IÂ’ve long been on record condemning Fred Phelps and his malignant klan for their disgusting activities. Their protests of funerals of homosexuals and servicemembers are a disgrace, though I am thankful that our nationÂ’s laws and constitution protect the right of the folks from Westboro Baptist Church to spew their warped religious faith.
That said, there have been three assaults on the religious beliefs of some Americans by homosexual activists over the last week or so that are equally deserving of condemnation.
Let’s consider the first – the assaults endured by the Mormon faith in the wake of the Proposition 8 victory. Not content to accept the voice of the people on the issue, gay rights groups have targeted the LDS Church for attack and special punishment – with one writer for Huffington Post going so far as to demand that the Mormons be stripped of their recognition as a religious group despite the fact that they have remained fully within the (arguably unconstitutional) restrictions imposed upon political activities by religious organizations. Indeed, one prominent celebrity opined in a television interview that Mormons are not good Americans because they had acted to write their values into law – not noting the implicitly hypocritical nature of his argument that only those who agreed with him should be permitted to have their values so established. I guess they feel that appealing to religious bigotry in an effort to promote their own cause (not to mention racial bigotry, like that of Roseanne Barr) is a small price to pay for overturning the will of the people as has now been expressed by religiously and racially diverse voters in 30 of the 50 states.
But that is not all we have seen in recent weeks. Not content to allow religious believers to freely practice their religion unmolested, a church in Dallas was picketed this past weekend because the pastorÂ’s sermon was to deal with the negative treatment of homosexuality in the Scriptures.
When one boils down the argument of the protesters, it is essentially that not only may Christians not seek to have their moral values on the issue written into law, but they also may not preach them from the pulpit, teach them in a Sunday School class, or in any way disseminate them. I’d have to argue that theirs is a pretty crabbed view of religious tolerance, given that they were doing nothing less than protesting a religious service. I’m curious – how did their picketing in any way, shape, or form differ from the sort of thing done by Fred Phelps and his followers? Where, pray tell, is the condemnation of this event?
Now imagine, if you will, that Phelps’ followers were to invade a meeting being conducted by a gay rights group – or the services of a congregation of the Metropolitan Community Church. Wouldn’t there have been arrests? Charges filed regarding hate crimes and civil rights violations? National media coverage of the outrageous evil they had committed? Interestingly enough, not one major media outlet in the Lansing area even bothered to report the matter. So much for objective journalism.
And yet when Christians and other believers argue that the efforts of the gay rights movement are a threat to their religious freedom, they are told that they have nothing to worry about. Who are we to believe – the liberal gay rights activists or our own eyes?
1
Do Christians have to go through an "Irony-ectomey"? Intolerant gays?? OK so it's both tolerant and a "right" for Christians to call gays abominations, and worse, because of their 2,000 year book's god said so? It's both tolerant and a right for Christians to use the political system to force their bigoted views on all of us? Just because the majority of California's voters are bigoted makes it all OK? The despicable Phelps celebrates the death of good Americans, calls for the death of "fags" and spews hatred all over everyone. Of course he's not a "True Christian TM". In any event, he is allowed to carry on with his evil protests. When the majority is morally wrong, then is shouldn't be "majority rules". And it is morally wrong to deny basic humans rights of a class of people, any class of people. Except for those that went into the church, all the rest of these protesters had every right to point out such Christian hypocrisy.
Posted by: Red Mann at Thu Nov 13 07:38:00 2008 (s6SDG)
2
In other words, you don't really believe in democracy, religious freedom, or freedom of speech.
Thank you for clarifying.
By the way -- there is no human right to gay marriage, or to prevent the free exercise of religion in the name of political protest. You have no place talking about human rights until such time as you begin respecting the rights of Christians.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Nov 13 13:28:34 2008 (oY7pe)
3
Now whether someone is gay, lesbian, christian, islam, straight, athiest, it is morally wrong to deny basic humans rights of a class of people which is true, but it is also forgotten that everyone I mean every individual person has a right to choose, and to except, what they want and the battle here is christianity Vs. homosexuality. now the gay rights activist(people)want everyone here in the U.S.A to EXEPT not TOLERATE their views, belief there way of life and their choice, which is fine and dandy exept for the fact that they want to take away other people(christians) views, belief, there way of life and choice, they don't want EXEPT or TOLERATE them.
