How Freedom is Working Against Us: Voicing our Opinions as Facts in the Modern World

I felt like my final paper for one of my classes this semester was worth posting on my blog.  Feel free to read or not to read.  I thought the message was too important not to share.

How Freedom is Working Against Us: Voicing our Opinions as Facts in the Modern World

            As humankind, we must agree that in order to keep a sense of morality and peace, we must concur that what the majority think is the correct way of thinking.  However, we are currently in a state of conflicting opinions—the majority is no longer one voice—also, minorities are able to get their voices heard so much more easily and widespread through the use of technology.  So, who do we listen to now?  This conundrum is why there has been a return to religion, especially traditional religions, where the written word is believed to be right.  While there is nothing wrong with believing our own interpretations of a religious text, problems arise when we attempt to force these beliefs upon others.  Representing our beliefs as facts, using textual citations as proof, exemplifies the idea that narratives have one, firm truth in their pages.

            As an English major, it is difficult to argue against the very basis that makes up the structure of the department: various interpretations of narratives.  Any paper written for a class is an interpretation of another narrative.  While some interpretations are seen as “more right” than others, no one in the world can point to the specific, right answer about the truth in a work.  This is why grading in any English department is subjective.  Professors looks for certain answers that they want to see in their assigned papers, but if a student writes about another truth that is not included in the professors’ repertoire of thoughts, the student is wrong, and often their grade is lowered.

            However, this occurs in a college or university, and students know that their professors are looking for specifics that were most likely discussed during class.  If they choose to use a different argument in their papers, than they knowingly risk their own grade.  In the real world, this choice is not as apparent.  And if it is clear, it is often difficult to follow through with the unpopular choice.  Those who do choose the unpopular choice are “othered.”  These people are labeled as geeks, sluts, loners, and on the world scale terrorists, uneducated, sexist, or racist.  While some are truly misunderstood, others are, by the majority of the world’s population, perceived as evil.

            This othering is currently being found largely in the religious world.  On a broad scale, everyone can be split into two groups: the religious and the nonreligious.  Of course, there are a plethora of sects that make up both groups.  Even the nonreligious feel the need to label themselves and others.  There are atheists, agnostics, and those who are anti-religion.  This labeling further others groups of people who share a common interest or (non)belief.  Within religion itself, groups are defined and labeled.  Ironically, these labels stem from the center of many religions: religious texts themselves.

            Both the Bible and the Koran include stories that separate those who believe in the texts and those who do not.  In some cases, this even includes the degradation of certain groups.  In the Bible, the Pharisees are labeled as blasphemous, and the Romans are seen as downright evil.  The Koran has a similar story that seemingly refers to homosexuality, as the Bible, but only one passage that could be interpreted as condemning it.  Contrarily, Islamic medieval culture even celebrated homosexuality, so those whom interpret the Koran as taking a stance against homosexuality would be contradicting the common belief at the time it was written.  Although both texts preach forgiveness and peace among all people, this grouping of types of people causes problems when individuals interpret the texts to their own advantages.

            Throughout history, the people of the world have emphasized individuality rather than a group mindset.  The United States is a leader in this way of thinking.  What has been known as westernization is spreading all across the world, while countries that still abide by a group mentality are labeled as less civilized.  This push for individual freedom is actually creating a growing oppression that will destroy the world if certain mindsets do not change. 

            Each of us interpret narratives based on our own set of beliefs, morals, and experiences.  While we should all be free to interpret texts with our own meanings, we have grown bold enough to push our interpretations onto other groups that have differing interpretations than our own.  This is the major problem that needs to be solved in our world, and the source of many problems, especially religious animosity.

            For some reason, the Christian and Islamic religions have always been at odds with each other, even though they share the same foundations and beliefs.  A majority of Christians view Muslims as terrorists and blasphemers for degrading Jesus to merely a prophet, not the Savior.  However, this is based off ignorance, not even interpretation.  Interestingly, only extreme groups of Muslims hate Christians for their religious beliefs.  Perhaps the Koran preaches more tolerance than the Bible, or leaders of that religion are more respected.  Or maybe, the group mentality of the Eastern culture, that the West has long ago lost, is the solution to recent violent actions.

