Feminism and Figure Skating

[ImaginaryPogue]

How did talking about feminism, which was merely as the way to kill the spare time in endless waiting for the next skating event coming up, turn into murder, crime, and hate crime?! Yes, I was the one who brought up Dr. Dobson. Merely using one of his books on education about young children which was the only book and all I've known about him. I have no habit of searching and studying the author's background and political positions in order to determine whether I like his book or not. Then it turned all on Dobson and his political positions which are totally unrelated to mine and my original meaning, and then the murder, the crime, the hate crime law... What's next? Somehow the conservatives have been linked to the extremes. Should there be added a specific group of people called conservatives into hate crime law? It is really scary. I'm out of here.

I want to respond to this, regardless of whether you respond.

1. Lets replace James Dobson with someone more famously vile - say Idi Amin. Now, one's perspective of Idi Amin will challenge anything he does. So if he wrote a book on how to raise your sons, my knowledge that he was a polygamist who was responsible for ethnic persecution; that one of his own sons was convicted for his part in a death of a man, and other aspects of his life would lead me to be leary of anything he wrote. Jcoates, tonichelle, Spun Silver, doris, etc - they're all bringing in their prior perspective on James Dobson. As are you. Of course, as you mention, you had no prior perspective on him because you knew nothing else about him (and truthfully, neither did I). If I would be honest, the fact that his book his classified as "Christian Living" on amazon.com would be enough to steer me away (that and the book description).

2. You don't need to study his political positions to decide if you like his book. The fact is, his political positions would LIKELY inform his book. Toned down, perhaps, but still there. If you're okay with that, then you're okay with that.

3. Your question: should there be a specific group called conservatives into hate crime law? I don't think so, but mainly because I'm not convinced that they're a minority or in need of protection. Do you disagree?

 

[dorispulaski]

It's tricky. A democracy must do two things: provide for rule of the majority and vigorously protect the rights of minorities. The situation is not symmetric. The powerful majority does not require special protections, but vulnerable minorities do.

I have never heard a preacher get up in the pulpit and say, "God hates all straight people, and so should you."

I have never seen a web site that proclaims, "The nefarious Gentiles have confiscated all the world's wealth and deserve to be put to death."

People do not shout at white Americans, "Go back to Western Europe where you belong!"

There are a few American Indian activists who have said similar things in the past.

As to Dobson, I would not have thoroughly investigated his writings and his website, if his group hadn't urged a young evangelical Christian woman to, as a matter of policy, extort $500 from her father's business connections, using the threat of "All Christian and good people will respond to the power of your prayers" and will pony up the money (subtext, if they want to keep your father's business..). In fact, Jennifer included a copy of the Dobson group's letter to her with her personal plea to us, so I know just what they said. If the group were the mob, this kind of activity would be called "A Protection Racket"

IMO, they were actually corrupting a young woman for their personal gain. I couldn't disapprove of them more. They are appalling.

In fact, they are skating very close to being a criminal enterprise, IMO-which is why Focus on Family had to split from the political PAC it was associated with. It specializes in skimming close to the laws.

Bluebonnet, I do not think you approve of everything Dobson or his minions wrote or did, just because you liked a book of his. However, I would be remiss if I didn't tell you what he was, based on what happened to me. Because IMO he isn't Christian, he isn't moral, and as jcoates says, he's a snake oil salesman. When you buy a book from him, you are funding his activities.

How could I not warn you?

I can't believe his disdain for women and his hatred of gays wouldn't inform any childcare advice he gave about bringing up girls and young gay people in a way that wouldn't be good for those children.

I'm sorry if I interrupted the flow of the thread, but I think it's important when the words of someone who makes a buck by advocating a particular position is cited as an authority, that people realize that their history, motives, methods, and character will be open to question. The same will be true of people who make a buck by holding the opposite position.

 

[jcoates]

Mathman is correct. There is inherent power in majority status. But as the constitution is written, that power is not unlimited. There are minority protections written into it protecting freedom of religion, assembly, speech, and the press. While those protections apply to the majority, they also are intended to ensure that those in the minority have voice in decisions that affect them. Other explicit minority protections or expansions of rights have also been added over the last couple of centuries: the 13th (freeing slaves), 14th (extending citizenship and voting rights to natural born individuals including former slaves), 19th (extending voting rights to women), 23rd (extending the right to vote in federal elections to the citizens of Washington, DC), 24th (eliminating poll taxes at the voting booth), and 26th (lowering voting age to 18 to bring it in line with draft age).

