|
New Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Antonio Texas
Posts: 2
|
Quote:
Originally posted by oneofshibumi:
<strong>Christianity has many meanings. Synchronically (at the moment), you have over 2,000 Christian groups. Some form denominations others are individual. Each group shares something, a bible. Another perspective is diachronically (through) history. I think both are necessary to answer the topic question.
There are many distinct definitions of the term "Christian." Are all sincerely held definitions, based at after considerable thought. Some are founded on centuries of church tradition.
Various people believe that a person becomes a Christian by: Being “saved” in their youth or adulthood, or being baptized as an infant, or reciting or agreeing with a creed in their youth or adulthood, or trying to understand and follow Jesus' teachings.
It is my suggestion that the debate use the most inclusive term. A Christian is any person who says s/he is a Christian. However, the term Christian is too ambiguous to be useful. If sub-groupings are used we can clarify what characteristics the sub-group have.
1. Christian Identity Hate groups: Usually believes in the inerrancy of the Bible. Believes that the Bible justifies their oppression of others who are different and the physical violence that they act out. Examples: Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, White supremacy groups, etc….
2. Conservative Christians: Also called fundamentalist, they believe in the inerrancy and the infallibility of the Bible. Many consider Roman Catholicism as a Pagan religion, and is not part of Christianity." "Mormons are Gnostics, not Christians." Many would object to the inclusion of The Family, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Unification Church, United Church, Unity Church, and many other faith groups as Christian denominations. This is not a rash decision of theirs. Many are totally convinced of the accuracy of their position after many years of Bible study, perhaps drawing on the statements of the founders of their denomination, and other theologians. These “true” Christians constitute %30 of the American adult population. Usually believe that other religions have a negative impact on the United States. Examples: Jerry Falwell, or Reed are some examples.
3. Liberal Christians: The believe that the Bible is inspirational. Inspirational is the belief that God influenced the authors of the Bible so that their writings would be free of error. Some Christians believe that God, in effect, dictated the words in the Bible to its authors; others believe that God allowed the authors to write in their own style, but prevented them from committing errors. Example: Catholic Church, certain Protestant churchs.
4. Wisebook Christians: See the Bible as the hopes and beliefs of groups of people and their relationship to their God. Biblical Criticalists, and subgroups within Catholicism and Protestantism. For example Catholic Buddhist.
Definitions:
Homosexual: of, relating to, or exhibiting sexual desire toward another of the same sex, usually referring to a male, but may include both male homosexuals and lesbians. Medical term.
Lesbian: a female homosexual. (Medical term.)
Gay: Homosexual (self created term).
Queer: Homosexual or lesbian (self created term).
Bigotry means stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own. Is a poor term, because it requires because a homosexuals can hold beliefs the similar to a homosexual bigot (they both may want to be parents). Yet the homosexual bigot would believe that the homosexual does not have the right to raise a child. The term bigot is ambiguous.
I suggest the use of term oppression, instead of bigotry. Oppression means the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Also, the concept of oppression is diachronic (can be observed through time). A dominant group and a subordinate group can be identified. All historical evidence indicates that once a group is constituted as a dominant group, it behaves in predictable ways. Some of these are:
*It tends to act destructively to subordinate groups.
*It restricts the subordinate group’s range of actions—and even reactions to destructive treatment.
*It does not encourage subordinates’ full and free expression of their experience.
*It characterizes subordinates falsely.
*It describes this as the normal situation—usually the “natural” situation, ordered and ordained by higher and better powers, ranging from God to “biology.”
The following questions about the Bible have not been considered. We have to define what Bible we are using. Or do we consider them all valid. What about translation errors due to sources ambiguity, inclusion or exclusion of the of the Apocraypha, Grammatical errors, Intentional translation errors, Symbolic vs. Literal Interpretation, Multiple Authorship, Multiple Versions, Internal Conflicts, and should the Nature of Truth be consider Absolute or Relative.
You state that you feel that it is a “narrow sect of Christianity,” who oppresses homosexuals. I would put that number closer to 30% of the adult Christians in the US. In the Christian classification that I have provided, I would include both Christian Identity Hate groups and Conservative Christians. That is not to say that all Conservative Christians. I speak of followers of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Ralph Reed are some examples.
