The hypocrisy of the ‘right’ (and what we can do about it)

by John Hales in Living in QUtah | 0 comments

I used to think it was only certain (not all) religious conservatives who were a bit hypocritical when it came to doing “What Would Jesus Do” in their holy war against homosexuals.

But now it appears that even strictly political conservatives — sans the “religious” label — are guilty of a hypocrisy all their own.

Last month, U.S. House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner tripled the amount the House had originally approved to pay for defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

Back in April, the House’s three leading Republicans decided, more-or-less unilaterally, that the House would pay up to $500,000 to a private law firm to defend DOMA.

But on Sept. 29, after months of harping about the size of federal budgets and stonewalling important matters in order to make their point — even bringing the country to the brink of economic ruin during the debt-ceiling crisis to do so — Boehner upped that amount by another $1 million.

Now, in the grand scheme of the federal budget, a million-and-a-half bucks ain’t hardly a grain of sand on the beach. (If my math’s correct, it’s about 2.4-millionths of the budget.)

But in a little twist of the “widow’s mite” metaphor, it’s huge.

Conservatives in Congress keep saying the U.S. is out of money: “Cut, slash, guillotine the budget,” they cry. So, if the “widow” (read, “U.S. budget”) has absolutely $0 to spend, where did the other $1.5 million come from? (Try doing the math on that one to find out the percentage increase of 1.5 million from zero).

It’s a political hypocrisy similar to the hypocrisy of the religious right, which Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report illustrated somewhat brashly — some would say blasphemously — but effectively in 2009, when the Washington, D.C. City Council was considering legalizing same-sex marriage. Colbert said:

“If a same-sex marriage law passes as expected, the Catholic church has announced that it will be unable to continue the social-service programs it runs for the city, including the shelters that serve one-third of Washington’s homeless people.

“I mean they have no choice. After all, Jesus said, ‘If you wish to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor. Unless a couple of dudes register at the Pottery Barn. In which case, fuck the poor.’”

(As a side note, the only thing I think Jesus said about defending “traditional marriage” was to denounce divorce and place exactly one condition under which divorce was acceptable. The passion of traditional-marriage defenders is curiously silent about that).

Both these religious and political hypocrisies beg the question: What does it say about the supposed adherents of politics or religion when they so easily jettison basic, fundamental tenets in order to fight for something that has no practical impact upon themselves or anyone else — except those against whom it discriminates?

Their prejudice is apparently stronger than their faith in their own principles.

But while such hypocrisy is discouraging and often maddening, we cannot petulantly insist that the hypocrites rid themselves of their hypocrisy.

The burden of eradicating intolerance does not rest solely upon the shoulders of those who hold and express it. That responsibility belongs also to us.

Certain people will never be free of hypocrisy. Others already recognize it and, with us, fight it. There are many more people somewhere in the middle, and we can influence them if we’re smart.

This is the important question: What can I do in my own life to give the people I interact with a reason to resist intolerance and not give ear to those who continue to preach it?

There is no single answer. Each of us must respond to the question for ourselves, and each of us will come up with a different, personally appropriate answer.

I offer one.

It’s been shown that harsh opinions toward homosexuals are moderated as families, friends, business associates and even casual acquaintances get to know us. As those opinions change, prejudice will diminish and tolerance — even if not full-blown acceptance — will take its place.

But this means we have to let people get to know us as homosexuals.

That doesn’t mean we have to be all up in their faces about it. We just have to continue to be ourselves while allowing — not forcing — others to get to know just what that means.

We don’t have to be activists; we just need to be active in our associations and society. We don’t have to wrap ourselves in a rainbow pride flag; we just need be proud of who we are. We don’t have to be “out there;” we just have to be out — naturally, casually and confidently out.

It happens one person at a time, but as we change minds within our own sphere of influence, we gradually change the mind of the world sphere as well.