English 101 Essay #3 Ad Analysis Throughout this .docx

English 101
Essay #3: Ad Analysis
Throughout this course we have looked at various aspects of our
culture from gender stereotypes
and labels, to media and how these impact our daily lives. The
articles “Male body Imaging” and
“Damage Done: Crack Babies Talk Back,” along with the brief
clip of the video Killing us softly, show us
just how much advertising and media not only influence our
purchases, but also our identity, values, and
perceptions. Advertisements can be found all around us: In
magazines, commercials, popups, while using
the internet, social media, apps, and even on billboards while
we drive. Corporations spend large amounts
of money to try and sell us things on a daily basis. However,
they are not only trying to sell us products,
they attach ideologies, and psychological strategies using
logical, ethical, and emotional appeals to
persuade us.
In this essay, I will ask you to consider the topics we have
discussed in this course, and how they
are used in media and advertisements. You will analyze a
printed advertisement and use it as a visual
text, and just like a textual analysis you will explain its various
layers, from what it is depicting on the
surface, to the message it is trying to convey, and how and why
it is conveying it. What are they showing
you? What are they trying to make you think? Who is their

target audience? What specific elements of the
ad are used to communicate its message, and reach its target
audience? Consider not only rhetorical
appeals such as ethos, pathos, and logos, but also other layers
such as how space is used in the ad, text,
colors, body language, etc. ( Do not just point out what a
specific element is doing, elaborate on the
significance).
Directions: 1. Find a full-page real (not fake) advertisement,
either from a magazine or online. 2. Analyze
the ad and formulate a clear thesis that distinguishes what the
message, target audience, and purpose are.
3. Develop body paragraphs that explain your thesis (one aspect
per paragraph). 4. After a thorough
analysis, explain if the ad is effective and how or why it is or is
not effective. What is the significance of
this kind of advertising in society? 5. Do not use outside
sources on this essay, only the advertisement.
Essay requirements:
-5 pages (at least three spilling onto four)
)
draft.
Rough Draft due: 11/2/2016
Final Draft Due: 11/9/2016

BELTRAMI, SHOUSE, AND BLAKETRENDS IN
INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Trends in Infectious Diseases and the Male
to Female Ratio: Possible Clues to Changes
in Behavior Among Men Who Have Sex
With Men
John F. Beltrami, R. Luke Shouse, and Paul A. Blake
Men who have sex with men (MSM) are a priority population
for HIV care and
prevention programs. This report describes HIV and other
sexually transmitted
disease (STD) trends among MSM in metropolitan Atlanta by
analyzing nine da-
tabases. We describe the use of the male-to-female (M:F) ratio,
a surrogate
marker for MSM in databases without standardized MSM
variables that is rec-
ommended as an indirect measure of HIV risk behavior in the
CDC/HRSA Inte-
grated Guidelines for Developing Epidemiologic Profiles.
During 1997 to 2001,
there were increases among MSM for reported syphilis (from
9% to 17%), anti-
biotic–resistant gonorrhea (from 4.8% to 8.6%), and HIV
seroprevalence (from
33% to 43%). During 1998 to 2001, the M:F ratio for cases
peaked at 12:1 dur-
ing a hepatitis A outbreak among MSM, increased for
shigellosis (from 1:0 to
18:1) and giardiasis (from 1.7 to 2.1), and did not appreciably
change for hepati-

tis B, salmonellosis, or chlamydia. HIV and several other STDs
appear to have in-
creased among MSM in metropolitan Atlanta. When
standardized MSM
variables are not available, an M:F ratio is useful.
BACKGROUND
In recent years, reports have described how men who have sex
with men (MSM) are
increasingly engaging in high–risk behaviors and acquiring HIV
infection and other
sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including sexually
transmissible infections that
are not commonly thought of as STDs, such as hepatitis A and
shigellosis (Bull,
McFarlane, & Rietmeijer, 2001; Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention [CDC],
1998, 1999a, 2000, 2001b; DiClemente et al., 2002; Ekstrand,
Stall, Paul, Osmond,
& Coates, 1999; Marx, Dicker, & Layton, 2003). MSM, as with
the general popula-
tion, reflect various behaviors, identities, demographics, and
socioeconomic back-
grounds; however, MSM have additionally experienced stigma,
discrimination, and
rejection (Herek, Capitanio, & Widaman, 2002; Meyer, 2001).
All of these factors
help distinguish the social setting and STD risk exposures that
MSM face and provide
the context in which disease outbreaks have occurred among
MSM (CDC, 1998,
49
AIDS Education and Prevention, 17, Supplement B, 49–59,
2005

© 2005 The Guilford Press
John Beltrami is with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. R. Luke Shouse and Paul A. Blake are
with the Georgia Department of Human Resources, Atlanta.
The authors thank Hillard Weinstock, MD, MPH, of CDC’s
Division of STD Prevention for his critical re-
view of this manuscript.
Address all correspondence to John Beltrami, MD, MPH & TM,
Centers for Disease Control and Preven-
tion, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, MS E-02, Atlanta, GA 30333; e-
mail: [email protected]
1999b, 2001b; D’Souza, Lee, & Paffel, 2003) and in which large
or increasing propor-
tions of HIV/STDs have been seen (CDC, 2003a, 2003b, 2003d).
Consequently,
MSM are a unique population requiring a special public health
approach for disease
surveillance and prevention.
MSM are often a high priority population for state and local
Ryan White CARE
Act and HIV prevention community planning programs. Ryan
White CARE Act ac-
tivities address the unmet health needs of persons living with
HIV/AIDS by funding
primary health care and support services. In HIV prevention
community planning,
health departments collaborate with the HIV/AIDS community
to develop a compre-
hensive HIV prevention plan that targets the needs of priority
populations infected
with or at risk for HIV. These two programs are required to

have an evidence–based
epidemiologic profile that describes the HIV/AIDS epidemic
and indicators of risks,
including surrogate markers, among various populations, to help
with the planning
needs of prevention and care programs (CDC & Health
Resources and Services
Administration [HRSA], 2004).
Though AIDS case reporting surveillance data have provided
the cornerstone for
information in Georgia HIV/STD epidemiologic profiles,
supplemental data have
come from HIV seroprevalence surveys, the Supplement to
HIV/AIDS Surveillance
(SHAS) Project, the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance
System, the HIV Counseling
and Testing Program, and STD surveillance. In the most recent
Georgia epidemiologic
profile, hepatitis A surveillance data were used for the first time
to help describe two
outbreaks among MSM (Beltrami, 2002). However, many
databases are limited by
not having MSM–specific variables (e.g., sexual orientation,
men having sex with
other men) or by having missing or incomplete information on
such variables. For ex-
ample, persons responsible for obtaining the information are not
always able to inde-
pendently confirm MSM status, and when interviewed, MSM do
not always reveal
this information or identify as homosexual or bisexual (CDC,
2003c). The lack of use-
ful data may lead to underestimating the extent of a health
problem in MSM, which
may in turn lead to neglect or misunderstanding of MSM health.

One way to approximate MSM sexual risk–taking activity is
through the use of a
surrogate marker, male-to-female (M:F) ratio of cases, which
can be defined as the
number of male cases for a specific disease divided by the
number of female cases. Al-
though the correlations of M:F ratios to changes in disease
incidence among MSM
have been little studied in public health, they have been used in
connection with hepa-
titis A, B, and C, syphilis, chancroid, gonorrhea, and AIDS
studies (CDC, 2003a;
CDC, 2004; Holmes et al., 1999; Pan American Health
Organization, 2002). They
are recommended as an indirect measure for MSM in the
Integrated Guidelines for
Developing Epidemiologic Profiles for HIV Prevention and
Ryan White CARE Act
Community Planning (CDC & HRSA, 2004). In most of the
reports that have used
M:F ratios, however, the ages of the persons represented in the
M:F ratio are not pro-
vided; thus, there is a potential of including age groups for
which sexual activity was
unlikely to be the cause of disease acquisition. In the most
recent Georgia
epidemiologic profile, an age–specific M:F ratio was used for
hepatitis A data to help
address this limitation (Beltrami, 2002).
Most of the reports that have recently described high–risk
behaviors and
HIV/STDs among MSM have focused on only one disease (Bull
et al., 2001; CDC,
1998, 1999a, 2000, 2001b; DiClemente et al., 2002; Ekstrand et

al., 1999; Marx et
al., 2003). The analysis of several databases for a defined
geographic area, however,
may help to better understand the epidemiology of infectious
diseases and behaviors
50 BELTRAMI, SHOUSE, AND BLAKE
among MSM and thus lead to better prevention interventions
and resource allocation.
Using an M:F ratio as an indirect measure of MSM increases the
number of databases
that can be analyzed to describe infectious diseases among
MSM. The primary objec-
tives of this report are to expand on what is currently known
about MSM in
eight–county metropolitan Atlanta by analyzing several
databases and to demon-
strate how the age–specific male to female ratio (M:F ratio), can
be used as a surrogate
marker for MSM with case reporting surveillance databases
lacking standardized
MSM variables.
METHODS
DISEASE SELECTION
The criteria used to help select diseases for this analysis were
that the disease must
be reportable to an appropriate health department in Georgia,
that outbreaks among
MSM have been published in the scientific literature, that
person–to–person transmis-

sion among adolescents and adults has been known to occur,
and that the number of
cases in the database is potentially adequate for a meaningful
interpretation of trends.
Diseases selected, including their common modes of
transmission, were HIV and hep-
atitis B (exposure to semen or blood), syphilis (exposure to a
lesion), gonorrhea and
chlamydia (exposure to a genital discharge or mucous
membranes), and hepatitis A,
shigellosis, giardiasis, and salmonellosis (fecal–oral exposure).
DATABASE SELECTION
Three Georgia databases with routinely used, standardized MSM
variables were
available. The first was the STD case surveillance system for
syphilis. Using the syphi-
lis interview record form (CDC 73.54), the MSM variable is
computed from the vari-
ables for gender and for whether the person had sex with a male
since 1978. The
second was the Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP)
database for gonor-
rhea (Beltrami & Toomey, 2000). For the GISP, the Fulton
County STD clinic tests
urethral specimens from men diagnosed with gonorrhea for
resistance to commonly
used antibiotics. The GISP MSM variable comes from the
variable for sexual orienta-
tion that is coded heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or
unknown. The third data-
base contained data from an anonymous seroprevalence survey
for HIV (Beltrami,
Brown, Park, & Toomey, 2004). Until 1999, the DeKalb County
STD clinic con-

ducted the HIV survey, which used a calculated risk behavior
variable that was coded
MSM non–IDU (injection drug user), MSM IDU, heterosexual
non–IDU,
heterosexual IDU, other, or unknown.
The Georgia Notifiable Health Condition Surveillance System
includes reported
information for 60 diseases and conditions. Reporting is
required by law from all
Georgia physicians, laboratories, and other health care
providers. Data from this sys-
tem are organized by date of diagnosis and are available to all
Georgia public health
staff and the general public through a query format at
http://www.ph.dhr.state.ga.us.
Accessible variables include disease or condition; gender; age
group in 5–year incre-
ments; race/ethnicity; year, month, and date of diagnosis;
county of patient residence;
and Georgia Public Health District of patient residence.
However, there is not a stan-
dardized MSM variable. For this analysis, chlamydia, hepatitis
A and B, shigellosis,
giardiasis, and salmonellosis data representing cases from the
8–county metropolitan
Atlanta area were used. The eight counties are Clayton, Cobb,
DeKalb, Douglas,
Fulton, Gwinnett, Newton, and Rockdale.
TRENDS IN INFECTIOUS DISEASES 51
ANALYSIS
Epi Info (Version 6.0; CDC, Atlanta, GA) was used for all