You make the assumption that “the identities of a group of people who define themselves by their sexuality.” A more accurate statement would be, “the identities of a group of people who I define by their sexuality.” Social construction of homosexuality was a response to oppression manifested by the mainstream society. For example, both homosexuality and large ears have existed for the last 10,000 years. If there was some type of mainstream oppression against large ears, large ear people would eventuality add that characteristics to their identity list.
Some comments on the evidence presented on the Websites.
1. Article from Bob Nowlan and Mark Wood. (Apr-May, 1992). Marxism, Socialism, and the Politics of Gay and Lesbian LiberationThe Politics of Gay and Lesbian Liberation — A Marxist Critique (Part 5 of 5).
<a href="http://www.etext.org/Politics/AlternativeOrange/1/v1n5_msp5.html" target="_blank">http://www.etext.org/Politics/AlternativeOrange/1/v1n5_msp5.html</a>
Critical Analysis:
The article states that the authors believe this is something that they should do. “Gay and lesbian liberation must become…” And that it was not being done at the moment. They admittedly are not part of any organized group. At best, the article could be considered the personal opinions of these two individuals.
Another question to ponder, could this article be the response to Christian oppression? The attack against homosexual lifestyle started in the 1970s, with the comments of a pseudo actress who did orange juice commercials. I believe that her name was Anita Bryant. I might be wrong about the name.
2. Richard Norton, (2002). A Critique of Social Constructionism and Postmodern Queer Theory
<a href="http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social02.htm" target="_blank">http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social02.htm</a>
A quote from the article:
“The class war is an essential feature of social constructionist theory – if historical evidence can be produced which establishes the existence of the homosexual role and identity before capitalism, then the materialist theory starts to collapse. The dating of the emergence of the queer subculture, though crucial to the theory, is its weakest part.
A curious outcome of . . . centuries of oppression is that when the first writings on homosexuality reached the general public at the end of the nineteenth century, some individuals revealed to psychiatrists that, although they had responded solely to members of their own sex since adolescence, until then they imagined themselves unique in the whole world. They had ‘constructed’ their own sexual consciousness without any social input – a feat that should be impossible according to social constructionist postulates. (W. R. Dynes, ‘Social Construction Approach’, Encyclopedia of Homosexuality)
It is very easy for historians to establish that most of the sexual categories which are supposed to have arisen under modern capitalism in fact existed much earlier. It is nevertheless important to pursue this relatively easy branch of demolition, because the nineteenth century date is one of the major props of social constructionism, without which its economic/control analysis of homosexuality becomes meaningless.”
Critical Analysis: Norton’s article contains numerous fallacies. I will focus on the author’s major and fatal flaw, not understanding what social constructionism is. Usually, if an author shows a lack of understanding of an article main idea, I disregard the rest. Social constructionism does not mean that homosexuality didn’t exist prior to its social construction. It means before then, homosexuality was not important to that society. When the society deemed it important they named the relationship. At the end of my post I have write of a empirical study that proves Social Constructionism.
We often talk about people as if they have particular attributes as 'things' inside themselves -- they have an identity, for example, and we believe that at the heart of a person there is a fixed and true identity or character (even if we're not sure that we know quite what that is, for a particular person). We assume that people have an inner essence -- qualities beneath the surface which determine who that person really 'is'. We also say that some people have (different levels of) power which means that they are more (or less) able to achieve what they want in their relationships with others, and society as a whole.
Foucault rejected this view. For Foucault, people do not have a 'real' identity within themselves; that's just a way of talking about the self -- a discourse. An 'identity' is communicated to others in your interactions with them, but this is not a fixed thing within a person. It is a shifting, temporary construction.
