WHEN HATE IS POLITICIZED

Commentary

By Canon Gary L'Hommedieu
www.virtueonline.org
5/8/09

In recent coverage of a conference in London on reparative therapy for homosexuals, David Virtue compared two samples of what goes by the name of hate: one, the alleged hate of those who equate homosexuality with pathology, whether moral or psychological; and the other, the visceral rage of pro-gay advocates outside protesting the conference and attempting to disrupt the participation of those inside.

Virtue is not exactly an unbiased reporter. His own moral and theological views on the matter are well known, and yet his treatment of the occasion was mild, detached, and restrained. His observation of the conference participants, those opting out of the gay lifestyle and the therapists explaining the therapeutic process, does not seem like an attempt to gloss over facts in order to advance a preconceived point of view. Virtue, a conservative evangelical, described one of the presenters as Christian but not evangelical and the other as a self-proclaimed agnostic.

What impressed David Virtue was the honesty and commitment on the part of the men and woman who came looking for a way out of the lifestyle, as well as of those who were there to help them.

"I saw a genuine love and acceptance of men and women who were struggling to move away from behaviors they themselves viewed as destructive and dangerous, possibly deadly. They were choosing it, freely and voluntarily."

Meanwhile outside the doors of Emmanuel Center, near Westminster Abbey, hundreds of protesters marched with signs and shouted obscenities, hoping to disrupt the proceedings inside.

The protesters are not impressed by the intent, reasoned air of the participants, or even by the fact that they are exercising their right to assemble, however misguided they may be. The protesters see everything about the conference as a manifestation of hate. Hate is whatever leads a person to view homosexuality as anything but normal and good. Gays wanting out of the lifestyle are demonstrating a neurotic self-loathing in response to the hatred and victimization by the straight community. Therapists who want to help them are motivated by their own hate driven fear.

The dictionary defines hate as "intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility." That is the conventional meaning of the word. Typically hate leads to explosive and dangerous episodes. David Virtue concluded that nothing like the dictionary definition of hate was in evidence among the conference participants. The protesters, on the other hand, demonstrated the visceral contempt normally associated with the word hate. It was a strategic hate, intended to intimidate those who disagree and to disrupt their free exercise of conscience.

It was hate calculated to serve a political purpose. But that is not the main point.

The main point is that hate has lost its meaning, permitting what used to be called hate to go unrecognized. What used to be meant by the word hate (intense dislike, extreme aversion, hostility) is reborn as a justifiable method for advancing a worthy cause when exercised by a minority whose past has been certified as belonging to the current mythology of heroes and villains.

The word, however, has not just been submerged. It has a new use in the public square. "Hate" is now defined as holding certain moral or political points of view. Hate is what characterized the conference participants, cool and deliberate as they were in following the dictates of conscience without interfering with the rights of others..

The word has been redefined through a series of awkward metaphors. The first is the metaphor of mental illness: those who regard homosexual practice as unnatural or immoral are diagnosed with an irrational fear ("homophobia"). The fact that a philosophical viewpoint does not fit the form of a clinical diagnosis (except in Orwellian or Stalinist circles) is besides the point--or rather, it defers to another point.

There is a stigma embedded in an accusation, particularly in an absurd one. The accused instinctively shifts to the defensive as if he were engaged in rational discourse, but he is trying above all to shake off the stigma.

The logic of the absurd is always below the surface. An accusation is made: you disagree with me based on your irrational fear of homosexuals. By the very act of responding rationally to an irrational accusation, the irrational premise is, absurdly, affirmed.

Moving on to the next mixed metaphor: from mental illness to moral equivalence. Here the national history of racial violence is brought to the surface, with all the guilt that comes with it. Homophobia is now transubstantiated into racial bigotry, which in present society is a crime. Once again, it doesn't matter that the metaphor isn't appropriate or that many historical victims of racial violence reject it. What matters is the fact of the accusation. The accuser's outrage is something like righteous indignation, and so the accuser is righteous. The defensive reflex of the accused is something like guilt, and so the accused is guilty.

Finally, the metaphor shifts to the law. The mental illness, now equated with moral reprobation, becomes the legal equivalent of physical violence. It is as if by holding a certain view--namely, that homosexuality is unnatural or (worse) can be cured--the person holding the view has already attacked every gay person, not figuratively but in reality. Don't forget that reality is now the reality of the absurd.

The political objective has been achieved: wrong thinking regarding homosexuality has been criminalized.

The thread linking each of three metaphors is the stigma of contempt (hate?) embedded in the initial accusation, the only bit of real stuff protruding from the absurd logic of misplaced metaphors. It is the stiletto driven home in a crowded thoroughfare. The victim staggers, nerves not sensing the full thrust of the blade, arms flailing in spasms as he looks in vain for his attacker. This is the awkwardness of making a rational defense to an irrational accusation.

The recent confrontation in London between gays and ex-gays is an illustration. The word "hate" was a crucial part of the strategy of the former to discredit the latter and to intimidate anyone who might be looking on. The conference participants were accused of "hate". Since this was an obvious absurdity, the participants and their sympathizers did what seemed natural--they defended themselves against the accusation. They took the bait.

This is hate politicized. It is no longer the visceral contempt, the intense dislike, extreme aversion or hostility. Hate is a label attached to political enemies, in the present instance the politically incorrect, with a calculated effect in view. When the label is attached to an enemy, it becomes a scarlet letter. The public is on notice to cast scorn on the person who wears it. Celebrities will insult them on television, thinking they are brave for kicking one who is already down.

These public enemies are the great conspirators that have long been hiding and only just now come to light, and they must be stopped. We must learn to hate them.

---The Rev. Canon J. Gary L'Hommedieu is Canon for Pastoral Care at the Cathedral Church of St. Luke, Orlando, Florida, and a regular columnist for VirtueOnline.