analyses of syphilis,
gonorrhea, and HIV data. The Georgia Notifiable Health
Condition Surveillance Sys-
tem website was used for analyses of chlamydia, hepatitis A and
B, shigellosis,
giardiasis, and salmonellosis data. Given that the Georgia
Notifiable Health Condi-
tion Surveillance System does not have standardized MSM
variables, an M:F ratio
was used as a surrogate marker for MSM. The ratio was created
for persons aged 10 to
49 years to approximate the years that persons are most likely to
be sexually active.
The 10–14-year-old age group was chosen as the youngest age
group in order to in-
clude 13–year–old persons, who represent the youngest age in
the standardized
adult/adolescent HIV/AIDS case report surveillance form. The
45–49-year-old age
group was chosen as the oldest age group because 49 years of
age has been used before
as an upper limit for STD analyses. The ratio was calculated by
dividing the number of
male cases by the number of female cases. For example, four
male cases divided by two
female cases would indicate a 2 to 1 M:F ratio.
RESULTS
DATABASES WITH STANDARDIZED MSM VARIABLES
In eight–county metropolitan Atlanta, the number of newly
reported syphilis
cases among males decreased from 1,444 to 593 during 1995 to
1999 and then in-
creased to 766 in 2001. The corresponding proportion of cases

among MSM de-
creased from 12% to 9% through 1997 and then increased to
17% in 2001 (Figure 1).
Among men with newly diagnosed gonorrhea in the GISP study,
the proportion
among MSM varied between 5.3% and 1.6% during 1995 to
1999 and then increased
to 8.6% (17/197) in 2001 (see Figure 1). Among persons in the
HIV seroprevalence
survey, the proportion of HIV–infected persons who were MSM
increased from 22%
in 1995 to 43% (56/129) in 1999, which was the last year of the
survey (see Figure 1).
HEPATITIS A
For hepatitis A in eight–county metropolitan Atlanta, the
number of newly re-
ported cases among all males and females of all ages, the
number of newly reported
cases among adolescent and adult males (aged 10–49 years), and
the M:F ratios are
shown by quarter from 1995 to 2001 in Figure 2. In general, for
all cases of all ages
and for cases among adolescent and adult males, the lowest
number of reported cases
occurred in 1995, and peaks representing the highest number of
cases occurred in the
third quarter of 1997, the latter two quarters of 1998, and the
middle two quarters of
2001. Since 1995 in metropolitan Atlanta, there have been two
documented out-
breaks of hepatitis A among MSM (CDC, 1998; Sanchez &
Fletcher, 2001) as de-
picted by the two arrows in Figure 2. The first outbreak
occurred from the first quarter

of 1996 to the fourth quarter of 1997, and the second outbreak
occurred from the
fourth quarter of 2000 through the fourth quarter of 2001. Note
that the peak M:F ra-
tios (i.e., 8.5 to 1 in 1996 and 12 to 1 in 2001) do not both
coincide with the peaks of
reported cases, but documented outbreaks among MSM do
appear to be associated
with ratio increases.
SUMMARY OF M:F RATIOS FROM DATABASES WITHOUT
STANDARDIZED MSM VARIABLES
Given that M:F ratios have been used previously as a surrogate
marker for MSM
and the occurrence of peak M:F ratios during documented MSM
outbreaks (Figure 2),
53
F
IG
U
R
E
1
.
P
ro

p
o
rt
io
n
o
f
ca
se
s
o
f
H
IV
,
sy
p
h
il
is
,
o
r
go
n
o

rr
h
ea
a
m
o
n
g
m
en
w
h
o
h
av
e
se
x
w
it
h
m
en
,
b
y

ye
ar
o
f
d
ia
gn
o
si
s,
ei
gh
t-
co
u
n
ty
m
et
ro
p
o
li
ta
n
A

tl
an
ta
,
1
9
9
5
–2
0
0
1
.
54
F
IG
U
R
E
2
.
T
o
ta
l

h
ep
at
it
is
A
c
as
es
,
ca
se
i
n
a
d
o
le
sc
en
t/
ad
u
lt
m
al

es
,
an
d
m
al
e-
to
-f
em
al
e
ra
ti
o
,
b
y
q
u
ar
te
r
o
f

d
ia
gn
o
si
s,
ei
gh
t-
co
u
n
ty
m
et
ro
p
o
li
ta
n
A
tl
an
ta
,
1

9
9
5
–2
0
0
1
.
N
o
te
.
M
SM
=
m
en
w
h
o
h
av
e
se
x
w
it

h
m
en
.
M:F ratios were calculated over time for five additional diseases
(Figure 3). The ratios
for hepatitis B and salmonellosis fluctuated between 1998 and
2001. The ratio for
shigellosis gradually rose through 2000 and then steadily rose to
18 to 1 in the second
quarter of 2001. The ratio for giardiasis is slightly higher in
recent quarters compared
with earlier quarters, and the ratio for chlamydia was always
either 0.3 or 0.2 to 1.
It is interesting to note that the two infections with the highest
ratios (hepatitis A
and shigellosis) share a common mode of fecal–oral
transmission. With the exception
of chlamydia data, which are predominantly based on a special
screening program for
women, between 1999 and 2001 the M:F ratio was greater than
1:1 for 88% (53/60)
of all quarters for all of the remaining diseases.
DISCUSSION
This report demonstrates how a simple analysis of several
databases that are com-
monly available in health departments can be used in
epidemiologic profiles to pro-
vide a more comprehensive description of infectious disease
trends and risk behaviors

among MSM. Syphilis and hepatitis A have increased among
MSM in Atlanta, and
HIV, gonorrhea, shigellosis, and giardiasis may have increased
as well. Additionally,
the data support the usefulness of an age–specific M:F ratio as
an indirect measure of
infectious diseases and behaviors among MSM to supplement
other types of data or
when MSM data are not available. The trends in this study are
consistent with other
reports of increasing risk behaviors and infections among MSM
and underline the ur-
gency of enhanced disease prevention efforts for this
population.
Surveillance reports from the CDC that have MSM variables or
use M:F ratios
help provide a context for our findings. The increase in syphilis
among MSM from our
study is consistent with the recent increases in primary and
secondary syphilis M:F
rate ratios for the United States and Atlanta (CDC, 2004). The
increase in the propor-
tion of MSM in the Atlanta GISP project in recent years is
similar to that in other GISP
sites in the United States (CDC, 2003d). However, in contrast to
decreasing national
trends in HIV seroprevalence through 1997 (CDC, 2001a), the
proportion of HIV in-
fections detected among MSM in the Atlanta seroprevalence
survey has steadily in-
creased since 1995. For both hepatitis A and B, the national
M:F ratio has gradually
increased from 1995 to 2001, and the percentage of cases
attributed to “homosexual
contact” increased from 1996 to 2001 (CDC, 2003a). These

results are consistent for
our hepatitis A data but not for our hepatitis B data. Though our
M:F ratio for hepati-
tis B did not increase over time, the ratio was usually more than
1 to 1, suggesting
MSM transmission.
Our data show the benefit of having an age–specific M:F ratio
supplement more
standard types of trend data that are used for various
surveillance and epidemiologic
purposes. For example, following the trends of reported cases
among both sexes and
all ages would not be a precise enough measure for infections
among MSM, especially
because many outbreaks of hepatitis A (as with other infectious
diseases) occur among
infants and small children. Similarly, following trends of male
cases alone would not
be sufficient to detect trends among MSM because an increasing
number of female
cases concurrent with an increasing number of male cases would
likely represent
heterosexual transmission.
An age–specific M:F ratio, moreover, has many uses and
advantages. First, given
that many public health databases do not have MSM–specific
variables, the M:F ratio
provides a more comprehensive epidemiologic description of
presumed MSM activity
by allowing more databases to be analyzed. Second, the
additional infections studied

56
F
IG
U
R
E
3
.
M
al
e-
to
-f
em
al
e
(M
:F
)
ra
ti
o
s

fo
r
h
ep
at
it
is
A
,
h
ep
at
it
is
B
,
sh
ig
el
lo
si
s,
c
h

la
m
yd
ia
,
sa
lm
o
n
el
lo
si
s,
a
n
d
gi
ar
d
ia
si
s,
b
y
q

u
ar
te
r
o
f
d
ia
gn
o
si
s,
e
ig
h
t-
co
u
n
ty
m
et
ro
p
o
li
ta

n
A
tl
an
ta
,
1
9
9
8
–2
0
0
1
.
N
o
te
.
T
h
ic
k
h
o
ri

zo
n
ta
l
b
ar
r
ep
re
se
n
ts
a
m
al
e-
to
-f
em
al
e
ra
ti
o
o

f
1
t
o
1
.
are an important reminder that STD education, counseling, and
prevention efforts
should account for modes of transmission (e.g., oral–fecal) that
are not commonly ad-
dressed in standard public health practice. Third, the M:F ratio
can help provide early
warnings before outbreaks occur or insights to help better
understand the outbreaks
after they occur. Fourth, M:F ratio trends may help document
previously unknown
morbidity among MSM. For example, our data suggest that the
burden of disease
among MSM in metropolitan Atlanta for seven different
infections may be higher
than previously thought. Based on an estimated 1.0% of the
metropolitan Atlanta
population being MSM (Holmberg, 1996), MSM likely account
for a disproportion-
ate burden of infectious diseases. Fifth, the M:F ratio is easily
calculated and can be
used by both epidemiologic and prevention public health staff to
support
evidence–based priorities, interventions, and planning.
Furthermore, the use of the M:F ratio could play a critical role

in the Ryan White
and HIV prevention community planning process for geographic
areas that are
known to have or may have large numbers of nonidentifying gay
men or men who do
not disclose their MSM status. Such areas may have
surveillance and epidemiologic
data that undercount the numbers of MSM with HIV/AIDS. This
undercounting leads
to inaccurate statistics that could jeopardize the entire planning
process, which re-
quires representation of affected groups among council
members, setting of appropri-
ate and relevant priorities, and resource allocation for persons
most at–risk or affected
by HIV/AIDS.
The use of the M:F ratio could also complement other studies
that assess sexual
orientation and risk behaviors. For example, the results of a
particular study using the
M:F ratio could be compared with surveillance data in the same
geographic area to
help assess whether MSM are being appropriately accounted for
in the surveillance
database.
An age–specific M:F ratio appears to have many public health
benefits, but the
validity of using the M:F ratio as a surrogate marker (i.e.,
correlation of M:F ratio
changes to changes in disease incidence among MSM) is
unknown. Furthermore,
there may be instances in which the M:F ratio would not
indicate MSM. For example,
heroin injection drug use in a predominantly male cohort would

have a high M:F ratio
and could have a high HIV incidence but not reflect MSM.
Therefore, the M:F ratio
should be a priority for future research. The use of the M:F ratio
as a surrogate marker
could be validated with other longitudinal data that are being
collected in the same ju-
risdiction. For example, the Adult/Adolescent Spectrum of HIV
Disease project,
which was conducted through June 2004 in metropolitan Atlanta
could be used to
help with validation activities.
There are four primary assumptions in this report. First,
accurate measurements
of sexual orientation and behaviors are always preferable to
surrogate markers. How-
ever, obtaining these measurements is not always feasible,
particularly for surveil-
lance systems that have limited resources and rely on passive
case reporting by
providers who will not or cannot provide the requested
information. Second, there is a
correlation between the M:F ratio and disease incidence among
MSM (e.g., increasing
M:F ratio at the time of two hepatitis A outbreaks). Third, if the
ratio is useful for one
disease, then it may be useful for others. Fourth, the age group
chosen for the M:F ra-
tio assumes most sexually active adolescents and adults are
between 10 and 49 years
of age.
There are several limitations to this report. Small case numbers
for some of the
diseases limit the usefulness and interpretation of the results.