Website: <a href="http://www.theory.org.uk/foucault/" target="_blank">http://www.theory.org.uk/foucault/</a>
Historians would have a hard time establishing sexual categories, before the 20th century, because they did not exist. My supporting evidence is etymological, meaning the history of a linguistic form (as a word) shown by tracing its development and relationships. If a people do not have a word for something, it means that it wasn’t important to that culture. The dictionary places the origin of the word homosexual (1890-95). Lesbian (1595-1605) but it should be understood that the word was used for women who washed, and cared for another women. The word is also used for women who preferred the company of other females. The modern meaning, women who desires or has sexual relationships with other women, was given until (1895). The word Gay (1275-1325) meant having or showing a merry (lively mood). The word Gay (1950-55) has the modern meaning of homosexual. Homosexuality was socially constructed in the 1890s.
3. John Thorp (1992). REVIEW ARTICLE / DISCUSSION THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF HOMOSEXUALITY JOHN THORP
<a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/thorp.html" target="_blank">http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/thorp.html</a>
Excellent article. I liked his theory of planophysical and doliophysical. However, could these constructs be also social constructed. He never address the point. Does not agree with article number two, this article accepts the concept of social construction. Admittedly, the soft version of theory is what is except at present day.
4.
Gay-Liberation and Marxism (no date) Draft discussion text for the 15th World Congress of the Fourth International.
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/revgayactivist/gay-lib_en.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/revgayactivist/gay-lib_en.htm</a>
This article relates topics of discussion for a Marxist group. I see no reverence to the debate.
In general, the articles you have selected only represent a small percentage of homosexuals. Marxist homosexuals are less than 5%, probably less, of the population of homosexuals. I would suggest that you search sites that are more mainstream.
The following information shows that people who claim to be conservative are more fearful of homosexuals. And arguably, are more violent toward homosexuals. While it does not prove if the Bible makes people hate homosexuals. It does show a strong correlation between those who read follow the Bible and those who are oppressive against homosexuals.
Students who describe themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered are five times more likely to miss school because of feeling unsafe. 28% are forced to drop out. –National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "Anti-Gay/Lesbian Victimization," New York, 1984.
<a href="http://www.ngltf.org" target="_blank">http://www.ngltf.org</a>
The vast majority of victims of anti-lesbian/gay violence - possibly more than 80% - never report the incident, often due to fear of being "outed." – New York Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project Annual Report, 1996.
<a href="http://www.avp.org/" target="_blank">http://www.avp.org/</a>
85% of teachers oppose integrating lesbian, gay and bisexual themes in their curricula. – “Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth: Report of the Massacusetts Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth,” 1993.
<a href="http://www.doe.mass.edu/lss/gsa/safegl.html" target="_blank">http://www.doe.mass.edu/lss/gsa/safegl.html</a>
Due to sexual orientation discrimination, lesbians earn up to 14% less than their heterosexual female peers with similar jobs, education, age and residence, according to a study by the University of Maryland. – Badgett, M.V. Lee, <a href="http://www.puaf.umd.edu/Faculty-Staff/badgett.html" target="_blank">http://www.puaf.umd.edu/Faculty-Staff/badgett.html</a>
"The Wage Effects of Sexual Orientation Discrimination," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, July 1995.
<a href="http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/depts/ilrrev/ilrrcont0795.html" target="_blank">http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/depts/ilrrev/ilrrcont0795.html</a>
42% of homeless youth identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual. --Orion Center, Survey of Street Youth, Seattle, WA: Orion Center, 1986.
More than 84% of Americans oppose employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
--Survey Conducted by Newsweek, January 1997.
75% of people committing hate crimes are under age 30 - one in three are under 18 - and some of the most pervasive anti-gay violence occurs in schools. --New York Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Report, 1996.
Lesbian, gay and bisexual youth are at a four times higher risk for suicide than their straight peers. --Gibson P., LCSW, "Gay Male and Lesbian Youth Suicide," Report of the Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide, U.S. Department of Health, 1989.
<a href="http://www.os.dhhs.gov/" target="_blank">http://www.os.dhhs.gov/</a>
A survey of 191 employers revealed that 18% would fire, 27% would refuse to hire and 26% would refuse to promote a person they perceived to be lesbian, gay or bisexual. – Schatz and O’Hanlan,
<a href="http://www.sapphire.com/UNCAT/uncat45.html" target="_blank">http://www.sapphire.com/UNCAT/uncat45.html</a>
“Anti-Gay Discrimination in Medicine: Results of a National Survey of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Physicians,” San Francisco, 1994 National Organization for Women, 733 15th Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 628-8669
<a href="http://www.now.org/issues/lgbi/stats.html" target="_blank">http://www.now.org/issues/lgbi/stats.html</a>
Are Some Heterosexuals More Likely To Be Prejudiced Than Others?
