Will the real Bullies Please Stand Up?

Will the real Bullies Please Stand Up?

I’ve been incredibly reticent about weighing in on this issue, but the rhetoric floating around certain social media outlets has made it impossible for me to remain silent. I want to preface everything I’m about to say with a simple proviso: real hate is sin. It is a grievous sin that likely indicates an unregenerate heart (i.e. you’re not saved). So understand why I find the allegation of “hatred” to be particularly heinous given that I’m working within the framework of a self-consciously biblical worldview.

One of the most unfortunate aspects of the entire discussion surrounding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana is the incredibly loose use of certain words. Is “discrimination” inherently wicked? Can “hate” be reduced down to a vocal disagreement with an individual’s sexual practices? Does “tolerance” mean the holder of the opposing view must remain silent in all further discourse? Or does “tolerance” actually presuppose an opposing viewpoint that one must tolerate? The modus operandi of the opponents of the RFRA seems to be fairly simple: develop a small, highly emotive vocabulary, equivocate when necessary, and above all, bar anyone from the conversation that you deem “hateful,” “intolerant,” or “discriminatory,” all the while engaging in the same behaviors that you decry from social media outlets (the pulpits of secularism). But what happens when you become the very thing you hate so much? And no, I don’t mean a white conservative Christian, I mean an intellectual and ethical imperialist.

“I’ll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife.” (“Take me to Church” Hozier) Who exactly is this supposed to describe again? By legislating “tolerance” you lose the right to pen self-righteous poetry! Who’s holding the knife here? Whose businesses are being threatened? Who is being crucified by the “tolerant”? When was the last time a homosexual was criticized for hateful behavior towards a “breeder”? Please kindly point out to me which of my hands is holding a knife and please share with me the identity of my last victim.

I keep finding myself referring to the controversy over RFRA as a “discussion.” The problem is, discussion is impossible when those deemed “hateful” or “discriminatory” are steadfastly barred from the conversation. So what we’re dealing with isn’t a “discussion,” it’s an echo chamber. Assertions are trotted out as arguments, everyone doles out a hearty “Amen!” and that’s it. No critical engagement and no opposing voice. In short, no discussion. And I’M myopic. The level of the rhetoric makes it impossible to have any meaningful discussion, and it obfuscates the real issues.

Now what is even more juicy is the fact that the great opponents of the modern pandemic we call “bullying” are in fact the biggest bullies on the block. Internet shaming and smear campaigns are perfectly acceptable, unless you’re in high-school, they’ll kick you out for shenanigans like that. The same individuals who adamantly (and rightly) decry censorship in literature and film are more than happy to censor those they find intolerant or “hateful.” So in other words, censorship is evil; if you disagree, I will censor you.

Frank Bruni recently penned a fairly trendy critique (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-same-sex-sinners.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Ffrank-bruni) of certain sects of Protestant and Catholic Christianity that still stubbornly hold to “ossified” beliefs about homosexuality and marriage. He comments, “So our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.” Now if THAT isn’t Huxleian. I would like to remind Bruni there have always been revisionist streaks within Christianity. But before I’m accused of interpreting Bruni uncharitably, consider how he quotes Mitchell Gold : “Gold told me that church leaders must be made ‘to take homosexuality off the sin list.’ His commandment is worthy — and warranted.” See the shift in tone? We should be trusted to “jettison” certain aspects of our faith, and if we don’t, we “must be made” to.

So the issue isn’t with discrimination per se, it’s with who has the right to discriminate, and what gives one the right to discriminate? One of the ironic aspects of this entire controversy is that neither side is against discrimination. We all believe that we are morally obligated to discriminate against certain sets of beliefs. But what about “hatred”? Well, if I disagree with you, and I act upon that disagreement, I am hateful. I am not hateful towards a belief, I am hateful towards YOU the individual. Similarly, if I disagree with homosexuality and I refuse to take part (whether directly or indirectly) in a ceremony celebrating a homosexual union, I am branded “hateful.” It’s alleged that I am dehumanizing homosexuals by not acknowledging their sexual practices as morally acceptable. You no longer have complex human beings defined by a whole host of relationships and attributes, you are defined by your sexuality. Again, I’M dehumanizing?

Finally, social media has forever changed how we communicate. That’s a truism hardly worth stating. The good that has come from social media is surely astronomical and wide reaching, but it is not without its ills. Social media has profoundly impacted not only how we communicate, but more importantly how we think. We think in soundbites, tweets, and memes. We don’t have time for lengthy arguments void of any humor. We want satire. Coherence and correspondence have been replaced by timing and delivery. If it isn’t funny it can’t be true.

The attitude I just described is nowhere more evident than when opponents to RFRA react to critiques of their rhetoric. The critiques are largely shrugged off and the assertions repeated at a higher pitch. A worldview that is unconcerned with inner inconsistencies or external critiques is a worldview that is not interested in dialogue in the least. It is interested in forcing its ideas. In other words, you will be tolerant or else.