Still the most important power is the power to make the rules. Rules written exclusively with the majority's interests in mind tend to harm minorities, whether that is the intent or not. Many times that occurs simply because the minority was not taken into account. It's like a glitch developing in a computer program due to increased use for which it was not prepared or intended. A ghost in the machine as it were. The problem is not necessarily intended, but it exists nevertheless. So a solution must be crafted to address it or the whole thing must be thrown out and replaced. Therefore, explicit protections end up being written with the intent of pulling those minorities into the process and more fulling integrating them as full and equal members of society like the amendments I mentioned in the paragraph above.

All of those expansions are tied to voting. Voting is the most powerful weapon a person can have not just because you get to help pick winners and losers of elections, but because having that right gives you status under the law. Every other right we have extends from our right to vote which makes our citizenship fully inclusive.

Doris, as for your question about hate crimes, you partially answered it later in your post. Motivation is difficult to prove unless there is sufficient and explicit evidence as part of the the crime scene (e.g a burning cross in someone's yard). The cross example is important because it is an ingrained symbol of violent racial intimidation. Everyone knows what it means and the fear it's meant to instill. There is no ambiguity associated with it. Not every hate crime is that clearly defined. Most have lots of other extenuating circumstances that can muddy the legal waters and can be used by defense attorneys to inject doubt about the nature of the motivation to commit the crime. Ironically, what ends up sinking some hate crimes prosecutions is that the burden of proof is so high that if the defense can call the hate crime charge into doubt, then they can reduce the penalty or even get off even if they admit to having committed the act. Mathman's example of the young Chinese man mistaken as Japanese is a perfect example of that. The perpetrators essentially argued that yes they did the deed, but it was not motivated by hatred for Chinese people, but was essentially a case of mistaken identity. Yes that mistaken identity was another racial group, but legally that is a separate issue. So once they succeeded in taking down racial hatred as a motivation, they had essentially won the case.

Another case, currently pending, is one I posted a link about earlier in the thread. It happened last year when a black man in Mississippi was leaving a motel and heading to his car was severely beaten by a group of drunk white teens who were parked there. After they finished they left him on the ground and went back to their two trucks. He got up and started to stagger away seeking help, when the teens turned on their vehicles one of them proceeded to run him down killing him. The driver reportedly used racist language in bragging to his companions about committing the act and showed no remorse in doing so. He also allegedly went out that night in the first place with the intent of finding blacks to harass. The state is pursuing a hate crimes charge, but since there was not audio evidence of him saying these things, witness testimony will be critical in establishing a hate crimes charge. But since those witnesses were involved in committing the act, the defense could argue that their testimony is motivated by a desire to deflect criminal attention on themselves.

Another tool prosecutors are beginning to explore is a suspect's online activity. That can be valuable in establishing a profile of the person, their motivations and their contacts with similar minded people.

As for claims that there are few legal protections for religious groups in an increasingly secular world, the Supreme Court just threw cold water on that idea today. They issued a unanimous ruling (a rarity in controversial cases these days) as I was typing this post stating that employees can not sue religious organizations for discrimination in hiring and firing for positions meant to advocated the faith positions of that church. Specifically, the plaintiff in the case was a woman who taught a faith based subject at a religious school. She ended up being diagnosed with narcolepsy and having to take time off for her condition. When she had recovered, she attempted to return to work. She was told that her position had been filled and there were no available vacancies for her. She threatened to sue for discrimination under the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (one of the expansions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). She was subsequently fired. She then pursued assistance from the state which sued on her behalf for both discrimination and retaliation based on her disability. The court's ruling today states that religious institutions have the right to discriminate in hiring or employment issues involving those tasked with transmitting its message. They acknowledge the need to protect against discrimination, but say it must be balanced with religious freedom to choose who communicates the churches teaching. Note this appears to be a narrow ruling. On its face it does not seem that it would apply to discrimination claims brought by a janitor or a math teacher. Also, the plaintiff was not fired for any specific belief she held as far as I can tell. Simply because her health status interrupted her ability to complete her job, leading to replacement. The ruling appears to narrowly enforce the church's right to made hiring and firing decisions which may be discriminatory in a secular setting for positions meant to disseminate or advocate its point of view. This goes back to Mathman's point about the balance between the power of the majority and protections for the minority.

