July 6, 2009
Logic, Section 28 and Homophobia
Over at Liberal Conspiracy, Don Paskini has a good post up. It’s about a trend in Tory grass root thinking offering what might be called a “revisionist” view of Section 28, the piece of legislation the Tories introduced (which Labour repealed) banning teachers (and Local Authorities more widely) from “promoting” homosexuality.
For example, over at Conservative Home, the blogger Melanchthon has written:
As virtually all of you will know, Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 was introduced in direct and specific response to a situation in which gay liberation activists managed to get themselves elected to local authorities and in particular to the Inner London Education Authority. These activists then used their political position to force school libraries to carry literature directed at five and six year old children teaching them that it was perfectly normal to be raised in a family with homosexual parents. The best known of these books was “Jenny lives with Eric and Martin”.
Most people at the time thought (and indeed, I’ll bet most people today still think) that they do not pay their taxes to the local authority so that it can promote alternative lifestyles or force their schools to promote alternative lifestyles[.]
It’s worth having a little think about the reasoning that has to go on behind a statement of support for Section 28 on the grounds that teachers must not “promote” homosexuality.
I’m going to go slow, so bear with me.
First, we note the assumption that “teaching” something is the same as “promoting” it. There are reasons to doubt this is true. At my (state comprehensive) secondary Catholic school we were taught about Judaism and Islam. To say that these religions were not promoted to us is a bit of an understatement.
Secondly, we should note the further assumption that a teacher promoting something is a successful means of inculcating behaviour in students. Again, there are reasons to be doubtful: most teachers promote homework – but most children don’t like homework, and many of them don’t do it. So we have a straightforward example of promotion not leading to necessary successful inculcation of behaviour.
But let’s, for the sake of argument, grant these (very questionable) assumptions:
- Teaching an alternative lifestyle promotes it
- Promoting an alternative lifestyle will cause children to adopt it
What follows? Well, nothing. From those premises alone we certainly cannot get any kind of value judgement. (A value judgement is something like “it is bad that children adopt an alternative lifestyle”). So to get any further, we will need another premise. Something like
3.a It is good for children to adopt an alternative lifestyle
or
3.b It is bad for children to adopt an alternative lifestyle
Adding 3.a or 3.b to premises 1 and 2 imports a value judgement. From either of these value judgement we can conclude:
either
4.a. children should be encouraged to adopt an alternative lifestyle
or
4.b children should be prevented from adopting an alternative lifestyle
Whether one plugs for 4.a. or 4.b will in term determine what kind of legislation one thinks should be enacted (assuming one is in the game of making laws off the back of ethical judgements).
To make this all a little clearer, and to return to the issue at hand, let’s replace “alternative lifestyle” with “homosexuality” [disclaimer, the following is certainly not my view]:
- Teaching homosexuality promotes it
- Promoting homosexuality will cause children to adopt it
- It is bad for children to adopt homosexuality
- Children should be prevented from adopting homosexuality
4 in this case is our conclusion and results in a policy prescription. In such a case the legislative prescription could be Section 28, or something similar.
The point is, to get to the point where you advocate Section 28 as a legislative measure (assuming you are acting for some sort of ethical reason, and not just enacting it on an arbitrary whim) you need to pass through a particular premise. The premise is 3: “it is bad for children to adopt homosexuality”.
Yet the only thing that could inform this would be a belief that homosexuality is in some way bad for children to adopt. Now I’m happy to argue this point, but I don’t think you can consistently say that it is bad for children to adopt homosexuality without thinking homosexuality is bad, or wrong, or evil, or in some way something negative.
Which means being prejudiced, at some level, against homosexuals.
Thus our reasoning is complete: supporting Section 28 because you oppose the “promotion” of homosexuality means, ultimately, being prejudiced against homosexuals.
There’s just no getting away from it. If you support Section 28, at some level you are anti-gay.
Left Outside said,
July 8, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Good to see logic in Politics. Sadly, it’s pretty rare.
