Lying and Hate Are Not "Traditional Values"
...except for the evangelical Christian Right
 

April 12 2005
Counterbias.com
Mel Seesholtz
 

Reverend Louis Sheldon is the leader of the Traditional Values Coalition, which claims to be "an inter-denominational public policy organization speaking on behalf of over 43,000 churches." Sheldon and TVC are pillars of the evangelical Christian Right. That's where it gets confusing.

Surely lying with malice aforethought is a sin of some kind. It's certainly not very nice, and most parents teach their children not to do it. Lies can cause real damage. Just look at what the lies about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction did.

TVC's site proclaims their mission to be "Empowering People of Faith through Knowledge." I looked up "knowledge" in several dictionaries, including the Oxford
English Dictionary. The word "fact" kept appearing in all the definitions.

So if lying is some kind of sin, not nice, definitely not a family value, can cause hurt, pain, suffering and death, and if "knowledge" is based on "facts," why is Rev. Louis Sheldon always lying with such Machiavellian malice aforethought and using such obvious non-facts to
do so, and with bravado no less?

Case in point: Bakersfield, California, April 2, 2005. The occasion was a "Traditional Family Values" rally in support of a constitutional amendment barring gay American citizens from entering into the civil union called "marriage." The event was organized by California state senator Roy Asburn and featured the Reverend Louis Sheldon.

The press release from Sen. Ashburn's office claimed "hundreds gathered at Patriots Park to support traditional marriage and family values." But according to Stephanie Tavares' April 3, 2005 report in The Bakersfield Californian, there were "fewer than 20 supporters of a same-sex marriage ban at the rally." Unless the senator can't count, "hundreds" certainly seems like an intentional lie. (Ms. Tavares also reported that "between 75 and 80 supporters of same-sex marriage" were also present at the rally.)

But the best was yet to come, when Rev. Louis Sheldon took the stage.

From Ms. Tavares' report:

"The Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Anaheim-based Traditional Values Coalition, echoed that statement ["Marriage between one man and one woman is fundamental to civilization"], saying that America's economy will collapse if gay marriage is allowed because the population will decrease and there won't be enough people paying taxes.

"Sheldon also said gay marriage laws in Scandinavia have caused a rise in wife beating because men have become bisexual, which makes them beat their wives.

"The crowd of protesters laughed at him. Several said it was "absurd" and "ridiculous" to assert that being bisexual would make men want to beat their wives."

The protesters' comments were both appropriate and accurate. It's also "absurd" and "ridiculous" to assert that allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry would so decimate the U.S. population that the economy would collapse.

Yes, some closeted gays and lesbians do produce children. Those out of the closet generally don't. America's leading demographer of homosexuality, psychologist J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, puts the gay and lesbian population at about two percent. That's two percent. Whatever percentage of that two percent chose to get married would have negligible effects on the U.S. population. It seems Sheldon, like Sen. Ashburn, could use a refresher course in basic mathematics and economics.

In 2004 the Congressional Budget Office found that allowing same-sex couples to marry would actually boost federal income tax revenues by $400 million per year until the end of this decade mainly because of the so-called "marriage penalty." Social security payments would rise over time, as would spending on spousal health insurance benefits for federal workers. Other expenditures would be lowered, however, since spending on Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income would fall. The net impact of marriage equality, according to the CBO, would be a federal budget savings of nearly $1 billion per year.

Beyond those stats, there's common sense. Married couples buy houses and invest in their families' futures. According to the Adoption Family Center, there are an estimated 8 to 10 million children being reared in gay and lesbian households. Marriage - same-sex or opposite-sex - is good for the economy. And marriage equality would be very good for those 8 to 10 million children the so-called "pro-family" forces don't see - or care about - as they continue the holy war against those kids' parents. Is that Christian?

Albeit briefly, Sheldon did flirt with the truth. "Commitment" and "marriage" and the "families" they create are indeed fundamental to civilization. The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that self-evident truth in its 1967 Loving v. Virginia ruling striking down laws against interracial civil unions: marriage is "one of the basic civil
rights of man" and the freedom to marry is "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness."

But nothing else Sheldon said had any basis in reality or truth. All of it was a calculated lie. All of it was meant to scare people and incite homophobia and the violence such self-righteous hatred inevitably inspires. It didn't work in Bakersfield. But keep up the ranting bravado, Rev. Sheldon. The more "absurd" and "ridiculous" your rhetoric (and that of the other minions in the evangelical Christian Right) becomes, the more transparent it becomes.

An April 5, 2005 posting on a web site dedicated to ferreting out moronic statements (www.morons.org) said it well: "With every passing day, the ultra-right-wing neocon rhetoric gets more insane. This may be happening because the neocon agenda requires constantly shocking and scaring people, which requires a more shocking and more scary story each time. The good news is that eventually they go so far off the deep end that any sane person must dismiss their bafflegab as crazed fantasy."

