6 posts tagged “politics”
I believe in my last post I mentioned how I was bored and at home. Well, I'm not really either anymore! I decided to take a few days and head back down to my college's town to visit all my friends who live here in the summer. Man, I love this town, and also the fact that I have high speed Internet down here! Yay! So I figure that since right now the friend I'm staying with is asleep (and probably will be till noon or so) I should go ahead and blog. So with that, here goes.
It's really interesting, and a little sad, to hear some conservative Christian commentary on the recent decision by the California Supreme Court remove the ban on same-sex marriages. Now, in general, I have to say I disagree with the court's decision. Even taking personal opinions out of the mix here, I feel there was little legal basis for their decision and it went against the will of the people of the state of California... not to mention that their decision to allow same-sex marriage, but not allow plural marriage, sounds more like a "because we say so" than anything else. There didn't seem to be any logical sense to how they could remove one of the prerequisites for marriage (opposite genders) but not another (two people), and they didn't take time to bridge that logical gap. They just said so. I'm not usually a fan of the slippery slope argument, but let's face it, the court left themselves pretty wide open here.
But anyway, that's not the point of the post anyway, so before any of you decide to throw chairs at me, hear me out (especially if they are nice chairs). I have been increasingly saddened by the seeming inability of many Christian commentators to talk about this issue with grace or concern for homosexuals. I think one podcast by James White brought it home for me. Yes, there were plenty of good points made about the sinfulness of the sins involved, and the missteps that the court took in order to reach its decision. But still, I'm just frustrated... is there no way to talk about those things without having to resort to idiotic statements? I can't tell you how many faulty statistics and assertions I've heard around the Internet (i.e. "gays don't want marriage," "they have multiple partners a month," etc.) And don't get me started on broad, over-reaching, and unflattering (not to mention largely untrue) statements like "gays are selfish" or "gays are trying to destroy America." Seriously, it just blows my mind that Christians are still talking like that. It makes the ignorant hiccups (like references to "deciding to be a homosexual") really pale in comparison (though they are no less annoying, I've found).
Is it really too hard to imagine that commentating on things like same-sex marriage might actually be a good opportunity to reach out to homosexuals? I mean, the two just seem to go hand-in-hand to me, because Lord only knows how many gay men and women read and/or listen to these commentaries. But how can you reach out to a group if you lie about them, and just assume that the worst statistic you've read about them is true? How can you reach out to a group if you haven't taken any time to know where that group has come from? Choosing to have homosexual sex is one thing, but no one decides to be a homosexual, and hearing that little nugget is enough to turn people off (even people like me, who are conservative), because it shows that we're just not being listened to. I mean, it really makes me wonder if they actually care. I can't think of any other sin (short of murder, perhaps) that so many Christians just don't seem to be able to be gracious about.
It's especially sad when a lot of this commentary is coming from writers, like James White, that I really respect and who are usually a breath of fresh air in terms of their thoughtfulness and intelligence (especially when compared to other Evangelical commentators). I was at least hoping for some effort to reach out to homosexuals in that podcast, but nope, nothing. Even if the effort had been wrapped in bad, NARTH-style jargon it would be better than nothing. It would at least show that they, you know, care about us. It's frustrating, I guess, but it also makes me reflect and wonder if there are any sins or struggles that I am callous about. Is there any group that I am unsympathetic to? Are there any people whose actions I rightly know as sin but who I nevertheless fail to reach out to out of my own prejudices? I can't be a total victim here, because usually the things we dislike in others are mirrored in ourselves. If I can see what doesn't help when witnessing to homosexuals, maybe I can use those things to see what doesn't help when witnessing to others.
Christ's peace to you,
Jay
Today was very cold and rainy, and that naturally put me in a reflective mood. Granted, I'm in a reflective mood 80-90% of the time anyway, but today was the first time in a long time I had sat down and taken time to take it all in. I stayed indoors, and my usual list of things to do was much more sparse than usual. One of the first things I thought about was how much I had changed since this time last year. Last year my free time was mostly spent bumming around the blogosphere, searching for articles concerning politics and sexuality that I could read, critique, and possibly blog about. I was constantly thinking, arguing, and commenting. My social life was active, but it mostly consisted of late-night partying and weekend clubbing. Unlike other social activities, the only thing those get in the way of is sleep. My class schedule was easy, and I breezed through most of my courses. It was a good year, but this year is very, very different. I think it's changed for the better in some ways, and for the worse in others.
