogate enmity for something non-personal, and a high road to prideful disdain.
And with that, you’ve got a good start toward the recipe for polarization and alienation, just a smidge away from irreconcilable warfare.
The war has been going on forever, I realize. But I haven’t been a part of it, and I intend to keep it that way. When I see the sort of over-reactive disrespect engendered by over-reactive disrespect, it makes me sad for society, and all the more likely to retreat to my own happy circumstances away from the public fray.
As for gay marriage? I’m agnostic. There are good reasons for and there are good reasons against, as I’ve discussed before. As for personal and intellectual freedom among members of the church? The church’s position, for better or worse, is no secret and has been applied in a manner that can be portrayed as perfectly reasonable or perfectly unreasonable, depending on one’s chosen bias.
And that’s the crux of it. We’ve all chosen a bias. Let’s just at least try to admit it to ourselves once in a while.
1 --on February 28th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
You can have a debate, or you can call people names. But you can’t do both. If you are sure that anyone who disagrees with homosexual marriage is a vicious, bigoted, hypocritical homophobe, you’re never going to listen to their actual arguments. And therefore no discussion.
For instance Jeff Goldstein is by no stretch of the imagination an Evangelical Christian (he’d get hauled up on a blasphemy charge in about 15 minutes), yet there are very good reasons he worries at least about the METHOD that gay marriage is being implemented in this country, which has been exclusively by judicial fiat.
And people who support the Church and Church leaders will get tagged as racist homophobes, as supporting violence against homosexuals. If you are against gay marriage, you are no better than those thugs who killed Matthew Shephard, the argument goes. Tagore over at Mormon Mentality had a very moving post on the subject of the debate over gay marriage in academia (with a shout out to one of my favorite Mormon intellectuals, Eugene England).
Tagore talks about how rarely we actually change minds. Which raises another question. I think the fundamental assumption behind this blog is if you get a lot of people of good will together, who talk openly but respectfully, both people will come away from it with increased understanding, and this exercise is a valuable use of the person’s time.
Is that really true? Is true dialog really possible, on the issue of gay marriage or the host of other issues that divide Church teachings from the world’s? Is it possible for people to muster the good will, and is it worth it to even try? When the sons of Mosiah go on their missions, they are interested in serving the Lamanites, and they believe that they can preach them the word of God. But they didn’t go on their mission to exchange views and dialog. They went on their missions to proclaim truth and unmask error.
2 --on February 28th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Brace yourself, L: I completely agree with you.
3 --on February 28th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I think it is possible, but it takes mature, seasoned individuals to do it. And a lot of practice. I attended a conference on Evangelical-Mormon dialog this last fall, and scholars from both sides engaged in what I considered to be extremely good-willed, fair-minded, and open discussion. It was inspiring to see both sides humbly and respectfully admit where there had been previous misjudgments, as well as unapologetically speak of areas where there was genuine division where they felt their right.
But the majority of these scholars have been at this dialog for several years. And they’ve become friends in the process. As other participants at the conference were speaking to one another, it was clear that transition from “evangelize mode” to “dialog mode” was somehow arrested mid-stream. There was a must stronger feeling of agenda and flavor of “we’re right, you’re wrong.”
So, I’ve seen it take place in one genre of discussion tends to get heated. But I doubt it can happen where there isn’t first (or quickly developed) friendship, mutual respect, and love.
The difference with the sons of Mosiah, is that they didn’t go in with the intention to dialog; they were there to evangelize. That was clear from the beginning. If we’re clear with ourselves and others about whether we desire intellectual stimulation, scholarly discussion, or evangelism, then we can move with open integrity in our purposes in communication. If both sides, however, aren’t on the same page, I don’t know that it’s possible.
4 --on February 28th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Also, Borealis, thanks for the link to the Mormon Mentality post. I love Eugene England’s mind and heart. Reading his stuff is, for me, simultaneously very soothing and intellectually stimulating.