            While the majority of Christians are ignorant of Islam, there are still extreme groups within the religion.  However, these groups are formed against specific societal mores or issues.  Examples of extremists in the Christian faith include the Westboro Baptist Church and the Ku Klux Klan.  While both groups are current, the members of Westboro Baptist Church appear more often in modern media, mostly because they tackle popular issues such as women’s rights and gay marriage.

            The most commonly used examples by the Westboro Baptist Church congregation and other Bible-believing people is from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.  The passages themselves state, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination” and “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed.”  However, according to Daniel Helminiak in his article “The Bible on Homosexuality,” this passage can also be interpreted differently.

            He begins his article by addressing the fact that “Just as the Bible was used to justify slavery, the Bible can be used to oppress gay and lesbian people” (81).  By opening his argument with this statement, he is already proving how various interpretations from the Bible may be determined, but they do not mean that the interpretation is morally correct.  Helminiak also points out that there are only five texts in the Bible that addresses homosexuality (83).  These sections of the Bible are: Genesis 19:1-11, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, 1 Corinthians 6:10 and 1 Timothy 1:10.

            The section in Genesis deals with the city of Sodom.  To summarize, God punishes the inhabitants of this city because of their lack of focus on God, violent acts and supposed homosexuality.  However, as Helminiak points out, “None of the explicit biblical references to Sodom names homosexuality as its sin” (83).  In the Bible story, two angels meet Lot, who proceeds to invite the two (who appear to be men) back to his house for dinner.  The townsmen of Sodom hear about his foreign visitors, and they proceed to go over to his home to attempt to rape the strangers.  Lot was also an immigrant to Sodom, so the locals hold that against him, and it is probably the reason for their terrorism.  Lot pleads with the men, offering up his two virgin daughters for rape instead.  The townsmen refuse, and the angels end up saving Lot from the townsmen and forewarning him to leave the city before God destroys it.

            Now, the only reference to homosexuality at all is the townsmen wishing to rape the angels posing as men.  However, this is the same type of threat that is found in many places, such as prisons today.  It is not justified to call the townsmen homosexuals for attempting rape on other men.  It was a violent threat, but had nothing to do with sexual preferences.  It is ungrounded to use this passage as evidence that God condemns homosexuality.

            Leviticus includes two references to homosexuality, in chapters 18 and 20.  As mentioned before, these passages center around the concept of a man who lies with another man as he lies with a woman.  However, this concept must be viewed in historical terms.  The surrounding passages (as well as the time period itself) deal with idolatry.  Helminiak explains that, “Supposedly, male-male sex was a practice among the ancient Canaanites, so to engage in it was to…deny one’s Jewish affiliation” (83).  Homosexuality itself is not being condemned, but rather the differentiation between pagans and God-fearing people is exemplified.  The Jewish faith condemns homosexuality because it is used in the idolatrous practices of the Canaanites, not the act of homosexuality itself.  “Thus, although Leviticus clearly forbids male-male sex (it says nothing of lesbianism), the reason for forbidding it is irrelevant today” (83).

            The passages found in Corinthians and Timothy are uncertain in their meaning because the translation of their words are muddled.  Both use the words, “arsenokoita,” which has something to do with “man,” and “penetrate.”  Unfortunately, when the Bible was translated from its original form, no one knew what “arsenokoita,” meant.  Its prefix refers to “man,” but the rest of the word is unclear.  What translators have done, however, is combine the word with the usage of “penetrate,” and combined it to mean “practicing homosexuals.”  What the original translation means, we will never know, but as Helminiak concludes, “No matter how convincingly it is argued that the Bible endorses heterosexual marriage, it simply does not and never will follow that the Bible therefore condemns homosexuality” (85).

            Finally, there is the Bible passage of St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, which has also often been used as proof of the condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible:

            Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another.  Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity (Romans 1: 26-27).