Differences in the meth-
ods used for the various database systems and probable
differences in the complete-
ness of reporting for all of the databases affect the
standardization and
generalizability of the results. The data for some of these
diseases do not precisely dis-
tinguish between sexual transmission of disease and other
modes of transmission,
such as food–borne (i.e., hepatitis A, shigellosis, giardiasis, and
salmonellosis) or
through injection drug use (i.e., hepatitis B). For the HIV
survey, GISP, and syphilis
surveillance databases, the proportion of persons considered
MSM may be an under-
estimate owing to sensitive MSM–defining information not
always being accurately
ascertained. For HIV and gonorrhea, the data may not be
representative of
eight–county metropolitan Atlanta because each of these
databases came from just
one clinic site. Persons 10-49 years old do not represent all
sexually active persons.
The data in this report are primarily public access data; what
may be knowable
through other types of databases is not addressed. The HIV
survey data reflect yearly
prevalence and not incidence; however, Georgia has recently
implemented an HIV
case reporting surveillance system that will remove this
limitation in future HIV

analyses.
In conclusion, Ryan White and HIV prevention community
planning staff should
have epidemiologic profiles with data from as many relevant
databases as possible to
help their programs better understand infectious diseases for
optimal planning of care
and prevention activities. Planners should be aware of sexually
transmissible infec-
tions that are not traditionally considered STDs, such as
hepatitis A and shigellosis, to
see to what degree they might impact the health of MSM and
other priority popula-
tions in their jurisdiction. When standardized MSM variables
with complete informa-
tion are not available, a surrogate marker such as the M:F ratio
can be used. Lastly,
and perhaps most important, strategies to prevent HIV and other
STDs among MSM
should account for varying modes of transmission, such as oral–
fecal exposure during
sex, and should identify opportunities to vaccinate for hepatitis
A and B (CDC, 2002).
REFERENCES
Beltrami, J.F. (2002). Georgia HIV/STD epidemiol-
ogy profile. Atlanta: Georgia Department of
Human Resources, Division of Public
Health, HIV/STD Epidemiology Section.
Beltrami, J.F., Brown, S.T., Park, M.M., & Toomey,
K.E. (2004, February). HIV/STDs among

women and men who have sex with men at
an STD clinic in DeKalb County, Georgia,
1997–1999. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American College of Preven-
tive Medicine 2004 Annual Meeting, Or-
lando, Florida.
Beltrami, J.F., & Toomey, K.E. (2000). An overview
of gonorrhea and chlamydia in Georgia:
Epidemiologic data, screening, laboratory
tests, treatment, management of sex part-
ners, and case reporting. Atlanta: Georgia
Department of Human Resources, Division
of Public Health, HIV/STD Epidemiology
Section.
Bull, S.S., McFarlane, M., & Rietmeijer, C. (2001).
HIV and sexually transmitted infection risk
behaviors among men seeking sex with men
on–line. American Journal of Public Health,
91, 988–989.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1998).
Hepatitis A vaccination of men who have sex
with men: Atlanta, Georgia, 1996–1997.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 47,
708–711.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(1999a). Increases in unsafe sex and rectal
gonorrhea among men who have sex with
m en — San Fr an cis co , C alifo r n ia,
1994–1997. Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report, 48, 45–48.

(1999b). Recurrent bacterial sexually trans-
mitted disease among men who have sex with
m e n : K i n g C o u n t y , W a s h i n g t o n ,
HIV/AIDS among racial/ethnic minority men
who have sex with men—United States,
(2001a). HIV prevalence trends in selected
populations in the United States: Results
from national serosurveillance, 1993–1997.
Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services.
(2001b). Shigella sonnei outbreak among
men who have sex with men: San Francisco,
California, 2000–2001. Morbidity and Mor-
tality Weekly Report, 50, 922–926.
Sexually transmitted diseases treatment
guidelines 2002. Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report, 51(RR–6), 7.

(2003a). Hepatitis Surveillance Report No.
58. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services.
(2003b). HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report
2002, 14, 31.
(2003c). HIV/STD risks in young men who
have sex with men who do not disclose their
s e x u a l o r i e n t a t i o n — S i x U . S . c i t i e s ,
(2003d). Sexually Transmitted Disease Sur-
veillance 2002 Supplement—Gonococcal
Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP) annual
report. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance
2002 Supplement—Syphilis Surveillance Re-
port. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, 9, 14.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention &
Health Resources and Services Administra-
tion. (2004). Integrated guidelines for devel-
o p i n g e p i d e m i o l o g i c p r o f i l e s : H I V
prevention and Ryan White CARE Act com-
munity planning. Atlanta, GA.

DiClemente, R.J., Funkhouser, E., Wingood, G.,
Fawal, H., Holmberg, S.D., & Vermund,
S.H. (2002). Protease inhibitor combination
therapy and decreased condom use among
gay men. Southern Medical Journal, 95,
421–425.
D’Souza, G., Lee, J.H., & Paffel, J.M. (2003). Out-
break of syphilis among men who have sex
with men in Houston, Texas. Sexually Trans-
mitted Diseases, 30, 872–873.
Ekstrand, M.L., Stall, R.D., Paul, J.P., Osmond,
D.H., & Coates, T.J. (1999). Gay men report
high rates of unprotected anal sex with part-
ners of unknown or discordant HIV status.
AIDS, 13, 1525–1533.
Herek, G.M., Capitanio, J.P., & Widaman K.F.
(2002). HIV–related stigma and knowledge
in the United States: Prevalence and trends,
1991–1999. American Journal of Public
Health, 92, 371–377.
Holmberg, S.D. (1996). The estimated prevalence
and incidence of HIV in 96 large U.S. metro-
politan areas. American Journal of Public
Health, 86, 642–654.
Holmes, K.K., Sparling, P.F., Mardh, P.–A., Lemon,
S.M., Stamm, W.E., Piot, P., et al. (Eds.).
(1999). Sexually transmitted diseases (3rd
ed., pp. 43-46, 51-52). New York:
McGraw–Hill.
Marx, M.A., Dicker, R., & Layton, M. (2003,

April). High rates of enteric illness in a neigh-
borhood with a high proportion of men re-
porting having sex with men—New York
City, New York, 2001–2002. Paper pre-
sented at the 52nd Annual CDC Epidemic In-
telligence Service Conference, Atlanta, GA.
Meyer, I.H. (2001). Why lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender public health? American Journal
of Public Health, 91, 856–859.
Pan American Health Organization. (2002). AIDS
Surveillance in the Americas: Biannual Re-
port, 19.
Sanchez, T.H., & Fletcher, J.A. (2001). Increased
hepatitis A among men who have sex with
men in metropolitan Atlanta, 2001. Georgia
Epidemiology Report, 17, 1–2.
Epistemological Frameworks, Homosexuality, and
Religion: How People of Faith Understand the
Intersection between Homosexuality and Religion
David R. Hodge
Some gay men, lesbians, and other progressives view orthodox
religious believers as
perpetrators of oppression. Conversely, many orthodox
believers, or as they might self-

identity, people of faith, believe that gay men, lesbians, and
other progressives wish to
marginalize people of faith. Using Hunter's epistemologically
based distinction between
progressive and orthodox worldviews to understand the
differences in perceptions, this article
explores how numerous people of faith understand reality as it
intersects the issue of
homosexuality, both in the wider culture and in social work.
The author suggests that to
provide effective services to an increasingly diverse society and
to remain grounded in the
Code of Ethics, social work must work toward a more inclusive
profession that accepts both
progressives and people of faith.
KEY WORDS: Christianity; diversity;gay men; homosexuality;
lesbians; spirituality
T
he intersecrion between homosexuality and
religion has been the topic of some debate
in social work discourse (Berkman &
Zinbcrg, 1997; Cornett, 1992; Jones, 1996; Parr,
1996;Van Soest, Canon, & Grant, 20(K)).Van Soest
(1996) suggested that Hunters (1991) epistemo-
logical framework of conflicting orthodox and pro-
gressive worldviews is an appropriate vehicle for
understanding the controversy. In light of calls for
dialogue on the topic (Canda & Furman, 1999; Van

Soest), this article addresses the controversy from
an orthodox perspective.
It is important to note that this article does not
represent an attempt to disparage the experiences
of gay men and leshians, who continue to experi-
ence discrimination in many venues; nor does it
represent an implicit argument for the restriction
of gay and leshian narratives. Rather, 1 argue that
the range of views should be increased, that the
scope of diversity should he widened. As other
observers have suggested (Haynes & White, 1999;
Van Soest & Garcia. 2003), we need to work to-
ward a halanced and inclusive profession that is more
demographically representative ofthe increasingly
diverse society we are called to serve.
EPISTEMOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS
AND HOMOSEXUALITY
Any discussion of demographics raises the issue of
worldviews.The insights of Kuhn (1970) and other
philosophers have led to general agreement that
individuals understand reality through a discrete
cognitive framework or worldview.At the heart of
Hunters (1991) nuanced work is the belief that
contemporary society is characterized by "impulses"
toward two macro-level worldviews, which he calls
orthodox and progressive.These epistemologically
hased worldviews inform individuals' understand-
ing of who they are and how they should live.
Orthodox believers, or as they might self-iden-
tify,people offaith (French,2002),derive key com-
ponents of their value systems from an external,
transcendent authority (Hunter, 1991).Various or-
thodox populations include Christians, Hmdus,

MusUms,and others who affirm the historic main-
stream tenets of their respective traditions. These
believen are sometimes referred to as consen/atives
because they conserve and hve by their understand-
ing of transcendent truth.
In this article, I focus on the relationship he-
tween Christianity and homosexuality due to the
CCC Cixle; 0037-8046/05 S3.00 02005 Natlonar Assoriatton of
Soclal Workeri ZO7
salience of this spiritual tradition in the United
States. This focus should not be misinterpreted as
an implicit argument for some type of Christian
exceptionalism. As implied earlier, the inclusion of
an array of traditions in the profession's discourse is
the central point. Accordingly, Christianity is used
as proxy to represent a family of underrepresented
spiritual traditions.
Traditionally, Christians helieve their values are
derived from a sovereign God as revealed in the
Bible and interpreted hy the community of believ-
ers (Colson et al., 1994). Because these values are
transcendent, believers do not have the option, at
least in principle, of picking and choosing which
values they follow based on the prevailing cultural
winds. As Stark (2003) noted, this belief in cultur-
ally transcendent values led to the conclusion that
slavery was immoral, even though this conclusion
contradicted contemporary norms.
Values commonly affirmed by Christians include

relationships that affirm the dignity and worth of
human beings (Maton & Salem, 1995),concern for
people who are poor (Clydesdale, 1999), diversity
(Smith, 2000), and sexuality expressed in monoga-
mous male-female dyads. To expand on the latter
value, all human beings have inherent dignity and
worth because they reflect the image of God. Gay
men and lesbians are no more and no less animated
hy human turpitude than others.The ethos is egali-
tarian.AH are invited to join the Christian commu-
nity, and, as an expression of their relationship to
God, all believers are called to exhibit Christian
values. Just as heterosexual Christians are called to
abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage, so
too are homosexual Christians .Just as heterosexual
individuals can abstain from sexual activity through
a relationship with God in conjunction with the
support ofthe community of believers, so too can
lesbians and gay men (Colson et al., 1994).
Although numerous variations and phrasings
exist, it is noteworthy how widely held this basic
perspective is among Christians. Christianity in the
United States is commonly broken into three
streams: Evangelical. Catholic, and mainline
(Sheridan, Wilmer, & Atcheson, 1994). The most
widespread Christian subtradition is Evangelical-
ism, then Catholicism, followed by the socially
prominent but numerically declining mainline tra-
dition (Hutchison, 1999; Miller, 1998) .Yet, despite
the diversity of beliefs among the three traditions,
essentially all Evangelical denominations, the Catho-
lic Church, and many mainline denominations af-
firm some variation of the previously mentioned
position (Davidson, 1999; Melton, 1991).