From an outsider's perspective, my social life is less active than it was last year. In my view, however, it's better. What it lacks in content it more than makes up for in substance, if that makes sense. I simply got tired ot clubbing and bar-hopping last year, and looking back it really wasn't that good for me. I met a lot of interesting people and had some good memories which I wouldn't trade for anything, but overall I've grown out of that scene. Now my social life is "normal," just the way I wanted it. I meet people for coffee or dinner, play video games with my roommates, go to church every sunday, catch movies, work, go to Campus Crusade, and spend time with my boyfriend. When I'm not doing that stuff, I'm just working on the multitude of papers and applications for various classes, summer programs, and jobs.
Naturally, my blogging career has been put on hold. It's a shame, but I really don't watch the news anymore. Generally, I don't read up on what's going on in the big gay/ex-gay debate. Last week I found a website that drew my ire. Last year I would have spent two or three really long posts picking apart its flaws. This year I wrote a short post saying that it made me angry, and that was it. On the one hand, I'm glad that my life has settled down into a content normalcy. On the other hand, I miss the chances that I used to have to be bold and say or do something outrageous or controversial. So, I have normalcy... I just don't want it to turn into complacency. Does anyone else have this problem? This nice, quiet life is what I said I wanted all last year. I really do like it. I just want to keep its comfort while at the same time not letting it blind me to all the issues on which I could add my ideas. Have a blessed day, everyone!
I was bumming around the blogosphere the other day and somehow followed a blogging trail from Randy Thomas to La Shawn Barber to Pam's House Blend to Joe. My. God. to this piece of indecency from MassResistance. I had intended to write a piece about the article, but I realized that neither my stomach or heart could take thinking about it for too long. I suggest you take a look at MassResistance so you can get a feel of what real hatred looks like. I can't understand how anyone could tolerate that kind of slander and vitriol, and I hope that any ex-gay organization with ties to MassResistance will cut ties with them. They do not treat homosexuals with dignity and respect in any way, and they do not need to be supported (least of all by Christians).
Anyway, like I said I'm not going to spend a long post dwelling on them. I get too angry when faced with injustice and hatred. I can deal with people who disagree. That's nothing, and it's healthy to debate with those who disagree. But some people are just so disrespectful and un-Christian that all I want to do is scream at them. Then I remember that my God is "compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love." (Psalm 103:8, NIV) I really want to be like Him, and I want to know when "angry" is "too angry." There are plenty of things to be angry about with groups like MassResistance, but I can't make their mistake and treat my opponents like sub-humans. These people have families, jobs, homes, and they do think what they are doing is right. So even though their words disgust me, I can't forget that God loves them as well. They deserve the dignity that they refuse to show.
Turning the other cheek is really harder than I thought. Have a good day, everyone.
Just a quick post before I head out to class. I knew I couldn't say "no" to the blog for too long. :)
I was looking at Warren Throckmorton's blog earlier this week and noticed his links to these pieces by both Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber. I've written about Barber before, and I don't much care for him. I don't know much about LaBarbera, but I doubt I'd be too much a fan of his, either. Both of the men seem to be so virulently opposed to homosexual people that any possible logical arguments they have are overshadowed by polemical statements and sheer ignorance of what it means to be gay (i.e. It's not about sex!)
However, I think there might be a reason behind their negativity that goes much farther simple adherence to Scripture. Here was a quote by Barber late in his piece that caught my attention:
"The sheer mechanics of homosexual conduct very naturally elicits revulsion in most rational folk."
That seems simple and unsurprising, but it got me thinking. For one, he pretty much implies that if you don't have "revulsion" towards gay sex, then you most likely aren't "rational." I guess that means he thinks if one is actually attracted (or maybe simply tempted) by gay sex, and certainly if one participates in it, then that person is inherently irrational. Seeing your opponents as inherently irrational is nothing new, and both sides of the political arena do it. However, I don't think it's really Christ-like. More than that, I don't think one should hold up their "knee-jerk" reaction to something as the starting point for their belief that it is wrong.
It's not hard to see something as wrong when you naturally are grossed-out by it. But to build a variety of political, Scriptural, and ethical arguments around that "knee-jerk" is irresponsible. I've happened to notice that pundits who admit to being repulsed by homosexuality tend not to be the most tempered or nuanced about the subject. Whereas people like the folks at Exodus -- like them or not -- do seem to guard their words a bit more, despite the fact that both groups disagree with homosexual behavior for the supposed same religious reasons.