However, as previously mentioned, this practice was common among the Canaanites when they practiced idolatry.  Paul is writing to the Romans in a time where this would be common knowledge.  Helminiak argues that, “…far from condemning homogenitality, the apostle Paul actually believed the matter is ethically neutral” and also that “…Paul understands the objection to male-male sex to be a purity requirement of the Jewish law. His considered opinion is that Jewish purity requirements are not binding on Christians” (85-86).  This argument reinforces what is mentioned earlier; that male-male relations were a practice related to the idolatrous Canaanites, not a comment on how Christians should avoid homosexuality.

            Also, the translation of “unnatural” is a matter of controversy.  The word in its original language actually means “atypical,” not “unnatural” (86-87).  While this may seem like a slight difference, it changes the entire reading of the passage.  The word “unnatural” conveys the meaning that homosexuality goes against the very nature of humankind, while “atypical” just means different from the norm.  “Therefore, Paul is not saying that those acts are wrong; he is saying that they are unusual and do not enjoy social approval” (88).  However, as is found true in many cases, including slavery and women’s rights, what is approved in society does not necessarily mean it is right.

            The problem with multiple interpretations of narratives is not that there are different conclusions of the same passages, but that when these conclusions are used to condemn others or become a basis for discrimination, conflicts arise.  The United States of America has prided itself on being a “Melting Pot,” but for many, this has become the issue in our country.  While much of the population is proud of the fact that we, as an American people, live together peacefully despite coming from a multitude of backgrounds and beliefs, are we truly living in peace?

            In my eyes, our nation is one of the most unstable nations in the world.  Yes, we are a first-world country.  Yes, we have more freedom in regards to the government as well as freedom to exercise what we see as our rights, but we have no common culture; nothing to keep the melting pot from staying mixed together or from boiling out of control.  Our mixture of heritage and cultures has always been our biggest strength and most fallible weakness.  Other countries do not have this in common with the United States.  Most are made up of one, strong culture or identity.  Because the majority of the United States population is made up of immigrants, we have a different sense of identity.

            The absence of an identity is an issue in itself.  Humankind feels an innate need to associate with some group of people with similar qualities or interests.  As a result, United States citizens create an identity for themselves, whether as a migrant worker, a descendent of a founding father, or a white, upper-class male who believes that he is the ideal, American citizen.  While white, upper-class males are not the only portion of the population who think they are the ideal citizen, they (along with white females) make up the voice of the majority.

            When we realize that the majority of the people in the United States, and in the world, are not white males, then maybe this idea of white supremacy will finally dissipate.  Sadly, the Bible is not the only reference people use to condemn homosexuality.  As John Corvino points out in the introduction to his book, Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality, “Debates about the moral status of homosexuality usually focus on one of three points: nature, harm, and religion” (xviii).  Religion has already been covered thoroughly in this paper, where the conclusion is, “biblical authors were simply not talking about homosexuality as we now understand it.  Those who see condemnation in the Bible are reading their own prejudgments into it” (Helminiak 92).  Those who are homophobic twist the Bible passages previously discussed into support for their argument, without acknowledging the historical context or the multiple other translations of certain words and passages.  However, the other two points, nature and harm, often revolve around science and statistics.

            Corvino begins his essay by pointing out the benefits of sex in general.  By explaining that everyone craves sex, for various reasons, he is pointing out the sameness in everyone in the world:

            For one thing, sex is pleasurable.  But it is also much more than that: a sexual relationship can unite two people in a way that virtually nothing else can.  It can be an avenue of growth, of communication, and of lasting interpersonal fulfillment.  These are reasons why most heterosexual couples have sex even if they don’t want to have children             (Corvino 4).