People are People and as was stated before it is morally wrong to deny basic humans rights of a class of people which also means we have a right to fight for what we want for, believe what we want to believe to say and to be as hyprocritcal as we choose, as for this "Except for those that went into the church, all the rest of these protesters had every right to point out such Christian hypocrisy", No they did not they're just as bad because they show their own hypocrisy and intolerance towards christians(people)and their beliefs views and rights,If and when christians do the same thing to homosexuals(people)show their hypocrisy and intolerance towards homosexuals(people). Just as homosexuals (people)have the right to fight for what they believe so do the christians(people)have the right to fight what they believe.
Everyone wants christians(people)to stop putting their views and beliefs on everybody right,why?. Why should they stop,everybody else is putting their views where ever they want sounds like hypocrisy to me.You can't talk about morality here saying "nd it is morally wrong to deny basic humans rights of a class of people any class of people" and beforehand say When the majority is morally wrong, then is shouldn't be "majority rules". that is contradiction and hypocrisy at its best.Here in the U.S.A we fight for what we belive until there is no fighting left there is the majority not immoral people it cant be that way ,But as long as there is controversy this pushing ,and shoving,and hurting each other crap is not going to work you force people to believe and exept and fight for what you believe in, But you do have a right speak and explain what you believe in,fight for what you believe in,but remeber there will always be someone to accept or oppose for what your fighting for and it is their right.I am christian (person) and I love all Homosexuals(people)gay,lesbian,bi,tran, as does GOD and if you so choose not to believe in god thats your choice, God is still gonna love you regardless we never said we were perfect we are not some of us know and understand the word of god and some thtget the word of god distorted the.christians that hate homosexuals ,white ,black,and brown people, are misguided the word of god does not say to hate anyone,It says to love your neighbor as yourself.
people we love you ,sincerily,but please stop forgetting that we are people too,just because 1 or 2 or 3 christians or groups treated you badly gives you the right to turn around and treat ALL christians badly,we are people we are al not the same we all understand differently from each other violence on either side wont work.And meant accepted not exepted.
Posted by: mike at Thu Nov 13 14:45:57 2008 (gh5XR)
4
“In other words, you don't really believe in democracy, religious freedom, or freedom of speech.”
Nice strawman. Who said I don’t believe in democracy? Democracy is not mob rule, that’s why we have a federalist system. The majority claimed blacks didn’t have the same rights as whites – Jim Crow, whites only here, whites only there, lynchings – all in my lifetime. The majority (men) didn’t think women should vote and on and on. BTW most of those who supported this bigotry used the bible as their authority. Yes, I believe people have a right to practice their religion as they see fit, they just don’t have any right to extend their beliefs to anyone else. Apparently you don’t think gays should have freedom of speech just because they don’t like Christians calling them abominations and telling them they’ll burn in hell.
Freedom of religious expression does not mean that your beliefs and your statements are exempt from criticism. Just because you say it as a Christian doesnÂ’t make it true, or right. History is replete with cruel and vicious behavior of those proclaiming they are following the wishes of their god. DonÂ’t even bother with the Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot references; they have all been debunked over and over. I personally believe all religion is based on delusional thinking, but thatÂ’s my opinion and IÂ’m as entitled to it as you are to yours. But if preachers stood in their pulpits and called any other class of people abominations, all hell would break lose; except for atheists, of course. Condemning and denigrating atheists is perfectly OK, right?
There is no human right to any kind of marriage, itÂ’s a cultural convention which Christians in this country have misappropriated as belong to them and them alone. The only real argument I have ever seen against gays is purely religious. Gay marriage will not destroy hetero marriage; thatÂ’s pure foolishness. Gays do not want to steal your children. Gays want to be just like everyone else, to be with the one they love and have all the legal rights that append thereto.
Posted by: Red Mann at Thu Nov 13 15:32:33 2008 (s6SDG)
5
Why so much anger towards christians you mention "all religion is based on delusional thinking" and yes you are entitled to it yet you focus so much on christianity why do you hate christians so much because of our beliefs?
You say that "Yes, I believe people have a right to practice their religion as they see fit, they just donÂ’t have any right to extend their beliefs to anyone else."Why not you're doing the samething in stating that we don't have the right to extend our beliefs to anyone else of course we do just as you have the right to EXPRESS yours not FORCE yours in the same way."Gays want to be just like everyone else",Gays are like every one else but just like eveyone else they are expected to stand up for what they believe in and THAT IS THEIR RIGHT as is OURS.You can be as ANGRY as you want but it is not going to help you in what you' re standing up for.Christians are not the only ones against Gay marraige.And you know that.
