Thursday, September 23, 2010

The Cultural Integrity Based Reponse To Bishop Long And His Critics

Bishop Eddie Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church is accused of having unsolicited and inappropriate sexual relationships with at least 3 young males who were in his mentorship circle.

Bishop Long has been active in his opposition to the radical change in traditional marriage by which the practice is extended to same sex couples.

If the allegations are true and Bishop Long is proven to be a "down low Black male" - his opposition to same sex marriage is not in itself proof of inconsistency.  Most certainly this down low behavior is inconsistent with his position as the head of the church, his vows of marriage to his wife and with his words given in the pulpit in which he expresses tolerance for the homosexual person but aversion to the practice of same sex acts.

The Critics Of Eddie Long Who Seek To Slay A "Hypocrite"

In a conversation with a family friend today over dinner I noted that he, a male mentor, participates as a coach for little league baseball for males between 11 and 14 years of age.  I asked him to imagine if he were the coach for a female softball team for the same age range.

If this were the case he would never be allowed to have the same unchecked access to these little girls as he does with the males  A female chaperon would be mandated at all times.  Our society has adopted this standard of regulation as the norm to prevent a potentially compromising or sexually abusive incident from happening.

The same is the case with male OB-GYN specialists and other inter-gender private sessions that can prove to be compromising due to the opportunity for exploitation that is exposed.

The goal of the Gay-Rights activists is to have all forms of prohibitions to same sex relationships to be removed from our society.  In as much as our "hetero-normative" construct permeates our society there will be a massive amount of tolerances (some would say "politically correct denial") that would need to be adopted by our society in order to make this happen.  It would reach the point where the enforced tolerances become the OPPRESSOR.

 Fundamentally this is a demand to have certain standards that we have adopted from the Judeo-Christian cultural ethic to be retired.  This would also require us to put aside certain information that is intrinsic to what our physiological body form and our respective complementary genitalia communicate to us.  This done in the name of tolerance.

The truth is that those with this agenda need to "take out" anyone who doggedly stands on cultural or moral grounds against their actions.  They prefer the masses of people who either "don't care because it doesn't impact us" or who rationalize their support based on the notion that "we must get rid of DISCRIMINATION everywhere".

The truth is that is there is no "discrimination" then we have a society in anarchy.  
You see "discrimination" is a prejudicial word.   It is used as a blanket descriptor of the process by which we prioritize a set of behavioral norms over another set.   In the case where two mutually exclusive norms can't exist one of them must be sublimated.

There are some points of cultural discrimination that have been proven to be against human rights for the individual who was suppressed for nothing more than some attribute of his person - race or gender, for example.  In the quest to enforce White male superiority these other groups were discriminated against for he balance of America's existence.  

Other points of discrimination are done for the sake of maintaining positive social order - the pressure to conceive within the bounds of matrimony, monogamous marriage, an age for sexual consent for females and of course marriage limited to the opposite sex.

I have noted previously that we must step back from the "transactional view" of the conflict that confronts us and instead document a more broad reaching view which asks:

  • What is the social order that we are seeking to establish and maintain?
  • What about of productivity do we need from each individual to achieve this standard?
  • Which points of order are more efficient than others in obtaining these ends?
  • How do we balance the individual's right for personal freedoms with the community collective obligations that are necessary to achieve this order?
I am personally not impressed by those who stake their claim in the mantle of MAXIMIZED PERSONAL FREEDOMS.   This often is possible because they don't stick around and accept responsibility for the "car wreck" that so often ensues after their handiwork is completed.   In fact some of the most vulenerable people that they purport to protect are the one's most damaged as this new order of chaos is mounted in the name of "personal freedom without bondage to arbitrary sanction".

I stand firmly in the "Judeo-Christian" cultural ethic.  This is a system that has survived the test of time, in varying proportion on every continent that is inhabited by men.  Some people attempt to attack this cultural norm by focusing in on the exceptions that it has allowed on its watch (slavery, war, etc).   I challenge them to consider their own theories and find a place where they have been implemented and has endured the test of time.

