God’s Bigots: The Religious Origins Of Homophobia
OWEN JONES: democratic socialist, LGBTI activist and Guardian journalist: takes homophobia seriously. So seriously, that earlier this week he pulled off his microphone and stormed out of Britain’s Sky News studio in protest at the network’s treatment of the Orlando massacre.
To Jones, what happened in Orlando was very simple: more than a hundred people had been killed or wounded by a gun-wielding assailant because they were gay. Before it was anything else, Jones declared, Orlando was a homophobic atrocity – the worst since the Second World War. Alleged connections with ISIS; the assailant’s religious beliefs; these were secondary to the killer’s primary motivation, which was, according to Jones, the violent erasure of LGBTI identity.
Watching the video, it is easy to see why Jones became so irate. There is an unmistakeable tone of correction in the presenter’s voice when he emphasises the victims’ humanity over their sexuality. It was almost as if he felt unable to identify with the dead and wounded until they had been redefined into persons for whom he could legitimately grieve. Not queers, but “human-beings”.
Jones had been invited into the Sky studio to discuss the way the news media had presented the tragedy. This was, of course, why Jones was so angry. The dominant theme of the British and American coverage was that Orlando represented yet another Islamic terrorist assault upon the “freedoms” and “tolerance” of the enlightened and democratic West. The homophobia which drove Omar Mateen to gun down the LGBTI patrons of the Pulse nightclub was thus elided in favour of a more comfortable narrative: “They [ISIS, Radical Islam] hate us [The West] because of our freedom.”
What must also be acknowledged, however, is that Jones’ determination to keep the focus squarely on Mateen’s homophobic motivation, itself begs the question of what made Mateen a homophobe in the first place? In this regard, Jones’ determination to dismiss the killer’s religious beliefs – along with his declared allegiance to ISIS – as matters irrelevant to his homophobic actions, is, almost certainly, misguided.
If we reject the proposition that homophobia is genetically predetermined, then we must accept it as a socially constructed phenomenon. In the simplest terms: homophobes are not born, they are made.
And if homophobia is a social construction, then we must acknowledge the important roles played by powerful societal institutions – including organised religion – in its creation. The Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam; all of them militantly monotheistic and aggressively patriarchal; have always dealt harshly with homosexuality and lesbianism. Those found guilty of such “abominations” were to be put to death.
It is only in the course of the last half-century that Western statute law has ceased to offer powerful secular reinforcement to these religious strictures. Meanwhile, in the overwhelming majority of Islamic countries, homosexual conduct continues to rank as a capital offence. Even where more liberal and permissive penal codes now prevail, the legacy of organised religion’s condemnation of homosexuality is a strong one. In a great many parts of the supposedly “tolerant” West, anti-homosexual prejudice – homophobia – continues to lurk just below the surface.
How disturbing the apprehension of this intolerance must be for those whose sexual orientation is other than heterosexual. In communities where homophobic antagonism is construed by family and friends, employers and workmates, as obedience to the will of God, the situation for LGBTI individuals is much, much worse. Constantly being made aware of one’s “otherness”, while not being able to either acknowledge it, or escape it, can only generate the most acute psychological stress.
Was Omar Mateen gay? Quite possibly. Patrons of the Pulse nightclub remember him, but only as a loner, someone who held himself aloof from the club’s easy-going conviviality. His first wife remembers him as an angry man, from whose violent behaviour she had ultimately to be rescued by her family. Looking at his many brooding selfies, the world will remember Mateen as someone determined to present his best possible face to the world.
And that could never be his gay face. Was this the crucial negation which fuelled his anger and twisted his perceptions? When he saw two men kissing in a Miami street, did he envy their freedom or resent it? Unlike him, they appeared to fear neither God’s punishment, nor their families’ rejection. How had they done it? How had they moved beyond sin, beyond shame? He could not be such a person. He would not be such a person. He would ask God to make him a different person – a righteous person. He would wage a jihad against his own desires.
In the end, did he despair of ever defeating those desires? Is that when he began to fantasise about martyring himself in the holy war against Western corruption? In the online communities of Islamic fundamentalism he would have found plenty of encouragement. Paradise awaited those who fell in the battle against the sinners; the unbelievers; the enemies of God.