Like I said, just a thought. I don't think we should disqualify folks with a "knee-jerk" reactions towards homosexuality from commenting on GLBT issues, but we don't need to be holding up those reactions as the basis for good political or religious argument. People, at best, need to be calm, cool, respectful, and objective. Maybe I'm just hoping for too much here. :)
You know, there are two Internet addictions that I am glad I've gotten over. One is a pornography addiction that has been gone, praise God, for several months now. This blog, and the community that I have found through it, helped put it away for good. The other addiction is a little harder to overcome, and that is an addiction to the endless pundits, shock jocks, and other "warriors" of today's repellent "culture war." Does that sound strange? Let me elaborate.
I've talked before about how I like to go to the conservative website, Townhall, and debate other readers there (since I'm more of a moderate conservative and they're all pretty much fire-breathers). Well, let's just say that I used to like it. As one reader here predicted, I got tired of the debates very quickly, and eventually I realized that I was only going to Townhall to fuel anger, not to debate issues. It was "anger porn," in a way. I'd find the same articles by the same authors about the same topics, and then I'd use the same arguments against the same readers. It did not keep me in a Christ-like mindset, so I decided to give it a rest for a while. I still got the e-mail notifications for new articles, but I barely ever checked them. Recently, I did read one good article by Mike Adams, who I wrote about many months ago. I was so impressed that I actually e-mailed him myself, and I got a response back. He's actually a pretty nice guy, though I don't recant what I said about him earlier.
Well, the other day I gave in and checked the website to see if anything interesting had been written. Unfortunately, I found an extremely nasty piece by Matt Barber, of Concerned Women for America (go figure), and I was reminded of why I gave up reading these columnists in the first place. His column was called "'Gays' Don't Want 'Marriage' After All." Putting "gays" and "marriage" in quotation marks was what convinced me to check out the column further. If the title was that disrespectful, I was sure that there was plenty in there for me to get angry about. I definitely wasn't wrong.
The piece is so cliché that nothing in it is worth repeating. Barber uses the same tired arguments, lies, and manipulative language about gays and how destructive they are to society that it ends up reading like a caricature. He pushes every button that can be pushed, and ends up sounding less like a respected writer and more like Fred Phelps. Sure, he does make interesting claims concerning the numbers of gay unions taking place in regions that allow them. They are surprisingly low. However, if the value of marriage is to be determined my numbers, perhaps he needs to be worrying about the 50% divorce rate amongst heterosexual couples.
What gets my blood boiling about Barber's column (and articles like it), is the matter-of-fact tone in which everything is said. No facts are really presented to back up his claims. Gays "yearn for a society created in their own secular humanist image." I should tell all the folks at the Gay Christian Network, or for that matter, the guys at Gay Patriot. "The vast majority of homosexuals don't desire 'marriage.'" I should tell all my friends who love their boyfriends/girlfriends deeply and wish to spend the rest of their lives with them. The gay lifestyle is "disordered and empty, though demonstrably mutable." Demonstrably mutable? Is he kidding? I should tell Warren Throckmorton, DM, Willful Grace, and all the guys at XGW. It would save them all a lot of drama, I'm sure.
It goes on. "'Civil unions' are merely 'gay marriages' by another name." Oh, I get it. It's not enough to deny the wording. You need to deny the actual rights, too. I don't even think Ann Coulter would go that far. Oh, and I shouldn't leave out his claim that homosexuality is "scientifically and objectively proven to be destructive." That may be so, though usually one is expected to present the scientific and objective facts after such a statement. Unless, of course, the "facts" stem from universally-panned kooks like Paul Cameron (and methinks in this case they might), in which case you don't have to drop the name, right?
Ugh. I didn't even check the comments because I was angry enough already. It was probably righteous anger, but it was anger nonetheless. I'm giving it an outlet here. What bothers me is not that this stuff is being written, but that so many people read it and believe exactly what it says. If a gay kid reads an article like this, what is he going to think of himself? What will parents who believe this think of their gay children? Goodness, I'm scared enough to come out to my parents, and they're liberal! I can't imagine what it would be like to be gay and be the son or daughter of a person like Matt Barber.
Words have meaning. They have impact. They can hurt, or they can help. They can tear down, or they can build. The biggest flaw of this "culture war" is that it has turned neighbor against neighbor. There aren't guns or bombs involved, but the words being used can be just as deadly and just as contrary to the spirit of Christ. Both conservatives and liberals are guilty of it, and that's why I hate being in the middle. I hate hearing Christians called hateful bigots and I hate hearing gays called depraved perverts. Yeah, there are creeps and haters on both sides, and unfortunately they're usually the ones with the microphones and the loudest voices. I just hope that people can learn to look at the folks around them and make their own opinions instead of listening to agenda-driven politicians and pundits. In the meantime, I need to find the fine line between getting angry and standing up for what's right.
