A Lack of Imagination May 16, 2012
Posted by Jodi in Fundamentalism, Politics.trackback
A week ago I regretfully attended my last French class for who knows how long. I plan to continue studying the language—probably majoring or minoring in it—but I’ve exhausted all the classes offered at my two-year college. The good news is that my professor offered to meet me at the end of the summer to discuss L’Étranger in French if I will puzzle it out over the next few months on my own. She also said I’m welcome to sit in on her classes anytime I want to. So I’m not completely left hanging.
Speaking of French literature, our class discussions this semester revolved around Le Petit Prince, a children’s book which is also well-known in its English translation. There’s plenty to learn from this story, but the line that’s been stuck in my head the past couple weeks is the little prince’s summary of his quest to understand adults: “Les hommes manquent d’imagination.”
Men lack imagination.
In the book, this deficit results in some tragicomical behavior. A businessman hunches over his desk, counting and adding the stars he “owns” but doesn’t appreciate. A king gives absurd and futile orders. A drunkard drowns the shame of his addiction with bottle after bottle of alcohol. I’m beginning to think, though, that a lack of imagination in America is fueling some political activity that is far from laughable. I’m talking about this and this.
Most of the rest of what I have to say today is directed at conservative Christians. I’m asking you to imagine that at 1:00 this morning the Virginia House rejected the nomination of a well-qualified Christian man because some legislators thought he would bring his religious beliefs to the judicial bench. What if a state representative had said the candidate in question isn’t qualified for the job because his past shows “a pattern of behavior that is just notorious for Christian advocacy”? What if voters in North Carolina had approved a constitutional amendment requiring Christians to marry only non-Christians?
I’m suggesting this exercise in imagination because, contrary to what many of you believe, we don’t live in a Christian nation. We never have. We live in a country founded by men, many of them Christian, who observed the great injustices that arise when government enforces the beliefs of a particular religion. They structured our government so that we are ruled by representatives elected by the majority. And for decades you have used your majority to try to require the rest of us to live according to the rules of your religion.
Let me remind you of something that will probably sound familiar to you—”A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have” (Gerald Ford). This idea is important, because it can work against you as well as it works for you. I predict that you who are conservative Christians will someday find yourself a powerless minority. When that happens, I won’t be surprised if the majority tries to enshrine in ordinances, statutes, and constitutions the buffer from you that they crave. In some places you already are, and they already have. You’ll probably call it persecution. There’s a good chance you’ll console yourself with Matthew 5:11. I’m asking you to consider another possibility—you might be experiencing a corollary of the Golden Rule: Others will do unto you what you have done unto them. You reap what you sow.
I also predict that someday people who care about the freedoms and rights of others will be speaking up for you. I hope I’ll be one of them, because that’s the kind of person I want to be. But it will be hard for me. I’ll defend you reluctantly because I am one of your casualties. I am a woman for whom you refused to imagine anything other than a box which I nearly killed myself trying to fit into.
See also:
Thanks for the post, along those lines this really ticked me off: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/richard-grenell-openly-gay-romney-spokesman-resigns-from-post/
This need for some kind of enforced purity on this one issue is very sad to see, imaginations are running wild creating irrational fears rather than reasoned or principled positions.
Thanks for sharing that; I hadn’t heard about it. This further illustrates what I’m talking about:
“In late April, a radio host for the American Family Association said that the hiring indicated the Romney campaign’s willingness to tell the so-called pro-family community to ‘drop dead.’”
It sounds like Romney stood behind the choice to hire Grenell, and I respect him for that. I’d respect him even more if I found out he meant the hiring the way the AFA’s radio host thinks he did.
Reblogged this on The More I Learn the More I Wonder and commented:
So much is being said right now on the topic of gay rights, which seems to me to be today’s leading civil rights issue. Jodi’s post resonates with many of my own sentiments on the topic, and I think it’s worth sharing.
Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful! Thanks for being brave and authentic, Jodi.
Thanks, Karen, for reading and for your encouraging words.
Jodi, I agree with those who say that the marriage issue is not something to handle by constitutional amendment. The definition of marriage predates government. Therefore, we must look to the Creator for the definition. Asking for the right for government and church sanctioned homosexual
marriage is a request to completely overthrow our culture with man as the decision maker in the place of God. No one in America is denying homosexuals the right to life and liberty. The majority is only denying a redefinition of our culture.
In some ways it sounds like we’re on the same page; however, your comment suggests that you’re missing a great part of my point. You share this country with an increasing number of people who either don’t believe that marriage was defined by a Creator or don’t believe in your interpretation of the Creator’s intent for marriage. I’m asking you to imagine how you hope to be treated on the inevitable (in my opinion) day that you are greatly outnumbered and those with whom you disagree are defining culture. And I’m encouraging you to treat others right now the way you hope to be treated in the future. It’s possible you believe you’re already doing that, in which case we might disagree.
I also believe you’re overstating things when you say the push for homosexual marriage is “a request to completely overthrow our culture.” Thousands of homosexual couples are already living as if married. This is a part of our culture.
Finally, it’s not true that “no one in America is denying homosexuals the right to life and liberty.” In the comments above, James posted one example of a Christian organization that tried to push a gay man out of a job (and may have been successful) because of his sexual orientation. There are many other examples.
Jodi, I have two questions for you.
1. Do you think it’s possible to maintain a Christian worldview and endorse homosexual marriage? Here’s why I ask. I see a fundamental difference between those who endorse homosexual marriage and those who don’t. Those who endorse it believe that we can decide for ourselves what marriage is. Those who don’t(and it’s not just Christian conservatives) believe the Creator has already defined marriage. These are mutually exclusive belief systems. One cannot hold both at the same time.