 

[Spun Silver]

It's tricky. A democracy must do two things: provide for rule of the majority and vigorously protect the rights of minorities. The situation is not symmetric. The powerful majority does not require special protections, but vulnerable minorities do.

I have never heard a preacher get up in the pulpit and say, "God hates all straight people, and so should you."

I have never seen a web site that proclaims, "The nefarious Gentiles have confiscated all the world's wealth and deserve to be put to death."

People do not shout at white Americans, "Go back to Western Europe where you belong!"

MM, who preaches that God hates gay people except for that one nasty little (40 members, acc. to Wikipedia) "Baptist" congregation discussed above? That's simply not a Christian view!

I don't know if I could find any "God hates straight" sermons any more than I could "God hates gay" ones, but I don't have to go any farther than the Rev. Drs. Jeremiah Wright or James Cone to find anti-American, anti-white preaching. I don't have to go further than the closest college campus or Muslim neighborhood to find anti-Semitism cloaked in anti-Zionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_boycotts_of_Israel), or the New York Times to find anti-Christian bias cloaked in a gay rights agenda. It's unfortunate, but defending one group in this worldview always entails attacking another one. That's why I object to the worldview itself.

Times change. Of course a democracy must protect minorities but minority status is not always based on skin color or ethnicity, and historically who constitutes an endangered minority also changes. One problem with victim law is that it enshrines a group's victim status in a way that is hard to change, and further does not recognize individual or class (economic) differences. Members of official victim groups and their advocates most certainly sling their own arrows. The most loaded insult today is "racist." There was a great Tea Party poster that illustrated this point; it said: "It doesn't matter what we say, you'll call us racist." Sigh.

 

[skatinginbc]

I don't have to go further than the closest college campus or Muslim neighborhood to find anti-Semitism cloaked in anti-Zionism

It is very true. I once lived in it. When I was young and naive, I fell in love with a devout Arab who prayed five times a day. Yes, five times and no less. I went to the mosque regularly and knew exactly what was going on behind the door. The power of conformity was overwhelming when one had to join the group five times a day. And the hatred was strong and appalling, albeit coated in the sugary love of God.

 

[jcoates]

Just this week, Pope Benedict stated that gay marriage was a threat to the future of humanity. No way a statement like that could possibly construed as hateful (intentional or not). And how many people could he possible reach when saying such a thing? He's only the pope after all. It's not like he's the leader of a billion people or anything or is the head of a sovereign state...wait he is. (And before Spun accuses me of anti-Catholic bias, I'd point out that I am Catholic and was educated in Catholic schools my whole life all the way through college. My family has been since the mid 1800s.)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/09/us-pope-gay-idUSTRE8081RM20120109

The Center for Military Readiness (what a nice upstanding name), which existed almost exclusively to defend the legality of Don't Ask Don't Tell and to argue against the roles of women in the armed forces, routinely testified in congressional hearings that allowing openly gay soldiers would lead to potential sexual assault or other predatory actions against straight soldiers.

http://cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=337


Margaret Court (for those who don't know, she's essentially the Rodnina of tennis, having won the most total majors in all categories-singles, doubles and mixed doubles- for a total of 62) is now an ordained minister of the last few decades. She even started her own evangelical mega church in Perth. She published a very controversial op-ed late last year in opposition to strides the ruling Australian Labor Party made at its annual party conference to add support for gay marriage to its platform. No one solicited her opinion. She chose to inject it. That's fine and it is certainly her clearly held right. But the manner of delivery she chose (a major newspaper) and the language it contained ( http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/12256170/legend-condemns-gay-marriage/ ) proved to be offensive to a significant portion of the populace and elicited a vehement backlash not just in Australia, but internationally due to her former fame as a tennis champion. BTW, this is not the first time she has made such statements. She has a history over the last 20 years of verbally attacking gays and blaming all manner of ills on them. She criticized Martina Navratilova and Billie Jean King for being openly gay in the 90s and thus for setting some sort of bad example for young women coming on to the tennis circuit. The implication was that they were somehow practicing creepy and predatory indoctrination into "lesbianism" with impressionable young girls. Those sorts of smarmy half accusations have been used to indict the character of gay people for a very long time.