Grace said,
July 18, 2009 at 2:51 pm
I don’t think that thinking homosexuality is bad means that you are necessarily prejudiced against homosexuals. eg i think sex before marriage is wrong. but i’m not prejudiced against my friends who don’t abstain – i don’t treat them differently, look down upon them etc
Ste For Sure said,
July 19, 2009 at 5:57 pm
“eg i think sex before marriage is wrong.”
how interesting, are you religious? if you don’t mind me asking…
Paul said,
July 20, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Grace,
1. Explain why sex before marriage is wrong without using the words “God”, “Jesus” or “Bible”.
Seriously, I’m intruiged as to how it could possibly be “wrong” for people to have sex outside of the human convention of marriage (traditionally an act of property transfer between two men, recall) in any meaningful way. (And furthermore, I’m of the opinion that promoting pre-marital abstinence leads to dangerous sexual-psychological repression, feelings of shame and self-disgust, and other generally harmful results, so you’re going to have to work hard to convince me here).
2. Are you *sure* that you don’t judge your friends who have sex before marriage? I mean, if you think Phi is wrong, and X is doing Phi, surely it follows that X is doing something wrong. But if you think X is doing something wrong, there must surely be a further thought about X – namely, they are the kind of person that does wrong things. And I don’t believe there isn’t therefore a value judgement *about* X imported, namely: “X is a bad person in some way”
Thing is, my impression is that you are very nice a caring and don’t want to hold nasty, aggressive or critical views of other people. But I’m not sure you can consistently reconcile this with views like “sex before marriage is wrong”, and claim that you don’t judge people who engage in a practice you label as “wrong”. I know you don’t *want* to judge them, but I think you should bite the ethical bullet and confess that you do judge them.
Grace said,
July 22, 2009 at 4:48 pm
this will probably be a bit rushed/badly explained because i’m in an internet cafe in egypt, but neve mind…
Ste For Sure – yes, I’m an (evangelical, though this probably has bad connotations for you) Christian. Out of curiosity, why do you think that fact interesting?
Paul – on (1), I can’t explain why sex before marriage is wrong without referring to the Bible. This shouldn’t be surprising – if all the ethical/moral content of religious beliefs could be soundly shown in secular arguments, then belief in a religion wouldn’t add anything. Yes, I have strong moral convictions derived from the Bible. Attack me on this point if you want. However, this doesn’t mean I’m some crazy fundamentalist seeking to impose my convictions on everyone else (eg Religious Right) -for example making sex before marriage illegal. That’s because, to some extent, I’m a political liberal (the fact of reasonable pluralism etc- I’ve just read Rawls’ “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited” and liked it (with some reservations) and am trying to motivate myself to try “Political Liberalism”, though it seems rather long. ) Furthermore I think it would be a fruitless task to attempt to persuade you of Christian morality – most importantly because Christianity isn’t about following a moral code, but about a personal relationship with God – so any persuasive attempts of mine would miss the point.
On (2) – specifically “they are the kind of person that does wrong things”. yes, i believe that is true of my friends who have sex before marriage. however i don’t think this means that i am prejudiced against them. because i believe EVERY person is the “kind of person that does wrong things”. i think we all break God’s law continually. i’m an awful person in God’s sight. mother teresa was an awful person in God’s sight. so i’m not on some higher plane, looking down at the “sinners” who have sex before marriage – so I don’t think I’m judgemental or prejudiced towards my friends (at least no more than i am judgemental or prejudiced towards everyone, including myself)
Paul said,
July 22, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Grace,
You need to read the Genealogy of Morals by Nietzsche.
You won’t like it.
But he’s right.
Ste For Sure said,
July 23, 2009 at 3:55 pm
grace,
i found your post interesting for a few reasons;
first; iv read several of your posts on this blog over the months, which are all serious engagements with serious issues, without you ever having mentioned religion, god etc. normally when you come across someone who holds religious faith it becomes apparent quite quickly (in my experience)
second; it has been rare in my experience (and dont take this the wrong way) to find young people who are genuinely faithful. I know plenty of people who are “Catholic” or “Jewish” but all this refers to is their repsective family backgrounds usually. I dont know how rare genuine religious faith is amongst young people today, but I virtually never come across it.
finally; the post was interesting because on the off-chance that you weren’t religious, then a view like “sex before marraige is wrong” would be bizarre indeed; and i would have been intrigued to know what your argument for this view would have been, since your arguments are normally good ones.
anyway, while still an atheist, in recent months I suppose Iv dropped the juvenile Dawkins-esque “religion is STOOPID maaan” crap. I mean, I accept there are fundamental spriritual/existential questions that science is incapable of answering. I dont see that as reason to believe any of the teachings/stories told by any religion. My attitude I suppose is “so what if those questions don’t have an answer, we just made them up because we are scared of being insignificant, our lives having no grand and important meaning etc.”. However, I respect faith as something I have never had, know nothing about, and so cant really poke fun at.
