Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Rise of gay equality may become an existential threat to some "conservative" religious domination branches

Jack Jenkins has a major piece in ThinkProgress today on how the rise of LGBT rights, especially marriage equality, is an “existential threat” to socially conservative religious groups, link here.  My first reaction was to think all the way back to Robert Blair’s Evangelicals Concerned when I lived in Dallas in the 1980s.
The article mentions World Vision, an “evangelical charity”, which pulled out on a promise to hire “gay married” employees after objections from “conservative” donors, as indicated in this story from New Internationalist here .  World Vision supports efforts lie the “30Hour Famine”  World Vision, however, did issue statements arguing that Uganda’s anti-gay law could hinder charitable efforts, especially with HIV-infected persons, as indicated in this Christian Post story

It strikes me that, over all the years, “gay equality” or even gay privacy as it used to be construed, was a subset of a larger battle over the importance of a group (or family) needing to expect emotional loyalty form its members to larger goals, especially population.  Just as there used to be an anti-Vietnam war saying “My country right or wrong”, there is also “my family right or wrong”, and “my beliefs right or wrong.”  Since individuals will inherit the “karma” of their group, they have to become very concerned over knowing that their faith is “right” when compared to someone else’s.  No wonder there can be war over religion.  “Inherit the wind”, indeed.  On the other hand, hyperindividualism (which works well with a lot of the modern gay community) can leave a lot of less “independent” people behind. Darwinianism, or Spencerianism, doesn’t quite computer morally either.

On the “30 Hour Famine”, I’m reminded of little dilemma over donating latte money, and the like, or even putting on public sympathy with fundraisers staffed by barbers.  I think “you do, for others, what you think you should do” with your own talents, and play down the spectacle of “sacrifice” or making someone “all right”. Of course, that doesn't completely support "belonging" or social capital. 

No comments: