Below is an email I sent to friends that I think I posted on CB in the middle of Prop 8, but never got up on CUF for response. If any of you take the time to read it I expect I'll get very different responses here, as usual, than I do there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
An old neighbor has a crazy smart 13 year old daughter who's teacher basically asked her to go out and interview religious bigots to see how they think. So it was charming when she came to me to find out "why Mormons don't like gays." First, obviously, I told her this isn't the case and then attempted a more complete response. Below are my thoughts. I know many of you don't agree with me and that's cool.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______________________________
There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy
~ Hamlet Act 1, scene 5
Every society has deep structure, however secular its member may think they are. Deep structure shapes norms, and without norms you would have chaos. Norms are the shared assumptions that drive people to form laws and obey them.
Deep structure is prerational, not irrational. It rests on assumptions of how the Universe works, and what it means to be in harmony with it. No matter how secular you are, you still make basic political choices based on deep structural beliefs. If you try to remove all deep structure from public life, you can start with the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the right of women to vote, and the Endangered Species Act. Not something I recommend.
Here are some examples of overlapping but distinct deep structures which some individuals or societies embrace:
*equality before the law: no slavery, no discrimination against people based on gender, race or sexual preference
*equality of condition: everyone should have roughly equal wealth and goods and health care, etc.
*honesty: see Immanuel Kant
*property: the notion that you have a right to own the fruits of your labor, and that theft is wrong
*libertarian autonomy: I can do whatever I want with my property and my body, as long as I don't injure you
*sanctity of human life: opposition to the death penalty and abortion: the strict Catholic position.
*ahimsa: do no violence to any sentient being, leads to vegetarianism
*stewardship of the earth: deep green environmentalism is a deep structure quasi religion
*sexual morality: marriage, children and family are fundamental to societal well being. Promiscuity, adultery, prostitution and pornography are socially destructive.
In what follows, I'll cite structure you may not agree with, but it is not any less less valid than the deep-structured claims of equality or libertarian autonomy that are so prevalent today.
Here are a few samples of how deep structural beliefs have affected policy through history:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..."
The Greeks and Romans indulged homosexuality, but restricted marriage to heterosexual relationships. Were they "advanced"? Only if you're cool with slavery, on which their economic system was based. Again, deep structure.
Environmentalists who oppose drilling in ANWR are making a pure deep structure claim--a very deep one, as no species is even injured by the proposed drilling there.
The abolitionists who ended slavery here in the US and in England were emphatically deep structure driven.
The humanitarian impulse and campaigns to end tragedies such as Sudan, Kosovo, Haiti, Rwanda are all deep structure.
The equality movement, from women's rights to racial equality to gay rights is very much deep structure.
Now here is a paradox: where does the notion of equality originate? It comes from the Judeo-Christian tradition, simply and indisputably. The Judeo-Christian God burst into recorded history 4,000 years ago with the startling notion that every single human being is of infinite worth and is viewed by his or her Creator as an end in him or herself--not merely an extra in a crazy pageant with a cast of disposable billions.
Why does the Judeo-Christian tradition rest so heavily on the combined deep structure of equality and infinite worth? The first clue is in Genesis, where it states that man and woman were created in the "image" of God. But maybe the best clue is toward the end of the New Testament, where Paul writes, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ" (Romans 8:16-17).
So Mormons (and maybe a few others in the Judeo-Christian family tree) claim equality before men and the law because we are not only created in God's image, but because we are God's children and heirs. We claim equality because each of us is of infinite worth. The short, negative framing: watch how you treat any other human being, however seemingly insignficant, because his/her Daddy can kick your ass.
Wherever it's found, from the French Revolution to modern Communism, the notion of equality is emphatically rooted in the Bible, and especially the New Testament. Atheist egalitarians are really piggy backing on Christian deep structure unawares. But they necessarily sever the infinite worth component, leading to the weird spectacles of Revolutionary France and Soviet Communism, where individuals are murdered en masse in the name of equality. Good fun.
I'd suggest that wherever you find equality deep structure, you either find the Judeo-Christian tradition or an undigested residue of it. Isolated from its roots in infinite worth, an atheistic argument for equality, and, indeed, for human dignity in general, is a teetering house of cards. You might remember that when Stalin and Robespierre tried this, the outcomes weren't pretty. This is where the Judeo-Christian deep structure diverges from the modern knockoffs which try to separate the notion of equality from its origins.
Under the assumption that each individual is of infinite worth, that all are created in the image of God and are heirs of God, it is also understood that God cares very much about how we get into this world and how we get out of it. He has, it seems, very little sense of humor on these matters. Two of the ten commandments proscribe murder and adultery, and Christ later modified the latter to include even entertaining thoughts on either.
