IGF CultureWatch

Maybe Dan Cathy isn’t a bigot.  And maybe Mitt Romney didn’t mean to insult the Palestinians.  Maybe.

All Cathy said was that he supports what he thinks is the biblical definition of marriage.  He didn’t even use the words “gay,” “lesbian” or “homosexual,” none of which would seem to come easily to his lips.  How could that be bigoted?

There was that aside about “God’s judgment” raining down on us for our “arrogance” in thinking we can define words that are His to delimit.  That was kind of taking sides.

But as Doug Mataconis notes, a fair definition of “bigotry” includes “. . . obstinately or intolerantly” holding to opinions and prejudices, particularly when that involves hatred or intolerance of some group.  I’m assuming Cathy thinks this is a God-approved definition, though Cathy hasn’t weighed in on that.

As Mataconis argues, some people who oppose gay marriage are bigots under this definition, some are not.  Responsible people can and do draw that kind of distinction before labeling someone with such a severe word.

Mataconis applies the test to Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, and concludes Fischer is a bigot, which is a fairly easy case.  But he lets Cathy off the analytical hook.  I think he deserves the hot seat.

A fair test of the intolerance that properly characterizes bigotry should involve a look at whether the individual holds a humane and thoughtful view of the group (usually a minority), or really does seem to be intolerant toward them.

I can’t find any statements from Cathy about how he feels about homosexuals in particular, but I think it’s fair to say the view he holds of the bible’s position is obvious enough.  He doesn’t mention Leviticus or abominations or death, but those are all common enough citations.  If he thinks God is judging those of us harshly who support same-sex marriage, it’s probably not unreasonable to think he believes the bible supports a harsh judgment for such positions.  Perhaps he tempers his judgment with a more Christ-like understanding, but so far, Cathy hasn’t suggested he might think homosexuals, too, deserve love and family.  So he seems to think those who support gay equality deserve the judgment of an angry God.

Does the fact he has not explicitly said that get him off the hook?  That’s where Mitt Romney comes in.

Romney’s statement in Israel did not explicitly damn Palestinians.  Rather, he was praising Israelis.  In his inevitable walk back, Romney protested that he “did not speak about the Palestinian culture or the decisions made in their economy . . . . That is an interesting topic that perhaps can deserve scholarly analysis but I actually didn’t address that.”

There’s just enough truth in that to pass political muster.  Romney, like Cathy, intended to compliment the side he preferred, but that compliment is pregnant with an insult to the group not being addressed directly.  Sometimes, a speaker can honestly say he was not aware of the implicit insult.  Such people apologize.

The apology is an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, often unintentional.  It aligns the speaker with the insulted group, and demonstrates awareness of having caused some harm.  We have obviously defined offense down in our culture, lowering the bar to a Princess and the Pea level of hypersensitivity.  But some things really are offensive, and are meant to be.  And in our ever vigilant environment, where scouts are always on the lookout for possible offense, burying an insult inside a compliment is becoming a preferred strategy.

Those who are familiar with Maggie Gallagher know exactly how this works.  She perfected the art of a laser-like focus on the value of heterosexual marriage, and a polite but insistent obliviousness to what that might mean for the very people who are excluded from her thinking.  “I’m not insulting anyone,” her demeanor pleads.  “How could anyone think I’m a bigot?”

That is one way that bigotry hides behind the façade of the status quo in a debate that is about nothing else but changing the status quo.  It is the easiest way of avoiding the entire substance of the debate, claiming there is no debate to be had.

Unless Romney is an entirely unserious candidate, he cannot possibly have been ignorant of the fact that his comments praising Israeli culture necessarily involved insulting Palestinians.  And unless Dan Cathy has been utterly absent from the world his restaurants serve, he cannot plausibly claim that his comments supporting the “biblical family” were not plainly and quite naturally going to demean lesbians and gay men and their supporters.

If either man truly did not intend the silent insult, they can very easily correct the misimpressions.  They can acknowledge that the insult was there, hiding in plain sight, and they missed it.

Neither has shown even the remotest sign that they are interested in doing that.  And in both cases, maybe it’s time to conclude that the bigotry they shirk from really does have some substance.