Calls for an apology of course went unheeded. There have even been calls to boycott the upcoming Australian Open next week if she attends or to have her name removed from one of the show courts on site. Of course that won't happen, and arguably should not. She earned the distinction of have an arena named in her honor with her accomplishments in tennis. But that does not excuse her from her present choice to encourage discrimination against a whole class of people. She is perfectly entitled to hold her point of view. But other people have just as much right to challenge her on it and debate her in the public square. That is the beauty of democracy. Have your personal opinions and hold to them fervently. But be prepared to back them up if you choose to express them publicly.

There are many instances of anti-gay bias that are very easy to find, including still existing laws that still allow discrimination in hiring and firing and housing in a majority of American states. Those aren't so called controversial issues like marriage, church membership, adoption, or military service. Those are basic life necessities. The right to have a fair shot at being considered for employment in a secular setting when otherwise qualified and to seek adequate shelter if one is sufficiently able to pay for it. Like I said before, you don't have to hold up ugly signs or burn a cross in someone's yard to be discriminatory or hateful.

 

[Spun Silver]

Taking a very brief break from painting the wall-ceiling seam (ugh)... jcoates, disagreeing with gay marriage does not constitute hate speech. Do you allow any space for disagreement on this issue or are all opponents hateful? What do you expect the Pope to do, abandon two centuries of church teaching on natural law (the difference and attraction between man and woman engraved in nature and given by God, that is the foundation of the church, family, and society) because a new generation of gay rights activists decides to push for the redefinition of marriage? (I'm old enough to remember when gay people scoffed at marriage and "breeders" and saw homosexual relationships as revolutionary and different.)

I assume when you call yourself a Catholic you mean you're a cultural rather than a believing Catholic? I had the impression you pretty much rejected Christianity, maybe I'm mistaken. But if I'm correct, then of course you're capable of anti-Catholic bias.

On another note: an orthodox temple on my street was firebombed today. : ( The news story said the rabbi (who lives there with his five children) had to put the fire out with his bare hands.) They don't know who did it yet.

 

[Olympia]

Spun, that's awful. Is everyone from the building safe? Was there a lot of damage?

 

[Mathman]

I don't have to go further than the closest college campus or Muslim neighborhood to find anti-Semitism cloaked in anti-Zionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_boycotts_of_Israel)

It is very true. I once lived in it. When I was young and naive, I fell in love with a devout Arab who prayed five times a day. Yes, five times and no less. I went to the mosque regularly and knew exactly what was going on behind the door. The power of conformity was overwhelming when one had to join the group five times a day. And the hatred was strong and appalling, albeit coated in the sugary love of God.

On another note: an orthodox temple on my street was firebombed today. : ( The news story said the rabbi (who lives there with his five children) had to put the fire out with his bare hands.) They don't know who did it yet.

We all seem to be saying the same thing. Jews get picked on because they are Jews and because some people don't like Jews.

Gentiles (the majority) do not get picked on just beause they are Gentiles and some people don't like Gentiles.

Therefore, while being extra-vigilant in protecting the rights of everyone, we must be extra-extra-vigilant in protecting the rights of Jews.

To me, that's just common sense.

 

[Spun Silver]

Olympia, we didn't see any damage. The rabbi was able to extinguish the bomb immediately, and he and his wife were able to get out all the kids and grandparents out of the house/temple. We just took vegan cupcakes over (hope they meet kosher rules) and waltzed right in the front door, which was open, with our toy poodle, even though cops and TV crews were parked all over the street. So much for the alert law enforcement that's being called for by the county prosecutor. It's being investigated as a hate crime and attempted murder but AFAIK they don't really know yet.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

MM, who preaches that God hates gay people except for that one nasty little (40 members, acc. to Wikipedia) "Baptist" congregation discussed above? That's simply not a Christian view!

I don't know if I could find any "God hates straight" sermons any more than I could "God hates gay" ones, but I don't have to go any farther than the Rev. Drs. Jeremiah Wright or James Cone to find anti-American, anti-white preaching. I don't have to go further than the closest college campus or Muslim neighborhood to find anti-Semitism cloaked in anti-Zionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_boycotts_of_Israel), or the New York Times to find anti-Christian bias cloaked in a gay rights agenda. It's unfortunate, but defending one group in this worldview always entails attacking another one. That's why I object to the worldview itself.