This argument is directed towards those who state that sex only exists so that humans can procreate.  The basis of their argument is that since those of the same gender cannot produce children with each other, homosexuality is wrong.  Corvino points out that sex is not used merely for procreation by anyone.  If sex was not enjoyable in some way, I doubt it would continue to occur just for the sake of reproduction.  The argument that homosexuality is wrong because two men or two women cannot reproduce together is obviously flawed.  Corvino also explains that, “…even the Roman Catholic Church, which forbids contraception and masturbation, approves of sex for sterile couples and of sex during pregnancy, neither of which can lead to procreation” (6).  Therefore, in addition to the reasons already provided in regards to religion, the lack of ability to reproduce is not a legitimate reason to use religion to condemn homosexuality.

            A second argument used to condemn homosexuality is that it is unnatural, and therefore wrong.  This is largely based on interpretations of the Bible, which have previously been mentioned.  However, as Corvino points out, “Relatively few people read Sanskrit, pilot ships, play the mandolin, breed goats, or write with both hands, yet none of these activities is immoral simply because it is unusual” (4).  The major flaw in the argument, other than the belief that the Bible says so, is that although not many people act a certain way, the action itself cannot be condemned.  “So while homosexuality might be unnatural in the sense of being unusual, that fact is morally irrelevant” (4).

            Another part of this argument is that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong because other animals do not partake in it.  However, this is untrue.  Corvino points out that, “some animals do form homosexual pair-bonds” (5).  Therefore, this point is invalid.  The second flaw with this argument is that animals obviously do not do many of the things humans do.  “After all, animals don’t cook their food, brush their teeth, participate in religious worship, or attend college; human beings do all of these without moral censure” (5).  Comparing humans to other animals does not prove that homosexuality is wrong.

            A third argument against homosexuality is that spreading the AIDS virus is dangerous.  However, as Corvino once again disputes, “Obviously, it’s not homosexuality that’s harmful, it’s the virus; and the virus may be carried by both heterosexual and homosexual people” (7).  This argument is almost invalid as it is being stated.  AIDS is not created by homosexual people.  While it is more rampant among males and those who do partake in homosexual acts, that does not mean that being homosexual is the cause.  In fact, “purely from the standpoint of AIDS risk, women ought to prefer lesbian sex” (Corvino 9).  AIDS is the least prevalent in women, so it is ironic to condemn homosexuality based on the spread of AIDS when statistically, the safest sex in regards to the virus is between two women.

            The final argument that Corvino disputes is that there would be no society or survival of the human race if everyone in it were homosexual.  First, this argument is invalid because everyone in our society is not, nor ever will be, homosexual.  The reason there is a conflict at all about sexuality is because everyone has different preferences.  Second, as Corvino points out, “Perhaps it is true that if everyone were homosexual, there would be no society.  But if everyone were a celibate priest, society would collapse just as surely…” (11).  Priests do not have sex but yet, not many people view that as wrong.  They are not producing offspring, so how can homosexuals be condemned for that same reason?

            Sadly, while these arguments and homophobia are highly prominent in the United States, homophobia is found all over the world.  While New Zealand recently passed a government ruling making gay marriage legal, some countries still put homosexuals to death.  In fact, according to The Independent, “76 countries still prosecute people on the grounds of their sexual orientation—seven of which punish same-sex acts with death” (Dugan).  Many of these countries are found in the Middle East, which is a result of interpretations of five passages in the Koran, which seemingly touch upon homosexuality.

            The first passage that is used to condemn homosexuality is very nearly the same passage that is found in the Bible:

            We also sent Lut: He said to his people: Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds. And his people gave no answer but this: they said, "Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want             to be clean and pure! (Koran 7:80-82)

While some of the wording differs from the Bible, the passage is almost the same as the passage discussed earlier.  There are also two more references to Lot and his people in a later chapter:

            And (remember) Lut: behold, he said to his people: "Ye do commit lewdness, such as no people in Creation (ever) committed before you. Do ye indeed approach men, and cut off the highway? - and practise wickedness (even) in your councils?" But his people gave no answer but this: they said: "Bring us the Wrath of Allah if thou tellest the truth (Koran            29:28-29).