Here is what what many followers of Judeo-Christian variants, and emphatically Mormons, take from this: sexuality and the ability to create life is a gift from God that he gives gingerly, almost reluctantly, because he values it so highly, precisely because he views each human being as having infinite worth. Because the creation of life is such a privilege, most (if not all) traditional religions are deeply attached to the idea of an institution (marriage) that sets procreation apart. There is nothing necessarily bigoted in the position. It's a defense of ground that all societies have protected for thousands of years - and the majority of the advocates aren't interested in denying any rights to anyone else, simply in preserving what they consider to be their own prerogative (currently in the state of California civil union already grants nearly every right that marriage does, this battle is primarily about the word "marriage", not the rights associated with it - and most defenders of Prop 8 willingly cede the rights connected to marriage).
But in all of this still the paradox: the deep structure argument for equality, on which gay marriage advocates rely, is entangled at its roots with a Judeo-Christian system that insists on equality because you are of infinite worth, because you are a child of God and therefore must answer to Him for how you use His gifts and powers.
It's immaterial to respond to all of this by saying it's deep structure, and thus has no place in public life. All public policy rests on deep structure. And it's well beyond lame to vilify and threaten those who disagree with you. The essence of democracy is that we try to persuade others to accept our structural assumptions, and we try as best we can to accommodate those expressed by the majority.
In the medium term, I believe this is a structural debate that Mormons and Mormon allies will lose, but one where we would stand in error if we didn't attempt to protect our belief system. There seems to be a societal version of the second law of thermodynamics, and I see nothing on the immediate horizon that will reverse this trajectory. If the coalition of Prop 8 supporters ultimately lose, I'm quite certain they will try to do it with as much grace as possible - without spitting at those that defeated them through democratic processes. They will try to accommodate themselves to the degree they can, and hunker down under the remaining vestiges of first amendment religious freedom when necessary.
But my point here is simply that it's absurd to suggest that, because the 5,000 year old deep structure they are defending is trending out of vogue, that there is something unphilosophical or hateful about it or its defenders. The idea of homosexual marriage is novel - and those that aim to defend their own beliefs in resisting its novelty are well within the bounds of civil democratic discourse. Only time will tell which side is on the side of history in its ultimate sense. In the meantime, it behooves everyone to show a little charity, patience and humility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
An old neighbor has a crazy smart 13 year old daughter who's teacher basically asked her to go out and interview religious bigots to see how they think. So it was charming when she came to me to find out "why Mormons don't like gays." First, obviously, I told her this isn't the case and then attempted a more complete response. Below are my thoughts. I know many of you don't agree with me and that's cool.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______________________________
There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy
~ Hamlet Act 1, scene 5
Every society has deep structure, however secular its member may think they are. Deep structure shapes norms, and without norms you would have chaos. Norms are the shared assumptions that drive people to form laws and obey them.
Deep structure is prerational, not irrational. It rests on assumptions of how the Universe works, and what it means to be in harmony with it. No matter how secular you are, you still make basic political choices based on deep structural beliefs. If you try to remove all deep structure from public life, you can start with the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the right of women to vote, and the Endangered Species Act. Not something I recommend.
Here are some examples of overlapping but distinct deep structures which some individuals or societies embrace:
*equality before the law: no slavery, no discrimination against people based on gender, race or sexual preference
*equality of condition: everyone should have roughly equal wealth and goods and health care, etc.
*honesty: see Immanuel Kant
*property: the notion that you have a right to own the fruits of your labor, and that theft is wrong
*libertarian autonomy: I can do whatever I want with my property and my body, as long as I don't injure you
*sanctity of human life: opposition to the death penalty and abortion: the strict Catholic position.
*ahimsa: do no violence to any sentient being, leads to vegetarianism
*stewardship of the earth: deep green environmentalism is a deep structure quasi religion
*sexual morality: marriage, children and family are fundamental to societal well being. Promiscuity, adultery, prostitution and pornography are socially destructive.
In what follows, I'll cite structure you may not agree with, but it is not any less less valid than the deep-structured claims of equality or libertarian autonomy that are so prevalent today.
Here are a few samples of how deep structural beliefs have affected policy through history:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..."
The Greeks and Romans indulged homosexuality, but restricted marriage to heterosexual relationships. Were they "advanced"? Only if you're cool with slavery, on which their economic system was based. Again, deep structure.
Environmentalists who oppose drilling in ANWR are making a pure deep structure claim--a very deep one, as no species is even injured by the proposed drilling there.
