I Am SOOOO Confused!!

Sunday, November 5, 2006

I Am SOOOO Confused

A few years ago, at Charlotte Pride, an evangelical protestor informed me that I was very confused regarding the true meaning of the Bible as interpreted by him and his cohorts. At the time, I did not feel that confused, but…today…I admit to an inability to comprehend the Christian fundamentalist perspective and its relationship to government and to politics.

What are the sources of my confusion?

Firstly, it has been my understanding that the founding fathers advocated a federal government rather than a pure republican democracy. The latter system advocates the methodology of simple majority rule. The former contends that majority rule will not guarantee minority rights and is thereby a flawed system. James Madison, in his Federalist Paper of May 17, 1787, eloquently makes the case against majority rule. His argument rests on a two-pronged basis. He avers that the basis for flaws in the concept of majority rule find their root both in the nature of elected representatives and in the people themselves.

Let us examine each of these two prongs separately.

Motivation to participate in a representative government, according to Madison, is threefold: ambition, personal interest, and the public good. He goes on to state that the first two prevail. It will be helpful to quote from Madison’s text. He states that such elected officials, “forming often a majority in the legislative Councils, with interested views, contrary to the interest and views of their constituents, join in a perfidious sacrifice of the latter to the former.” Minority rights are sacrificed for the alleged “good of the majority”.

The second prong in his view that majority rule constituted a flawed system was vested in the attitudes of the people themselves. Again, from this specific Federalist Paper penned by James Madison, “A still more fatal, if not more frequent, cause lies among the people themselves. All civilized societies are divided into different interests and factions, as they happen to be creditors or debtors--rich or poor--husbandmen, merchants or manufacturers--members of different religious sects--followers of different political leaders--inhabitants of different districts--owners of different kinds of property &c &c. In republican Government the majority, however composed, ultimately give the law. Whenever therefore an apparent interest or common passion unites a majority what is to restrain them from unjust violations of the rights and interests of the minority, or of individuals?”







With regard to those restraints, he gives three potential motives:

1) That honesty is always the best policy, although he states that this often goes unheeded.

2) That strength of character will prevail…again, Mr. Madison attests to the fact that this is seldom found in practice.

3) The power of religious conviction. This is of specific interest regarding the source
of my confusion. A strong sense of religious values might be expected to restrain the excesses of the majority. This, however, may not be the case, as James Madison points out. “Besides as religion in its coolest state is not infallible, it may become a motive to oppression as well as a restraint from injustice. Place three individuals in a situation wherein the interest of each depends on the voice of the others; and give to two of them an interest opposed to the rights of the third? Will the latter be secure? The prudence of every man would shun the danger. The rules & forms of justice suppose & guard against it. Will two thousand in a like situation be less likely to encroach on the rights of one thousand? The contrary is witnessed by the notorious factions & oppressions which take place in corporate towns limited as the opportunities are, and in little republics when uncontrolled by apprehensions of external danger.”


Given the opinion expressed by James Madison, one of the most influential and persuasive of the founding fathers, it is evident that majority rule is not the best system when it comes to guaranteeing minority rights. It is also obvious that the founding fathers wished to protect the rights of minorities, regardless of their size, from the excesses of a majority unrestrained.

If we apply this doctrine to current controversy regarding the rights of gay, lesbian and transgender persons, the source of my confusion becomes apparent. Our constitution prohibits the establishment of any religious doctrine as the law of the land. Of course, it does protect one’s right to worship as one chooses, but there is quite a difference between the right to practice ones faith and the right for a majority to impose their faith upon a population at large.

The second source of my confusion is the assertion, on the part of Christian conservative fundamentalists, that this is a Christian nation, based on the tenets of Christianity. It is well known that many of the founding fathers not only eschewed organized religion, but that many were Deists and did not subscribe to Christian doctrine whatsoever. They pointedly refrained from institutionalizing religion and joining it with the government they were building. It was their distinct recollection that King George had been both monarch and head of the Church of England and they most assuredly did not want to incorporate that within the framework of our Constitution or our government.


Furthermore, we as Americans take pride in calling our country a melting pot, with divergent races, ethnicities and religions. It goes against all reason to posit one group as the model and the rest as fringe elements worthy of no more than cult or sect status. Our Constitution, as stipulated in the First Amendment, guarantees not only the right to freedom of worship, but debars the establishment of a state religion. The position taken by modern and radical Christians negates both of these provisions. They would insist that their religion be the only one of substance and they would prefer to impose it upon every American citizen. This marginalizes every other faith and religious institution…Jewish, Islam, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, just to mention major spiritual faiths, and this does not include the plethora of other particular and specific ways of expressing one’s spirituality.

I am taken aback by the arrogance displayed in such a position. This comes from those who would espouse the importance of humility, no less. The hubris they engender goes beyond the pale of my sensibilities and I find myself in disbelief that this has become not only accepted but also encouraged by the current President and his administration. It is as though this doctrine has now become state policy, which completely belies the intent of the founding fathers.

I can only imagine that those who promulgate this false religion, this blasphemy, hope that most of us disbelievers will either knuckle under or just go away. I can tell them that this will not be the case. We adhere to true egalitarianism, as envisioned by the framers of our government, and will not let the egos of madmen hijack our government. We will hold true to the tenets that all voices must be heard, that minorities may not be legislated out of existence, and that the bullying by self-appointed zealots will not prevail.

I guess I am really not that confused after all…

trickster108