The second passage merely refers to how followers of the Koran should kick those who follow Lot’s example out of their cities. Both of these passages can be reputed with the same logic that is applied to their sources found in the Bible: that the people of Sodom were condemned for their lack of faith and horrific crimes, not for homosexuality.

            Another passage in the Koran that touches on homosexuality states, “Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates?  Nay, ye are a people transgressing…” (Koran 26:165-175).  Similarly, “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence…If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both…” (Koran 4:15-16).  These passages are similar because they can both be interpreted as a warning against sexual lust or degrading sex in general.  Neither passage mentions homosexuality directly, and therefore the passages are left up to individual interpretation.

            Like with the Bible, the individual interpretations that arise from these passages cause issues, which often lead to violent actions.  In fact, “All Islamic schools of thought and jurisprudence consider gay acts to be unlawful” (Mission Islam).  The emphasis on the unlawfulness of homosexuality is the act itself, not being homosexual.  As Mission Islam explains on its website, “if you transform your desires into a struggle and a challenge to overcome it and not physically commit it, then in Allah, you will get the reward for it: (Mission Islam).  Their advice for overcoming the challenge of homosexuality is as follows:

            Don’t get alone with an attractive man, always be in the company of others, don’t get involved in deep/personal discussions with any person that you may think will trigger your homosexual feeling.  Stay away from anything that reminds you of homosexuality. Keep a POSITIVE thinking in your mind and keep saying to yourself that you can do             something about it.  Don’t ever say I can’t.  Remember with every step you are taking toward getting rid of this habit you are getting help and reward from Allah… (Mission Islam).

This advice is completely ridiculous.  In summary, it is saying to those who believe themselves to be homosexual, to rid themselves of all male company and contentment.  For, as is the viewpoint of many Muslims (all of whom are presumably heterosexual), “homosexuals are inferior to dogs and pigs, since these animals do not engage in such acts” (Religion of Peace).  Mission Islam continues, explaining that while Muslims are forbidden to lie, they should never tell anyone, not even their closest friends and family, that they experience homosexual feelings and that they should take a wife and have a proper family in order to live a “normal” and fulfilling life.

            Sadly this advice mimics other situations as well.  Even in the United States, when a girl is raped on a college campus, often the administrators and authorities aim to hush up the allegations rather than persecute the rapist and risk tarnishing their reputation.  Hate crimes towards African Americans, Mexicans and Native Americans are also glossed over, as Americans wish to believe that this racism is no longer prevalent in our society.  However, just because society turns a blind eye does not mean the violence is not occurring.

            It is time to raise the awareness of the violent actions that have been occurring for far too long.  According to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, “The worst news comes from Iraq, where gays say more than 700 people have been killed because of their sexuality since the 2003 toppling of dictator Saddam Hussein” (Zimmerman).  In order to change a country’s mindset, its residents need the backing of their government.  As Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran stated, “homosexuality ‘ceases procreation’ and…is an ‘ugly deed’” (Secker).  As with the United States, the first goal to accomplish change is to convince the government to fight for equality.  The best summary in regards to why the world governments need to step up to answer the call for equality is found in Zimmerman’s words, “Gay rights are human rights” (Zimmerman).

            The concept of narrative truth is the central issue that gay rights has always revolved around.  Narrative truth consists of nonfictional and fictional truth.  Nonfictional truth conveys as best it can the truth of actual events, but it is “falsifiable.”  It can only affirm so much because there are areas where the truth cannot be documented.  Fictional truth, on the other hand, can record exactly what the characters and the world inside the story means to convey.  In this instance, fictional truth is the truth of meaning rather than fact (Abbot 153).

            The problem with the gay marriage issue is that religious texts are often a mixture of both nonfiction and fiction elements (which does make them fiction overall).  The quest to find a balance between what is true, or historically accurate, and what is written for interpretation, such as Psalms in the Bible and prayers in the Koran, causes a multitude of problems.  Humans will always interpret texts to their individual advantage, especially in the Western world.  The West is cultured to believe that in order to succeed, one must do so individually.  This is a stark contrast to Eastern culture, where a group mindset is more common.

