Anti-Gay Extremism in Nigeria
Where religious zealotry can lead. (So, yes, a digression into American politics).
Prefatory note: this post is not aimed at James Joyner’s post from earlier today, although that post did remind me that I have been meaning to write the following since Thursday.
A friend brought this story to my attention this week, as despite my news diet, I had not seen it. CNN reported the following: Nigeria’s paramilitary raids birthday party, arrests 76 gay people.
Seventy-six people were arrested for attending a birthday party for gay people in northern Nigeria, the country’s paramilitary agency said on Monday, adding that the organizer had also planned to hold a same sex wedding, which is illegal.
[…]
Buhari Saad, the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) spokesperson for the largely Muslim Gombe state, said after receiving a tip off, the agency raided a party on Saturday night that was being attended by “homosexuals and pimps”.
He said 59 men had been arrested, including 21 who confessed to being homosexual, and 17 women.
Being gay carries a 14-year prison sentence in Nigeria (and I suspect that the penalty for not confessing is worse).
A similar raid was also reported back in August (also via CNN): Police raid suspected gay wedding in Nigeria and arrest more than 200 people.
I think it is important to be aware of this ongoing violation of human rights and, more to the point, to see what it can look like when religious zealots can use their power against vulnerable groups. Even more to the point, I would like to think that it would give pause to those who want to criminalize relationships and sexual activity that they do not approve of. While not are slopes are slippery enough to land zealots into the kind of barbaric behavior illustrated above, it does not mean that we shouldn’t stop and think about where things can end up under the wrong political constellation.
When this story was brought to my attention I had just been reading about new Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, and had seen this excerpt from a 2004 editorial he had written, “Homosexual relationships are inherently unnatural, and the studies clearly show, are ultimately harmful and costly for everyone. Society cannot give its stamp of approval to such a dangerous lifestyle” (source: NOLA.com).
Look, I am not arguing that Speaker Johnson wants to raid same-sex weddings and put people in jail for 14 years. What I do know is this: if teach people that certain subsets of fellow citizens are “unnatural,” “dangerous,” and “costly to everyone” then you are setting the preconditions for what could lead to what is happening in Nigeria in 2023. I would note that it is also the way you get things like Pizzagate, where a conspiracy theory about a pedophilia ring led a man to fire his AR-15 at a restaurant.
In regards to Johnson, ABC News has more than just that 2004 editorial: How new House Speaker Mike Johnson spent years fighting against gay rights. From that piece:
“There is clearly no ‘right to sodomy’ in the Constitution,” Johnson wrote in a 2003 column in a Louisiana newspaper. “And the right of ‘privacy of the home’ has never placed all activity with the home outside the bounds of the criminal law.”
Wanting to criminalize specific sexual acts done in private between consenting adultsis utterly authoritarian (not to mention hypocritical given that man of the specific acts are also engaged in by heterosexuals–it you are unfamliar, I am sure Google can be your guide). Perhaps his views have evolved, but when given the chance to clarify he told Fox News this week the following:
Let me state this very clearly. And there’s been questions about this. Let me say where I am. Anybody that knows me will tell you this is true. I am a rule of law guy. I made a career defending the rule of law. I respect the rule of law. When the Supreme Courtissued the Obergefell opinion, that became the law of the land. I respect the rule of law, but I also genuinely love all people, regardless of their lifestyle choices. This is not about the people themselves. I am a Bible-believing Christian. Someone asked me today in the media, they said people are curious, what does Mike Johnson think about any issue under the sun? I said, Well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That’s my worldview, that’s what I believe.
That really isn’t an answer.
We need tolerance and pluralism in the United States, not the opposite. And while Johnson is certainly free to believe as he likes (because tolerance and pluralism), I do not think that it is unreasonable to be concerned about his views of homosexuality given that he now occupies one of the most powerful positions in the US government.
I am not a hair-on-fire kind of guy, but it is hard not to have noticed how anti-LGBTQ+ views are on the rise, and not just rhetorically, but in terms of legislative action (e.g., Florida’s “Don’s Say Gay” bill not to mention the panoply of attempts are curtailing trans rights). And ever-escalating rhetoric linking homosexuals and transexuals to pedophilia will radicalize some citizens, like with pizzagate, and will likely result in violence.
By the way, let me note one of the Biblical passages that is used to justify anti-gay positions for many American Christians, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a]10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Without getting into translation issues or anything like that, I will simply note that the above is from the NIV (New International Version), which is widely used in US churches.