Focus On The Institution Not The Man

Those who attack Bishop Long, are hoping that the next man who attempts to use culture or morality will be made gun shy from speaking out.  His own compromise will be used against him as well.  They know that by taking out ONE MAN their mission of eroding our cultural structure can be accomplished.

With Bishop Long as a messenger for a body of truths that have endured for the millennium - how does his own personal failures cause someone to make the logical leap and assume that the principles have no veracity?   The answer is - IT DOESN'T.

ONLY a society full of complicit people, who chose not to think his all the way through, failing to grasp the full consequences of their choices will allow this "pick'em off" strategy to work.   Those who oppose Long HAVE NOT provided new truth about the veracity and endurance of THEIR agenda.  They have only successfully picked off one more brick of "integrity" from the fortress wall that they seek to knock down.

The SOCIETY must regulate the institution of the culture that it takes up as its own.  This requires those who have lost their voice of credibility to be removed from leadership so that the INSTITUTION can survive.  It proves that it is greater than one man.

In closing this indicates that the enforcement of our culture is the "living, breathing" entity which must be managed NOT the CHANGING of our core cultural constructs in adaptation to the current events.  Man does not change over time.   We are still dealing with the same basic flaws that had impacted people from 1,000 years ago.   Only technology and the domain upon which we are able to travel changes.  

Our challenge is to construct the systems by which the institutions can be maintained as transparently as possible.   It is clear that we need a distributed set of men enforcing that which Bishop Long had fallen short of as ONE MAN who has weaknesses in him.  By distributing the burden the system and its enforcements will factor for these individual weaknesses.  

3 comments:

Soul Woman said...

Even though we are different religions and I disagree with some of your position I just wanted state t hat I think you’re an AWESOME thinker and writer! Are you open to interfaith dialogue or activity if the tradition also supports the type of social order you are consistently advocating here? Also, can you display your copy right terms for this blog? I’m interested in responding to this particular post with in context of African American Islam.

The SOCIETY must regulate the institution of the culture that it takes up as its own. This requires those who have lost their voice of credibility to be removed from leadership so that the INSTITUTION can survive. It proves that it is greater than one man.- CS
My reply:
I 100 % co-sign. Although I’m not Christian, my parents are Catholics and that church has done MUCH good for black children by providing loving adoptive families, and free to reduced private school tuition.

In closing this indicates that the enforcement of our culture is the "living, breathing" entity which must be managed NOT the CHANGING of our core cultural constructs in adaptation to the current events. Man does not change over time. We are still dealing with the same basic flaws that had impacted people from 1,000 years ago. Only technology and the domain upon which we are able to travel changes. –CS
My reply:
I disagree, especially when it comes to women’s right. I’m not certain that regulating women to traditional roles is sustainable given that we are more than half the population in many states and 51% of the population in this nation. I’m concerned about our rights being restricted. Furthermore the attrition of black males ( a-homicide b-incarceration and c-military/death) leaves 2.8 million more women than men. In my mind the numbers alone won’t support women being traditional.

Our challenge is to construct the systems by which the institutions can be maintained as transparently as possible. It is clear that we need a distributed set of men enforcing that which Bishop Long had fallen short of as ONE MAN who has weaknesses in him. By distributing the burden the system and its enforcements will factor for these individual weaknesses.-CS
My reply:
WORD!

Anonymous said...

Again, I think that you are making a big deal out of nothing. Gay marriage is going to happen, bottom line. And we will go on like Canada, Mexico City, Spain, Sweden, CT, DC, IA and the other places where the people have decided to wake up without any glitch in marriage or heterosexuality.

Furthermore, I don't believe that masses of people "don't care because it doesn't impact us." Instead, I think we are tired of the "tired" argument/notion that one thing is a direct threat to another. THAT notion has been the basis behind stopping any type of change in society.

And even though your argument is eloquent, it runs parallel in structure and eloquence to the same past arguments in fear of racial integration.

Again, there is no doubt that you are an incredible thinker and writer---however, on this matter, I believe that you are very linear in your thinking.

Keep up the good work!!!

D.Roberts

Anonymous said...

Just to add, I hope that you get more hits....I'm trying to spread the word about your blog.

D.Roberts