Christian groups rally to LGBT kids’ defense

Ok, so maybe that headline was a little optimistic: in reality, only a handful of prominent religious leaders have stepped forward to proclaim their support for teens who have been bullied, harassed or threatened because of their sexual orientation.

But there have been some: the latest is Rev. Mark S. Hanson, the presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, who recorded a video for the “It Gets Better” campaign.  The campaign is an effort by celebrities and others around the country to tell LGBT teens not to give up even if they’ve been victims.  The ELCA is the largest Lutheran denomination in the U.S. and the fact that its leader recorded such a message is a positive step toward ensuring that all people are treated with dignity and respect.

Of course, it’s not enough.  No matter what your religious beliefs, we should all be able to agree that bullying, taunting, physically intimidating or hurting gay students is always wrong and, without question, anti-Christian.  But  many Christian groups have been virtually silent on the issue.

In fact, the issue of whether or not to accept gay and lesbian congregants, leaders and marriages has become the defining, divisive issue among many congregations and religions.  More than 200 churches have left the ECLA since it began allowing gay pastors and marriages and dozens more congregations may follow suit.  The Family Research Council, a conservative political and Christian group, in one breath condemned bullying but also denied societal pressure leads “gays” (their use of quotes) to feel depressed or ostracized and encouraged “gays” to know they can change (essentially, “telling the truth is love”).  In Minnesota, the state-wide bishops’ group sent nearly half a million DVDs to Catholics in the state condemning state legislation that would allow gay marriage.

Sure, the Minnesota video doesn’t say “go out and hurt gay people” (though it does say that the “well-being of kids is threatened when they don’t grow up in a traditional family”) and neither do the vast majority of the other organizations opposed to people being gay.  But what kind of a message does it send, especially when the same groups very rarely say plainly and unequivocally that bullying is wrong?

Quite clearly, these groups are saying to gays, “We don’t want you.  Your ‘lifestyle’ and ‘choices’ and inherent knowledge of who you are is wrong.”  It’s not a stretch for young, vulnerable teens to feel like the society around them is against them, especially in regions where there may not be very many visibly active groups working for gay rights.  And who wouldn’t feel depressed, threatened, vulnerable, and yes, possibly even suicidal, after being rejected over and over, publicly, and told you were wrong for something you can’t change?

Churches should stop with the “yes, but…” language regarding bullying and just say, clearly, “Bullying is wrong.  Hurting another person, for any reason, is wrong.”  Period.

See this page for a list of Christian groups working for dignity and equality for homosexuals in their congregations.

Israel’s Problematic Oath

While yet another peace process between Israelis and Palestinians crumbles, the Israeli government seems set on digging in their heels even more.  Last week, the Israeli cabinet approved a bill that would require all new citizens (who are not Jews, since all Jews have an automatic “right of return” to Israel) to take an oath swearing loyalty to the “Jewish and democratic state” of Israel.

Of course, this is an oxymoron of the most obvious degree.  How can a state both be democratic and require an oath to a specific religion?  And even defining what “Jewish” means within Israel is problematic– how can the state expect new citizens to swear an oath to it?  Condemnation of the legislation was swift from around the world.

“It would turn Israel into the very kind of country which historically Jews themselves have rightly cursed for their unequal treatment of non-Christians and non-Muslims,” wrote the Central Conference of American Rabbis.

Thousands of protesters in Israel (both Arab and Jewish) also held a demonstration this weekend.  The social affairs minister, Isaac Herzog, referred to the proposal as a “whiff of fascism.”  So far, the government hasn’t backed down.

There’s no immediate danger that the bill will go into effect: it first has to be approved by the Knesset and then the country’s supreme court can deliberate on whether or not the oath is constitutional.

It also wouldn’t affect that many people: only approximately 20% of Israel’s current population is non-Jewish, and these people are already citizens.  Furthermore, few non-Jews apply for citizenship in Israel.  Some have pointed out that right now, this would only really affect a Palestinian who marries an Israeli Arab, for example, and then wishes to become an Israeli citizen.

But the emotional and political impact of the proposed oath is a dangerous one. It seems designed to sting.  Many Arabs took it as a slap in the face, another way for Israel’s hawkish government to say Arabs are not welcome– or at least, are not on equal footing with the Jewish majority.  And many observers around the world took is as yet another sign that Israel isn’t truly willing to negotiate an end to decades of hostility.

Perhaps more ominously, as an editorial in the Guardian pointed out, such an oath may be preparation for what might happen later: “…there is calculation in this. It seeks to pre-empt negotiation on the third core issue after borders and the division of Jerusalem – the right of return of Palestinian refugees to sovereign Israeli territory.”

If that’s true, that should make us even more wary of the likely failure of the latest round of peace talks.  If the current Israeli government is preparing for ways to control or discriminate against the Arab population even far into the future, how much can we trust them to negotiate a peace settlement now?

Parallels with History

“Many New Yorkers were suspicious of the newcomers’ plans to build a house of worship in Manhattan. Some feared the project was being underwritten by foreigners. Others said the strangers’ beliefs were incompatible with democratic principles,” begins today’s New York Times article about the similarities between protests against the state’s oldest Catholic church at the time it was built, and the protests the past few months over the proposed Islamic Center downtown.

It’s worth remembering that every generation has its own “hated” group– and Catholics were the chosen group to be reviled, discriminated against and shunned for many years in the United States.  Now we’ve moved on to Muslims.

Read the entire article here.  The pastor of St. Peter’s Catholic Church in Manhattan, the target of scorn when it was built 225 years ago and now just a few blocks from the proposed Muslim center, should be applauded for promoting interfaith harmony.