As the title suggests, "Adventures of a Christian Collegian" is a personal blog about my experiences as a conservative Christian on a college campus...who happens to experience same-sex attraction. It is not a political blog, nor should it be taken as such. However, I have always had a big interest in politics, and I have pretty defined opinions about current issues. I consider myself a classical liberal. As such, I am all about limiting the government's intrusion into the freedoms of Americans. I consider "hate crimes" legislation to be such an intrusion, because it prosecutes the thoughts of the criminal instead of the acts. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't care if you kill me because I'm gay or kill me because you want my iPod. Either way, I want you to rot in jail for the rest of your life.
That being said, I am also a big fan of truth. I don't care what your views are; if you can't defend them honestly, don't defend them at all. This value of mine is why I am taking a short break from completely personal posts and doing something political for a change. I hope you'll all bear with me. I worked hard on this post, and it's long. Luckily, I had plenty of time to do it since I don't have any exams until Friday (turns out I already have an A in Spanish and don't have to take the final! ¡Eso es maravilloso!)
The theme of this post is that wording matters. In the exact same way that tone of voice matters when speaking, words chosen (or not chosen) are important indicators of an author's motives, personal views, and target audience. Therefore, they should be chosen with extreme caution and care. In personal posts such as the ones I usually write, it doesn't matter as much. There are few (if any) objective facts that I need to be mindful of when writing about my feelings on a particular topic. But if I was writing about the actions of another, I would do everything in my power to make my words as accurate and clear as possible.
Gary Bauer does not seem to have the same ethic regarding that, or at least the person who wrote this article, which is found on his End of Day website, does not. I originally found the article on Randy Thomas' blog, and I was not able to find it anywhere else in its full form. Therefore, I want to make it clear now that the following is not a critique of Randy Thomas. As stated before, Randy is someone that I deeply respect despite our disagreements, and though he did post the article, he is not the author and thus is not the target of my criticisms.
The article is an example of the many that can be found concerning H.R. 1592: legislation that is meant to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes (in the same way that race and religion are currently protected classes). H.R. 1592 is accompanied by a similar bill being passed through the Senate by Senators Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and Gordon Smith (R-Oregon). Actually, the article omits Smith's involvement with the bill, but we'll get to lies of omission later. After establishing this, the article makes its first of several dubious statements by bringing up the murder of Matthew Shepard:
"Kennedy’s bill would have done absolutely nothing to save Matthew Shepherd’s [sic] life, which was tragically taken in a drug-related robbery."
Sneaky, isn't it? The whole "drug-related robbery" phrase is inserted as fact. It doesn't say a "possible" or "speculated" drug-related robbery. It says "drug-related robbery." However, this goes against the testimony from the trial, which stated that neither Russell Henderson nor Aaron McKinney (Shepard's murderers) were on drugs at the time of the murder. Speculation that they were on methamphetamine at the time did not appear until five years after their conviction. And even then, the phrase "drug-related robbery" is misleading. To the casual reader, it sounds as though Shepard was taking drugs, or that the murder was a drug deal gone wrong. It wasn't. At the very most, his murderers were on drugs at the time of the crime. That doesn't make it "drug-related" any more than a drunk man robbing a gas station is "alcohol-related." Now, on to the second point:
"[T]he FBI’s analysis of hate crimes in 2005 revealed that only 177 out of 862,947 cases of aggravated assault were motivated by sexual orientation bias. That’s 0.000205 percent of all aggravated assaults in 2005."
This is actually true, and it's a valid reason why the federal government needs to stay out of hate crimes legislation. Oh, but I forget that the article doesn't say anything about that. It only speaks out against the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. If we're going to argue that the means don't justify the end, lets compare the total number of hate crimes in 2006 to the total number of aggravated assaults.
Total aggravated assaults: 862,947
Total number of hate crimes: 8,804
Percentage: 0.01
The number of hate crimes is still minuscule compared to the number of assaults in general. So, why stop with blocking H.R. 1592? Can't we go ahead and try to get rid of all hate crimes legislation, including that which includes race and religion? After all, there certainly doesn't seem to be a need for it. I know several conservatives (including Randy Thomas) agree with me here, but I find it odd that they were not concerned about hate crimes legislation until the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity were suggested. On to my third point:
"They [Conservative Republicans] offered more than a dozen amendments in committee that would have added pregnant women, members of the military, police officers, babies in the womb and senior citizens to the bill’s list of protected classes of citizens. The liberal majority voted them all down."