In contrast with the transcendent understanding
of truth held by people of faith, the progressive
worldview is an evolving entity informed by the
ethos ofthe current age (Hunter, 1991). At some
basic level, progressives tend to understand ultimate
truth as an unfolding reality, individually and col-
lectively selected as human society grows and
changes. Populations that generally affirm progres-
sive worldviews include gay men and lesbians, femi-
nists, atheists, and metaphysical relativists. Also in-
cluded under the progressive rubric are religious
believers who seek to liberalize or redefine historic
faith traditions according to prevailing progressive
ethos.
Although difficult to capture in this brief sum-
marization. Hunter (1991) also emphasized the
complexity that exists at the individual level.
Whereas at the macro level people offaith tend to
be pro-life and progressives tend to be pro-choice,
at the micro level many evangelical Christians, for
example,are pro-choice and many feminists are pro-
life. Similarly, this article relates a perspective held
by many Christians; it does not, hovever. represent
the views of all Christians or even those of all tra-
ditional Christians. Likewise,many individuals who
fall under Hunter's progressive banner would tend
to support the perspective delineated in the article.
Furthermore, at the macro level the value posi-
tions ofthe two worldvieu's are often similar (for
example, both oppose racism). One area in which
progressive and orthodox worldviews differ, how-
ever, is homosexual sexual practice. Although views
among progressives, hke people of faith, differ in

regard to their position on homosexuality, sexual
activity among consenting gay men and lesbians is
widely understood by progressives to be morally
appropriate (Hunter, 1991).Consequently, although
both worldviews affirm the personhood of gay men
and lesbians, a clash in values exists regarding the
appropriateness of same-sex sexual practice.
POWER DIFFERENTIALS
As is widely acknowledged, differences in
worldviews combined with a systemic power im-
balance tend to foster bias against subordinate
worldviews (Hamilton & Sharma, 1997). As
Wambach and Van Soest (1997) noted, institution-
alized power differentials between groups, plus
2O8 SodalWork VOLUME 50, N U M B E R 3 JULY Z005
prejudice, often engenders discrimination toward
groups without access to power.
According to Hunter (1991), progressives tend
to dominate the centers of social power. The pro-
gressive worldview is most deeply institutionalized
and most vigorously advanced among educated
professionals in what Hunter calls the knowledge
sector, or what a number of neo-Marxist theorists
have called the knowledge class or the new class
CBerger,1986;Bruce-Bri^,1979;Gouldner,1979;
Schmalzbauer, 1993;Smith,2003;Szelenyi & Mar-
tin, 1991).This relatively privileged class comprises
groups such as the entertainment industry, news
media, helping professions, and perhaps most nota-
bly, education. The power ofthe knowledge class

flows from its ability to define and direct discourse.
In other words, the knowledge class plays a funda-
mental role in constructing the social narratives that
inform the broader society.
Hunter (1991) also observed that people of faith
are significantly under rep resented in the centers of
social power. Orthodox beUevers are disproportion-
ately found among the less-advantaged segments
of society, the working class, people who are poor,
racial and ethnic minority groups, and so forth
(Davis& Robinson. 1997;Hodge,2002a;McAdams,
1987). Although people of faith have some mea-
sure of political power due to the democratic pro-
cess, they have little power to control how their
values are framed and presented to the larger popu-
lation (Hunter;Woodberry & Smith, 1998).
The power differential, accentuated by the ani-
mus many educated elites feel toward conservative
Christians (Bolce & De Maio, 1999), often fosters
bias toward these believers in knowledge class set-
tings. Content analysis has revealed pejorative de-
pictions in some network television news (Kerr,
2003), fictional television programs (Skill &
Robinson, 1994), comic strips (Lindsey & Heeren,
1992), and textbooks used in grade schools (Vitz,
1985), high schools (Oppewal. 1985; Sewall, 1995;
Vitz, 1998), and universities (Glenn, 1997;Lehr&
Spilka, 1989). Practicing Christians, along with
women, teach at lower quality colleges and univer-
sities than their professional accomplishments would
predict (Rothman, Lichter, & Nevitte, 2005). Us-
ing a vignette methodology, researchers have found
that evangelical Christians are more likely than their
identical secular counterparts to be denied admis-

sion to graduate psychology programs (Gartner,
1986). Similar bias in professional decision making
has been documented among some physicians
(Neumann & Leppien, 1997) as weil as profession-
als in the physical (Neumann, Harvill, & Callahan,
1995) and social sciences (Gartner, J., Harniatz,
Hohmami,Larson,& Garmer, A.E, 1990; Neumann,
Thompson, & Woolley, 1992).
It is important to note that these results do not
imply an intentional progressive bias against people
of faith. As history indicates, similar results occur
when the power dynamics are re versed. Values that
resonate with the dominant worldview tend to be
seen as objective, reasonable, and moral, whereas
those affirmed by subordinate groups often seem
biased, ideological, and immoral.
The results imply, however, that progressives ex-
perience a significant degree of privilege in the
mainstream culture (Hunter, 1991). Progressives can
generally expect to see their values reflected in
popular and academic discourse. Sources as varied
as the New York Times, MTV, fictional television,
network news, Hollywood movies, univenity pro-
fessors, and academic journals tend to validate pro-
gressive understandings of reality. This privilege is
brought into clearer relief when one realizes that
traditional Christians must remain in the Christian
subculture to experience a similar degree of valida-
tion for their value systems (Talbot, 2000).
DISENFRANCHISING CHRISTIANS?
Progressives generally support freedom of thought,
fi-ee speech, separation of church and state, freedom

of association, freedom of religion, and other basic
human rights. Kurth (1994) argued that this sup-
port is often unconsciously selective, and articu-
lated only when it advances the interests of the
knowledge class.This perspective is widely shared
among traditional Christians who believe that many
gay men and lesbians, atheists, feminists, liberals, and
members ofthe mass media are hostile to religious
fi-eedom and other basic human rights (Smith, 2000).
These perceptions may have some merit (Jenkins,
2003).
Speech that some gay men and lesbians disagree
with is often censored in public universities and
other settings where progressives dominate
(Dershowitz, 2002; French, 2002). On private
Catholic campuses, the power ofthe state has been
used to coerce acceptance of gay and lesbian fel-
lowship groups (Hunter, 1991). On pubHc college
campuses, some gay and lesbian activi.sts have worked
to exclude Christian fellowship groups (Leo,2003).
H O D G E / Eptsumolo^cal Frameworks, Homosexuality, and
Religion 2 0 9
In San Francisco, private Christian antipoverty or-
ganizations were excluded from contracting with
the city (Fernandez & Lynch, 1998). In British
Columbia, a private Christian university was de-
nied accreditation, essentially because it affirmed
traditional Christian views on sexuality (Matas,
1997).
These and other examples have helped fuel per-

ceptions that some progressives wish to silence or
exclude Christians from public forums and disen-
franchise or eliminate private Christian institutions.
The British Columbia example is perhaps instruc-
tive, because some gay men and lesbians have
pointed to Canada as an exemplar of future trends.
Canada has few private Christian schools. Although
open to all, the small Christian university provides
a relatively unique haven. It offers interested stu-
dents the opportunity to obtain a Christian educa-
tion and provides an environment free from the
ridicule and disparagement many Christians en-
counter in numerous public universities dominated
by progressives {French, 2002; Pearlstein, 2000).
The state-sanctioned accrediting body denied
accreditation to the schools' teaching program, ar-
guing in court that graduates who believed tradi-
tional Christian tenets regarding homosexual sexual
practice were unfit to be teachers (Matas, 1997).
No evidence of discrimination against gay men and
lesbians in professional settings was provided. As
observers have noted, the accrediting body's argu-
ment has significant implications for religious free-
dom (de Souza, 2004; Pearlstein, 2000). More spe-
cifically, religion-based universities could be banned
from educaring students seeking to become profes-
sionals. It suggests that the state has a role in exam-
ining peoples' spiritual beliefs and excluding those
who hold traditional beliefs from professional sta-
tus. In other words, the state would be attempting
to regulate private thought.
As some progressives have attempted to use vari-
ous arms ofthe state to reach into public forums,
private universities,and at least potentially, churches,

homes, and private thought, a growing number of
believers fear that ultimately Christians will have no
space in which to practice their faith (Davis &
Robinson, 1997; de Souza, 2004; Hunter, 1991;
Martin, 1996;Talbot, 2000). Leading Evangelicals
and Catholics have expressed concern over the ero-
sion of human rights and the growing incursion of
the state into areas formerly deemed to be under the
purview ofthe church (Colson et al., 1994; de Souza).
Consequently, many Christians feel they must
engage gay and lesbian issues to maintain their ba-
sic human rights and constitutionally protected free-
doms. However, when addressing the topic of ho-
mosexuality, Christian organizations generally base
their interactions on the biblical record that affirms
the personhood of gay men and lesbians as God's
imagebearers. Typical, is the written poHcy state-
ment by the influential Christian organization. Focus
on the Family.
In light of the increasingly volatile nature of
the public debate on homosexuality. Focus on
the Family calls upon all Christians, and in-
deed, all citizens to recognize that moral oppo-
sition is not a license to engage in any form of
slander, harassment or violence against those
with whom we disagree. Morally, and legally
speaking, a crime against a homosexual is no
less a crime against humanity, and deserves to
be punished to the full extent ofthe law. (Dob-
son, 1998, p. 2)
Likewise, the worldwide body of Anglican bish-
ops offered a similar statement expressing their or-
thodox position at their most recent Lainbeth gath-