Times change. Of course a democracy must protect minorities but minority status is not always based on skin color or ethnicity, and historically who constitutes an endangered minority also changes. One problem with victim law is that it enshrines a group's victim status in a way that is hard to change, and further does not recognize individual or class (economic) differences. Members of official victim groups and their advocates most certainly sling their own arrows. The most loaded insult today is "racist." There was a great Tea Party poster that illustrated this point; it said: "It doesn't matter what we say, you'll call us racist." Sigh.

At the same time, Spun, the reverse happens just as much. I don't know many times I've heard someone say "I'm not racist, but...." or "I respect people of all races, but...." There's this idea that you can get away with saying derogatory insults as long as you deny racism (prejudice in general). How often have we heard the term "politically correct" transformed into a perjorative phrase. If you object to racist language, you're considered too sensitive. I certainly understand that the idea of what/who exactly is a minority changes as society does so. However, it's also worth noting that I don't think that's happening now (for example, I'd be curious if you can push for gay rights without being called anti-Christian).

Taking a very brief break from painting the wall-ceiling seam (ugh)... jcoates, disagreeing with gay marriage does not constitute hate speech. Do you allow any space for disagreement on this issue or are all opponents hateful? What do you expect the Pope to do, abandon two centuries of church teaching on natural law (the difference and attraction between man and woman engraved in nature and given by God, that is the foundation of the church, family, and society) because a new generation of gay rights activists decides to push for the redefinition of marriage? (I'm old enough to remember when gay people scoffed at marriage and "breeders" and saw homosexual relationships as revolutionary and different.)

I assume when you call yourself a Catholic you mean you're a cultural rather than a believing Catholic? I had the impression you pretty much rejected Christianity, maybe I'm mistaken. But if I'm correct, then of course you're capable of anti-Catholic bias.

On another note: an orthodox temple on my street was firebombed today. : ( The news story said the rabbi (who lives there with his five children) had to put the fire out with his bare hands.) They don't know who did it yet.

I'll answer that for me. Yes - disagreeing with marraige between two consenting adults strikes me as hateful. Understand I'm not describing marraige as a religious institution - that I couldn't give a flying fig about. I'm talking about the legal definition of the word marriage. Does the Pope have to abandon two centuries of church teaching? I wouldn't ask it, but you seem to think that he's not promoting the idea that gay people are second class citizens of this world when he is doing that exact thing.

 

[dorispulaski]

Spun, Dobson was condoning the murder of Matthew Shepard.

And here's another group:

http://minnesotaindependent.com/58393/gop-linked-punk-rock-ministry-says-executing-gays-is-moral

GOP-linked punk rock ministry says executing gays is ‘moral’
By Andy Birkey
Tuesday, May 25, 2010 at 6:00 am
156 Comments Share7163Tom Emmer with YCR's Jake McMillian (right) at the GOP convention, via Facebook
You Can Run But You Cannot Hide, Inc., a 501(c)3 nonprofit ministry that brings its hard rock gospel into public schools, has been deepening its long-running ties to the Republican Party of Minnesota. Long a cause célèbre for Rep. Michele Bachmann, who has twice lent her name to the group’s fundraising efforts, You Can Run (YCR) had a booth at the GOP convention in April, and the group’s frontman, Bradlee Dean, reports that gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer recently accepted an invitation to visit with him at Dean’s home. But recent controversial statements by Dean — that Muslim countries calling for the execution of gays and lesbians are “more moral than even the American Christians” — have drawn the ire of some both within and outside the party.

Of course, if it's executing, it can't be murdering :rollseyes:

 

[Olympia]

Olympia, we didn't see any damage. The rabbi was able to extinguish the bomb immediately, and he and his wife were able to get out all the kids and grandparents out of the house/temple. We just took vegan cupcakes over (hope they meet kosher rules) and waltzed right in the front door, which was open, with our toy poodle, even though cops and TV crews were parked all over the street. So much for the alert law enforcement that's being called for by the county prosecutor. It's being investigated as a hate crime and attempted murder but AFAIK they don't really know yet.

Thanks for the update, Spun. Clever of you to think of vegan cupcakes: no meat, no dairy, so likelier to be kosher. And I'm sure the family appreciated the gesture.

