Hysterical Hatred of Heterosexual Christians

I happened upon the San Francisco Chronicle by clicking on a story from a newsfeed service. I was quickly reminded that religious hatred is not confined to Europe. In fact, I don’t think I’ve read anything so openly vitriolic and down-right nasty over here. Mark Morford – I was tempted to call him Mark Moron, but I didn’t want to stoop to his level of ad hominem – is commenting on what he calls “strange, alarmist, deeply homophobic ads” produced by the National Organization for Marriage that are running on television stations in five states. But don’t worry, he assures us, the gay marriage agenda is still on the move.

God, by the way, is a redneck. The logic is flawless. Rednecks like God. God went and set up marriage as a procreative relationship between a man and a woman. Ergo, God is a redneck. What’s more these rednecks are desperate. That is the only reason they would be producing such ads. They know the march of gay love is spreading across the land and these “terrified citizens with souls the size of marbles” can’t stop it. Now here’s my favourite bit:

Distraught Christians say we cannot possibly disobey the mangled, misinterpreted Bible when it comes to hetero marriage because, well, that’s how we’ve done it for centuries and it’s been such a tremendous success, with almost no unhappiness, divorce, abuse, oppression, depression, suicide, hypocrisy, or general misery that it’s obvious we shouldn’t mess with it.

That’s right. Christians are responsible for all the bad stuff that’s happened and continues to exist because for centuries they’ve mangled the Bible and gone all hetero. All we need to do is all love it up gay-style and the world will be a better place. Isn’t it obvious? What’s worse, they use bad actors. (Perhaps this is because all the good actors are either gay or pushing the gay rights agenda.)

Morford claims the ads are “clutching at straws, scraping bottom, leaning on the most absurd, least tenable arguments imaginable”, so he doesn’t provide a link to the legal background behind each statement in the ads. But then I’m sure he thinks it more than justified that a doctor was successfully sued for referring a same-sex couple to a different physician for artificial insemination, or that a New Jersey church lost its tax exemption because they wouldn’t allow their property to be used for civil union ceremonies, or that Massachusetts requires young elementrary school pupils be actively indoctrinated with idea that marriage and gay pseudo-marriage is the same. Yep, absurd untenable arguments that come from the redneck, heartland states of California, New Jersey, and Taxachusetts.

Morford can only compare these ads to two things. The first are hysterical ads being produced by oil companies promoting “rabid oil fetishism and addiction”. Since he doesn’t provide a link, I can’t comment on these ads and their fetishism. The only other comparison Morford has to those radically heterosexual ads  is the “hysterics of Fox News’ fringe nutball militia”, by which he means the “nauseating and preposterous” Bill O’Reilly, Glen Beck, and Michael Savage.

For Morford, those who oppose gay marriage, produce oil, or dare to be conservative and on television are all hysterical. Seems to me the one leaning on absurd, entenable arguments and raving with hysteria is Mark Morford.

Advertisements

Discriminating Against Christians Yet Again

Here we go again.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull are Christians. They own Chymorvah Private Hotel in Marazion, Cornwall. They aren’t liberal, Christianity-is-whatever-I-decide-it-is Christians. As a result, on the booking form page of their website they state:

Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note that as Christians we have a deep regard for marriage(being the union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others).

Therefore, although we extend to all a warm welcome to our home, our double bedded accommodation is not available to unmarried couples – Thank you.

If you have been paying attention to UK equality legislation, you know what happened next. Someone in a same-sex relationship was looking for a hotel, came across the site and notified Stonewall, the anti-heterosexual rights organisation, who then took it upon themselves to warn the Bulls they were breaking the law by not positively facilitating fornication irrespective of gender coupling or bodily oriface.

After all, the hotel has refused double beds to plenty of unmarried heterosexual couples, including Mrs Bull’s own brother and his girlfriend.

Now I just don’t believe that Steven Preddy then happened to ring to book a room without having seen the website, or the complaint from Stonewall, for that matter. He and his partner Martyn Hall were not surprised when the hotel refused to honour their booking when they showed up. It was a set up to try to stick it to the Christians. They were only there to set up a case of “discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation”.

Mr Preddy and Mr Hall reported the incident to the police and have filed a civil case claiming £5,000 in damages for the alleged discrimination.

Preddy and Hall are right about one thing. This is a case involving discrimination. There is discrimination against those who have beliefs that particularly kinds of behaviour are wrong. These are not beliefs unique to the Bulls. This is the universal witness of Christianity, with the exception of a few people in the last few years who decided that they could find sexual immorality and Christianity compatible by simply calling evil “good” and good “evil”. For that matter, it is the universal witness of of Islam and Judaism and most of the world’s other religions.