ering: "While rejecting homosexual practice as
incompatible with scripture," the resolution also
"condemn[s] irrational fear of homosexuals" and
affirms that gay men and lesbians are"Ioved by God"
(Lambeth Conference, 1998: 1:10). Similar state-
ments have been issued by other prominent Chris-
tian organizations, including the Catholic Church
(Melton, 1991).These statements typically shun the
use of pejorative terms and condemn prejudice and
bigotry toward gay men and lesbians.
Ordinary believers generally embrace this per-
spective as evidenced by ethnographic research with
self-identified evangelical Christians (N — 187)
drawn from around the nation (Smith, 2000).When
asked how Christians should respond to gay men,
lesbians, and other progressive groups perceived to
exhibit hostility toward Christians, the almost uni-
venal response was with love and understanding.
Respondents indicated that they should avoid hos-
tile confrontations and terminology and engage in
positive dialogue that respects the opinions of their
antagonists.
In contrast, when some progressives discuss the
relationship between Christianity and homosexu-
ahty in major media outlets across the country.
SodalWork VOLUME 50, N U M B E R 3 JULY 2005
highly inflammatory terms have been used. The
Anglican Lambeth statement was framed as "vali-
dating intolerance" and teaching children to "hate
fellow humans" (Maxwell, 1998). The Christian

belief that there is a difference between person and
behavior was depicted as an "invidious distinction,"
which denies "essential humanity" (Scheer, 1998)
and is antihuman (Kemena, 1998). Christians who
respond to queries on homosexuality by affirming
traditional Christian beliefs were presented as en-
gaguig in "hate speech" and "legitimizing hate"
(Cohen, 1998). Christians who help give voice to
gay men and lesbians who have exercised their right
to self-determination and chosen to forsake ho-
mosexual sexual activity through a relationship with
God were equated with Nazis who have "targeted
a specific minority for elimination" and will soon
target others (Picano, 1998. D5). Although many
progressives disagree with the use of such termi-
nology, this type of rhetoric in national discourse
sends implicit messages to the broader culture about
traditional Christians.
MATTHEW SHEPARD AND HIS
CHRISTIAN COUNTERPARTS
The power to frame debate in a manner that re-
flects progressive interests is illustrated when indi-
viduals from the gay and lesbian and Christian com-
munities are murdered.When Matthew Shepard, a
gay student, was killed in Laramie, Wyoming, high
profile media personnel at major media oudets sug-
gested that a Christian worldview was responsible
for the killing (Cohen, 1998;Jenkins,2003; Picano,
1998; Rich. 1998; Scheer, 1998). Christian belief̂
were held responsible even though no evidence
indicated that the killers were devout Christians or
had been influenced by a Christian worldview
(ABC News, 2004). Somehow, the presence of a
Christian perspective, as a limited, minority view-
point in national discourse, was said to create an

atmosphere in which the "more loosely ordered
minds in the crowd" would kill gay men and lesbi-
ans (Scheer, p. B7).
Conversely, when Christian students are delib-
erately murdered, as happened in West Paducah,
Kentucky; Littleton, Colorado; and Fort Worth,
Texas, there was little attempt to link the killings to
a progressive worldview (Bingham, 1999; Braun,
1997; Young, 1999). Given that the progressive
worldview dominates national discourse, it seems
plausible that the killers were influenced, at least to
some degree, by progressive values in various me-
dia forums.The murderers may also potentially be
considered progressives (Braun; Goode, 1999; New
York Times News Service, 1997). For instance,
Michael Carneal targeted a group of Christians
praying, killing three and wounding five in West
Paducah, Kentucky. He rejected the notion of a
transcendent authority, wore anti-Christian sym-
bols, and self-identified as an atheist (Braun).
Even explicit anti-Christian hatred is ignored.
Consider the hypothetical case of an individual who
receives an unsolicited flyer about a gay and lesbian
event, procures a firearm, enters tbe event and be-
gins firing on gay men and lesbians, killing seven
and wounding numerous others, while cursing and
screaming repeatedly: "This homosexual stuff is a
bunch of bull...!" It seems likely that media per-
sonnel would attribute such actions to anti-homo-
sexual animosity. However, when the identical sce-
nario occurred in Forth Worth, Texas, with
Christians as the victims, the an ti-Christian hatred
that motivated the killings was basically ignored.

Instead, the facts were reported in a story entitled
"Why?," and the public was told that the reasons
for the church rampage may "never be known"
(Young, 1999). Similarly, Time magazine's 2()-page
cover story on the Columbine massacre neglected
to mention that one ofthe primary motivations for
the killers was anti-Christian hatred (Rabey, 2000).
Hate crimes against Christians are sometimes
refi^med to advance progressive causes—such as
gun control (Kabel, 1999).
If there is an attempt to make a case that
worldviews incite murder, it would seem that the
widely dispersed progressive worldview, combined
with systematically negative depictions of Chris-
tians, would be far more influential in terms of in-
citing individuals with psychological problems to
commit murder. After all, if Christians are Nazis
inciting children to hate their fellow human be-
ings, a person might plausibly conclude that the
world would be a better place if fewer of these
destructive people existed. Yet, in attempting to
explain the causal factors underlying the murder of
multiple Christians on three occasions, explana-
tions are "elusive" (Braun, 1997),"a puzzle" (New
York Times News Service, 1997) essentially "a
mystery"(Goode,1999), and consequendy, the"rea-
sons . . . may never be known" (Young, 1999).
This may help to explain why 92 percent of a
nationally representative sample of self-identified
H o D G B / EpistemoloffcalFfunKuwrks, HomesexuaU^
aruiRelipon 211

Evangelicals {N = 430), believe that Christian val-
ues are under serious attack in the United States
(Smith, 1998). Narratives are selectively manufac-
tured by some progressives to disenfranchise Chris-
tians. Concurrently, little concern is expressed for
the need to create safe spaces for people of faith
and the expression of their constitutional freedoms
and human rights.
THE BIAS IN SOCIAL WORK
Although social work has reflected the biases of the
larger society in which it exists, the profession is
deeply committed to constructing an inclusive
milieu that is respectful of divenity.
By exploring systemic power imbalances be-
tween dominant and subordinate groups, the pro-
fession has made significant headway in areas such
as race, gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.
Because the profession has only begun to address
diversity in the area of religion and spirituality
(Canda & Furman, 1999), some degree of bias
should be expected. As is the case with previous
iterations of diversity, an exploration of systemic
power differentials between groups is a critical step
in uncovering biases and moving toward a more
inclusive profession.
Hunter (1991) and knowledge class theorists
(Berger, 1986) have singled out social work as a
profession in which progressive worldviews are es-
pecially prominent. Consistent with research on
academics (Rothman et aL, 2005), analysis indi-
cates that social workers, as a group, are solidly in
the progressive camp, often affirming value posi-

tions to the left of those held by members of con-
servative, moderate, and liberal denominations
(Hodge, 2003). According to one nationally repre-
sentative study, only 13.5 percent of graduate social
workers are affiliated with theologically conserva-
tive denominations, in contrast to 44 percent of the
lower class (Hodge, 2002a).
Given the systemic power differential that exists
in the profession, it is unsurprising that many of the
issues discussed earlier in this article are played out
in the profession. Perhaps most prominent is the
selective presentation of reality. When discussing
the intersection between homosexuality and reli-
gion, the nexus tends to be viewed from a progres-
sive perspective. Progressive concerns are high-
lighted and the concerns of people of faith are
mentioned in passing, if at all (Hodge, Baughman,
& Cummings, in press). Although most social work-
ers strive to be fair, individuals inevitably tend to
select data that is congruent with their value sys-
tem while overlooking incongruent data (Kuhn,
1970).
For instance, Cornett (1992) underscored the
"dangerousness" of conservative Protestant practi-
tioners imposing their values on gay men and les-
bians in practice settings.There is no similar discus-
sion of the dangers of gay men, lesbians, and other
progressives imposing their values on conservative
Protestants and other people of faith, in the area of
policy, van Wormer (1997) associated people of faith
with "extremist pohtics"and the oppression of gay
men and lesbians.The supposition that progressives
are also associated with equally extreme political

positions and the oppression of people of faith re-
ceived no comparable mention (Jenkins, 2003).
Themes disseminated in the wider culture also
appear in the social work literature. Mirroring sen-
timents that appeared in the national media, Jones
(1996) argued that traditional Christian beHefs "fuel
the social climate that accommodates an increasing
incidence of hate crimes against [gay men and les-
bians]" (p. 309). The possibility that progressive
beliefs about Christianity may also fuel a social cli-
mate that fosters an increasing incidence of hate
crimes toward people of faith was not discussed
(Hunter, 1991;Jenkins, 2003).
In some instances activists have attempted to use
the power of the state to exclude Christians from
the profession. Echoing the British Columbia ex-
ample, some gay and lesbian activists have worked
to exclude the few private Christian social work
programs from the profession (Ressler, 1998). At
least one state-funded social work program set up a
screening program to explore prospective students'
religious beliefs regarding homosexuality (Ressler).
The inquiry focused not on behaviors, but on per-
sonally held spiritual beliefs. The state was thus
placed in the position of examining the private
thoughts of individuals and excluding people based
on their thoughts. Qualitative research on Chris-
tians' experiences in social work raises the possibil-
ity that similar, but more informal practices, may
exist in other programs (Ressler & Hodge, 1999;
Ressler & Hodge, 2003).
It should be emphasized that many social vrork-
ers, including many gay men and lesbians, support

the separation of church and state, as well as free-
dom of thought, speech, and rehgion. The above
practices are not only illegal (French, 2002; Ressler,
212 SocialWork VOLUME J O . N U M B E R 3 JULY 2005
1998). they also contravene the hasic human rights
accorded to people offaith in the United Nations'
(1948/1998) Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Indeed, many progressives support the inclusion of
people of faith just as many orthodox believers sup-
port the inclusion of gay men and lesbians {Smith,
2000).
It is also important to acknowledge that people
offaith should be encouraged to understand pro-
gressive narratives and to examine how their values
interact with those of various progressive popula-
tions. However, it is just as important for gay men,
lesbians, and other progressives to understand or-
thodox narratives and to examine how their values
may affect their ability to provide culturally sensi-
tive services to people of faith. To selectively por-
tray complex issues from only one perspective re-
stricts social workers'access to important knowledge
and fosters bias against people of faith (Oppewal,
1985).
The tendency to highlight issues fix>m a pro-
gressive framework, to the detriment of other per-
spectives, also makes little sense from a demo-
graphic sundpoint. As imphed earlier, the extant
evidence indicates that traditional believers are
significantly underrepresented in social work

