Ari Kohen on an Althouse/Loury bloggingheads discussion of opposition to SSM on religious grounds:
Religions aren’t monolithic; if people really are involved in deep spiritual reflection on the matter of homosexuality, then they will surely be able to find an interpretation of their religious texts that allows for the kind of evolution that President Obama described. This doesn’t mean I’m not serious about practicing Judaism; it means I’m serious about finding a way to reconcile my belief in the teachings of Judaism with my belief that people should be treated equally. But, obviously, one must actually have both of these beliefs.
What do we call someone who either fails to consider the alternative teaching of his or her religion or rejects that teaching because it doesn’t lead to continued condemnation of gays and lesbians, someone — in other words — who doesn’t actually have both a religious belief and a belief in equality?
With apoligies to Loury and Althouse, I think I have to call it bigotry.
Indeed. A couple of further thoughts:
This is the kind of discussion in which the differences between religious toleration and respect are noteworthy. A bare-bones sort of religious toleration simply demands that religious views are permitted. Obviously, this is and has been met, and scaremongering that a world in which SSM is legally permitted will not threaten this. A somewhat more robust (and, I think, misguided) conception of religious toleration, which Loury and Althouse could, arguably, be interpreted as advancing, suggests that what should be legally protected in the name of toleration should also be social protected, presumably for similar reasons.
This mode of thinking is, I think, at odds with an important form of religious respect. Either version of toleration is often at odds with a robust conception of respect. Where toleration treats the actual content and process of formation as a sort of black box, religious respect treats the claim that religion is, in fact, a meaningful and potentially successful source of actual religious values. Respect means pointing out failure, as Kohen does in his post. The failure of religion as a foundation for morality is obviously not universal, as many people use religious logic to come to the conclusion that gay people should be treated fairly. But respect can’t simply mean accepting, at face value, every claim made. That wouldn’t be a respectful way to treat a five year old.
Finally, it needs to be said more often and more loudly that the case that opposing the legalization of same sec marriage is, in fact, a form of intolerant religious bigotry. There exist many religious gay people (and religious communities that accept them) who believe that a) same sex partners are capable of the same deep and permanent connection that opposite sex couples are, and b) there is substantial religious and social value in understanding and recognizing those relationships as marriage. In advocating that the state exclude same sex couples from marriage, the religious freedom of these peoples and communities isn’t respected.
Much of what Loury says in the clip about not writing off people who are a bit slower to shake their long-held prejudices rings true to me. But there is a difference between saying “Joe holds a view that is bigoted” and “Joe is an entirely horrible, monstrous person”. Loury conflates the two, but he needn’t and shouldn’t.