<a href="http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/prej_corr.html" target="_blank">http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/prej_corr.html</a>
People who are less prejudiced:
Empirical research shows that heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men and lesbians are consistently correlated with various demographic, psychological, and social variables.
When thinking about these associations, it is important to remember two considerations. First, these associations describe general patterns in the population. Not all individuals fit those patterns.
Second, these are correlations, not statements of causal relationships. When two variables are correlated, it is possible that one causes the other (although which variable is the cause and which is the consequence cannot be known simply from a correlation). It is also possible that both variables are caused by a third variable.
For example, as shown below, the belief that homosexuality is freely chosen is correlated with higher levels of sexual prejudice. This relationship may mean that believing homosexuality to be a choice leads a person to hold negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Or it may mean that people who hold negative attitudes are more receptive to beliefs that seem to attach blame to gay men and lesbians.
Or a third factor may be involved. For example, heterosexuals who have close gay or lesbian friends are more likely than others to hold favorable attitudes toward gay people in general and to believe that sexual orientation isn't a matter of personal choice. So it is possible that the correlation between sexual prejudice and beliefs about choice actually reflects the relationship of both variables to a third variable, namely, personal contact with openly gay men and lesbians.
With these considerations in mind, what characteristics tend to be associated with sexual prejudice?
Demographic Correlates
In contrast to heterosexuals with favorable attitudes toward gay people, those with negative attitudes are more likely to be:
men
older
less well-educated
residing in geographic areas where negative attitudes represent the norm (for example, rural areas or the Midwestern or Southern United States).
Political and Religious Values
In contrast to heterosexuals with favorable attitudes toward gay people, those with negative attitudes are:
more likely to attend religious services frequently
more likely to endorse orthodox religious beliefs, such as the literal truth of the Bible
more likely to be a Republican than a Democrat or Independent
more likely to describe themselves as politically conservative, rather than liberal or moderate.
In contrast to heterosexuals with favorable attitudes toward gay people, those with negative attitudes:
display higher levels of psychological authoritarianism
are less sexually permissive
are more supportive of traditional gender roles.
In contrast to heterosexuals with favorable attitudes toward gay people, those with negative attitudes:
are more likely to believe that a homosexual orientation is freely chosen
are less likely to have had close personal friends or family members who are openly lesbian or gay.
What causes homophobia?
<a href="http://www.stophomophobia.org/index/frameset.htm" target="_blank">http://www.stophomophobia.org/index/frameset.htm</a>
Psychologists and sociologists suggest there are a number of sources of homophobia.
Maintaining power
One view is that men use hostility to homosexuals to reassure themselves about their own (hetero-)sexuality and masculinity and to assert the dominance of 'masculine' men over women and 'effeminate' men.
Prejudice
Another view is that this fear (a negative feeling) becomes self-righteousness (a 'positive' feeling). This self-righteousness is then used as a cover or excuse for prejudice. This self-righteousness can take the form of a 'moral repugnance' of homosexuality or 'being sickened by' homosexuals.
These prejudices might provide a basis for other, seemingly 'rational' accounts for homophobia, such as a belief that homosexuals are a sexual threat to children or that homosexuality is a 'sin'.
Denial
Another view is that people who have homosexual feelings themselves want to deny this because society does not approve of homosexuality. This confusion and conflict causes them to want to distance themselves from people they perceive as homosexual. In other words, people bash and hassle people they think are gay or lesbian as a way of showing that they aren't themselves. Most people who use violence against lesbians and gay men are younger people - the age when we have to start sorting out our own sexuality. Some studies have shown that people with homophobic attitudes often have same-sex attractions themselves.
