|
First of all, if you (correctly) define "fundamentalist" Christians as those who follow, consciously or unconsciously, "The Fundamentals" (the series of tracts published at the beginning of the 20th Century -- which is where "fundamentalism" got its name), you'll find that, historically, homosexuality was not a big issue on their radar screens until recently, whereas evolution was. The reason for that is that "The Fundamentals" differed from mainstream Christianity in insisting on the inerrancy of the Bible -- its literal truth in every respect. For the fundamentalist, there is no such thing as Gould's "two magisteria." The words of the Bible are supreme over any other form of human knowledge; where there is conflict, the Bible must be recognized as correct and whatever conflicts with it as false. That is why, while mainstream Christianity has had little trouble with accepting the notion of "theistic evolution" (i.e. God created the world, but did so through evolution, with the first creation story in Genesis a poetic way of explaining that to people who did not yet have the means to understand the scientific process), for the fundamentalist, anything that suggests that the words of the Bible are not literally true must be fought against as a Satanic lie...for, as I have often had it explained to me by fundies, "if we cannot trust every word of the Bible, how can you trust any word of it?"
Nonetheless, why the obsession with homosexuality now? Well, the answer may be easy or hard to grasp, depending on how old you are, but, even a few decades ago, the vast majority of the American public (and, I would argue, the world as a whole), religious or secular, were united in what now seems like a truly bizarre revulsion with homosexuality. And I think a lot of it was based on reflexive and pre-rational (which would also mean pre-trying-to-apply-the-tenets-of-one's-religion) reaction, what I call the "ooh...that's gross" reflex when it came to thinking about anal sex. (No matter that, as I've often commented before, a visitor from another, more cerebral planet might just as well find heterosexual vaginal sex a particularly "icky" way to reproduce.) Since it was based on pre-rational reactions, it's not surprising that every dominant belief system in the world, whether religious or a secular belief-system such as Marxism-Leninism, managed to eventually incorporate a condemnation of homosexuality until quite recently.
So, what changed to allow it to be accepted by many if not most people now? I would think that psychological research that showed that being gay was neither a "choice" nor a "mental illness" went a long way toward clearing up some prejudices. But I think it was only the "GLBT movement" and mass numbers of people electing to "come out" that made the difference. It's one thing to pigeonhole a "homosexual" when all you associate with the term is an anonymous someone who practices a particular sex act you find distasteful. When, on the other had, a "gay man" (and, yes, I am singling out men here, because I don't recall lesbians as having the same degree of stigma as gays back when I was growing up -- which might also tie in with the notion that what was "disgusting" was the one particular sex act) is a friend, co-worker, or even family member, and one who seems quite "normal" and well-adjusted in every respect, it becomes a lot harder to stereotype.
But, while all that might be the case, how does it relate to fundamentalism? Well, to understand that, you have to recognize a particular shift in American fundamentalism that took place sometime before it was reborn (no pun intended) as the "religious right" of the televangelist world in the late 1970s. For most of the time preceding it, fundamentalists had little connection or concern with politics and popular culture. Putting it bluntly, many fundamentalists believed that the world would end soon anyway, and the only concern was in getting yourself "right with God" in time for the last judgment. But, sometime in the '70s -- and possibly in reaction to the decade that preceded it -- fundamentalism acquired a new, unofficial doctrine: the belief in America as the "new Chosen People," and the America of the past as the "City on a Hill" that was the embodiment, albeit an imperfect one, of the coming Kingdom of God. (I know...it sounds crazy to me, too.) In other words, a nostalgia for American culture of the '50s and earlier became the norm, and fundamentalists were called upon to help bring about the Kingdom by working to "turn back the clock" to that "simpler, more innocent time"...a time that included the old attitudes against homosexuality, as well as the "traditional role of women and the family," free-market capitalism, militarism, etc.
I could probably write a lot more about this, but it's almost 4:30 A.M., and I'm getting too tired to continue. Suffice it to say, I thik a lot of the homophobia expressed by fundamentalists is less due to it being "a matter of sin" in the abstract, as to it being "another sign of the decline of civilization from the Good Old Days." In other words, less strictly religious than cultural...and, thus, a natural feature of a neo-fundamentalism which somehow makes cultural tenets an essential part of their religion.
|