(Bergin & Jensen, 1990; Canda & Furman. 1999;
Gallup & Lindsay, 1999; Neumann et al.. 1992;
Newman, Dannenfelser, & Benishek, 2002;
Richards & Bergin. 1997). Although it is difficult
to make comparisons across groups and studies, it
is plausible that the number of gay and lesbian so-
cial workers alone, apart &om all other progressive
groups, may outnumber people offaith in the pro-
fession (Berkman & Zinberg, 1997; Hyde & Ruth,
2002). Given that mainstream media and academia
tend to reflect a progressive worldview, progressives
have few venues in which to acquire a positive,
strengths-based understanding ofthe Christian sub-
culture or the subcultures of other faith groups.
Qualitative studies of traditional Christians in
the profession suggest that most social workers have
little understanding of a Christian worldview
(Ressler & Hodge, 1999; Ressler & Hodge. 2003).
Respondents reported that their values were fre-
quendy misunderstood, caricatured, and disparaged.
The misunderstanding of traditional beliefs is also
reflected in the perceptions of some consumers
(Furman, Perry. & Goldale, 1996; Pellebon, 2000).
The evangelical Christians surveyed frequently felt
that social workers did not understand their reli-
gious beliefe and values and, consequently, they were
hesitant to receive services from social workers.
Other observers s u r e s t similar concerns are shared
by many Hindus (Fenton, 1988; Goodwin &
Cramer, 1998), Muslims (Altarcb, 1996; Daneshpour,
1998; Kelly, Aridi, & Bakhtiar. 1996), and other
people offaith (Richards & Bergin. 2000). These
perceptions are in keeping with content analyses
that suggest that the views of people offaith are

rarely featured in mainstream social work literature
and. when featured, they tend to be depicted unfa-
vorably (Cnaan, Wineburg,& Boddie. 1999; Hodge,
2002b; Hodge et al.. in press; Redding, 2001).
Increasing underrepresented faith groups among
faculty might help future social workers better
understand culturally different worldviews
(Sheridan et al., 1994). Furthermore, as Van Soest
and Garcia (2003) observed, a balanced and inclu-
sive faculty exposes students to a diversity of per-
spectives and conveys important messages regard-
ing programs' commitment to diversity.
Paradoxically, Van Soest (1996) seems to implicitly
question the legitimacy of the few faculty who
provide diverse voices by asking: "If a social work
educator holds the religious belief that homosexu-
ality is morally unaccepuble. what are the barriers
to effective teaching in this area . . . ? " (pp. 60-61).
Given the dominance of progressives in the pro-
fession, social work theory suggests that the con-
verse would be a better question (Wambach & Van
Soest. 1997), In other words, how will faculty im-
mersed in the dominant progressive culture be able
to effectively teach students to provide culturally
competent services to people offaith from various
subcultures?The challenges go beyond the level of
direct practice to include issues of social justice.
More specifically, will social workers who hold the
belief that traditional Christian values are morally
unacceptable be able to advocate in the broader
society for believers'constitutionally protected free-
doms and their internationally recognized human
rights? In addition to freedom of thought, these
rights include the freedom to change religion or

behef. and the freedom to expres.s belief individu-
ally or with others in private and public settings
(United Nations, 1948/1998).
ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
Discrimination on the basis of religion is prohib-
ited by the NASW Code of Ethics (2000, section
4.02). Furthermore, social workers are called to
/ EpistemolopcalFrameworks, Hamosexualitji andReligion 213
understand and respect religious diversity (1.05c),
to avoid making demeaning comments based upon
rehgion (2.01), and to prevent and eliminate the
domination, exploitation, and discrimination of
religious people (6.04d). Similar standards apply to
sexual orientationjust as workers cannot decide to
favor a heterosexual orientation over a homosexual
orientation, so too, workers cannot favor liberal
rehgious expression over traditional religious ex-
pression. Further, no hierarchy exists among ethi-
cal standards. The Code of Ethics (2000) does not
"specify which values, principles, and standards are
most important and ought to outweigh others in
instances when they conflict" (p. 3). People of faith
are afforded the same degree of protection by the
Code of Ethics as gay men and lesbians.The Code
protects people from being discriminated against
on the basis of their sexual orientation, but it does
not permit progressives to discriminate against
people of faith.
Sometimes other ethical standards are cited. For
examplejones (1996) andVan Soest (1996) under-

scored the profession's commitment to oppressed
groups. Oppression, however, is directly correlated
with power (Wambach &Van Soest, 1997). In areas
where Christians lack access to power, they tend to
experience discrimination (Hunter, 1991;Jenkins,
2003; Marshall, 1998). Social worken operating
within a progressive worldview that reflects their
understanding of reality may overlook the power
that many gay men and lesbians possess.
Three common proxies that hold special signifi-
cance for social work—wealth, education, and class
status—suggest that people of faith may have less
access to power than gay men and lesbians.The
per capita income of gay men is more than three
times that of heterosexual individuals (Karger &
Stoesz, 1998), whereas evangelical Christians make
less than the national average (Hoge, 1996). Sixty
percent of gay men and lesbians are college gradu-
ates compared with 18 percent of heterosexual in-
dividuals (Karger & Stoesz, 1998), and only 13 per-
cent of evangelical Christians are college graduates
(Gallup & Castelli, 1989). Finally, given their level
of education (Schmalzbauer, 1993), the majority
of gay men and lesbians are members of the high-
status knowledge class, perhaps the most powerful
class because of its ability to construct the symbols
and select the frames through which the larger so-
ciety understands reality (Hunter, 1991; Lipset,
1979; Luepnitz, 1988). Conversely, orthodox be-
lievers are disproportionately found among the
working class and people who are poor, in con-
junction with other disadvantaged populations that
have been denied access to power (Davis &
Robinson, 1997). Although this does not neces-

sarily mean that people of faith experience more
oppression than gay men or lesbians, it suggests that
the relationships regarding sexual orientation, reli-
gion, and oppression are more complex than is of-
ten depicted in social work hterature.
IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL WORK
Although this article focused on the orthodox per-
spective, it is important to acknowledge that per-
ceptions of discrimination run in both directions.
Traditional Christians and gay men and lesbians
often believe that members of the other group are
hostile toward them. Some have noticed this di-
lemma and called for increased ideological coher-
ence in the profession based on the norms of a
progressive worldview (Jones, 1996; Van Soest,
1996).
Those who seek ideological purity oppose the
spirit of the Code of Ethics.The Code does not sup-
port advocates of theocracy who desire to exclude
gay men and lesbians on the basis of their sexual
orientation, nor does it support progressive advo-
cates of ideological coherence who wish to ex-
clude Christians and other people of faith on the
basis of their religion. Rather, social work is called
to inclusion and diversity. It calls on both groups,
people of faith and progressives, to respect each
other, learn from each other, and develop the skills
to provide strengths-based, culturally competent
services to each other. Practical steps must be taken
to achieve this end.
For example, language that gay men,lesbians, and
other progressives would consider derogatory or
offensive is typically avoided in social work litera-

ture. People of faith should be accorded the same
treatment, as is stipulated in the Code of Ethics (for
example, 1.12). For instance, calling a Hindu's de-
sire to have a son to perform the sacred rites owed
to ancestors a "prejudice" (Almeida, 1996), stating
that "Christian values are a cornerstone of racism"
(Kivel, 1996, p. 154), or "homophobic" (hooks,
2000), or stating that Islam "ascribes inferior status
to women" (Zastrow, 2000, p. 453) is offensive to
many, if not most, believers in these traditions. In
addition to simplifying complex issues, such char-
acterizations can reinforce stereotypes regarding
214
SocialWork VOLUME 50, N U M B E R 3 JULY 1005
people offaith and hinder the development of cul-
tural competence.
Diversity means that differences in perspectives
will exist. As Gambrill (2002) observed, if social
workers are to be educated rather than indoctri-
nated, they must be informed of controversies and
exposed to well-argued alternatives to views that
are popular in the profession. In situations in which
the narratives of cultural groups differ, efforts should
be made to present all sides of an issue in a bal-
anced, respectful manner that avoids straw-man
arguments.
An even-handed discussion of controvenial is-
sues that supports vulnerable participants is critical
to engendering a safe environment (Hyde & Ruth,
2002). Qualitative research su^ests that many tra-

ditional Christians have been effectively silenced
due to the ridicule they experience from peers for
expressing minority views in social work settings
(Ressler & Hodge, 1999; Ressier & Hodge, 2003).
As Hartman (1993) observed, "there is no better
way to subjugate human beings than to silence
them" (p. 245). Social workers must strive to create
an environment in which diverse cultural groups
feel safe expressing their understandings of reality.
Progressives, as well as people offaith. must learn to
tolerate the expression of views that differ from
their own without attempting to silence views with
which they disagree.
As the NASW Standards for Cultural Competence
in Social Work Practice (NASW, 2001) suggest,
progressives do not necessarily have to agree with
the values of people offaith and vice versa. Indeed,
in some cases, disagreement over values may be so
acute that a referral is appropriate.A lesbian practi-
tioner morally committed to egalitarian relation-
ships, for example, may decide a referral to another
practitioner is appropriate when working with a
Mormon couple that believes in complementary
marriages.To make such decisions, however, prac-
titioners must fully assimilate differing narratives
and then explore how value conflicts may affect
service provision.
To help ensure assimilation of subordinate nar-
ratives, efforts are needed to include the voices of
people offaith in social work literature. One con-
tent analysis of four opinion-forming journals
found that more than 35 articles addressed gay and
lesbian issues, which suggests that social workers
are being exposed to knowledge that can help them

provide services to these populations (Hodge,
2002b). Unfortunately, this same study found that
no articles addressed Christian issues. Another
content analysis of influential social work textbooks
found that much of the minimal material that
dealt with Muslims and evangelical Christians was
likely to engender biased understandings of both
groups (Hodge et al., in press). These results may
be explained, at least in part, by one study that
found that some social workers discriminated
against mock publication abstracts that contain tra-
ditional Christian values (Neumann et al., 1992).
Such biases should be addressed and steps taken to
ensure publication of content that instills an un-
derstanding ofthe diverse populations that com-
prise society.
The long-term goal is to work toward a more
inclusive, representative profession. As society be-
comes more diverse, social work must reflect the
nation's evolving demographics. Recruiting
underrepresented groups into the profession and
ensuring that they are allowed a voice can help
address the systemic power imbalances.A represen-
tative professional leadership is particularly impor-
tant because of the implicit messages sent by the
composition of such an influential and highly vis-
ible group (Van Soest & Garcia, 2003).This process
will not be easy. Those in positions of power may
resist the inclusion of groups that see the world
differently. The profession, however, will be enriched
from the benefits that diversity engenders.
Every worldview refracts reality. Engagement
with different penpectives, although often challeng-

ing, helps us understand the world around us in a
richer, more comprehensive manner. The ethical
principles enumerated in the Code of Ethics call us
to develop a safe place, a place where a gay man and
a traditional Catholic can sit down at the same table,
hear each others'stories, and learn from each other's
experiences. It calls us to build a table that not only
sits the people with whom we already agree, but
also makes room for Muslims, feminists, Hindus,
atheists. Latter Day Saints, liberal Protestants, and
other cultural groups that comprise our increas-
ingly diverse society. Working toward a multicul-
tural mosaic that respects and values differing
worldviews enables the profession to serve all popu-
lations. Indeed, social work may be able to develop
a new approach that models respect and under-
standing for different conceptions of truth. In an
increasingly volatile global village, it is a goal worth
striving for.
H O D G E / ^istemological Frameworks, Homosexuality, and
Religion 215
REFERENCES
ABC News. (2004). New details emerge in Matthew Shepard
murder. Retrieved March 31, 2005, from htcp://
abcnews.go.com/2020/princ?id=277685
Almeida, R. (1996). Hindu, Christian and Muslim
families. In M. McGoldrick, J, Giordano, & J, K.
Pearce (Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy (pp. 3 9 5 -
423). New York: Guaford Press.