Another pillar of the evangelical Christian Right is Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family (and SpongeBob) fame. In a November 12, 2004 article Michael Crowley, a senior editor at the New Republic, dubbed James Dobson "the religious right's new kingmaker" and "America's most influential evangelical leader, with a following reportedly greater than that of either Falwell or Robertson at [their] peak." Nevertheless, Dobson's arguments are as absurd and ridiculous as Sheldon's. For example, in his book Marriage Under Fire: Why We Must Win This Battle, he listed eleven allegedly "factual" arguments against same-sex marriage:

1. The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family.
2. Children will suffer the most.
3. Public schools in every state will embrace homosexuality.
4. Adoption laws will be instantly obsolete.
5. Foster-care programs will be impacted dramatically.
6. The health care system will stagger and perhaps collapse.
7. Social Security will be severely stressed.
8. Religious freedom will almost certainly be jeopardized.
9. Other nations are watching our march toward homosexual marriage
and will follow our lead.
10. The gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed.
11. The culture war will be over, and the world may soon become "as it was in the days of Noah" (Matthew 24:37).

Conjured with obvious malice aforethought, Dobson's rhetoric and lies, like Sheldon's, were crafted to scare and incite homophobia. But he outdid Sheldon with his last "argument": same-sex marriage would bring Armageddon. The words "absurd" and "ridiculous" certain
do come to mind, again. [For a detailed response to Dobson's arguments see "Out of Focus on the Family: A Response to Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage" in Popular Culture Review, 16:1 (February 2005), 45-75.]

In a way, you have to pity the Sheldons and Dobsons of the world. They have so much hate inside that's all they can see outside. But their blinding hate also makes them very dangerous, as was so well expressed in 1993 by the founder of Operation Rescue and rabid homophobe Randall Terry: "I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty. We are called by God to conquer this country."

Christian conquerors. History is replete with blood-soaked Christian conquerors. From the Crusades through the 300-year Holy Inquisition, to the Salem witch hunts and the slaughter of "pagans" in the New World, Christian conquerors have committed horrific crimes against humanity. The evangelical Christian Right's political and legal campaigns against gay Americans - and all other Americans whose private or public behavior deviates from the edicts of the self-appointed spokesmen for "God" - use the same justification as those former "Christian" crusaders deployed so ruthlessly in their "holy wars."

Despite their rhetoric and actions, Sheldon and Dobson claim to be protecting and propagating what they call "traditional moral values." In the past the "traditional moral values" advocated by people like Sheldon and Dobson have included slavery, segregation, and discrimination against minorities and women. Currently that same "morality" is being used to encourage hatred of and discrimination against gay Americans.

---

"Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people we personally dislike." -- Oscar Wilde

"Morality is always the product of terror; its chains and
strait-waistcoats are fashioned by those who dare not trust others, because they dare not trust themselves, to walk in liberty." -- Aldous Huxley

---

Sheldon, Dobson and the rest of the evangelical Christian Right's leaders seem to believe that "morality" is conditional upon belief in and blind obedience to the perverted version of "religion" they advocate. Gresham Riley, former president of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts and president emeritus of Colorado College, addressed that mistaken link in his December 4, 2003 Op-Ed in The Philadelphia Inquirer following the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ruling legalizing same-sex marriages in that state: "Religion is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for morality." Dr. Riley supported his contention by the existence of moral systems that do not depend on religion. Among his examples was the Platonic belief that moral principles are objective: "Platonic thought was the basis for many of the Enlightenment ideas of our Founding fathers, including the self-evident (to them) moral precept that all men are created equal."

Dr. Riley also argued that "Neither is religion a sufficient condition for moral behavior. If it were, we would not encounter so many examples of devoutly religious individuals -- and of prominent religious groups -- engaged in acts most people believe to be immoral. As for individuals, we have the distressing case of pedophilic Catholic priests and the suicide bombings by followers of Islam who think that killing innocents is justified on religious grounds. As for religious groups, we had evangelical Protestants who provided biblical justifications for a segregated South, and closer in time we have a Catholic hierarchy who created and sustained a culture of protection in which people were sacrificed for institutional image."

Stripped of its religious vestments, what then is "morality"? The eleventh edition of the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines it as "conformity to ideals of right human conduct." That seems simple enough. Two gay men or two lesbian women fall in love
and wish to commit their lives to each other and, thereby, create a family and a home and contribute to the stability and well-being of society. In short, they wish to get married: "conformity to ideals of right human conduct." So what's the problem?

As Wilde and Huxley noted, "morality" in use, especially by politically motivated religious leaders, is purpose-driven. From Wilde's perspective, it's a means to an end: publicly expressing personal dislikes with immunity from social criticism (and legal action). From Huxley's perspective, it's also a means to an end: preventing other people from doing what the faith-based moralist is restrained from doing, just as the etymology of "religion" commands.

Religion n, [ME religioun, fr. AF religium, L religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perh. Fr. religare to restrain, tie back].

"Religare to restrain, tie back." Spirituality is an inherent part of being human. For most it's a personally liberating and uplifting experience, an encouragement to grow and evolve to more conscious perceptions of realities and, as Huxley said, "to walk in liberty." But when personal spirituality is organized into a religion, an institution is produced and as all institutions it produces a hierarchy who concoct fundamentalist dogma that has little to do with spirituality and everything to do with maintaining social and political control. Hence, lying and hatred become not only legitimate, but "moral values" in the minds of people like Sheldon, Dobson, and the politicians who inhabit their deep pockets.

The 2006 elections would be a good time to begin to repel the "Christian" crusaders and resurrect traditional American values such as "equality and justice for all."

Mel Seesholtz is a Professor of English at Pennsylvania State University.

---