lOMoARcPSD|261202 28
CHRISTIANITY AND THE GOVERNMENT’S REGULATION OF SEX
Savannah Nalls
GOVT 475
Feb. 2, 2018
lOMoARcPSD|261202 28
FACTS
Throughout America’s history, government has seemingly always found a way to involve itself in
the private sexual undertakings of its citizens. Even before independence from England, colonial-era
governments mandated innumerable restraints on sexual display and behavior known as “blue laws”.
In fact, the first women who wore the French-inspired Bikini swimsuits on public beaches in the
United States in the 1950s were often arrested under local statues forbidding indecent exposure.
Even until the 1960s, it was illegal for any, even married couples, to use birth control devises in some
states. Then the U.S Supreme Court, in the case of Griswold v. Conneticut (1965) held that the state
regulation of birth control devices was an impermissible invasion of privacy.
In 1986 the U.S Supreme Court upheld Georgia’s sodomy law in Bowers v Hardwick. Thus,
homosexual activity was illegal even if it involved consenting adults in the privacy of their own
homes. However, all such laws banning “consensual sodomy” were overturned in Georgia and in
more than a dozen other states that still had them on their books at the time when the Supreme
Court, in Lawerence v. Texas (2003) reversed Bowers.
These views on sex were later formed into laws which changed from attacking women based on
what they were wearing to protecting women from sexual predators. The United States went on to
ban sexual discrimination or an unfavorable treatment of a person in an employment situation
because of his or her gender. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has sex discrimination illegal in most
employments. Oddly enough, the “sex discrimination” amendment was opposed by most of the
leading liberals in Congress. They saw it as nothing but a ploy to discourage passage of the new civil
rights law; however, it went largely unnoticed. Therefore, the legal foundation for the modern
women’s movement was passed with almost no debate or media attention.
lOMoARcPSD|261202 28
In 1986, the Supreme Court issued its first ruling on sexual harassment. In Meritor Savings Bank
v. Vinson, sexual harassment that creates a hostile work environment, even without economic loss,
was dedicated illegal because it was in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Ultimately, it can be easy to see that the sexual rights for both men and women over the
centuries have undergone drastic changes in America and displays how public policy can be formed
through unconventional means. Many people assert that the influence of Evangelical Christians and
other religions is what fueled the oppression against women and gays in their pursuit for sexual
freedom in public policy. So the basic question stands: what role does religion play in public policy
and where does the Bible stand on these issues?
DECISION
What has been perceived to be Christian doctrine has significantly affected public policy
regarding sexual rights within America. While Christians have been attempting to stifle sexual
freedoms for centuries, it is very imperative to understand that most Christians who support this
doctrine are not promoting the actual lessons of Scripture. Rather, while Christians for centuries
have misrepresented the Bible to promote concepts which were convenient for them (whether it be
racist or sexist sentiments), the plain facts display that the Bible does not support the governmental
oppression of others.
Simply put, there is not much evidence to assume that Jesus would prefer Christians to stifle
sexual freedoms like Christians have done in the past like forbidding certain swimsuits and birth
control. It could also be argued that even stifling gay marriage in the way that Christians have tried to
do also is not a great representation of Scripture.
lOMoARcPSD|261202 28
SOLUTION
I. Christianity as a Scapegoat for Oppression
Many historians blame militancy religion and especially Christianity for the oppression against the
sexual rights of men and women within the government regulation of sex. In fact, some assert that the,
“United States Christian Right is a powerful force in shaping national and global struggles over sexuality
and recognition of gay and women rights” (Jakobosen, 2000). While it can be argued that oppression of
all religions against others has been an unfortunate part of human life, Biblical historians advocate that
previous public misinterpretations of the Bible are the root of these problems which does not portray
the true intentions of Scripture (Hidlebrandt, 2015). For example, despite the Bible’s promotion of
equality among races and nationalities as Scripture asserts, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is
neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” early Americans
used illogical interpretations of the Scripture to reinforce their sins in forcing others to work as their
slaves (Glatians 3:28). Simply put, despite the fact that the Bible was clear on the equality of man,
humans manipulated the meaning of verses within Scripture to act as a conformation bias where slavery
was deemed acceptable. This concept has also been seen through Christian’s promotion of patriarchal
structures within societal life. While Scripture states that all humans, including males and females are
equal under God, those who benefit off of the patriarchal structure, mainly men, declared that the Bible
was proof behind their actions. They claimed they had the power of God behind them, and women did
not.
