It is time to say "Enough!" to the cheap shots.

Bishop Gene Robinson, in the Huffington Post claims that religion, and by that he means traditional Christianity, is driving young homosexuals and those who are perceived by their peers as homosexuals, to suicide. 

You have to dig deep into this essay to find the connection but we seem to hit at the idea here,

You don't have to grow up in a religious household, though, to absorb these religious messages. Not long ago I had a conversation with six gay teens, not one of whom had ever had any formal religious training or influence. Every one of them knew the word "abomination," and every one of them thought that was what God thought of them. They couldn't have located the Book of Leviticus in the Bible if their lives depended on it yet they had absorbed this message from the antigay air they breathe every day.

The Bishop has no argument or facts but rather an ax to grind.  Was the Rutgers roommate who filmed and publisized the gay encounter which led a young man to kill himself acting out of religious conviction?   If so I haven't heard that fact (and I think we would have heard about it by now).   In the tragedies of the last few weeks, has the Bible Belt or other religious communities been over-represented?  The Bishop knows they have not,

With the exception of Brown in Texas these suicides are not happening in Bible Belt regions of the country, where we might predict a greater-than-usual regard for religious thought. Instead, they are occurring in states perceived to be more liberal on LGBT issues: California, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.

Yet this does not need him to question his premise but rather speaks to the supposed pervasiveness of traditional religious thought in America.  We were not at the scene of the crimes, we have a good alibi but like all good scapegoats we remain responsible due to are secret and pervasive hold on the mind of America's youth.  Dear Bishop Robinson, we are not that powerful.  We can't stop our own kids from having premarital hetrosexual or homosexual intercourse.  I assure you we can not compel non-churched youth to bully gays in the secular schools, public Internet and private text messages. 

If Bishop Robinson were attacking any other group with such imaginations of subliminal power, he would be roundly (and properly) criticized by the political left he represents.  If he painted Muslims in such broad strokes with such a corrosive power to drive teens to suicide, he would be branded an Islam-ophobe.  Despite having and stronger conservative monotheistic perspective on homosexual issues, he is, however suspiciously silent on Islam.  He thinks we have some deep cultural power.  I'm sorry sir but we have tried to outlaw abortion for nearly forty years without success.  I think the weapons of mass destruction you think we possess are a mirage.


What is likely at work is that Bishop Robinson, like all of us, is a product of his biography; a biography which has taught him that the enemy of gay and lesbian youth is traditional readings of Scripture.  I would observe that while the Bishop and traditional Christians may have very different readings of Scripture it does not mean that traditional Christians are the only "enemies" (I do not think Bishop Robinson is my enemy, let alone gay youth, but he seems to treat me like one) gay youth have. 

It will not help young gay men and women struggling with their identity to attack the straw man of traditional Christianity and Judaism.  We do not run the world anymore (if we ever did), and we are, I would wager, just as or even more appalled by the youth culture from which bullying and taunting sprouts.  It is in identifying this youth culture as the threat to gay youth, a culture which has nothing to do with religion, conservative or otherwise, that we begin to address the real problem.

If we are to help these young people (and I think we should) than we need to get beyond the easy digs of the culture war.  I think one place to start, a place that I think serious liberals and conservatives can agree is to resist the extended and indulgent adolescence which has come to characterize the youth culture which ostracizes and attacks young people who are different.  By dumbing down the expectations of responsibility and civility we have of young people we actively contribute to the acceptance of the culture of the bully and the silence which pervades those young people who would speak up to support their bullied peers.  We have extended Jr. High antics into High School and Sophomoric behavior into College.   

When we do not expect them to act like adults; they do not.  When we tell them that it is expected that they will act with youthful disinterest in the consequences of their actions on others, they will.   We should not be too surprised that youth who are the victims of that behavior become convinced that it will never end; it gets longer with every passing year, not because a person or group is advocating it but because the culture has drifted into extending adolescent behavior.  We have me the enemy, and he is us. 

Like all generals, Bishop Robinson is fighting the last war.  Traditional Christians or their cultural mores is not killing young gay men.  A youth culture which could only with great imagination be more hedonistic is killing them.  He could find in Traditional Christians a great ally in the resisting of this youth culture, if only he could take the time to stop the cheap and flimsy shots at them.