The overlap of politics and faith and its effect on the LGBT community
by Kevin Sparrow
In American culture, there is a fascination with comparison and contrast: Coke vs. Pepsi. McDonald’s vs. Burger King. Sox vs. Cubs, for us Chicagoans. This system even travels to our politics, pitting Republican against Democrat and forcing citizens to pick sides. Maybe this is why dodgeball is so ubiquitous in gym classes across the nation. However, a major outlier of this trend is religion and politics. The First Amendment of the Constitution provides a freedom of religion, making any further connections to be drawn to politics seem arbitrary. Unfortunately, politics have been tied to religion for at least the last millennium, and bucking the trend is not an easy task.
The most recent display pitting politics against religion was in regard to the invocations given during President Obama’s inauguration week. Following the appointment of Rev. Rick Warren to provide the invocation at the ceremony, a backlash from LGBT supporters occurred against the rampantly anti-gay pastor. Gay Episcopalian Bishop Gene Robinson was appointed to provide an invocation at the Lincoln Memorial two days before the inauguration ceremony, a supposed balance to Warren’s controversial pick. These picks may speak more to Obama’s desire for inclusivity in his administration over political capital, but the strong public reaction to this event reveals that the intersection of faith and politics is highly visible in American culture.
With the preceding Bush administration, we were inundated with faith-based and community initiatives. For the most part—the part that focuses on community—these initiatives positively affect low-income areas and volunteer organizations that would not otherwise have resources. But the faith-based side of this coin allows the freedom to discriminate against whomever places of worship choose. The separation of church and state allows these places to use their money where—and for whom—they wish. For example, mainline Catholic and Baptist churches do not support homosexuality, so any LGBT person who would seek out services offered by these churches could be turned down. This could also happen in more conservative synagogues, mosques and temples. In fact, a current funding opportunity for eligible organizations is titled “Family Preservation,” a phrase that many LGBT individuals balk at for its de facto use in segregation from marriage and adoption rights. The opportunity is even designed to “increase the percentage of children who are raised by two parents in a healthy family environment… increase public awareness in communities about the value of healthy families, relationships, marriages and responsible fatherhood; and encourage and support research on healthy families, relationships, marriages and healthy marriage education.” LGBT individuals are tacitly left out as marriage is still largely regarded as between one man and one woman.
Beyond this initiative, the stigma associated with HIV/AIDS in America still seems to be at play as a mark against LGBT individuals; the only two initiatives currently offered for such organizations are for those who donate to other countries. It is a noble cause to try to provide relief from this pandemic to all those who need it, but neglecting the American public seems shortsighted at best and discriminatory at worst. When leaders of faith still claim that AIDS is a punishment for homosexuality, it is hard not to question the practice of such initiatives.
How did the condemnation of homosexuality (and now, the LGBT community as a whole) in religion come to be institutionalized in our politics? We may have to look back to some of our original forms of government. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, a 1994 book by Daniel A. Helminiak, Ph.D., focuses on the biblical verses used to decry homosexuality. It also explores these verses from a historical perspective that puts them into the context of the time they were written. “A millennium ago, Western society was rather indifferent to homosexuality and even supportive of it… no law codes in Europe included prohibitions of homosexual acts,” writes Helminiak. Socially, one could be homosexual, so writers might not have condemned the practice as harshly as modern interpretation dictates. In fact, Helminiak claims Paul’s letter to the Romans used homosexuality as an example of personal uncleanness rather than a mortal sin because “in [the first century] homogenital activity was a safe topic.”
After the propagation of Christianity as a major world religion, a change occurred. Helminiak writes, “This change [in the middle of the eleven hundreds] was part of a growing intolerance that was coming over Europe. Order and uniformity became the rule of the day, and volumes and volumes of law codes were promulgated. For the first time in Christian history, Jews and Muslims were persecuted, the poor were regarded as a menace, and… homosexuals began to face violent and open opposition.” The righteousness of Christian fervor had made it easier to discriminate against “undesirable” parts of society, and laws were created to adhere to the edicts of Christian leaders. Helminiak even offers an explanation for why homosexuality went from acceptable to intolerable. “In the Roman mind, there was a pecking order; a hierarchy of social status was the rule. Adult male citizens could have penetrative sex with women and male and female noncitizens, slaves, and youth. Male-male sex was fully accepted, except for this restriction: adult male citizens were generally not to have penetrative sex with one another nor be penetrated by anyone else.” As egalitarianism would have been a stumbling block for the nascent governments, casting homosexuality as evil kept the power center in the hands of fewer people. Those who practiced homosexual acts were condemned, and those who did not were able to stay in politics.
American politics has only recently begun to stray from this model. Many times, coming out has meant losing political status. The surviving structure of politics is still informed by discriminatory policies that were developed hundreds of years ago. All our presidents have been of the Christian faith, and all have been committed to preserving the patriarchal biases that were codified into law by previous leaders. As a melting pot and promoter of social change, we should be finding new ways to provide equality for everyone rather than clinging to outdated practices. We all deserve dignity under the law, whether gay or straight, Muslim, Jewish or Christian.