Altareb.B.Y. (1996), Islamic spirituality in America:A
middle path to unity. Cotmseling and Vaiues. 4](),
29-38.
Berger, P. L. (1986). The capitalist revolution. New York:
Basic Books.
Bergin, A. E., & Jensen, J. P. (1990). Religiosity of
psychotherapists: A national survey. Psychotherapy,
27(1), 3-7.
Berkman, C. S., & Zinbei^, G. (1997). Homophobia and
heterosexism in social workers. Social Work, 42, 3 1 9 -
332.
Billups.A, (1999). Anti-Chriscian mood seen in Texas
killings. WashingtonTimes. Retrieved September 17,
1999, from http://www.washmnes.com/news/
news3,htm]
Bingham.J, (1999.April 27). Cassie Bernall died for faith.
Denver Post Online, Retrieved April 28, 1999, from
http://www. denverpost,com/news/sho tO427f.htm
Bolce, L., & De Maio. G. (1999). Religious outlook,
culture war politics, and antipathy toward Christian
fundamentahsts. PMWIV Opinion Quarterly, ^ i ( l ) , 29-61.
Braun, S. (1997. December 3), Answers to killings elusive,
town finds. Los Anj^eles Times, p. A l .
Bruce-Briggs, B. (Ed.). (1979). The new class. New
Brunswick, N]:Transaction Books.
Canda, E. R,, & Furman, L, D. (1999), Spiritual diversity in

social uK)rk practice. New York: Free Press.
Clydesdale.T.T. (1999).Toward understanding the role of
Bible beliefs and higher education in American
attitudes toward eradicating poverty, 1964-1996.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38{'i.),
103-118.
Cnaan, R.A.,Wineburg,R,j,,& Boddie, S.C.(1999). The
newer deal: Social work and religion in partnership. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Cohen. R. (1998, October 15). Legitimizing hate.
Washington Post, p. A23.
Coison, C , Diaz-Vilar,J., Dulles, A,, George, F, Hill, K.,
Land, R., Lewis, L., Miranda,J., Murphy.W.,
Neuhaus, R.J,, O'Connell, B., Schlossberg, H.,
Stafford, E,Weigel, G., & White,J. (1994. May).
Evangelicals and Catholics together. First Things, pp.
15-22.
Cornett, C. (1992).Toward a more comprehensive
personology: Integrating a spiritual perspective into
social work practice fOp-Ed], Social Work, 37, 1 0 1 -
102,
Daneshpour, M. (1998). Muslim families and family
therapy. JoMrfiij/ of Marital and Family Therapy, 24,
355-390.
Davidson, M, G, (1999). Religion and spirituality. In R.
M, Perez, K.A. Debord, & K.J. Biesche (Eds.).
Handbook ojcounseling and psychology with lesbian, gay,
and bisexual clients (pp. 409-433).Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.

Davis, N. J,, & Robinson, R.V. (1997), A war for
America's soul? The American religious landscape.
In R. H.Williams (Ed.), Cultural wars in American
politics (pp. 39-61), New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Dershowitz, A. M. (2002), Shouting fire: Civil liberties in a
turbulent age. Boston: Little, Brown.
de Souza, R, J. (2004).Thinly disguised totaliurianism.
FirstViings, 142,9-12.
Dobson, J. (1998), Family news from Dr. James Dobson (II),
Colorado Springs, C O : Focus on the Family.
Fenton,J,Y. (1988). Transplanting religious traditions. New
York: Praeger.
Fernandez, M . , & Lynch, A, (1998, June 4), Salvation cuts
s.f programs, San Francisco Chronicle, p. M.
French, D. A. (2002). Religious liberty on campus. Philadel-
phia: Foundation for Individual Rights in Educa-
tion.
Furman, L, D., Perry, D., & Goldale,T. (1996). Interaction
of Evangelical Christians and social workers in the
rural environment. Human Services in the Rural
Environment, f 9(3), 5-8.
Gallup, G.J.,& Castelli,J, (1989). The people's religion:
American faith in the 9O's. New York: Macmillan.
Gallup, G, J., si Lindsay, D. M. (1999). Surveying the
religiouf landscape. Harrisburg, PA: Morehousc.

Gambrill, E, D. (2002), Encouraging transparency.Jowmai
of Social Work Education, 38. 211-213.
Gartner,J.D. (1986). Antireligious prejudice in admissions
to doctoral programs in clinical psychology.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17, 4 7 3 -
475.
Gartner,J., Harmatz, M,, Hohmann, A., Larson, D,, &
Gartner,A.F. (1990).The effects of patient and
clinician ideology on clinical judgment: A study of
ideological countertransference. Psychotherapy, 27(1),
98-106.
Glenn, N. (1997), Closed hearts, closed minds:Vte textbook
story of marriage. New York: Institute for American
Values.
Goode, E. (1999, April 25).Terror in Littleton:The
motives. NewYork Times, p. A30.
Goodwin, R . , & Cramer, D. (1998). Attitudes towards
martial counseling and family law act (1996) in a
British Asian community. Counseling Psychology
Quarterly, 11, 4X7-425.
Gouldner, A.W. (1979), Viefuture of intellectuals end the rise
ofthe new class. New York: Seabury Press.
Hamilton,T. & Sharma, S, (1997).The violence and
oppression of power relations. Peace Review, 9,
555-561,
Hartman, A. (1993), Out ofthe closet: Revolution and
backlash [Editoriaij. SodalWork, 38, 245-246.360.

Haynes, D . T , & White, B. W. (1999), WiU the "real" social
work please stand up? A call to stand for professional
unity. Social Work, 44, 385-391.
Hodge, D, R. (2002a). Equally devout, but do they speak
the same language? Comparing the religious beliefs
and practices of social workers and the general
public. Fami7ie5 in Society, 83, 573-584.
Hodge. D, R. (2002b), Does social work oppress
Evangelical Christians? A "new class" analysis of
society and social work. Social Work, 47, 401-414,
Hodge, D. R. (2003). Differences in worldview between
social workers and people of faith. Families in Society,
S4,285-295,
Hodge, D, R,, Baughman. L. M.. & C:ummings,J. A. (in
press). Moving toward spiritual competency:
Deconstructing religious stereotypes and spiritual
prejudices in social work literature.JoHrMu/ of Social
Service Research.
Hoge, D . R . (1996). Religion in America:The demo-
graphics of belief and affiliation. In E. P. Shafranske
(Ed.), Religion and the clinical practice of psychology (pp.
21^1).Washington. DC: American PsycholcgicaJ
Association.
hooks, b. (2000). Homophobia in black communities. In
M, Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Castancda, H, W.
Hackman, M. L, Peters, & X, Zuniga (Eds.), Readings
for diversity and social justice (pp. 283-287). New York:
Roudedge.

2 l 6 SodalWork VOLUME 50, N U M B E R 3 JULY 2005
Hunter. J. D. (1991). Culture wars. New York; Basic
Books.
Hutchison. E. D. (1999). Dimensions of human behavior.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Hyde. C.A.,& R u t h . B . J . (2002). Multicuitural content
and class participation: Do students self-censor?
Journal of Social Work Education, 38, 241-256.
Jenkins. P. (2003). The new anti-Catholicism. NewYork:
Oxford University Press.
Jones. L. E. (1996). Should CSWE allow social work
programs in religious institutions an exemption
from the accreditation nondiscrimination standard
related to sexual orientation? Nol journal of Social
Work Education, 32, 302-310.
Kahel. M. (1999).Trouhled loner kills seven and self in
Texas church. Reuters, Retrieved September 17.
1999. from http://dailynews.yahoo.eom/h/nm/
199909I6/ts/crime_church_1.3.htnU
Kai^cr, H.J.,&: Stoesz. D. (')9S), American social welfare
policy (3rd ed.). NewYork: Longman.
Kelly. E . W . Aridi. A.. & Bakhtiar. L. (1996). Muslims in
the United States:An exploratory study of universal
and mental health values. Counseling i*"̂ Values, 40,
206-218.

Kemena, B. (1998. October 18). Forge a gay-straight
alliance. Denver Post, pp. J 2 . 3 .
Kerr. P. A. (2003). The framing of fundamentalist
Christians: Network television news, 1980-2000.
Journal of Media and Religion, 2, 2O.'^235.
Kivel, P. (1996). Uprooting racism: How white people can work
for racial Justice, Gabriola Island. British Columbia:
New Society.
Kuhn.T. S. (1970). Ttie stricture of scientific revolutions (2nd
e d ) . Chicago: University of Chicago.
Kurth,j. (1994).The real clash. National Interest, 31, 3-16.
Lambeth Conference. (1998). Section 1. Retrieved April
1, 2005. from http://www.anglicancommunion.org/
lambeth/1/sectlrpt.htnil
Lehr. E.. & Spilka, B. (1989). Religion in the introduc-
tory p s y c h o l i ^ textbook: A comparison of tbree
decades._/oHrHfl/_/i)f the Scientific Study ofRelij^ion, 28,
366-371.
Leo, J. (2003, January 13). Faith and culture: Playing the
bias card. Retrieved February 18, 2003. from h t t p : / /
www.usnews.toni/usnews/issue/030113/opinion/
13john.htm
Lindsey. D. B.. & H e e r e n J . (1992).Where the sacred
meets the profane: Religion in the comic pages.
Review of Relii^ious Research, 34{), 6.V77.
Lipset. S. M. (1979),The new class and the professoriate.
In B. Bruce-Briggs (Ed.), The new clasi (pp. 67-89).

New Brunswick, NJ:Transattion Books.
Luepnitz, D.A. (1988). The family interpreted, NewYork:
Basic Books.
Marshall. P (1998). Persecution of Christians in the
contemporary world. International Bulletin of
Missionary Research, 22, 2 - 8 .
Martin, W. (1996). With God on our side, NewYork:
Broadway Books.
Matas. R. (1997. September 13).Trinity Western wins
court case. The Globe and Mail, Retrieved June 13.
1999, from http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/lega]/
trinity.htnil
Maton. K. 1. & Salem. D.A. (1995). Organizational
characteristics of empowering community settings:
A multiple case study approacb. American Journal of
CJommunity Practice, 23, 631-656.
Maxwell, B. (1998. August 9). Intolerance as policy. S(.
Petersburg Times, pp. D 1 , D6.
McAdams,J, (1987).Testing tbe theory oftbe new class.
Sociological Quarterly, 2«(1). 2.3-49.
Melton.J. G. (1991). The churches speak on homosexuality.
NewYork: Gale Research.
Miller. D. E. (1998). Postdenominational Christianity in
the twenty-first century. In A.W. Heston (Ed.), The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Sciences (Vol. 558, pp, 196~210),Thousand Oaks. CA:
Sage Periodicals Press.