One can definitely push for gay rights and be pro-Christian, or in fact actually Christian. (Or Jewish.) It depends on the congregation. I hope the two sides can reconcile somehow. There's real evil in the world, and real misery, and decent people of good will, who are very much needed these days, are using up way too much energy on whether men and women are pairing up in the correct manner.

 

[fscric]

I just want to applaud those who have so eloquently spoken about the issues of gay rights and hate crimes.

 

[jcoates]

Taking a very brief break from painting the wall-ceiling seam (ugh)... jcoates, disagreeing with gay marriage does not constitute hate speech. Do you allow any space for disagreement on this issue or are all opponents hateful? What do you expect the Pope to do, abandon two centuries of church teaching on natural law (the difference and attraction between man and woman engraved in nature and given by God, that is the foundation of the church, family, and society) because a new generation of gay rights activists decides to push for the redefinition of marriage? (I'm old enough to remember when gay people scoffed at marriage and "breeders" and saw homosexual relationships as revolutionary and different.)

I assume when you call yourself a Catholic you mean you're a cultural rather than a believing Catholic? I had the impression you pretty much rejected Christianity, maybe I'm mistaken. But if I'm correct, then of course you're capable of anti-Catholic bias.

On another note: an orthodox temple on my street was firebombed today. : ( The news story said the rabbi (who lives there with his five children) had to put the fire out with his bare hands.) They don't know who did it yet.

First, let me also state that the firebombing at the temple is awful and wrong and I too am glad no major damage or injury came of it.

To address your specific questions, no I do not think disagreeing with gay marriage on its own constitutes hate speech. It may surprise you to read this, but a great many of my friends are conservatives as are their parents. Strong conservatives in fact. They are not shy about sharing their opinions with me and vice versa. We vigorously discuss our points of view and listen to each other That does not mean we end up agreeing, but at least we understand where the other is coming from. We eat in each other's homes, help each other bury relatives, attend baptisms and weddings, visit each other in hospitals, go to the movies and take trips together. All regardless of political ideology. As for gay marriage specifically, they do not support it by and large. But they also care about me and want to see me be happy as I do for them. As a result, they understand my position and hope I can achieve some measure of satisfaction with it. That does not mean they endorse it. But they are certainly not claiming that I am somehow to blame for high divorce rates, absent fathers or mothers, or the possible end of humanity itself.

Similarly I do think disagreeing with feminism establishes a person as being against the rights of women. However, that was not the point I made. If you re-read what I wrote I stated on multiple occasions that Rev. Court has every right to have and the state her point of view. But if she does choose to present that position in the public square, she should expect those who disagree to respond. Instead she and frankly you and Bluebonnet are choosing to drop into the public square, make your statement, retreat back to the sidelines and then to claim bias or bullying when the response to your position is counter to what you want to hear. While it may be self-satisfying to make strong one off statements about one's beliefs, that is only part of the process of freedom of speech. I and anyone else has the freedom to respond, to make a counter argument, to support it with facts and to use my argument to persuade the wider populace to come around to my side that is also taking part in the public square. That is the dynamic that shapes up when someone chooses to express an opinion in public.

Still what is at the heart of things is that I took exception with how Rev. Court chose to express her point of view. I already knew she had it and had no problem with her having it given my prior knowledge of her history on the subject. Margaret is stubborn and old fashioned and not given to change. Margaret chose to act not in her capacity as a minister at her church by delivering a sermon to her congregation. She chose to write a public op-ed as a private citizen commenting on a major legislative issue from a religious perspective which was printed in a major newspaper in her country ad then recirculated around the work via press wires and the internet. She should have know the chances of its increased circulation would be high given that she is a massive sports icon in her own country and also in the wider international tennis world. Even so, that was not my issue. She's still entitled to her opinion. But what inflamed me and many other people was the words she chose to use to get her point across. Perhaps you did not read the article about her to which I linked above. So here is the text of her most inflammatory passages.

"They are not perfect, often dysfunctional and despite the fact the role models may be distorted and even severely flawed, there is no reason to put forward alternative, unhealthy, unnatural unions as some form of substitute," she said. "No amount of legislation or political point-scoring can ever take out of the human heart the knowledge that in the beginning God created them male and female and provided each with a unique sexual function to bring forth new life.