This is probably the most outrageous of all the statements made, in part because of the pure simplicity of it. Read it thoroughly. The author of the article is pretty much saying that liberals don't care about pregnant women, members of the military, police officers, senior citizens, and babies in the womb (actually, seeing as I'm pro-life and most liberals aren't, that might have merit). However, it's not like these amendments were shot down without good reasons.
For example, when the amendment proposing the inclusion of pregnant women to the list of protected classes was put on the floor, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-California) cited that her own proposed bi-partisan Motherhood Protection Act covers them, while Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) had this to say:
"That is a gender crime. Gender is covered in this legislation. And so, frankly, I believe that the gentleman [Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia)] is trying to make more of a point than is necessary."
Gender is covered by the legislation. Only a woman can get pregnant. Therefore, if a pregnant woman was targeted because she was a pregnant woman, it's the same as saying that she was targeted because she was a woman. Also, let's remember that hate crimes legislation does not protect particular classes just because they are particular classes. If a black man is killed, it has to be proven that he was killed because he was black to be considered a hate crime. When the Family Research Council makes claims like this: "The bill is most notable for the millions of Americans it leaves out, meaning if you or I are a victim of a violent crime - we matter less," they are pretty much lying. If you are a victim of a violent crime based on the fact that you are white or Christian, you are already covered.
In a similar fashion, the amendment that proposed to add senior citizens to the list of protected classes was "shot down" for technical reasons. Per Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin):
"I would cite Title VII of the Older Americans Act, which Congress recently reauthorized, which protects and enhances the basic rights and benefits for vulnerable older people, and defines abuse, neglect and exploitation as they relate to the elderly.
Additionally, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have enacted some form of elder-abuse prevention law."
You see what I'm getting at here? It's not like these amendments were shot down by some evil liberal majority that hates pregnant ladies and old people. There were many technical reasons for the proposed amendments to be shot down (most of them revolving around the fact that the groups proposed were already protected). And if I may say so myself, some of the amendments were worded in such a way that it was pretty clear their proponents were simply testing the majority. On to my fifth point:
"Even worse, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) offered an amendment to clarify that nothing in the bill would infringe on a person’s religious liberty, but it was defeated on a party-line vote of 15-to-20."
There is a world more to that statement than meets the eye, and the fact that the author of this article could say it without mentioning the rest is very disheartening. Rep. Pence did indeed offer that amendment, and it was defeated. However, there's a good reason it was defeated, and that is because language similar to what he was offering had already been added to the bill in Rep. Artur Davis' (D-Alabama) amendment. From the Davis amendment:
"Nothing in this act or the amendments made by this act shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution."
Read that again. Nothing in the act shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. You know, the Amendment that includes the religious freedoms that conservatives think are about to be blown to bits? Yeah, it's still there, and the amendment (proposed by a Democrat, no less!) actually makes sure people recognize that it's still there. Mike Pence himself helped to vote that amendment into the bill. His proposed amendment is actually more limiting than Davis', because he only mentions religious freedoms.
It's lies of omission like that that are the main problem with the media today. Everyone has their own spin. Nothing in the article was blatantly untrue, but several things were cast in such a light that it makes it look like our religious freedoms are about to be trampled and our First Amendment is about to be overturned. That simply isn't true. Pence's amendment was defeated because it was practically already part of the bill. The hate crimes legislation is not merely a Democrat-proposed bill, either. Gordon Smith is a Republican and a Mormon who backed the Federal Marriage Amendment. Yet he is backing the bill along with Senator Kennedy, a fact that is conveniently tossed aside.
Look, like I said I'm against H.R. 1592 and its Senate companion. However, there are plenty of philosophical and legal reasons to state my discontent without resorting to feeding off of people's paranoia. Actually, Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Florida) made a great legal argument to not back the bill:
"Federal efforts to criminalize hate crimes cannot survive the federalism standards articulated by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, in United States v. Morrison, struck down a prohibition on gender-motivated violence and specifically ruled that Congress has no power under the commerce clause or the 14th Amendment over "non-economic violent criminal conduct" that does not cross state lines."
Unless federalism is suddenly out of style (it never will be in my book) then I suggest conservatives start using that angle to argue against the bill. For one, it's honest. Lying, no matter how noble the perceived ends are, is never excusable. And Gary Bauer has some owning up to do for that ridiculously biased article. I hope no one is offended by this. I tried to get all my facts as straight as possible. If you need to check if I missed something, please read the transcript of the House Committee on the Judiciary's meeting, from which the above Representatives' quotes are taken.
