Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Christian Piatt

Home
Progressive Christian
Rights, Power, Sexuality and the Church

Rights, Power, Sexuality and the Church

Last updated on: May 7, 2013 at 5:11 pm by Christian Piatt

Rights, Power, Sexuality and the Church 2013-05-07T17:11:23+00:00 Christian Piatt

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I found an interesting pair of articles on Huffington Post’s religion page today. First, there was a story about Newt Gingrich, who claims that, by giving equal rights to LGBT people, we are in turn denying the rights of religious organizations.

Then in the second story, the Catholic Church in Ireland has threatened to excommunicate any lawmakers who vote contrary to Church teaching in an upcoming parliamentary vote on abortion.

In the Gingrich story, the primary issue supposedly is that religious-based adoption agencies who oppose adoption by same-sex couples are being denied their option not to offer children to LGBT families for adoption. “…what I’m struck with,” said Gingrich on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press,’ “is the one-sidedness of the desire for rights. There are no rights for Catholics to have adoption services in Massachusetts; they’re outlawed. There are no rights in D.C. for Catholics to have adoption services; they’re outlawed. Does [supporting LGBT rights] mean that you actually have to affirmatively eliminate any institution which does not automatically accept [homosexuality]?”

Though Gingrich familiarly jumps to a hyperbolic extreme – suggesting that challenging the terms under which adoption is deemed acceptable is effectively elimination of the religious institution altogether – he raises an interesting question: at what point, when affording rights or choices to one group affects the rights or choices of another

group, should there be any concession to the existing (ie, dominant) group?

Actually, it seems to present more of a conundrum than there really is. Gingrich – and many others in positions of privilege and power – are operating under one important
but false assumption: that both parties are equal, operating on a level playing field, so to speak. In fact, the Church is the dominant power, though it has lost some ground in recent decades for various reasons. It is the reflex of most institutions, as it is for individuals, to seek to preserve what power they have, even sometimes at the expense of others. A common argument against accession of this power is that it’s unfair to disempower one group in order to empower another.

But again, this presumes that the two parties were equal to being with, which they aren’t.

When a dominant group or person in power asserts the sovereignty of their rights that, at their core, are intent on the denial of rights of another group with less privilege or power, this is no longer a right; it is an act of violence. And like all violence, it should be condemned, particularly by religious institutions. For a long time, the case has been made by religious adoption groups that they don’t choose to offer adoptions to same-sex couples because the children suffer in some way as a result. However, the American Psychological Association has reported extensively on this assertion, finding just the opposite. Consider this from an October, 2010 report from the APA:

New research shows that children adopted into lesbian and gay families are as well-adjusted as children adopted by heterosexual parents, and follow similar patterns of gender development, said Charlotte J. Patterson, PhD, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia…the researchers found that the children of gays and lesbians were virtually indistinguishable from children of heterosexual parents.

If, indeed, there was a quality-of-life argument to be made, the Church’s position would hold water, but no such case has been confirmed by contemporary research. So wat we’re left with is whether the organization should be able to discriminate against otherwise capable parents based on criteria other than those which affect the health and well-being of the child.

For those who lived through the civil rights era, this argument sounds remarkably familiar? Should a restaurant be allowed not to serve people because they’re black? Should they be able to require non-whites to use different restrooms, sit at the back of the bus or use different drinking fountains and schools? These old laws, like these biases against same-sex couples, were based on a similar false assumption that the oppressed parties were somehow inherently inferior, be it intellectual, moral or simply biological. And just as we clearly settled this issue some decades ago with regard to race, the same conclusions rings true when any other institution in power seeks to marginalize the rights or equal access of others, simply based on their personal preferences, historic precedent or systemically violent teaching.

Ironically, the second story demonstrates the willingness of the Christian Church to speak out of both sides of its mouth. Though Gingrich is not a formal representative of the Catholic Church, he is an avowed public and a notable public figure who meets frequently with Church leadership and who represents their interests in the public forum. So I feel comfortable in asserting that his claims are also the claims being made publicly by the Christian adoption agencies about whom he is speaking. And then we witness the same Church threatening lawmakers if they do not vote according to stated church doctrine.

The Church cannot play both victim and perpetrator at the same time. In fact, it should really claim neither role. Instead, it should be, as Jesus was, a counter-cultural voice of reconciliation, affirmation of the marginalized, empowerment of the meek and love for the historically unloved. Claims of sexual morality aside, we are, at our hearts, God-created and God-inspired children of the same Divine. It is when we place our ideologies above the recognition of this central identity as fellow Children of God that we fall terribly short of the Gospel-given commandment to love one another with all that we have an all that we are.

american psychological association

Previous Post

May 6, 2013

Bitcoin: Satan's Currency? Plus Doritos Tacos & Best Strip Club Review EVER (HBCultureCast)

Next Post

May 7, 2013 Holy Rollers and Drunk Disciples

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category atonement belief bible Bill O'Reilly Buddhism CCM children christian piatt christianity Contemporary Christian Music current events derek flood Easter education Everyday Sunday faith faith and culture Frank Schaeffer great commission Haaz Sleiman Hobby Lobby Homebrewed Culture humor ISIS Jesus John Paul Lederach Killing Jesus LGBTQ marc driscoll Mission Year Music My Jesus Project Nat Geo parenting politics popular culture postChristian prison reform Ray rice religion republicans sacrifice sexuality theology Uncategorized video violence wild goose festival World Vision young adults

Select a Month December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What did Isaiah see in his vision in Isaiah 6?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The Lord seated on His throne A burning bush A chariot of fire A ladder to heaven