Control mechanism
Another view about why homophobia happens is that homophobia is a way to maintain control over people's behaviour. This view sees that 'society' regulates or makes people conform through a range of attitudes and values. Homophobia might be just one.
Maintaining privilege
Another view is that some groups of people are marginalised and blamed for social problems so that other, more powerful groups can keep their privileges and benefits. This view holds that some groups of people are disadvantaged and discriminated against to keep things the way they are.
No one knows for sure.
An experiment that proves that color is a social construct.
Brown and Lenneberg are experimenters who figured out a human similarity in terms of which differences in color perception between two different languacultures . By languaculture, I mean the language-cultural differences in between different groups. For example, professions (Have you heard of medical jargon?),ethnicities, countries, etc. In the Brown and Lenneberg experiment they used a color spectrum. The rainbow plastic was squashed into a rectangle of color to prove how languaculture affects perception. The color spectrum is divided into chips, so you can lift chips out and show them to people.
Then they invented two measurements that applied to each chip. One measurement they called codability. Codability means, how easy is it name that chip in some language? Say you lift out a solid red chip and show it to me. I tell you it’s called “red.” Then you lift out a strange-colored chip and show it to me. I say, well, it’s sort of the color of a sunset at the Indiana Dunes, after it’s rained. My language offered “red” for the one chip, but I had to make up a phrase for the second. The first chip is more codable, easier to say, than the other.
The second measurement they invented was availability. Here’s one way they measured it. You show me a chip. I stare at it, wondering what’s the point. Then you take the chip away, toss it in a cookie sheet full of chips, shake them around, and ask me to pick out the chip you’d shown me earlier. How well do I do at this task? The better I do, said Brown and Lenneberg, the more available the concept. In other words, available concepts are right there, instantaneous, up and ready to use.
So, by now you’ve guessed the results. Brown and Lenneberg experiment showed the more codable the concept, the more available it should be. If a language packages the concept in a neat container that’s easy and frequently used, like “red,” that means the concept is more available to the speaker of that language than others that are more difficult to code.
Language makes some things easier to do than others. And that’s the way it turned out. The hearts of the linguistic relativists soared like eagles.
That first experiment was performed with native speakers of American English. How would the test look in a different culture where codability was different? Lenneberg teamed up with anthropologist Jack Roberts to find out. They took the original experiment and transported it to the Zuni Indians in the American Southwest.
The Zuni have a single color term for the yellow and orange part of the spectrum. In other words, the yellow-orange part of the spectrum is less codable in Zuni than in English. So, the experimenters reasoned, if they did the same tests they’d done before, only this time on a group whose color vocabulary was less codable in a particular area, then the result should show that the color category was less available as well.
English speakers should do better in the yellow-orange area, not because they are any smarter, not because they can see differences that the Zuni can’t, but just because their language makes those concepts more available to them.
And by now it will come as no great shock to you to learn that that’s exactly what the researchers found. Even better, it turned out that the monolingual Zuni had the lowest yellow-orange availability scores, the bilingual Zuni-English came next, and the monolingual English-speaking Indians had scores just like those of non-Zuni native speakers of English.
Language lays down comfortable ruts of perception, and people by and large stay inside them. They know the ruts, function quickly and efficiently within them. It isn’t that they can’t go outside them, but when they do, it takes some time and energy. And we all know how most people react when you ask them for a little time and energy.
Language carries with it patterns of seeing, knowing, talking, and acting. Not patterns that imprison you, but patterns that mark the easier trails for thought and perception and action.
The idea I am emphasizing here is langua-culture is the filter through which we see reality.
I’ll make a separate post about Ideological Management, so if you do not want to read the postings, you won’t have to. And I apologize for the unpleasant feelings my postings may have caused you.
For anyone who is interested in a discussion about Ideological Management please read my next posting in that classification.
1. Brown, R. and Lenneberg, E. (1954). A Study in Language and Cognition. Journal of American Social Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 454-462. And, Lenneberg, E. and Roberts, J. “The Language of Experience: A Case Study,” Memoirs of the International Journal of American Linguistics no. 13, 1956.
[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: oneofshibumi ]</strong>
|
|
09-13-2002, 12:32 PM