Paul said,
July 24, 2009 at 12:32 am
Ste,
It’s probably best not to go for the teenage-Dawkins-esque line.
One reason for this is because Nietzsche has an entirely better line on these things: it simply doesn’t matter whether Christianity has access to any metaphysical truths, because it’s bad for people.
In sum: Nietzsche doesn’t care whether there really is a heaven, a loving father, a son who walked on water and rose from the dead and all the rest. He thinks this stuff is metaphysical mumbojumo (and even more so with, e.g. the Christian conception of free will), but ultimately Nietzsche thinks Christianity is undesirable *even if the metaphysics happen to be true*.
Explaining why is a little tricky, but in condensed form it goes like this: whislt Christianity may give comfort to some people, it’s greatest tendency is to inculcate into people an ethic of meekness; of self-hatred; of repression, self-loathing and emasculation. Thus Christians are taught to be pious, humble, and *slave-like*: they accept their low, pathetic lot because they are told that this life is a vale of tears and they will get their reward in the next (hence why rich men can’t get into heaven but camels fit through eyes of needles, why the meek inherit the earth, etc).
The result is that human beings become repressed, self-loathing bitter little creatures resentful of each other and those who do better than themselves, and this makes them fundamentally *sick* (Nietzsche, given his own life experience, was obsessed with sickness, which he thought a very bad thing).
Although Nietzsche takes it all a little too far, IMO, I think he’s basically right: Christianity is bad for people, it makes them sick. I don’t care about the silly metaphysics – i care about what it does to people.
Ste For Sure said,
July 24, 2009 at 4:37 pm
hmm, interesting. havent read any Nietzsche since A level years. I liked some of it then, but other bits just didnt ring true at all for me.
when reading Nietzsche I always had this nagging feeling that he was just this guy who was a freak and a weirdo with no friends who couldnt get a bird, and had somehow got people deeply WRONG in his analysis. He was a bizarre character trying to judge and offer profound insight into what human life is like. From where I stand it just looks distorted and alien
thats how I remember lots of it anyway, thought I liked some bits. Ill give Genealogy of Morals a proper go and see what i think.
Grace said,
July 25, 2009 at 10:00 am
Paul, how many real Christians do you know? the description you give of Christians as “repressed, self-loathing bitter little creatures resentful of each other and those who do better than themselves” certainly doesn’t describe the Christians I know. and i’m sure if you went into a good gospel church, like st helen’s bishopshgate, or amyand park chapel (mine), or the metropolitan tabernacle, you wouldn’t find people like that.
it’s clear to me – from the experiences of all the Christians I know as well as my own experience – that it’s completely wrong that Christianity is “bad for you”. A few examples:
close family friend, billy mccurrie, became a christian while serving a life sentence in the Maze prison. Christ changed him from a hate-filled terrorist into a completely different person (now he’s a Baptist pastor, wife and 5 children, very loving+kind person)
not so dramatic, but since I became a Christian, and my life changed, I’ve been so much more secure/happy. i’d never ever go back to how I was before I became a Christian. All Christians would say that.
another friend: was on the verge of being expelled from school for persistent trouble-making when she became a Christian, now she’s been completely transformed, at college
another says she’s sure she would have committed suicide had she not become a Christian. Christianity didn’t fill her with self-hatred. instead it released her from it. because Christians believe that whatever they do wrong, whatever other people think of them, however much they fail God still loves them. he loved us so much that “while we were still sinners, Christ died for us”. there are so many bible passages that tell of god’s amazing love for us – eg song of solomon – we never need to doubt how valuable we are in God’s sight. moreover, it’s certainly our experience that it’s when we start to drift from God, eg because we haven’t been reading our bible regularly, that self-hatred starts to creep in.