National Association of Social Workers. (2000), Code of
ethics of the National Association of Social Workers.
Retrieved January 20, 2000, from www.naswdc.org/
Code/ethics, htm
National Association of Social Workers. (2001). NASW
standards for cultural competence in social iwrk practice.
Retrieved September 24. 2003, from http://www.
social workers.org/sections/credentials/cultural.
comp.asp
Neumann.J. K., Harvill. L. M., & Callahan. M. (1995).
Impact of humanistic, liberal Christian, and
Evangelical Christian values on the self-reported
opinions of radiologists and psychiatrists. JoHfUd/ of
Psychology and Theology, 23. 198-207.
Neumann.J. k . . & Leppien, FV (1997). Impact of
religious values and medical specialty on profes-
sional inservice decisions. Jowmui of Psychology and
Theology, 25, Ai7~44S,
Neumann,J. K..Thompson.W..&WooIley.T.W. (1992).
Evangelical vs. liberal Christianity:The influence of
values on the nonclinical professional decisions of
social workers.^OTfia/ of Psychology """^ Christianity,
11(1),51-67.
Newman, B. S., Dannenfeiser, P. L., & Bt-nishek, L. (2002),
Assessing beginning social work and counseling
students' acceptance of lesbians and gay men. Joumai
of Social Work Education. 38. 273-288.
New York Times News Service. (1997, December 3).
Motive in scbool killings a puzzle as Kentucky town

deals witb loss. Commercial Appeal Memphis,TN,
p.A2.
Oppevral. D. (1985). Religion in American textbooks: A
review of the literature. NewYork: NewYork
University, Department of Psychology.
Parr, R. G. (1996). Should CSWE allow social work
programs in religious institutions an exemption
from the accreditation nondiscrimination standard
related to sexual orientation?Yes! Jcimiu/ of Social
Work Education. 3, 297-301.311-313.
Pearlstem, S. (2000, April 25}. Canada court to decide if
Evangelical school can train teachers. Retrieved
December 8,2003. from http://www.washingtonpost.
com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7551-2000Apr24?language=
printer
Pellebon. D, A, (2000). Perceptions of conflict between
Cbristianity and social work: A preliminary study.
Social Work and Christianity. 27(1). 30-39.
Picano. F (1998, October 18). Response to latest hate
crime shouldn't surprise anyone. Saw Francisco
Examiner, p. D5.
Rabey, S. (2000. February 7).Videos of hate. Christianity
Today, p. 21.
Redding. R. E. (2001). Sociopolitical diversity in
psychology./4mprid»i Psychologist. 56, 205—215.
Ressler. L. E. (1998). When social work and Christianity
conflict. In B, Hugen (Ed,), Christianity and social
work (pp. 165-186), Botsford, C T : North American

Association of Christians in SocialWork.
Ressler, L.E..& Hodge. D. R. {1999. March 10-13).
Religious discrimination in social u^>rk:An exploratory
study. Paper presented at Council on Social Work
Education Annual Program Meeting, San Francisco.
Ressler, L. E..& Hodge. D. R. (2003). Silenced voices:
Social work and tbe oppression of conservative
narratives. Social Thought, 22(), 125-142.
H O D G E / EpistemohffcalFrameworks, Homosexuali^
aruiReUffon ZI7
Rich. F, (1998. October 24). Loving him to death. New
YorkTimes, p. A17,
Richards, P. S., & Bergin. A. E. (1997). A spiritual strategy.
Washington, D C : American Psychoiogical Associa-
tion,
Richards, P.S..& Bergin.A, E. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of
psychotherapy and religious diversity. 'Washington, D C :
American Psychological Association,
Rothman, S., Lichter, S, R , & Nevitte, N . (2005). Politics
and the professional advancement among college
faculty. Forum, 3{), 1-16,
Scheer, R, (1998, October 13). Hate rhetoric opened
door for a murder. Los Angeles Times, p, B7,
SchmalzbauerJ. (1993), Evangelicals in the new class:
Class versus subcuitural predictors of ideology.

Joumal for the Scientijic Study of Religion, 32, 330-342.
Sewall, G.T, (1995), Religion in the classroom: What the
textbooks tell us. NewYork: American Textbook
Council.
Sheridan, M,J,,Wilmer, C, M., & Atcheson, L. (1994).
Inclusion of content on religion and spirituality in
the social work curriculum: A study of faculty
views.Journal ofSodal Work Education, 30, 363-376,
Skill, T , & Robinson.J, D, (1994).The image of Christian
leaders in fictional television programs. Sociology of
Religion, 55(1), 75-84.
Smith, C, (1998). American Evangelicalism. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Smith, C. (2000). Christian America? Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Smith, C-(2003). The secular ret'olution. Berkeley:
University of California Press,
Stark, R . {200?>). For the glory of God: How monotheism led
to reformations, science, uHtch-hunts, and the end of
slavery. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
Szelenyi, 1., & Martin, B, (1991),The three waves of new
ciass theories and a postscript. In C. C. Lemert (Ed.),
Intellectuals and politics (pp. 19-30), London: Sage
Puhlications.
Talbot, M, (2(X)0, February 27). A mighty fortress. New
YorkTimes Magazine, 3 4 - 4 1 , 6 6 - 6 8 , 8 4 - 8 5 ,

United Nations. (1948/1998), Universal declaration of
human rights. Retrieved April 4,1999, from h t t p : / /
wwTJv. o r g / O ve rv i ew / r igh ts, h tn ll
Van Soest, D, (1996). T h e influence of competing
ideologies about homosexuality on nondiscrimina-
tion policy: Implications for social work education.
Journal of Social Work Education, 32, 53-64,
'Van Soest, D., Canon, R,, & Grant, D. (2000), Using
interactive website to educate about cultural
diversity and societal oppression. JoMmj/ of Social
Work Education, 36, 463-479.
Van Soest, D., & Garcia, B. (2003), Diversity education for
social justice: Mastering teaching skilb. Alexandria ,VA:
Council on SocialWork Education.
vanWormer, K. (1997). Social uxlfare. Chicago: Nelson-
Hall.
Vitz, P. C, (1985), Religion and traditional values in public
school textbooks:An empirical srwi/y,Washington, DC:
National Institute of Edtication,
Vitz, P. C. (1998), The course of true hve: Marriage in high
school textbooks. NewYork: Institute for American
Values.
Wambach, K. G,, &Van Soest, D. (1997), Oppression. In
R, L.Edwards (Ed.-in-Chie^, Encyclopedia of social
twrk (19th ed., 1997 Suppl,, pp. 243-252).'Washing-
ton, DC: NASW Press.
Woodberry, R . D,, & Smith, C. S. (1998), Fundamentalism
et al: Conservative Protestants in America. Annual

Review of Sociology, 24, 25-56.
Young, M. E. (1999).Why? The Dallas morning news.
Retrieved September 17, 1999, fix>m http://www.
dallasnews.com/metro/churchshooting/
0917churchlmain.htm
Zastrow, C. (2000). Introduction to social work and social
welfare (7th ed,), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
David R. Hodge, PhD, MSf^ is a postdoctoral fellow,
University of Pennsylvania, Program for Research on
Religion and Urban Civil Society, Leadership Hall, 3814
Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
Original manuscript received February 7, ZOOO
Final reviiion received January 2. 2001
Accepted April 23, 2001
"A bold and passionate
autobiographical accoLint
of a white mother raising
her adopted black daughter/
—^Arlie Hochschild
Weaving a Family
Untangling Race
and Moption
Barbara Katz
Rothman

"A first hand,
inrimate portrayal of
multiracial tamily life."
—-Professor Howard
Altstein, University of
Maryland School of
Social Work$26.95
Just published
in hardcover
2 l 8 SocialWork VOLUME 50, N U M B E R J JULY 1005
Christianity, Islam and Modernity: Explaining
Prohibitions on Homosexuality in UN
Member States
Achim Hildebrandt
University of Stuttgart
This article investigates why homosexual acts are still banned in
77 countries. It extends the current state of research
by focusing on the religious roots of these bans. Previous
studies have analysed the influence of Islam on prohibitions
of same-sex sexual acts but produced contradictory findings.
Moreover, the influence of the second world religion

that condemns homosexuality in its scriptures – Christianity –
has largely been ignored. This article shows that
countries with a Muslim tradition tend to criminalise both male
and female homosexuality, while predominantly
Christian societies tend to prohibit only sex between men.
However, the influence of the Christian tradition depends
on the modernity of a country: the more modern a Christian
society, the less influence traditional Christian sexual
ethics have on legislation governing same-sex sexuality. This is
particularly true for countries with a Protestant
tradition.
Keywords: LGBT politics; social movement policy success;
morality policies
The legal status of gays and lesbians varies enormously around
the world. While some
countries have established same-sex marriage or civil unions,
many others still criminalise
same-sex activity between consenting adults. Their laws usually
stipulate multi-year prison
sentences; in Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen,
homosexual acts may even
be subject to the death penalty (Bruce-Jones and Itaborahy,
2011, p. 10). This article raises
the question of why these countries still prosecute
homosexuality, while other countries
lifted their bans decades or even centuries ago. Specifically, it
investigates whether the law
prohibits consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex
in private. The abolition of
such laws does not mean an end to social discrimination or
violence – often not even to
persecution by the police.1 Lifting the bans, however, is a first
important step towards legal
equality of gays and lesbians. These bans represent an ever-

present threat of blackmail and
public disgrace (Weeks, 1990, p. 11); they drive gays and
lesbians out of public life and
prevent them from demanding more far-reaching reforms such
as the outlawing of
discrimination in the workplace and the housing market.
There is a growing body of cross-country comparative research
on LGBT (Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) politics.2 Initially, this
research consisted mainly of detailed
studies of individual countries in historical analyses (e.g.
Berco, 2002; Rydström, 2000;
Rydström and Mustola, 2007; Weeks, 1990) and edited volumes
(e.g. Adam et al., 1999;
Tremblay et al., 2011; West and Green, 1997). In the past few
years, an increasing number
of comparative case studies have been published that frequently
analyse countries and
regions that share similar cultures, such as Scandinavia
(Rydström, 2011), the US and
Canada (Rayside, 2008; Smith, 2008), or Latin America
(Pierceson et al., 2010; 2012).3
bs_bs_banner
doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.12137
P O L I T I C A L S T U D I E S : 2 0 1 5 V O L 6 3 , 8 5 2 – 8
6 9
© 2014 The Author. Political Studies © 2014 Political Studies
Association
http://www.politicalstudies.org

There have also been quantitative analyses based on a large
number of cases (Asal et al.,
2013; Frank et al., 2010; Frank and McEneaney, 1999).4 These
last three studies represent
the current state of international quantitative research on the
criminalisation and
decriminalisation of homosexuality and form the reference point
for this analysis.
The present article will extend this research by taking a closer
look at the religious roots
of bans on homosexuality. Previous studies have analysed the
influence of Islam on laws
prohibiting homosexuality but have produced contradictory
findings. Moreover, the
influence of the second world religion that condemns
homosexuality in its scriptures –
Christianity – has largely been ignored in previous quantitative
research, with the excep-
tion of one study that focuses exclusively on just one
denomination: Catholicism. This lack
of attention to Christian tradition is surprising, considering the
fact that it was the Christian
colonial masters who introduced the prohibition of same-sex
acts around the world. A
further issue that has not been sufficiently investigated is the
extent to which religious
norms lose significance as modernisation progresses.
The article is organised as follows. The next section summarises
the main results of the
three quantitative analyses mentioned above and outlines how
this article extends this
research. The article then goes on to discuss how the Christian
and Muslim traditions affect

English 101 Essay #3 Ad Analysis Throughout this .docx

English 101 Essay #3 Ad Analysis Throughout this .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to English 101 Essay #3 Ad Analysis Throughout this .docx

Similar to English 101 Essay #3 Ad Analysis Throughout this .docx (20)

More from SALU18

More from SALU18 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

English 101 Essay #3 Ad Analysis Throughout this .docx