I would note that if conservative Evangelicals (including Speaker Johnson) were as intensely focused on on all of the items listed in that verse, it would be easier, from an intellectual point of view, to accept that their views of homosexuals were truly about adherence to a literal Biblical morality and not, really, just anti-gay bigotry. (And to be clear, it would be worse for society if they applied similar logics to the list insofar as that is the route to religious police a la the Taliban).
Without even getting into the broad hypocrisy problem that would engulf the Republican political class if they just had to deal with the adultery part, let me note that it is empirically true that Donald J. Trump has been sexually immoral (this has been proven in court) and has committed adultery. Likewise, it is undeniable that he is greedy, has slandered and swindled, and is a thief (if anything because of the many people he has refused to pay over the years). Side note, Rudy Giuliani is a drunkard.
But, you know, gay relationships are the real problem…
Oh, and by the by, Mike Johnson is a solid Trump supporter who acted as his defense counsel in one of his impeachments and who has refused to accept the results of the 2020 election. Perhaps Johnson is the one who should “go pick up a Bible off [his] shelf and read it.”
Or maybe he does. Which is why we need a system of government, and a political culture undergirding it, that does not depend on the good intentions of the people in power. That was the whole philosophy behind the US Constitution, and the political ethos behind it.
We’ve seen how quickly the post-Roe country has turned punitive against pregnant women. How swiftly we got to the point where Texas authorities are making it a crime even to travel to another state for an abortion. There are a lot of Republicans who are eager to reach for the iron rod so that they can pummel people unlike them, especially those in the more vulnerable segments of the population. Whether someone like Johnson might be an instigator of that cruelty and injustice, or just a willing bystander, is something we cannot predict. But we shouldn’t have to make these gambles.
99% of German Nazis did not start out thinking: Auschwitz. They started out thinking about Jews the same way right-wing Christians think of gays and trans. It would be very easy to get American evangelical fundies to man the towers at a concentration camp. Many would line up eagerly to shove gays into Zyklon B showers and the rest would tut-tut and say, “well, that’s what happens when you defy the lord.”
Nigeria is simply doing what many other ‘Christian’ groups in America would like to return to doing here, given the chance.
Here’s a fun exercise: Research the names of the American pastors and other religious figures (and their organizations) who’ve done outreach and advised Nigerian clerics and governments officials about the dangers of “the gay”. These are often more mainstream than actually fringe GOP players.
@Kingdaddy: Agreed. This was basically the point I was trying to make without ascribing specific motives to Johnson.
@Argon: in the Nigerian case it’s Muslims and not Christians, just to be clear.
@Argon:
You’re thinking of Uganda.
I like the approach here. Some want to dismiss the whole religious argument as mythology or superstition. I’m ok with them thinking that. I think that argument has a “preaching to the choir” sort of quality, though.
I really like when you argue with them based on the Bible, and basic Christian ideas. That has a chance of landing, of getting someone to consider things.
Methinks Mike Johnson doth protest too much.
Given that homosexuality is an abomination unto the Lord, and George Santos is a homosexual, why is Mike Johnson, who follows the Lord in all things, supporting Santos?
@CSK: Santos is an honorary heterosexual.
Honestly, I think this is unconstructive hyperbole.
The trend in LGTBQ rights has been on a steady and steep upslope for a while now and continues in that direction.
The Johnson quotes from two decades ago (that no one could find anything more recent is telling) were from a time when the Democratic party officially did not support legal marriage for gay people, said nothing at all about trans people, and was at a time when Johnson’s views were mainstream. In the early 2000’s, about 60% of Americans opposed gay marriage. The fact that his views today, only two decades later, are grating to read is because of how much and how quickly US society has changed on these subjects, including Obergefell and a reversal in public opinion.
And trans rights have gone from nothing to something with Bostok, plus we are seeing trans people being much more accepted by society generally, changes which have happened in a short period of time.
For all of Johnson’s many faults, the fact that he didn’t affirm those previous statements or double down suggests that he at least knows how to read the room. And saying that he respects Obergefell as the law of the land doesn’t sound to me like he’s on the verge of trying to model US law on what Nigeria is doing. Seems to me he’s a typical social conservative who is always on the backside of the wave when it comes to accepting social change and not some vanguard heralding a complete reversal in LGTBQ rights and societal attitudes.
Finally, while the Speaker is a very powerful office, it is not dispositive for outcomes. Even assuming he forced some Nigeria-adjacent legislation to the floor, it would not pass the House, much less the Senate, the President, and probably the courts.