Furthermore, the patriarchal structure which oppressed women for centuries was not simply
something that was a result of Christianity as most secularists claim, but rather those who benefitted
from the patriarchy falsely claimed that the Bible reinforced ideas which were not evident within
Scripture. The Bible never has promoted that women and men were unequal. In fact, women held
important roles throughout Scripture. Such examples of this included Jesus’ friendship with a prostitute
lOMoARcPSD|261202 28
where he showed her love and acceptance despite her “sexual immorality”. Additionally, when Jesus
died and was resurrected, three women were the ones to witness the fact that He was missing. While
today this would not seem significant, during this time women were not deemed credible witnesses in
the judicial system. It would therefore seem that the teachings of the Bible transcended times which its
promotion of the importance of women and the importance of accepting women despite their sexual
actions.
Ultimately, those historians that blame Christianity as the root cause of evils within society such as
the sexual oppression of women and gays are both correct and incorrect. They are right in assuming that
many individuals did refer to the Bible while they oppressed these different groups; however, they were
wrong in assuming that these individuals were actually promoting the teachings of Scripture. Christianity
is a religion of love and acceptance. It does not condone racism and it does not condone sexism.
Therefore, those that argued that those sentiments were taught by the Lord, were trying to justify their
way of life rather than to critically understand the Bible in the way that it was meant. Simply put, not
only has Christianity been a scapegoat for secular historians to blame religion on immense oppression
but Christianity has also been a scapegoat for people who claim to be Christian to incorrectly justify their
egregious behavior.
II. Theocracy as an Oppressive Regime
America has not been the only country undergoing modern culture wars regarding the policies
among lesbians and gays for sexual rights. Uganda underwent the same struggles in 2013, just after the
American judicial system declared banning gay marriage was unconstitutional. In fact, the country made
international headlines when a Member of Parliament, David Bahati, proposed an Anti-Homosexuality
Bill which would broaden the offence of homosexuality and impose harsh penalties for those who
engage in, and are deemed to “promote” same-sex relations. The proposed law further criminalizes
lOMoARcPSD|261202 28
homosexuality and the failure to disclose knowledge of any offence under the Act to relevant authorities
within 24 hours. It imposes mandatory testing for HIV and the death penalty for certain acts classified as
“aggravated homosexuality” (Oliver 2017). Additionally, during the same time period, Nigeria, Liberia,
and Cameroon all adopted similar statues and Russia enacted a law banning the promotion of “sodomy,
lesbianism, bisexuality, and transgenderism,” a prohibition so broad that it outlaws gay pride parades,
public display of affection by same sex couples, and gay symbols such as the rainbow flag (Encarnacion,
2014). Therefore, while some countries such as the United States and Brazil expanded gay rights, many
others provided for even harsher punishments. The seemingly schizophrenic manner in which gay rights
politics played out in 2013 highlights the ambiguities in global trends: Gay rights are expanding in some
while contracting in others (Encarnacion, 2014).
Religion and wealth are the most discussed factors behind the so-called global divide on
homosexuality (Pew Research Center, 2013). Publics in Africa and in predominantly Muslim countries
remain among the least accepting of homosexuality and other sexual freedoms. Not surprisingly enough,
these same countries which are predominantly ruled by Muslim sentiments are often undemocratic and
typically theocracies (Klesner, 2014). Although gay rights are not found within all democracies, they are
virtually nonexistent in nondemocracies (Encarnacion, 2014).
III. How Christianity Ought to Affect Sexual Policy
While Uganda’s desire to make same sex marriage illegal has mainly been blamed on Christianity as
people argue that the Old Testament’s claim that the sexual exploits of gays are an abomination, the fact
is that the laws within the Old Testament have been mute for centuries after the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
While both the Old and New Testaments both confirm that homosexuality is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13,
Leviticus 18:22, Jude 1:7), the difference between the two is that the New Testament offers hopes and
restoration to those caught up in the sin of homosexuality through the redeeming power of Jesus. “For
lOMoARcPSD|261202 28
all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through
redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:23-24).
Additionally, while many Christians believe that sins ought to be vanished through public policy, it
can easily be argued that there are some sins which warrant such policies and others that do not. It can
be argued that Christians ought to seek public policy which follow the teachings of the Ten
Commandments. The Ten Commandments serve as the most important lessons of the Bible and offer
Christians sins, while they can be forgiven, are the worst sins one can possibly make. Therefore, public
policy making ought to center around punishing murders and thieves rather than punishing gay marriage
which is not seen within the commandments (Exodus 20:2-17).
