Thinly-Veiled Discrimination

To the Editors of The Crimson:

I was extremely disturbed to read your recent article about the group Concerned Christians at Harvard, which is calling for the resignation of the Reverend Peter J. Gomes.

In the article, it was stated that the group bases its position on the fact that the Rev. Gomes "preaches that homosexuality is not a sin." Regardless of the morality of this position, there is a deeper, more frightening issue at the heart of the matter.

The group claims that it "does not object to Gomes because he is gay but because he violates the teachings of the Bible." Why, then, has the issue of what Gomes preaches never arisen before? He is certainly not new to his current position, and I find it difficult to believe that he has drastically altered his teachings and opinions since he announced that he is gay. Therefore, it seems reasonable that the Rev. Gomes has held his current opinions for some time. It is only after he publicly announced that he is gay that this group formed to campaign for his resignation.

Regardless of the real reason for the timing of this campaign, it would seem that the Rev. Gomes is being attacked now because of his recent announcement. Gomes has been turned into a symbol for a cause: the cause of lowering and limiting the rights of homosexuals. More generally, this cause represents the limitation of rights of those people who are different from the people in control. Being a Jew, I cannot help but remember the six million Jews who died in the Holocaust because they were different, not to mention the homosexuals, gypsies and other groups that were Hitler's victims. Africans were enslaved because they were different. Women in virtually all societies, including our own, are still not accorded the same rights and privileges as men, just because they are different.

Can we really ignore this attack which seems to be justified by the fact that the Rev. Gomes is somehow different than the attackers? And what would be more frightening that if this attack succeeds? Then the logical question is, who's next?

I am not disputing the right of Concerned Christians at Harvard to believe that homosexuality is wrong or somehow "un-Christian." Not being a Biblical scholar, or even a Christian, I would not presume to debate on this issue. However, when it comes to the denial of the Rev. Gomes' right to the same courtesies and honors as anyone else, I take great offense. I fear anyone who discerns a difference between people, determines that one group is "less worthy" than another, and then has the power to act to the detriment of the "less worthy" group. So the Concerned Christians at Harvard can have their opinions, but don't expect to be welcomed into my dining hall when you come to campaign for power to act. Whatever happened to "love the neighbor as thyself," anyway? Beth Raina Trilling '92