Posted by: mike at Thu Nov 13 16:36:38 2008 (gh5XR)
6
Yes, infiltration and disruption of a religious service is vile and anti-American. Vandalism is a crime and should be punished to the full extent of the law, and then some.
But people peacefully protesting outside a church as in the Dallas case? That's legal, constructive, and perfectly reasonable. Mr. Jeffress has as much right to preach that "Gay is not OK" as he would (hypothetically) "Jews are inhuman scum" -- that's his inalienable First Amendment right. But just as a white supremacist will endure public criticism for sharing his hateful views, so too can (and should) a religious group be peacefully protested for verbally attacking sexual minorities.
Posted by: Shih Tzu at Fri Nov 14 07:46:05 2008 (WpgBp)
7
Once again I hear, “why do you hate Christians so much?” Why not other religions too? That’s really a tu quoque fallacy, but the reason is because I live in the US and Christians are the ones I most encounter. If I say I don’t believe in your beliefs’, I am not trying to force my beliefs on you, I’m just saying I don’t believe yours. Using the government, as in Prop 8, IS forcing one group’s beliefs on others. Once again, the only support for discriminating against gays is religious. Yes, many (most?) other religions are bigoted against gays; some, like Islam, much more violently. That does not make Christian bigotry any less of a problem (see tu quoque fallacy).
One of the reasons I may sound a tad angry is because Christians in this country assume that they have the special right to say whatever they want and do whatever they want, because this is a “Christian Nation”. Sorry, you don’t have any special exemption from criticism and the US is not, and never was, a “Christian Nation”. Religious freedom requires that I respect your right to believe in your religion, it does not mean that I must respect your beliefs (and I do not). All religions require believers to accept their guiding precepts without any evidence at all, and I’m talking about actual, empirical evidence. This is why I say they require delusional thinking. There is as much evidence for the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster as for any religion’s god(s). This is the real reason why your set of beliefs does not trump any others. What I’m standing up for is human right for all humans and freedom from religion.
Posted by: Red Mann at Sat Nov 15 02:20:32 2008 (s6SDG)
8
Your argument about the illegitimacy of Prop 8 based upon the argument that it imposes someone's beliefs/values upon you. After all, every law does that -- whether it is a zoning regulation, an ordinance banning smoking in restaurants, or a statute forbidding discrimination based upon race, sex, and religion. The beliefs and values of some majority, transient or long-enduring, override those of the minority. In the absence of some Constitutional prohibition upon such legislation, such an imposition is legitimate.
Interestingly enough, your argument is the very twin of the one you claim to be illegitimate. Your position is that YOUR values must be written into law, and that even a majority that disagrees with you has no right to overturn such laws. There is no place in our system of government for such arrogance, which is antithetical to the republican/democratic values of our Constitution. Indeed, what you propose is that religious believers -- a majority -- do not have the right to see their values and beliefs respected by or written into law.
By the way, the notion that there is a human right to "freedom from religion" is absurd. For that to be carried off, religious believers would need to be deprived of their right to speak, write, or worship publicly, as well as the right to participate in the governance of the nation. In other words, their most essential human rights would have to be negated. Hell, you might even need to set up special camps where they could be concentrated, away from the rest of civilization -- until, of course, you could find some Final Solution to the Religious Problem.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Nov 17 13:03:13 2008 (oY7pe)
9
Hey Red Mann,
Nothing makes me more disgusted than when gay activists compare their 'struggle' with the civil rights movement.
The last time I checked, there were no 'gay' and 'straight' seperate restrooms or drinking fountains, no resturants a homosexual can't walk into, no neighborhoods they can't reside in or buy property, no restrictions on where they may work or their right to vote.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Even the California State Supreme court admitted when they legalized same sex marriage that due to California's domestic partnership laws, there were virtually no rights that a heterosexual couple had that a homosexual couple did not.
What you want is to legitimize your choice of lifestyle and to create a new victim class, with all the attendant federal programs and a cushy lifestyle for a select group of 'activists'.
And of course, to bully into submission anyone who doesn't agree with you.
ff
Posted by: Freedom Fighter at Wed Nov 19 07:16:23 2008 (uFDz9)
10
In the absence of some Constitutional prohibition upon such legislation, such an imposition is legitimate.
Interestingly enough, your argument is the very twin of the one you claim to be illegitimate.
Posted by: Lakeshia Mcadams at Tue Aug 21 00:57:09 2012 (vEFmR)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