The operator who took Mateen’s 911 call, just minutes before he unleashed hell at the Pulse nightclub, described him as sounding “calm”. In his final moments, before a hail of Police bullets cut him down, witnesses similarly recalled his calm, untroubled demeanour.
These descriptions do not conform with Owen Jones’ characterisation of the killer as some sort of enraged, frothing-at-the-mouth, homophobic thug. It does, however, sound remarkably similar to the descriptions of the early Christian martyrs as they waited to be torn to pieces in the amphitheatres of Ancient Rome.
It is what religion does to people: it transforms their world.
For the early Christian martyrs, the evil arrayed against them was not a barrier, but a portal, to the presence of God. For the contemporary soldiers of Islam, dutifully slaying God’s enemies, Paradise awaits.
On that terrible Sunday morning, where did the broken human vessel that was Omar Mateen believe himself to be standing? At the gates of heaven? In God’s favour? Or, was the Pulse nightclub simply the place where he killed himself – forty-nine times?
Maybe cos homophobia isn’t always fueled by religion?
Maybe not always, but I’d say in the biggest majority of cases, why it even transcends the divides between Islam and Christianity. You only have to google “Baptist Church and Orlando shootings” for confirmation of that. There is more than one Baptist preacher on youtube with the view that the only sad thing about it was that not enough people were killed.
And that is just the Baptist Church
I don’t know why people are so keen to dismiss the religious angle.
1) Religion (still) gets special privilege
2) Those of the regressive left confuse and conflate criticism of ideology and religion with hatred toward population groups.
Yes, religion does get preference and expects respect. On preference there is Sikhs being allowed to carry a weapon (kirpan) but otherwise it is against the law.
And why, oh why are we expected to “respect” religion. To me, its like you’re indulging your batty old aunt who can’t remember what day of the week it is, and you be careful not to upset her and don’t try to tell her the stuffed toy cat she adores is not real.
Courtest, Rae. Common, garden-variety, simple courtesy.
I have no religious inclinations at all, myself, but I respect others who hold views close to their hearts. Of course, there are times those views impact on society (eg; abortion, LGBT equality, euthenasia, etc), in which case we debate those views.
I might add that the courtesy you receive yourself is similar to that which we extend to those holding other beliefs such as religion.
I think that respect often spills over into deference though. In fact, I think that is more the expectation. I would prefer that we just accept that others think differently from you and that includes those who believe there is a god.
I think there is a real difference which is why I put ” ” around the word respect
Oh, I agree fully on your point about “deference”. Respect and deference should not be entwined and whilst one can respect personal religious beliefs, we have a right to debate those beliefs if they impact on the rest of us (as per the examples I cited above).
http://europe.newsweek.com/what-does-koran-say-about-being-gay-470570
Thanks for sharing Janine – that’s a good read!
The trouble with these ancient religious tomes is that they seem to be fairly open to interpretation and you can find other views on homosexuality, among just about everything else. No particular one can be seen to be definitive.
Can’t help thinking they need modernizing, more fitting to where society is science has led us in many things.
Of course, that would require, pretty much, an admission that man indeed made God. Can’t be ‘aving that now, could we?
A video of Owen Jones making the argument that the Pulse shooting was a hate crime, in case anyone else was hunting in the article for a link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEgd9q8ugs4
They literally shut him up to show what people who aren’t gay are saying about the event, after loudly talking over him saying this was an attack on freedom, not a hate crime. Facepalms start approx. 2mins into the video.
In a post about right wing nut jobs who make incorrect, delusional right wing statements (literally delusional, as if people’s sexual orientation motivates a person to travel to the other side of the world to commit mass murder) in defense of right wing ideology.
That’s why some people jump on your statements so much.
I wish the leftist commentators in NZ who get to appear in the media had the attitude of Owen Jones.
Most left-wing commentators who go on TV in NZ fawn over Key’s popularity. So sad we have a gutless bunch who would rather not rock the boat in the hope that they might get on TV again…
I wish all our left wing commentators would throw their toys out of the cot and go gome when people aren’t fawning over them enough too.
No onetrack, the left should never try to get the neoliberal ideologues to fawn over us. Our goal is to have you fear us and hate us. We’ve been trying to get you people to fawn over us for too long.
If someone like you agrees with me, then I know I’m proposing something unethical
Sounds to me, Onetrack, that you’re the one throwing your toys out of the cot.