            While the United States and Middle Eastern countries are at odds with each other in almost all regards, this seems to be a result of how closely the cultures resemble each other, but few recognize this.  Islam stems from Christianity, which stems from Judaism.  The Koran, Bible and the Torah, all contain stories that are similar to each other, if not exact replicas.  While additions have been made to each work, they all have the same source.  While the source is impossible to concretely trace, the similarities are impossible to ignore.

            What causes such an uproar between religions seems to be the different interpretations of the same works.  By just looking at Islam, as many Christians do, with the traditional beards on the men and long black robes and veils on the women, it is easy to dismiss the religion as foreign, or unnatural.  This dismissal is an example of the othering that humans are wont to do.  If we would just take the time to understand the Middle Eastern culture and religion, we would see the reason for their interpretation of the same stories that we find in the Bible.  Mohammad does play a large role in why the interpretations differ, but the Arabic culture is also different than our own, and this too must be taken into account.

            Likewise, the issue of homosexuality must be examined in a similar light.  When it comes down to it, homosexuals are not any different than the heterosexual majority.  Above all, the Bible and the Koran teach that everyone must be loved and treated equally.   In both religious texts, this is emphasized as the most important life lesson.  We, as people of the world, must realize that it is only the minority who believe that the “unbelievers” should be put to death.  The events of September 11, 2001 affected the entire world, and these actions were the result of Islamic extremists.  Most of the Islamic population was horrified and stood in support of the United States.  We must learn to stand by the side of the current victims of the minority: those who are denied their rights simply for being gay.

            We are a nation that prides ourselves on being different; on providing a home for people of all nationalities and backgrounds.  Why then, should we deny homosexuals the same rights that Americans of all other backgrounds enjoy?  Using the Bible or the Koran for evidence against gay marriage is a folly.  Once this safeguard is removed from the rationalizations of the government, then we will be taking one small step forward in the pursuit of equal rights.  After all, the foundation of the United States government was based on the separation of church and state.  If the only legitimate argument being held up by members of the House and Senate is that the Bible condemns homosexuality, then the government is going against its own founding fathers.  Whatever interpretation of the Bible is ruled “right,” it is a moot point.  The government is to stand independent of all religious interpretations and act on the wishes of the majority of the constituents.  It is time for the majority to step out of the comfort of their position in society, take a stance and make their voices heard.  Times change quickly.  If the tables turn on another aspect of society and those previously in the majority become members of the minority, wouldn’t you want others to stand up for you?

Works Cited

Abbot, Porter H. The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative. 2nd ed.

 New York: Cambridge UP, 2008. Print.

Dawood, N. J. The Koran. London, England: Penguin, 1966. Print.

Dugan, Emily. "More than 70 Countries Make Being Gay a Crime." The Independent.

      Independent Digital News and Media, 1 Aug. 2010. Web. 19 Apr. 2013.

Corvino, John. "Why Shouldn't Tommy and Jim Have Sex? A Defense of Homosexuality."

      Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality. Lanham, MD:

      Rowman & Littlefield, 1997. N. pag. Print.

Helminiak, Daniel A. "The Bible on Homosexuality: Ethically Neutral." Same Sex: Debating

      the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield,

      1997. N. pag. Print.

"Homosexuality and Islam." ReligionFacts. N.p., 31 Oct. 2005. Web. 19 Apr. 2013.

"Islam and Homosexuality." Islam and Homosexuality. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2013.

"Islam and Homosexuality." Islam and Homosexuality. Mission Islam, n.d. Web. 19 Apr.

      2013.

Secker, Bradley. "A Life in Hiding: How Gay Men Survive in Middle East." CNN. Cable

      News Network, n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2013.

The New American Bible. IA Fall, IA: World Bible, 1987. Print.

Zimmerman, Jonathan. "From Stonewall to Sharjah: There Is No Such Thing as Gay Rights

       in the Arab Middle East." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. N.p., 28 Jan. 2013. Web. 19 Apr.

      2013.