Epistemological frameworks, homosexuality, and religion: a response to Hodge.

In his recent article in this journal "Epistemological Frameworks, Homosexuality, and Religion: How People of Faith Understand the Intersection between Homosexuality and Religion," David Hodge argued that Christians are disenfranchised both in the culture and in the social work profession because of the intellectual and social power of progressives, whom he described as including "gay men and lesbians, feminists, atheists, and metaphysical relativists" (2005, p. 208). Following Hunter's (1991) distinctions between orthodox and progressive ideology, Hodge posits that progressives hold hegemonic power in the culture based on their domination of the centers of social power, such as the "entertainment industry, news media, helping professions, and perhaps most notably, education" (p. 209). I wonder whether Hodge has been apprised of the social and political power of what is commonly known as the Christian Coalition, a group of conservative Christians who have unparalleled access to broadcast media, including talk radio and television news stations. These outlets of popular culture are considerably more powerful shapers of the "social narratives that inform the broader society," than the progressives so troubling to Hodge. These popular media outlets tend to reflect the viewpoint of conservative, rather than progressive thought. Conservative Christians' power in shaping our government, as well as our social narratives, was aptly demonstrated by the last presidential election. An example of the national platform that traditional Christians have found for their ideas was the recent statement of President Bush, an avowed devout Christian, affirming his support for intelligent design as a theory of human creation. The president believes that intelligent design should be taught along with evolution in the nation's public schools, saying that "both sides ought to be properly taught," even though much of the scientific establishment, including the president's own science adviser, has argued that intelligent design is not a tested scientific theory. Richard Land, president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, noted after Bush's remarks, "It's what I've been pushing, it's what a lot of us have been pushing" (Bumiller, 2005, p. A14). The point here is that the ideas Hodge claims are being marginalized by the so-called progressives are well represented in the highest strata of political and social power in the country. The White House has unparalleled ability to shape public opinion, far more so than metropolitan newspapers such as The New York Times, a paper Hodge and like-minded individuals single out as being in thrall to the progressive point of view (Alterman, 2003). Despite the clear indications of the power of traditional Christians to shape national politics as well as social reality, Hodge calls the Christian perspective "a limited, minority viewpoint in national discourse" (p. 211). After making these and other sweeping and specious arguments about the social power of progressive thought, Hodge focused on his central thesis: the Christian belief that homosexual behavior is morally wrong is not allowed a fair hearing, either nationally, or most significantly, in the social work profession. As far as the national agenda is concerned, traditional Christians, as Hodge calls them, could only have been cheered by the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (P.L. 104-199) in 1996, which forbade federal recognition of gay and lesbian marriage, regardless of whether individual states allow such marriages. Here is a clear example of the lack of power of the so-called Progressive Coalition. Traditional Christian viewpoints about marriage also are central to this administration's efforts to tie marriage promotion funds to TANF reauthorization. The heterosexist bias of these two federal measures, along with federally funded abstinence-only campaigns targeted to adolescents that ignore the needs of gay and lesbian adolescents for sex education, privileges the beliefs and values of traditional Christians over progressives (Levin-Epstein, 2005; Lind, 2004). …