The abolitionists who ended slavery here in the US and in England were emphatically deep structure driven.
The humanitarian impulse and campaigns to end tragedies such as Sudan, Kosovo, Haiti, Rwanda are all deep structure.
The equality movement, from women's rights to racial equality to gay rights is very much deep structure.
Now here is a paradox: where does the notion of equality originate? It comes from the Judeo-Christian tradition, simply and indisputably. The Judeo-Christian God burst into recorded history 4,000 years ago with the startling notion that every single human being is of infinite worth and is viewed by his or her Creator as an end in him or herself--not merely an extra in a crazy pageant with a cast of disposable billions.
Why does the Judeo-Christian tradition rest so heavily on the combined deep structure of equality and infinite worth? The first clue is in Genesis, where it states that man and woman were created in the "image" of God. But maybe the best clue is toward the end of the New Testament, where Paul writes, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ" (Romans 8:16-17).
So Mormons (and maybe a few others in the Judeo-Christian family tree) claim equality before men and the law because we are not only created in God's image, but because we are God's children and heirs. We claim equality because each of us is of infinite worth. The short, negative framing: watch how you treat any other human being, however seemingly insignficant, because his/her Daddy can kick your ass.
Wherever it's found, from the French Revolution to modern Communism, the notion of equality is emphatically rooted in the Bible, and especially the New Testament. Atheist egalitarians are really piggy backing on Christian deep structure unawares. But they necessarily sever the infinite worth component, leading to the weird spectacles of Revolutionary France and Soviet Communism, where individuals are murdered en masse in the name of equality. Good fun.
I'd suggest that wherever you find equality deep structure, you either find the Judeo-Christian tradition or an undigested residue of it. Isolated from its roots in infinite worth, an atheistic argument for equality, and, indeed, for human dignity in general, is a teetering house of cards. You might remember that when Stalin and Robespierre tried this, the outcomes weren't pretty. This is where the Judeo-Christian deep structure diverges from the modern knockoffs which try to separate the notion of equality from its origins.
Under the assumption that each individual is of infinite worth, that all are created in the image of God and are heirs of God, it is also understood that God cares very much about how we get into this world and how we get out of it. He has, it seems, very little sense of humor on these matters. Two of the ten commandments proscribe murder and adultery, and Christ later modified the latter to include even entertaining thoughts on either.
Here is what what many followers of Judeo-Christian variants, and emphatically Mormons, take from this: sexuality and the ability to create life is a gift from God that he gives gingerly, almost reluctantly, because he values it so highly, precisely because he views each human being as having infinite worth. Because the creation of life is such a privilege, most (if not all) traditional religions are deeply attached to the idea of an institution (marriage) that sets procreation apart. There is nothing necessarily bigoted in the position. It's a defense of ground that all societies have protected for thousands of years - and the majority of the advocates aren't interested in denying any rights to anyone else, simply in preserving what they consider to be their own prerogative (currently in the state of California civil union already grants nearly every right that marriage does, this battle is primarily about the word "marriage", not the rights associated with it - and most defenders of Prop 8 willingly cede the rights connected to marriage).
But in all of this still the paradox: the deep structure argument for equality, on which gay marriage advocates rely, is entangled at its roots with a Judeo-Christian system that insists on equality because you are of infinite worth, because you are a child of God and therefore must answer to Him for how you use His gifts and powers.
It's immaterial to respond to all of this by saying it's deep structure, and thus has no place in public life. All public policy rests on deep structure. And it's well beyond lame to vilify and threaten those who disagree with you. The essence of democracy is that we try to persuade others to accept our structural assumptions, and we try as best we can to accommodate those expressed by the majority.
In the medium term, I believe this is a structural debate that Mormons and Mormon allies will lose, but one where we would stand in error if we didn't attempt to protect our belief system. There seems to be a societal version of the second law of thermodynamics, and I see nothing on the immediate horizon that will reverse this trajectory. If the coalition of Prop 8 supporters ultimately lose, I'm quite certain they will try to do it with as much grace as possible - without spitting at those that defeated them through democratic processes. They will try to accommodate themselves to the degree they can, and hunker down under the remaining vestiges of first amendment religious freedom when necessary.
But my point here is simply that it's absurd to suggest that, because the 5,000 year old deep structure they are defending is trending out of vogue, that there is something unphilosophical or hateful about it or its defenders. The idea of homosexual marriage is novel - and those that aim to defend their own beliefs in resisting its novelty are well within the bounds of civil democratic discourse. Only time will tell which side is on the side of history in its ultimate sense. In the meantime, it behooves everyone to show a little charity, patience and humility.
Comment