2. My second question follows – Do you believe that Christians must drop their worldview in order to participate in society? This is what they must do in order to endorse the normalization of homosexual activity.
If that’s not what you’re saying then Christians who vote against gay marriage are not discriminating against the personhood of homosexual individuals. They are only rejecting a worldview that says man can decide sexual morality for himself.
Of course you can maintain a Christian worldview and endorse homosexual marriage, the proof is that many Christians do. Not the majority, but they exist in good numbers. Since you don’t get to define “Christian”, you also don’t get to define “Christian worldview” or determine what that can or cannot include. You can only define that for yourself, not for others. That isn’t to say what either I or Jodi think, just to answer your question. Your second point simply tries to insist that your Christian worldview is the one and only correct one. Since it is different than every other Christian worldview that exists, good luck with that. But of course Christians should keep their worldview in mind while participating in society, while not imposing that worldview on everyone else.
Finally, that is all completely beside the point, since it wasn’t the point or focus of Jodi’s post. Completely ignoring the point of her post and her follow-up to your comment is very disrespectful.
I certainly wasn’t trying to be disrespectful. Correct me if I’m wrong but Jodi seemed to be saying that Christians are mistreating homosexuals now and soon the tables will be turned.
I think she is right in her assessment that the general population is becoming more accepting of homosexuality. What I don’t agree with is the idea that a Christian who defines marriage according to the traditional historical biblical definition is somehow mistreating people. The uproar as of late has been about a state constitutional amendment. Clearly, the homosexual community votes their conscience on this issue. Is there anything wrong with Christians voting theirs? Am I a bigot against a homosexual individual because I disagree with his/her lifestyle? If so, is he/she a bigot for disagreeing with my lifestyle and worldview? These may seem like sarcastic questions, but I am serious. Unless we define our world views clearly and allow for open discussion there is no hope of having a civil discussion.
The essential difference, as I see it, is that a homosexual person’s request for the benefits guaranteed by marriage doesn’t prevent you from living out your worldview. However, you are trying to prevent homosexual people from living out their worldviews. And it seems you’re still avoiding the question of whether or not you want the rest of us to prevent you from living out your worldview when you’re a minority. I assume your Christian worldview also requires you to treat others the way you want them to treat you.
I’m not interested in discussing this further with you; that was not my purpose in writing and posting this essay. To spend more time talking to you about this issue would violate the boundaries I set for myself and for people who visit my blog.
Ok, so you wrote a blog post addressing Christian conservatives about grievances you have with us. I have responded with a perspective from the group that you addressed and that’s inappropriate? I’m confused and agree not to post on the blog anymore since free discourse is obviously not the desired end.
I guess I wasn’t very clear in my last comment. You haven’t posted anything inappropriate, nor have I hindered you from saying what you want. What I was trying to say is that I won’t be continuing in the conversation.
Forgive me for this one last post. It is a difficult and high emotion conversation, this tension between a Secular, no objective truth, society, and a society undergirded by historical Christian morals. They really can’t exist side by side as equals. One will dominate over the other. This is not a persecution issue as much as it is a world view issue. You are right in your assessment that the society is becoming more Secular. Here is a proposal from a Christian for how to address this tension between Secular and Christian influence in our society.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2012/05/my-solution-to-the-same-sex-marriage-debate-with-an-ecclesiology-of-exile/
Hey, Jodi –
So glad to finally “catch up” with you here. After reading your post on fear, I can once again affirm that we definitely are cut from the same cloth.
Re: the idea of ours being a Christian nation, I guess I don’t see our nation as a Christian nation because 51% of our citizens may claim Christ or go to church or even that many of our founders were believers. I see our nation as “Christian” in form….mainly the idea that our founders consulted much of Scripture in the drafting of the founding documents. They looked at the primary governing bodies in churches at that time and formed the separation of powers from those ideals as seen in Isaiah 33:22 and elsewhere (Episcopalian – President, Presbyterian – unelected Supreme Court and U.S. Senate, Congregationalists – House of Representatives). This is just one of the points that I’ve found interesting and discovered in my studies.
As you may remember, I don’t necessarily fit perfectly into some categories and rarely agree 100% with any specific denomination, person, book, etc…call it what you will: stubbornness or freethinking. : ) I’ve gotten off Facebook because such discussions were not always conducive for that format so I miss a bit of friendly debate. As you may know, I have loved ones who are homosexual (a relative and friends) and I’d welcome the opportunity to begin to sort out such issues in a loving philosophical conversation with you….or not. I’ve, quite frankly, had a year from Hell, and because I think we can relate on so many things, I’d welcome the opportunity to JUST visit with you again and I’ll leave the conversation up to you. Boy #1 would love to have a play date with your Boy #1; in fact he’s brought his name up several times just recently–I doubt yours may feel the same way, but he definitely had a positive impact on my boy. I totally understand if you’re not up to getting together for whatever reason, but please feel free to contact me if you’d ever like to visit.
I’m so glad you found me! I noticed awhile back that you were gone from FB, and I’ve wondered many times how you were doing. Truth be told, I thought of you while I was composing this post because I suspected you would have a different viewpoint on the idea of a “Christian” nation. For that reason alone, I’m really glad that you weighed in here.
My sincere condolences on your year from hell. I had one of those a couple years ago, so without knowing details I can at least understand the emotional turmoil they cause. Wishing you peace very soon.
I agree with you that Facebook is not a great place to have discussions like this; a blog is only marginally better. So lets get together sometime! We can play it by ear whether we want to talk more on this (or any heavy) subject. Look for an email from me soon.