The Firing over Anti-Gay Remarks:

Over at Volokh and elsewhere they are discussing this story about a doctrinaire Catholic who was fired from his public service job in Maryland for saying some arguably bigoted things about gays. Of course, I'm troubled anytime a public official is fired simply for speech.

But, I think this case fits perfectly into what I've argued recently about gay rights: We already have an existing set of laws, regulations and norms of civil behavior regarding how we treat people from various social groups. All gays are asking for is the same treatment. Now, these norms may, alas, be abused to inhibit liberty and free speech (and we should fight against that). But, there is no good reason why gays shouldn't be included at this place at the table.

And again, we see the racial analogy being invoked in an inappropriate manner. This analogy is abused by both sides in the debate, when the gay side argues: "Homosexuality is just like race, therefore make us into a civil rights category." Or when the anti-gay side argues, "you can't compare homosexuality to race, therefore sexual orientation isn't a valid social group or civil rights category."

Again, we DO NOT live in a world where race and race only is the only "civil rights" or "social group" category against which one can be bigoted. So sexual orientation need not make any kind of near perfect analogy to race in order to be a valid social group or merit bona fide civil rights status.

Consider, whatever one thinks of the "chosen" aspect of sexual orientation, religion is entirely a matter of choice, far more so than one's sexual orientation. Does anti-religious bigotry exist? What if a public official said, "I think Catholics are religious deviates. They engage, or they think they engage, in ritual cannibalism. That's nuts."

Would this be tolerated by a public official? I don't think so. I can almost guarantee you Maryland's governor would have fired a public official who made these remarks.

Now, on the other hand, public officials should be, as a matter of law, free to speak their mind about their consciences. But lets leave aside the legal matter and explore this solely as a social matter or norm. Traditionally minded folks should be able to have their religious convictions and not be thought of as bigots. And all of us should be able to constructively and in a civil manner criticize the various social groups, perhaps for certain behavioral or cultural problems that we do see in many groups who are bona fide civil rights categories, and not be thought of as "prejudiced."

And that's where the hard part begins. When does one cross the line from constructive criticism into bigotry? I don't have an easy answer. Perhaps bigotry is like Justice Potter Stewart's definition of obscenity: I know it when I see it.

Let's focus more on anti-religious bigotry. Those of us who are religious freethinkers should be able to constructively criticize what we think are the irrationalities of various religions and not be charged as being "bigots." Similarly, the traditional religious thinkers ought to be able to criticize the doctrines and dogmas of one another without being tarred with the bigotry label.

For instance, what if you are an evangelical Protestants who really does believe that one has to accept Jesus only and be "born-again" in order to make it into Heaven. Now, Catholics explicitly reject this dogma. Catholics must reject Catholic dogma in order to be saved according to this sentiment. If such a Catholic becomes "born-again" and believes in the doctrine, what are the chances of him or her sticking around the Catholic Church? In short, (and I know not all evangelicals think this way; but it certainly seems to me to be logical, given the premises of Protestant fundamentalism) Catholics go to Hell when they die.

Does believing this make fundamentalist Christians into anti-Catholic bigots? No. And there is a civil way to hold this position.

But, (you knew a but! was coming) what if then the evangelical starts calling the Pope the Anti-Christ and the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon? Then, I think, we've crossed the line from devoutly held religious convictions into anti-Catholic bigotry.

Religious folks, even though they have a legal (and social) right to their longstanding, devoutly held beliefs, cannot then use those convictions as a shield against a charge of, or an excuse for bigotry. Believing that Catholics qua Catholics aren't saved or that all voluntarily chosen homosexual acts are sinful is not in and of itself bigoted. But those legitimate convictions should not be able then to be used as a "shield" against a charge of bigotry. For example...Statement: "The Pope is the Anti-Christ and homosexuals are disease spreading perverts who want to recruit your children." Response: "This smells like anti-Catholic and anti-gay bigotry to me." Counterresponse: "But this is just my religious convictions."

No. There is a way to explain and assert these devoutly held religious convictions without engaging in rank bigotry. Where the line is crossed from convictions to bigotry is a hard one to draw. And that's why we have to debate the issue and think hard (William F. Buckley wrote an entire book about this matter as it applies to anti-Semitism, which lost him some friends).

Finally, if I could point to one example (and there are many more) of an evangelical who believes that all voluntarily chosen homosexual acts are wrong, but doesn't, in my opinion, have an anti-gay bone in his body, I'd use Joe Carter. His ex-wife is lesbian and he is still very close to her. Perhaps that's why he doesn't gay bash with his rhetoric. I wish more would follow his example.