@Andy:
I’ll bet a dollar you’re wrong. Since forever anti-choice activists said that under no circumstances would they ever try to pass a law that punished women. The instant they could punish women, they passed laws punishing women. Religious people have no sense of honor, no notion of keeping their word because they answer to a higher power, dontcha know. You’re being naive.
@Andy: Perhaps it comes from my 25+ years living in Alabama or my deep knowledge of evangelical Christianity, not to mention his statement to Fox about the Bible (and his more recent sponsorship of what could be interpreted as a federal version of the don’t say gay bill—see the ABC link), I am less inclined to dismiss his older views.
@Andy:
Two other specific thoughts.
1. A lot of conservative SCOTUS nominees said similar things about Roe, but when given the chance they overturned it.
2. I explicitly stated I do not think he is trying to take us to Nigeria, but I still think that we need to be mindful of what many evangelicals believe about these issues. It is not all tolerance and pluralism and rather than ever moving forward, there has been some serious regression.
@Andy:
One last thought because I am not being very organized in my response. I guarantee you that there are a large number of churches where those kinds of ideas have a high probability of being taught any given Sunday within 15 minutes of my house.
These are not views from the past. I wish they were.
When I was a young man here in Australia, sodomy was a serious crime. Police routinely patrolled public toilets known as “beats”, deliberately entrapping homosexual men looking for sex. We are still learning today about shoddy police investigations of the murders of gay men in the 1980s – e.g. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-14/scott-johnson-murder-guilty-plea-ends-family-crusade-for-justice/100755460
According to academic Graham Willett:
Happily, that did not happen. But strong undercurrents of irrational fear and loathing of gay people remain in society, as can be seen in the comments on any right-wing website story about Pete Buttigieg. It’s welcome that social attitudes – and the law – have changed so much in 50 years. But I continue to warn the gay community online that what changed in their favor can change back again just as quickly.
This rather strikes as an extreme assertion
It is cerrtain lower-case illiberal and retrograde, but authoritarian in itself… given such laws were a historical norm within even the lifetimes of adults here in Western Democracies and actively enforced until compartively recently, calling this utterly authoritarian is rather misplaced (which is not to advance a defence, merely it seems importantly misframed). Retrograde and reactionary certainly.
@drj:
Argh! Thanks for the correction.
@Lounsbury: Just because something was recent practice doesn’t mean that it wasn’t utterly authoritarian when it was practiced.
@Michael Reynolds:
BTW, I think that you always paint with too broad a brush in regards to religion and it makes you look less like a person making an argument and more like a person who has an ax to grind.
And note, we both said essentially the same thing on the substance, so it isn’t that I disagree with the point you are making.
@Andy: “The trend in LGTBQ rights has been on a steady and steep upslope for a while now and continues in that direction.”
Sure. With the threat to jail teachers for owning books that mention the existence of gay people a true highlight.
@Steven L. Taylor: I suppose for academic theoreticians but authoritarian rather loses any real meaning if it is applied willy nilly to laws and legal standards that were generally applied and enforced by essentially every western democracy right up to recent decades.
Other words apply certainly and with better accuracy.
Or put another way while it is possible for this to be authoritarian as evident in recent lived history, it may be simply retrograde or hyper-conservative. The mode of enforcement may be bring a qualification of authoritarian – active enforcement via secret police methods illustratively.
@Andy: “And saying that he respects Obergefell as the law of the land doesn’t sound to me like he’s on the verge of trying to model US law on what Nigeria is doing.”
When a cop says he might not like a law, but it is his job to follow all laws despite his personal feelings, that has meaning. Because his job is to enforce the laws.
When a legislator says exactly the same thing, it is worse than meaningless, it is a deliberate weasel. Because it’s the job of a legislator to make — and change — laws.
So Johnson may well mean that Obergefell is the law of the land until he uses his power as Speaker to change it.
@Lounsbury:
Color me chastised.
Getting rid of gay marriage and even making homosexuality illegal would be pretty well supported among older evangelicals. It would not be as popular among younger ones. They would support even harsher laws against trans people and there would be more support among young people for that.
Steve
@Michael Reynolds:
On the contrary, the anti-choice movement was a real political movement that worked for decades to achieve a specific end. There’s nothing comparable to that for rolling back gay marriage, etc. much less re-criminalizing consensual sexual behavior between adults.
@Steven L. Taylor:
You’re right that things are much different where I live in Colorado, and all the many places I’ve lived previously. I admit I do not have much exposure to the culture of the Deep South. But that’s also kind of my point. The Deep South isn’t the entire US, and the evangelical Christians you mention have been losing on social issues for a very long time. I do not see that changing anytime soon, especially considering the attitudes of younger generations.