“they accept their low, pathetic lot”
in what sense do you mean “accept”? yes, Christians aren’t the most revolutionary sort, and should be uncomplaining. but that doesn’t mean they don’t try – there’s a lot in the bible criticising laziness, eg proverbs 10:5. the christians i know are generally hard-working, try to better themselves
I do accept that if you try to be “religious”, and you try to get to heaven by obeying the 10 commandments etc, this may warp you (since it’s an impossible task). but true Christianity – God’s message of grace – that we don’t need to do anything to be saved except trust in what Jesus has done for us – is liberating. this verse from a wesley hymn really rings true: “long my imprisoned spirit lay, fast bound in sin and nature’s night, thine eye diffused a quickening ray, i rose, the dungeon flamed with light, my chains fell of, my heart was free, i rose, went forth and followed thee.”
Peter said,
July 25, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Can’t help but agree with Grace here. The view Paul paints of Christianity really is divorced from reality (to the extent it’s pretty comical). Maybe a little less time spent reading Nietzsche, and a bit more time talking to actual Christians, eh Paul?
Ste,
I’m glad to hear that you “respect faith as something I have never had, know nothing about, and so cant really poke fun at”. On the question of whether young people are religious or not – I’ve met a fair few young Christians. Christianity is pretty common at Oxford (though definitely a minority)
Paul said,
July 25, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Ste,
It’s probably a bad idea to base your assesment of Nietzsche on A-Level textbooks. From what I remember the A-Level sylabus completely misrepresented Nietzsche at a pretty fundamental level.
Grace,
A very good friend of mine is an evangelical Christian like you. I love him to bits, but I honestly think his faith fucks him up a bit. I went to religious schools from 4-16, i’ve been to anglican service, Catholic mass and even (by accident) a couple of evangelical services. I’ve known a lot of Christians over the years, and I’ve read a lot of books about faith (and I’m thinking here about novels especially, and the messages Christian writers knowingly or unknowingly propogate).
In sum: I’ve thought a lot about this. And to answer Peter too, this is not a case of just reading Nietzsche and knowing no Christians. It’s a case of reading Nietzsche and thinking “hmm, he’s describing the world I’ve seen pretty damn well, actually”.
Peter,
You would say that though, being a Christian. Your world-view in that respect is predicated on you holding values like piety, humility, deference and submission to be good. If you come at it from another angle, asking whether these values may in fact be arbitrary and of dubious benefit – with the benefit of not having a heavy emotional investment in such values – it can look rather different.
Bear in mind, of course, that I leave more room for manoeuvre here than Nietzsche does. I think a moderate Anglican is going to be less fucked up by the self-effacing, emasculating and individually minimising Christian value system than than (sorry Grace) the nutty, nutty evangelical madness of making everything about Jesus and loving (him for his meekness) coupled with being utterly, utterly obsessed with sin (thus importing all the harmful repressions, disgusts and self-loathing that an unhealthy pre-occupation with sin brings).
However, it’s quite hard for me to express these thoughts clearly, especially to those unversed in Nietzsche (and with a vested interest in not wanting to consider that he may be right). I’d recommend either the Genealogy of Morals, or (because it’s very easy to read but not to understand), the Guardian’s 8-part “How to Believe” series on the Genealogy, which is an excellent introduction, written by a man of faith who disagress with Nietzsche but at least understands him very well.
Ste For Sure said,
July 26, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Of course A level text books arent worth going on – but the course required us to read beyond good and evil. .
but yeah, like i said, first impressions. ill maybe have another go..
An Abolished Man said,
August 10, 2009 at 12:37 am
“Homophobia” is a nonsensical propaganda word.
Section 28 was justified self defense against politically correct social engineering.
Cameron’s Gay Rights Gaffe « Bad Conscience said,
March 25, 2010 at 8:02 am
[...] recently as 2003 Cameron supported the viciously homophobic Tory-introduced “Section 28″, which banned teachers from “promoting” (which [...]
Paul M said,
May 7, 2010 at 11:05 pm
section 28 didnt apply to schools though
even the great (lol) peter tatchell said so:
http://www.petertatchell.net/section%2028/hype.htm
i agree with what An Abolished Man said.
it makes you wonder why stonewall, outrage, etc. didnt seek to clarify what section 28 was about????
i think everyone has to agree that its a good thing that it is no more. the confusion and posturing it caused was pointless.