55.7 F
The Villages
Friday, March 29, 2024

OneLove #Orlando Strong

Jack E. Brush
Jack E. Brush

It is virtually impossible today to keep up with all of the tragic shootings in our country. While I was still thinking about the one in Orlando, another one occurred in Dallas. When I first heard the news about the massacre in the gay nightclub in Orlando, my shock over this tragedy turned my thoughts back to previous attacks perpetrated by terrorists. According to all reports, the killing of 49 Americans in this nightclub was the worst terrorist attack on the US since 9/11. But I was also reminded of the massacre of the cartoonists at “Charlie Hebdo” in Paris that left 12 people dead and sent shock waves through the entire Western world. Publications like “Charlie Hebdo” depend on the right of free speech and on the right of the press to express opposing views. These rights represent such strong values that people all over the world were expressing their dismay and horror over the attack as well as their sympathy for the families of the cartoonists. Likewise, the nightclub “Pulse” in Orlando and the members of the gay/lesbian community celebrating in the early hours of June 12 were acting completely within their rights in our society, and the violation of their rights through this terrorist attack is to some extent an attack against all of us and an affront to civilized society. Still, there is no denying that a particular group within our society was singled out as a target. From a legal standpoint, it was an attack against all Americans, but from a social standpoint, it was clearly an attack against the gay/lesbian community. Just as the Paris attack was an act of revenge against a French publication that has made sport of Islam, the Orlando massacre was an attack against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender persons.

For me, however, there is a further parallel between Paris and Orlando. Although I expressed my solidarity with the families of the “Charlie Hebdo” attack, I have serious reservations about their brand of satire, which is certainly not on the level of Voltaire. Similarly, my feelings of dismay and anger over the Orlando massacre and my sympathy for the gay/lesbian community do not erase my reservations about the movement in general. As I have written in past articles, there are many unresolved issues that need to be addressed, and the unwillingness of liberals to engage in serious dialogue about the issues is extremely counterproductive, not only for our society as a whole, but also for the gay/lesbian community itself. Honest, respectful dialogue about serious issues can allay fears, give direction for the future and help avoid violent backlashes. So I was encouraged when the New York Times reported that the “nightclub shooting in Orlando, Fla. has pushed some victims’ families to address the complexities of religion and homosexuality” (NYT July 1). I commend these families for their courage in the midst of sorrow, and I agree with them that we need to address this issue as well as others. It will be important, however, in such discussions to overcome the platitudes of the past and to enter honestly and rationally into a serious debate.

Nowhere are platitudes more obvious than in connection with the word “love”. Driving into Orlando recently, I saw a billboard that read: “OneLove #Orlando Strong”, and as I was walking down the sidewalk in Winter Park, I read another sign: “Love is Love is Love #Orlando Strong”. As I understand these signs, they give expression to the conviction that love is a justification for any type of human relationship. As I once heard someone say, “Love can’t be wrong”. If we accept this maxim, it follows that society should have no objection to a homosexual relationship, provided that the people involved are in love. But I do not accept this maxim. In fact, I find it quite nonsensical. If we are allowed to bring critical reason to bear on it–as we do, for instance, when fundamentalists are promoting their views–, we will soon discover that such statements about love are untenable. Of course, love can be wrong! It can be illegal. It can be emotionally destructive. It can be inappropriate. And sometimes, it is just plain stupid.

One of the difficulties that we encounter in discussing love is the paucity of English words in this area. Whereas we have in the English language only one word for “love”, the classical Greek language had four distinct words with varying nuances. For simplicity, I will refer to these types of love as Type 1, Type 2, Type 3 and Type 4. Type l refers to the love between parents and children. Parents are supposed to love their children, and children likewise should by nature love their parents. This is a special type of love–one thinks of a mother’s love for her child–, and the Greeks had a special word for it. On the other hand, Type 2 love, from which we get the English word “erotic”, is a love involving a strong attraction between two people; this attraction can be psychological or spiritual, but in most cases it is physical. That is, Type 2 is most often associated with sexual, romantic love. Type 3 is the love of friendship; it is the brotherly or sisterly love that binds people together in a harmonious community. Characteristic of this love is the willingness to put oneself in the position of the other person and to act in his or her best interest. Finally, Type 4 refers primarily to Christian love. Although the word for this love existed before the Christian era, it did not gain great importance until it was incorporated into the vocabulary of Christian faith. When we read in the New Testament about loving our neighbor as ourselves, it is the Type 4 love that is meant.

So the phrase: “Love is Love is Love” is ambiguous at the very best. If members of the gay/lesbian community want to invoke the idea of love as a justification for their life-style, it is incumbent upon them to clarify its meaning and intent. Nobody objects to the love of friendship (Type 3) between two men or between two women, but this type should never be confused with erotic, romantic love (Type 2). Can love ever be wrong? Type 1 love between a father and his children is laudable; Type 2 is criminal. So it depends on which type of love is under consideration and in which relationship it is being considered. For liberal religious leaders to appeal to the concept of love in the Bible (Type 4) as though it were more or less the same as Type 2 is extremely deceptive.

When a religious fundamentalist quotes the Christian Bible, liberal intellectuals immediately apply critical thinking in order to refute the conservative’s claim. I would like to see liberals apply the same critical thinking to issues surrounding the gay/lesbian movement.

Jack Brush is a Villager and frequent contributor to Villages-News.com. In his new book In Search of the Common Good: Guideposts for Concerned Citizens, he develops guidelines for balancing human rights with the urgent need to promote the common good in our society. For more information, see www.jackebrush.com.

The world knew we had a strong leader in Trump

A Village of Fernandina resident looks back on the record of former President Trump. Read his Letter to the Editor.

Neglect of golf course maintenance now costing us millions of dollars

In a Letter to the Editor, a Village of St. Charles resident argues that neglect of golf course maintenance is now costing residents millions of dollars.

Karen says her intent has been misinterpreted

A Village of Belle Aire resident who stirred quite a discussion with a previous Letter to the Editor, follows up to say that her intent was misinterpreted.

Our amenities are being used by families with kids

In a Letter to the Editor, a Village of Citrus Grove resident says she is not happy about families with kids using amenities paid for by residents.

Finally allocating funds to the golf courses!

A Village of Hadley resident said he is happy that more money is being allocated to the golf courses. Read his Letter to the Editor.