It’s not like there are aren’t lots of other hotels of an equal or superior quality or price that could have accommodated Preddy and Hall or anyone else Stonewall wants to send around. So in fact Preddy and Hall weren’t been denied the chance to stay in a hotel. It is about an agenda to force everyone to accept a particular behaviour as equal and normative. The gay rights lobby have the Government on their side. The Bulls’ hope the European Convention on Human Rights will be interpreted to supercede this as it says that people are able to hold a religious belief and manifest it in the way they act. But will plain language prevail against the unholy spirit of the age?

Right to Commit Crime

The Bristol City Council wants to cut the overgrown bushes around the Avon Gorge. Seems simple enough.

Well of course it’s not, or I wouldn’t be mentioning it. If the Council cuts the bushes back, they will be discriminating against people engaging in illegal outdoor sex. That’s right. I’m not making it up. You can’t discriminate against criminals. They might not feel comfortable committing their crimes in the open and that’s just not fair!

The Council has had to consult with various gay rights groups to make sure any horticultural maintenance in the area is done with great sensitivity. Apparently one of the gay rights is the right to break the law and have sex in public without fear of recrimination, not to mention discrimination.

The is the same area where firefighters shined their flashlights into the bushes last year. Because their actions disturbed a group of men having sex, the firefighters were fined, at least one was demoted, and they were transferred to other stations.

Fighting FOCA in Word and Deed, or Talbot, Tatchell and Tactlessness

In the wake of the the Jerusalem conference held by conservative Anglicans, British evangelical Anglican leaders met Tuesday at All Souls Church, Langham Place in London. This is the parish where John Stott was the rector for many years and for even longer has been the rector emeritus. The clergy and lay leaders were in London to establish the British arm of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FOCA).

So a gathering of evangelical leaders at a leading evangelical church shouldn’t be controversial, should it? It wouldn’t have been, except for Peter Tatchell. Tatchell is the gay equivalent of Fred Phelps. You know, someone who has no sense of propriety in getting across his message about homosexuality. But while Phelps and his crew stand at a short distance, holding signs and shouting, Tatchell likes to be a little more hands-on.

Tatchell, the self-styled human rights campaigner, is not a big fan of the right to peaceably assemble. He claims he was “violently ejected” from All Soul’s after what the left-wing Christian think-tank Ekklesia refers to as “seeking to mount a protest against a hardline Anglican group”. In other word, after invading the meeting and attempting to disrupt it, he was removed – by force, since he refused to leave otherwise. This was not a public service to which there was an open invitation – like the time he disrupted the Easter service at Canterbury Cathedral when then archbishop was delivering his Easter message – but rather a private gathering that happened to be using the facilities of All Souls. This was just blatant trespassing.

And if Peter Tatchell is ridiculous with the spoken word, David Talbot was just as much so with the written word, in his open letter to the Rector.

It is a shame that the Anglican Church and, on this occasion, All Souls in particular, continues to deny the God-given reality of homosexuality and [God’s] blessing that gay Christians know in their daily lives. I have looked at the list of speakers at the conference and see no hope of a contrasting Biblical view being put forward.

First of all, the Anglican Church affirms Talbot’s view, hence the whole FOCA thing. All Souls has always been an evangelical church, so it is hardly on this occasion alone that it has made its view of the Bible very clear. And as far as I can tell, no one at All Souls has denied the reality of homosexuality or that gay Christians can know blessing in their daily lives. The only things it denies are that homosexuality is normative and that God can bless any sexual union outside of the marriage of a man and a woman. I wonder why Mr Talbot didn’t put it in those terms.

Of course the silliest bit is the last. He looked at the list of speakers at a conference of leaders opposed to his view of homosexuality and homosexual behaviour, meeting together for the specific purpose of breaking with the Anglican communion over just that issue, and he is disappointed that there is no contrasting view (Biblical or otherwise) being put forward? If he were serious about his argument, I would say he was clearly off the planet. Of course he’s not serious. He’s just manipulating words. He’s just trying to look wounded and persecuted.

After all, he has the whole rest of the Anglican Communion to cuddle up to, with meaningful “I’m OK, You’re OK” sermons to salve his wounds.

For Love or Money

In the wake of Parliament declaring that children do not need fathers and that the need for a father cannot be taken into account when someone gets IVF treatment, the Daily Mail has exposed the truth behind Tracy Lagondino (or “Thomas Beatie”, as she prefers) and the “man having a baby” story. Seems it’s mostly about militant gay rights and lots of money.

Wow. There’s a big surprise.

They have a book coming out. (“Nancy and Thomas declined to be interviewed because, Nancy told me: ‘We’ve got a book coming out in September and we want to have stuff left to say so people buy the book.’ “) They have a deal with a picture agency and a contract with People magazine.  They say they weren’t paid for all of exposure on Oprah.

They became well-known campaigners for gay marriage and other gay rights, and once walked through the streets carrying a coffin bearing the names of ‘hate crime’ victims persecuted for their sexuality.

In 2000, Tracy and Nancy, both avid body-builders, posed in their bikinis for a gay magazine called Odyssey.