What’s your problem, mate?
Well said Fatty.
There is something about this article, Chris, that turns Mateen into a victim of his homophobic religion and potentially closeted identity. And maybe he was. But it feels too soon after he murdered 49 innocent people, most of whom were queer, to be arguing in his defence. Let’s honour the real victims by having the courage to call it what it was: a hate crime, a homophobic massacre.
While you are prepared to write “If we reject the proposition that homophobia is genetically predetermined, then we must accept it as a socially constructed phenomenon. In the simplest terms: homophobes are not born, they are made.” which is a fair comment why can you not accept that some of us think the same about same sex attraction. i do not wish any harm on the LGBT community but think of them as sinners in need of a Savior the same as the rest of us. Jesus tells us to love our enemies & it is not Christian behavior by those professed religious people who persecute the LGBT community.
Yeah, you do wish harm on the LBGT community, you do so by referring to them expressing their natural sexuality as a sin, you think they should not be allowed to be who they are.
And while homosexuality is indeed something a person is born to (have seen it with my own eyes, able to spot it in a family member, before he was even walking), homophobia is not, beyond one’s own sexual preferences. The common denominator seems to be religion for it becoming as nasty as it does. I know what I think needs removing from the equation
+1 Rae!!
What about all the other sexual behavior that society to its credit still calls criminal behavior? The pedophiles (etc) certainly act as if they are born that way yet we are all united in saying it in unacceptable. History has recorded that all sorts of evil behavior was practiced in the past (mainly against women) & it was only the introduction of the Christian doctrines in the past that changed the views of society. Christians have been saying based on the books of Daniel & Revelation written about 530 B.C. & A.D. 95 that this world is destined for destruction, the USA will be the dominant power, natural disasters would increase & a total decline in righteousness leading to a forced day of worship yet to come.
You might not be interested in eternal life & scripture warns us that any organization that seeks to force worship in wrong but you should let others decide for themselves what to believe. The facts are that through faith many people have been set free from bondage to many different sexual activities.
QuickThinking – with respect, not everyone shares your deeply held views on “eternal life”. And for many people, “scripture” is not shared as gospel-truth (excuse the pun).
Re your comment;
I think you’ll find that many other doctrines contributed to the slow evolution of societal views. The Code of Hammurabi predates Jesus Christ by about 1,750 years; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
I’d like to think that Humanity has achieved social development through enlightened struggle of men and women, rather than commanded by an invisible deity. Otherwise, whether the Ancients, the Magna Carta, the US Founding Fathers, the Suffragettes – it’s all been for nought.
So let me think about this for a minute. What could be the difference between homosexuality and paedophilia.
Maybe it is something to do with consenting adults as opposed to harming children.
And of past practices that we have since decided are wrong because of harm to others, homosexuality does not fall into that category, you see.
And on the subject of whether or not there is a god, I have in my head, a rudimentary pie chart. Firstly, it is divided in half, one half says there is a god, the other says there is no god. Now, there appears to be a number of “one true gods” so I cut up the “there is a god” half of the pie into a few bits to allow for some of these different “one true gods”. Your odds of being onto the right one don’t look that good, and if I cut the original pie into three to allow for agnostics, it looks even worse for all the “one true gods”.
My pie chart has nothing to do with how many “x” or “y” adherents there may be, its just based on a 50/50 chance of there being a god or not, and if there is, which one might indeed be the true god.
My pie chart clearly shows that “there is no god” is the odds on favourite here.
Indeed, Rae.
To take the point further, some paedophiles target young girls. They are heterosexual men (predominantly) preying on little girls. So does that make all heterosexual men paedophiles, as some argue the link between homosexuality/paedophilia?
The answer shows up the silliness of the comparisons between homosexuality and paedophilia.
Exactly, but over and over I here the likes of those Baptists equating homosexuality to paedophilia.
I don’t know how they think they can keep getting away with it.
“Asheer”? Sprung! Another right-winger caught out lying!!
[Asheer, elements of your presence on The Daily Blog required clarification. I have attempted to contact you on the email address you provided. That email address has proved to be fake. Your posting privileges are therefore permanently rescinded. – ScarletMod]
Well, it looks like someone has been caught out? Another right wing troll?