When most people think of bigotry, they think of people who have made up their minds about people they never met and don't know, based on their membership in a group. Identity politics shares this characteristic with bigotry, except that instead of having made up their mind in a negative way about the people in a group, they've made up their mind in a positive, self-affirming way. I've long thought that identity politics was created by bigotry, and, if Bigotry is a Great Satan, Identity Politics is a Little Satan.

Bigotry is, of course, heavily influenced by identity politics, and as Jeff Goldstein and many others have noted, the latter often ends up defining the former. Because some identity groups are more powerful than others, there's nothing fair or logical about how bigotry is defined. Not all bigotry is equal. Some forms are considered far worse than others. For example, it is perfectly permissible in certain circles to assert or imply that homosexuals are pederasts. As an example, last week I heard a lovely little jingle intended to make fun of "Bareback Mountain" -- a satirical version of "Home, Home on the Range." The first line was,

"Oh give me a home, where the pederasts roam...."

Whoa there. Down boy. Did I just say "Bareback"? Was it Freudian or was it a typo? The correct spelling is "Brokeback." I stand corrected, and I'm so honest that I'm acknowledging and correcting this error in the original, yet-unpublished post instead of in an update. What could be more honest that that?

Anyway, back to the Brokeback pederast satire. My point is that a similar lyric unfairly stereotyping blacks or Jews would probably not be greeted with as much uproarious laughter, and not just because there aren't as many people who hate blacks and Jews. It's because racism is a more serious offense than anti-gay prejudice. Logic and fairness have less to do with this than power, and the changing of styles. Anyone who thinks racism has universally been considered wrong has only to look at once popular stuff like this.

Similarly, when religion is invoked to condemn homosexuals, the people who do this are able to claim a sort of religious immunity from criticism which would never be extended to the now-outdated religious claim that black people were cursed by God.

None of this is to advocate restrictions of any kind on free speech; I defend the right of people like Michael Marcavage to demand the death penalty for homosexuals. I'm simply trying to make sense of cultural factors to the extent I can, despite my admitted biases against the so-called "Culture War."

These days, the Bible's call for the death penalty against witches found in Exodus 22:18 ("Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live") is more out of style than the death penalty apparently called for in Levitcus 18:22 ("Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination") for homosexuals. (Certainly, if Google is any measure of style, Leviticus's death* for homos** yields more hits than Exodus's death for witches.)

While I'm sure there are people who'd still advocate death to witches, any claims they might make for biblically based punishments for witches would be condemned even by many of the people who believe in sodomy laws. Why? Because the Salem witch trials put this issue to rest a long time ago, and 99% of the American public just wouldn't buy it.

It is far more publicly acceptable to assert that homosexuality is an unhealthy and perverted lifestyle than it is to assert that black people have lower IQ scores than white or Asians. I'm not arguing the merits; just reflecting on a simple point. Anyone asserting the latter would quickly be criticized as a bigot, while someone asserting the former, while he would definitely be called a bigot by some, more people would leap to his defense.

Glenn Reynolds discusses the recent trend towards making anti-gay bigotry (as well as racism) a disease, and notes the anomalous situation that as recently as 1973 gays were considered diseased, while now a growing chorus wants to call anti-gay prejudice a disease:

when homosexuality was unpopular, it was a mental disorder. Now that it's popular, not liking it is a mental disorder. Evidence for either position? Not much. My diagnosis: How about we recognize a disorder consisting of turning intellectual fashions into pseudoscience? Seems like this is a case of "mental health" consisting largely of agreeing with whatever political opinions psychiatrists hold at a particular moment in time.

In my opinion, mental health professionals calling simple bigotry a disease is truly Orwellian. And not just because its evocative of Soviet-style treatment of dissidents as mentally ill. Rather, it trivializes bigotry, and allows people to escape responsibility for their thoughts. No matter how angry I might get at someone (and the temptation to call someone I disagree with "crazy" is always there), we all have the right to our beliefs.

And above all, we all have the right to be wrong. If you disagree with me, while I might prefer that you explain why you think I'm wrong in a logical, patient and polite manner, even if you hurled insults and profanities, at least you're acknowledging that I think what I think. You can even say I'm crazy. Calling someone a nut is one thing; creating an official psychiatric category for a disagreement is another. If mental health professionals are able to declare that my opinions are based on a disease, that completely negates independent thought, and takes away even my right to think. I can't think of anything more Orwellian. (Especially in light of attempts to identify conservative beliefs as mental illness, and attempts to locate a religious gene and identify brain receptors associated with spirituality.)

And again, this discussion begs the question of what is bigotry. If, as I and many others suggest, bigotry is often defined by identity politics, and bigotry is then labeled a disease, what that means is that one's political beliefs are by definition subject to the whims of mental health professionals, who are themselves often highly political.

I can't think of a better way to replicate the Soviet, or Chinese, or Cuban, system of treating dissidents as mentally ill.

Not only does this simultaneously trivialize genuine bigotry and independent thought, but it also trivializes mental illness. If things like shyness are mental illnesses, and not wanting to be around homosexuals or harboring suspicions of other minority groups are mental illnesses, then where does this leave suffering schizophrenics who really need treatment?

If everyone is mentally ill, then no one is mentally ill.

Abhorrent and as tough to define as bigotry is (I admit that I can't define it, although I think I know it when I see it), I'm still going to call it a form of extreme disagreement. And after all, I'm probably being a bigot whenever I use the term to label people I have never met -- even if I'm doing that in retaliation for their crime of having labeling me, whom they've also never met!

Back to homosexuality, which seems to be American society's most recent place of convergence -- often more resembling a train wreck -- over the definition of bigotry. Another anomaly which has long amazed me is the huge gap (a strange disconnect at the very least) between:

They're not having the same argument. Not even on the same page of history. In their haste to call ordinary people who disagree with gay marriage "bigots," advocates of same sex marriage overlook the fact that sodomy laws are now more popular than ever. Only sixteen states had these laws before Lawrence v. Texas, and the number was steadily dwindling. Public opinion was strongly against what most Americans would consider medieval laws. But now they're more popular than ever before, and there's even a growing movement to bring back sodomy laws.

Excuse me? Bring back sodomy laws? And push for same sex marriage? To suggest a compromise under such circumstances, you almost have to be a satirist.

So I'll try.

I notice that (perhaps because it's more popular than sodomy) adultery isn't being taken as seriously as it once was. Never mind that the Bible condemns adulterous men and women to death. Never mind that adultery made in into the Ten Commandments while sodomy did not.

Why not fold the concept of homosexual sodomy into the broader category of adultery, and use same sex marriage as a social engineering tool? As things stand now, without gay marriage there can be no such thing as gay adultery, because the traditional biblical definition of adultery requires that one of the adulterers be married. How about coupling same sex marriage with a huge nationwide crackdown on adultery? A grace period could allowing gays to get married, and after that, send in the adultery police.

What could be more fair, and less bigoted?

Why, you'd almost have to be crazy to disagree!

*Interestingly, the death penalty for homosexuality isn't listed until later (in Leviticus 19:13), where it's lumped in with deaths for a variety of offenses long out of style to punish:

⁹ For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

¹⁰ And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

¹¹And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

¹² And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

¹³ If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

¹⁴ And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

** What Leviticus 18:22 actually prohibits is also subject to debate. Might the original meaning have been lost in translation?

Sigh.

I don't know, and I'm afraid I'd need to study ancient languages for many years to find out.

UPDATE: Dr. Helen Smith asks an excellent question:

Can you imagine the uproar if the US government had shot Muslim prisoners full of antipsychotic drugs to treat their extreme hatred of Jews?