Well before Tracy got pregnant, they called their screen printing business “Define Normal”.

Parliament was concerned about the creation of human-animal hybrids. Those aren’t the only worrying sort of hybrids.

When he had surgery to become a man, he had his breasts removed and was given testosterone to make him look and sound like a man, but he chose to keep his female reproductive organs.

So Beatie is really a man/woman hybrid. Call him a freak, if you like.

Searching for Mike

Once again I have been getting lots of traffic from various Mike Huckabee searches. It is interesting to see the sort of searches that bring people to my blog. So far today it has included “huckbee + gay rights”, “Mike Huckabee theocrat”, “huckabee theocrat”, “Michael huckabee”, “mike huckbee evolution”, and “mike huckbee immigration”.

Seems a lot of folks are worried about Mike, afraid he is going to persecute gays, ban the teaching of evolution, and do all sort of other dastardly theocratic things. Of course he’s never suggested these things.

The closest thing might be when in 1992 he suggested that those with AIDS should be quarrantined. Since AIDS was generally associated with the gay community due to the nature of the transmission of the disease, particularly in the early days, I suppose this could be considered a persecution of gays.

Most Americans don’t believe in evolution, so like the majority of the electorate, Mike Huckabee is a creationist. Of course the liberal elite (even those who call themselves Fiscal Conservatives) can’t imagine that someone who holds high political office actually holds the same views as the unwashed masses. This is really why they can’t stand Mike. Politicians all talk about being public servants – but they don’t really mean it.

The only weakness I see is the immigration issue. There seem to be an awful lot of people for whom immigration is a very hot button issue. Mike is trying very hard to be anti-immigrant as possible, while still obeying the directive to love his neighbour as himself. It is certainly a hard row to hoe. If he shows a Christ-like attitude toward immigrants it could cost him the votes of many of his natural constituents who are anti-abortion, favour the traditional family, and don’t believe in evolution.

Character and Moral Leadership

I wish I could remember which blog (or blog combox) I read that said Mike Huckabee seems to be running for America’s pastor rather than American’s president. I don’t do lots of blog surfing, so it may be a sentiment that has been oft-repeated or picked up from an MSM expert or pundit.

Tonight as I was washing the dishes, I realised that if that’s what Mike is trying to do, then he has the right idea. What are Americans looking for in a president? They are looking for someone who is caring and comforting in time of need. They are looking for someone who can articulate a vision and inspire hope and courage. They are looking for someone who is not afraid to call evil “evil” and good “good”; someone with a fixed moral compass.

Should voters care about a candidate’s view on foreign policy? Not really. It doesn’t change much from administration to administration, because each has to deal with the exigencies of the day in a pragmatic way. Bush policy didn’t different much from Clinton policy until 9/11 and there’s nothing to say that Gore dealing with post 9/11 would have done it any different than Bush. Would Gore have been more forbearing of Saddam’s flagrant disregard for sanctions and the no-fly zones? Frankly, we don’t know who he would have had running State, Defense, and the NSA, so we don’t know which ways he would have been pulled. Had he invaded (an idea most everyone loved at the time), would he have been stuck in the same mire as the Bush administration? Probably so.

So much of the hype and focus by the MSM is based on red herrings. I would hope for more honesty in the blogosphere. From what I can see, the bloggers of the Northeast and the West Coast, as a few wannabes caught in the Red States in between, are stropping around the blogosphere, furious that a lot of Republicans don’t want gee-everyone-makes-mistakes-like-two-openly-adulterous-relationships Guiliani. They can’t for the life of them understand why Americans might not want a contest between a pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion Republican and a pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion Democrat.

Both sides know that these issues and others have little to do with the Presidency. It’s like Mike Huckabee’s answer about evolution. Why is somebody asking this of a candidate for president when it has nothing to do with the presidency? Those asking the questions are trying to show that Huckabee is a religious idiot – that’s what Blue Staters want to see and will see regardless of how he answers questions on evolution. No one in the Red States believes in evolution anyway, so all it does is convince them that Mike’s their man.

And for all of Bill Clinton’s “It’s the economy stupid” slogan, the Chief Executive actually doesn’t have a lot of control of that either, the OMB and the Departments of Treasury and Commerce notwithstanding. At the end of the day, it is about character.

It is not about competence. Just about every candidate running in the two main parties is competent to be president. All the Republicans want to be like Ronald Reagan and he slept through much of his second term, still managing to combine his moral leadership with that of some pastors in Eastern Europe to being down the Iron Curtain.

All the Democrats want to be like JFK, whose presidency was about fiascos and philandering. Oh, and he got himself killed. Assassination is the civil religion equivalent of martyrdom, so he’s now a saint.

No, it’s about character. It’s about moral leadership. I’m a firm believer that elections give the electorate what they deserve. If the Red States lose their focus on values, they deserve to get a valueless president.