Moreover, if all the sins in the Bible in addition to the Ten Commandments were implemented as
public policy then Christians would ultimately have to argue that women’s dress be restricted by the
government just like in many Middle Eastern countries, “Women [ought] to dress modestly, with
decency and propriety” (1 Timothy 2:9). And possibly even more restrictions on women’s jewelry,
“Likewise, [God] want[s] women to adorn themselves with the proper clothing, modestly and discreetly,
not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments” (1 Timothy 2:9). Furthermore, tattoos and
piercings would also have to be banned “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor
print any marks upon you” (Leviticus 19:28). Finally, women speaking in church would have to be banned
as well, “Let your women keep silence in the Churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but
they are commanded to be under obedience” (1 Corinthians 14:34).
While homosexuality is a sin, it does not mean the Lord would want it outlawed as being gay is
equivalent to getting a piercing, tattoo, or wearing jewelry since it is not considered within the Ten
Commandments. Homosexuality is not the cause of a society’s decline, it is a symptom of it.
Furthermore, the main aspect of being a good Christian is not forcing others to stray away from their
lOMoARcPSD|261202 28
secular desires but rather, it is to accept others with incredible love. “Let us love one another, for love is
from God…” (1 John 4:7). Ultimately, Christians should consider the Ten Commandments as rules
important enough to promote public policy and stop seeking to change the sexual immoralities of other
people.
IV. Why Christianity will Break Ties with its Oppressive Past in the Future
Unlike Islam, Christianity does not have a sharia and therefore does not have concrete laws
inseparable from its revelation and theoretically applicable to all aspects of human life and human
society (Hildebrandt, 2005). This is important because without set sharia law (other than the ten
commandments) Christian doctrine is malleable unlike many other religions. While God’s word is
universal, the lack of explicitly concrete laws explains how the doctrine can be interpreted so many
different ways over the years.
In fact, a majority of U.S. Christians (54%) now say that homosexuality should be accepted, rather
than discouraged, by society (Murphy, 2015). While this is still considerably lower than the shares of
religiously unaffiliated people (83%) and members of non-Christian faiths (76%) who say the same, the
Christian figure has increased by 10 percentage points since 2007 (Murphy, 2015). Additionally, multiple
studies have found that when a country is both first world and when there is a high percentage of
Christians within that country, the state is more likely to not prohibit gay sexual relationships
(Hildebrandt, 2015). This is because as societies become more modern, they also tend to become more
tolerant of alternative lifestyles and the population is more open to legal emancipation of gays and
lesbians (Hildebrandt, 2015). This figure ought not to be upsetting to Christians, as the less oppressive
the religion is, the more likely a person will commit their soul to Jesus Christ.
lOMoARcPSD|261202 28
CONCLUSION
Throughout the centuries, those who considered themselves Christians either mistakenly
misinterpreted the Bible or purposefully manipulated the Scripture to fit the needs of their agenda.
Whether it be for racist or sexist sentiments, Scripture has been continually misinterpreted to fit the
needs of those who stood a chance to gain in such manipulation. While in the past, Christianity have
been blamed for immense oppression against others, the fact is that the literal interpretation of
Scripture promotes equality among all races and genders as “God shows no partiality” (Romans 2:11).
Christians ought to have high standards for their own personal morality, and how they behave
towards other people. However, they ought to refrain from interpreting the Bible to mean that God
would prefer a government to force citizens into submission. The walk with God is one that each
Christian takes and forcing others to follow by moral principles is not going to cause people to love Jesus
more. The real message which the Church and individual Christians need to be promoting is that God
accepts each one of us.
Each individual who comes to Jesus is a sinner in God’s eyes, whether they are an outwardly
respectable church member or a gay rights/sexual freedom activist. Moreover, those who participate in
these sexual immoralities will not be saved by forcing them to follow the moral rules by placing legal
statues to correct their behavior. More importantly, they will also not be attracted towards the Gospel by
Christian’s attempts to impose governmental restrictions onto them.
lOMoARcPSD|261202 28
References
Encarnacion, O. (2014). “Why Democracy Matters for Gay Rights”, Freedom House.
Hildebrandt, A. (2015). Christianity, Islam and Modernity: Explaining Prohibitions on Homosexuality
in UN Member States. Political Studies, 63(4), 852-869. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12137.
Jakobsen, J. (2000). “My Sexual Regulation? Family Values and Social Movements.” Oxford
University Press.
Murphy, C. (2015) Most U.S Christian Groups Grow More Accepting of Homosexuality. Pew Research
Center.
Oliver, M. (2017). Transactional Sex Politics, Conservative, Christianity, and Antigay Activitism in
Uganda. Studies in Social Justice 7(1) pp. 83-105.
Pew Research Center (2013). “The Global Divide on Homosexuality: Greater Acceptance in More Secular
And Affluent Countries”.