"To dismantle this sole definition of marriage and try to legitimise what God calls abominable sexual practices that include sodomy, reveals our ignorance as to the ills that come when society is forced to accept law that violates their very own God-given nature of what is right and what is wrong."

Plenty of other arguments worth discussing have been made without reducing the debate to accusations of sexual deviancy and subtle implications that gay people are somehow damaged or broken and in need of fixing. Those sorts of arguments carry great social weight and can lead to damaging results. We discussed this in great depth in the bullying thread. They reinforce stereotypical notions that gay people need fixing or are deliberately choosing to foul up normal life for everyone else.

As for the Pope, of course I expect him to hold to his beliefs, but even the church is capable of incremental change (given a wealth of information, e.g. the earth revolving around the sun) and certainly of compassion. After all the centuries long belief that the earth was the center of the universe was also based on natural law sprinkled with religious interpretation. As with Court, he can express is disapproval of the subject clearly without such apocalyptic language. Not all church leaders choose to express the institution's views in such harmful terms. Also religion has been used to justify many extinct practices not just from a social perspective, but also from a legal one: slavery, segregation, war, torture, persecution, discrimination, executions, etc. Today we reject those things because their harm is apparent.

As for your veiled accusation that I am anti-religious, you are quite mistaken. Things may be very black and white for you when putting people into categories but they are not for me. It is very easy for me to see how people can have contradictory positions on certain topics or to associate with people who are different from them. Am I an actively practicing Catholic? No. Does that mean I disrespect the faith of those who are? Also, no. I primarily hold that position today because I became disillusioned by the regular and vicious public pronouncements against gays from the altar and more importantly by the sex abuse scandals and subsequent cover ups including a priest our family knew well. The Archdiocese in DC did not have the most glowing reputation for compassion when I was growing up. Still, my mother is an active and practicing Catholic with longstanding involvement in the church. She was the funeral coordinator in her parish for more than a decade, taught in the elementary school, was a lector and served in the eucharistic ministry. We went to midnight mass together last month as a matter of fact. My grandmother was as active as a lay person could be, leading the eucharistic minisitry and prison ministry at church and holding bible study classes in her living room. She pressured Cardinal O'Boyle in the 40s to push for racial desegregation of Washington Catholic schools. Something he did before public school integration ever took place. My mother was the second black child in Washington to be integrated into parochial schools. She and my grandfather paid out of their own pockets to send not only my mother by four nieces and nephews and a neighbor's two children to DC Catholic schools and even college in some cases. My family scraped even more money together to send me to the same schools even though the tuition had gone up significantly. I am forever grateful for that effort and for the education I received. Once my grandmother retired she took me to my parochial school in the mornings during 2nd and 3rd grade. We left early enough to make it to early morning mass at the church before I went to my classroom. Those are some of the most special memories of my life. When she died after a 20 year battle with Parkinsons's (during which we took care of her by hand rather than putting her away), I planned her funeral mass because my mom was too brokenhearted. Back in the days when airfare and bus travel were less safe, my grandfather would drive car loads of my mother's former order of nuns to their various convents and schools up and down the east coast. Those same nuns remain faithful family friends to this day. They still ask me if I plan to become a priest when I grow up (despite being in my mid 30s). What I question is the judgement of the leadership at times, not the people who make up the body of the church. Does that sound like bias to you?

As for me, I too served the church for many years. I was a lector during high school and college. I attended college on a faith and community service based scholarship. I started a community service group on campus dedicated to tutoring poor school children from the local rural town. We also organized donation drives for the poor. I also planned and ran an annual retreat for students to discuss and fellowship around topics of faith in daily life during my senior year. I've chosen to continue to express the faith with which I was raised by standing up for equal, just and fair treatment of those around me. I see that as an extension of the social justice teachings which were passed on to me through nearly 20 years of Catholic education. My schools were diligent in communicating the church's point of view (you don't get more religiously dedicated than monks walking around all day in long black robes with hoods), but they also encouraged critical and independent thought. Science, reason and secular ideals were not necessarily exclusive from faith. I put what I learned into practice all the time, I just don't feel the need to declare that in a church or as part of a congregation. Just because my disagreement with you has become quite strong does not mean I am a monster or that I am biased against the faithful. I have simply chosen a different path that fits better with who I am.