Ultimately, his personal views, whatever they are today, don’t matter that much in terms of changing the trend lines. And it’s not clear – at all – that he plans to try to operationalize your fears, and even if he did, they would not even pass the GoP House, much less get beyond that.
The same SCOTUS that ruled on Bostok 6-3.
What you wrote was:
On the contrary, I think you drew a very clear line of argument between Nigeria and Johnson. Indeed there is no logical reason to include Nigeria in the post at all except to make that line of argument. I’m not sure how a reader could come to any other conclusion.
And then immediately in the comments – Auschwitz.
My view is that catastrophizing is counter-productive. It didn’t work for Trump, and it is still not working for Climate Change and a whole host of other issues. Catastrophizing is great for getting high-fives from people who already agree with you, it doesn’t convince those who don’t. If Johnson is bad on the merits (and I think he is), one shouldn’t need to exaggerate!
So what? There isn’t anything you or I can do about that. A lot of people in America have bad views or views you and I disagree with or are objectively bad. Certainly, none of the people you’re concerned about are reading this blog, and you’re largely preaching to the choir here. And if they were, it seems unlikely that they’d be sway by the comparison to Nigeria you’re making. And the people in those churches that you’re worried about aren’t driving the bus on this issue, haven’t been for a long time, and have been losing consistently for decades – as I explained in my original comment – and are getting smaller in number.
@wr:
Your nutpicking does not disprove the trends and upslope I mentioned.
Assuming you are correct about Johnson (which is debatable), I would again point out that the Speaker doesn’t have the power to change it.
@Andy: I would feel better about general national trends if the electoral system and other structures of government did not amplify the voices I am describing.
The EC gave us Trump and Trump plus the Senate gave us a solid 6-3 conservative SCOTUS. Neither the EC nor the Senate reflects overall national trends, but in fact, amplifies the power of rural. traditonalistic voters.
If we were talking about a political context that actually promoted majority sentiment, I might be less concerned.
@Andy:
Well, he has some significant level of influence over the legislative agenda of the House, which ain’t nothing. But still, you aren’t wrong.
But what’s the level at which we are free to be concerned? What is he was opposed to women in the workplace? Or was pro-Jim Crow. I mean, he can’t make changes to those things by himself, but I wouldn’t be happy if the Speaker of the House had those views. What is simply wrote an editorial in 2004 that a woman’s place was in the home and that working women were helping to destroy the American family?
@Steven L. Taylor:
The “anti-democratic” features in our system work both ways. Just go through the steps that would be necessary for any anti-LGTBQ legislation actually to come into force and tell me how it can get from point A to point B. And then there is federalism.
This even presumes that this is on Johnson’s agenda, which is entirely speculation – there is zero evidence as of yet that this is even a political fight he’s interested in.
And he has the same razor-thin margin in his own caucus, which limits what he can actually do. He could pull a McCarthy, piss off some handful of representatives, and be vacated.
As I repeat here endlessly, actions are more important than words. Imagining what a political opponent might do in a worst-case scenario based on something they said two decades ago in a far different political context is not, IMO, something anyone should be much concerned about, especially after a cursory examination of the obstacles to actually enacting that kind of policy change.
Well, yes, I would prefer a speaker with different views. There are a lot of things that I wish were different and – like everyone else – I wish that people had views closer to my own. Bringing up Jim Crow or opposing women in the workplace is just more hyperbole and counterproductive scaremongering IMO. As I pointed out before, his views on gay rights two decades ago were not out of the mainstream of the time. Whether or not he still holds that same view is an open question and ultimately unknowable. Which again, is why I prefer to focus on actual actions in the real world, and not what I imagine someone I don’t know want’s to do.
So I would start to be concerned if/when Johnson or the GoP start to actively promote the idea of passing some kind of regressive legislation. Meanwhile, the trendline and the changing of generations will continue to change events on the ground in positive ways.
@Andy:
First, through the courts.
Second, as recently as 2017 the House, Senate, and Presidency were controlled by Republicans. If the GOP in the Senate changed the filibuster rule a great deal could make it through the legislative process.
The notion that this is a two-way street is simply incorrect and is more, in my view, American mythology.
I could very much see a national abortion ban or something along the lines of what we have seen in a number of Republican states passing through a GOP trifecta at the national level.
And I could see curtailment of gay rights.
I simply disagree. What he wrote in 2004 is of the same category to me. It’s fine if you don’t think so, but simply accusing me of hyperbole isn’t an argument.