 

[Mathman]

MM, who preaches that God hates gay people except for that one nasty little (40 members, acc. to Wikipedia) "Baptist" congregation discussed above? That's simply not a Christian view!

There are hundreds if not thousands of clergymen in the United States who take their sermon material straight from the Bible.

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. (Leviticus 20:13)

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God..." (1st Timothy 1:9-10)

Now, you and I know that God loves everyone, even those who commit abomination in the sight of the Lord and who thus shall surely be put to death by the righteous. You and I know that the Bible doesn’t really mean that, it means…well, something different (I’m not sure what).

But many people, hearing these words from the pulpit, or reading them on the Internet, are not as sophisticated as you and I.

I don't know if I could find any "God hates straight" sermons any more than I could "God hates gay" ones,...

There are no sermons on the theme, "married men who have sex with their wives are an abomination in the sight of the Lord and deserved to be put to death." (Not so sure about those fornicators and adulterers, though.)

...but I don't have to go any farther than the Rev. Drs. Jeremiah Wright or James Cone to find anti-American, anti-white preaching.

Here is the difference. So what? Are you and I losing any sleep over anything that Wright or Cone says?

Some situations are just not symmetric, no matter how we spin it. Suppose a Mexican-American person comes up to me and says, "Show me your citizenship papers or else I am going to call your boss and get you fired and then I'm going to call the Immigration Service and they will come and hassle you, too."

My response would be, "Citizenship papers? What the hell are you talking about? Go away."

Now turn the situation around.

it's not the same thing. It's not the same thing.

 

[jcoates]

On a positive note, here are two heartwarming stories of people from different walks of life coming together to support each other and stand up for fairness.

http://torontoist.com/2010/08/let_us_prey/

http://www.lowellsun.com/rss/ci_19718719

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yLRsRxes-F4

 

[skatinginbc]

Understand I'm not describing marraige as a religious institution

I grew up in a Chinese society and I found the concept of marriage being a religious institution rather bizarre. That was one of the cultural shocks I had.

http://torontoist.com/2010/08/let_us_prey/

That was definitely harassment in my book. Why haven't people sued those holy rollers yet? I need a legal counsel: If some crazy people show up at my house uninvited and tell me I am a sinner for whatever reasons, am I allowed to threaten them "If you don't leave my property now, I will hit you with a baseball bat"? I remember the story of an ESL student from Japan being shot dead by a homeowner in Oklahoma because he lost his way and knocked on somebody's door to ask for direction. When the homeowner asked him to leave, he couldn't understand the English, so he became a dead meat. The homeowner was found not guilty, I heard.

 

[Olympia]

jcoates, you remind me of some of my friends. Some are active in the church, and some aren't, but that doesn't seem to matter in the way they conduct their lives. Recently I heard of the death of a former co-worker. She was an unmarried, childless woman whose sisters had predeceased her. But she wasn't alone in her last illness. A group of other former co-workers who had kept in touch with her took turns visiting her and sitting with her. One was with her when she died.

The idea of a secular versus a religious marriage is an interesting one. We're lucky that in the U.S. and Canada we have a choice about that. Apparently in Israel, marriages are all religious, and for reasons I don't quite understand, they're under the control of Orthodox rabbis. Both my parents were Jews, so I could become a citizen of Israel automatically. But I couldn't get married there. I can't prove that my parents were married by an Orthodox rabbi. In fact, I can disprove it. I have my parents' marriage license, and the rabbi who performed the ceremony was Conservative. Only about fourteen million Jews in the whole world, and bunches of us aren't good enough to be married in Israel. I would have to go back to my grandparents' generation to prove that they are buried in an Orthodox manner. I suppose I could do that, but if you think I would, guess again....An Orthodox friend of mine assures me that people are working assiduously to change this situation. I know it's not parallel to other situations, because I have no such limitations here, but it just goes to show that people are good at putting up obstacles for one another in the name of purity. For me it's also a very good argument for the separation of church (so to speak) and state.

 

[skatinginbc]

Both my parents were Jews, so I could become a citizen of Israel automatically. But I couldn't get married there.

That's really absurd. A citizen of Israel cannot get married in Israel--So basically it is "a second class citizenship". Indeed, churches need to get out politics and do what they are supposed to do--bringing people love.