Shhhh…..

This repellent story of jackasses for Jesus attacking a sixteen year old will never get a mention on my blog. You must never know that I condemn such bullying without reservation.

And, of course, as we all know, Christians line up by the *legion* to make excuses for wahoos like this and the media instantly springs into action to cover for such ugly behavior, much as prolifers and a sympathetic media all cheer with one voice on those rare occasions an abortionist is killed by a kook, and each murder and bombing by an Islamic radical only demonstrates the clear and present danger of the Ladies Auxiliary Tea Guild of Lake Wobegon Minnesota. In the same way, the paladins of civil discourse at the HuffPo instantly step in to crush the honorable and civil rape and death fantasies directed against 14 year old who step out of line on gay marriage and don’t, oh, let the combox thread go on for hundreds of increasingly violent fantasy posts with no check at all. Therefore, there is no such thing as gay fascism in the media–and I can only be saying that all homosexualS everywhere are violent fascists.

Ahem. Dale Price is perfectly right.

To summarize: when an eager media makes the death of Jesse Dirkhising or Mary Stachowicz the subject of hagiographic martyrdom pic like “Boys Don’t Cry” I will take seriously the whole “Don’t judge gay fascism by the actions of thousnands and thousands of gay fascists” argument. Somehow, the isolated thugs who murder a Matthew Shepherd stand for all who fail to applaud homosex, but the thugs who murder Dirkhising and Stachowicz and who pour out threats of murder and rape on a 14 year old girl (without the slightest check by the gatekeepers of culture at HuffPo) tell us nothing at all about a significant segment of gay culture.

Sure.

  • The Deuce

    FWIW, Jessica Alquist is 16 rather than 14.

    I basically agree with Dale Price, except that I don’t think the individuals who made threats against Alquist should serve prison time for it, because those individuals appear to have been her *fellow students* (ie, minors) who resented her petty, ACLU-assisted bullying of their cash-strapped school and town. Suspension or expulsion from school would be more appropriate.

  • Dale Price

    The important thing here is *not* that death threats were made against a teenage girl, but whether or not this will wrongfully lead people to make generalizations about Christians.

    I guess death threats are probably bad ‘n stuff, but that’s not the important issue here.

    • Mark Shea

      Let me just say that when I describe the people who threatened Ahlquist as jackasses for Jesus, I naturally mean by that “absolutely all Christians everywhere are jackasses who threaten sixteen year old girls” and not “the people making the threats are jackasses”. In the same way, when I speak of gay brownshirts, I don’t mean “gays and gay sympathizers who behave like brownshirts are gay brownshirts”. I mean “all gays everywhere, and all who sympathize with gays in any way, especially Richard Johnson, who I do not know, but whom I have chosen in a cosmic lottery to blame for the sins of all gay bullies.” What could be more obvious?

      • Ted Seeber

        Better a fool for Christ, what was the rest of that quote?

        Seems to me all Christians should be proud to be jackasses, when we’re opposing jackassery like that which Jessica Ahlquist displayed in the first place.

        But then again, I’m a conservative ‘Gonie- my value system is slightly different when it comes to language that the rest of the country seems to think is abusive, but which is quite tame compared to what you’d hear on any logging site in Oregon.

  • Dale Price

    Oh, and because tu quoque is how you have to roll, here’s the HuffPo link to the Two Months’ Hate being levied against Sarah Crank:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/31/maryland-marriage-equality-sarah-senate-judicial-proceedings-committee_n_1245461.html

  • Blog Goliard

    Actually, Dale’s comment above tempts me to ask why we shouldn’t be more blasé about most “death threats”.

    I’ve been threatened before. On some of those occasions, I was really scared (and had good reason to be). Other times, I wasn’t (and had good reason to shrug it off).

    (And of course, being human and prone to self-pity, it was the latter cases where I complained the most vocally and most bitterly, and responded with the most bravado…)

  • Joe

    I suppose the common sense solution of simply asking her to tolerate a different point of view and then giving her the chance to write up her own inspirational banner to add to the wall – which would allow the majority of students to likewise practice some tolerance – was never considered.

    After all, that would be the “inclusive” option where both sides win vs. the winner take all exclusive option whereby one person’s feelings trump everyone elses’.

    As for the vaunted ‘separation of church and state’, I fail to see how a banner that’s hung harmlessly for decades in a public (not state) school constitutes the state ‘establishing a church’. There is a distinction between local and state government and public use facilities and local government you know. Just as there is a distinction constitutionally between state governments and the federal government. And a distinction between a religion and its church apparatus.

    I’m a Catholic lay man. I’m not “the Church” – I am a citizen of the USA, a member of the public, but I’m not a government official. I fail to see how if I were a public school student, my uttering a prayer somehow transmogrifies me into a representative of the “state” and my exercise of free speech constitutes “illegal establishment of a church”.

    But that’s just me. Apparently the ability to distinguish between similar but distinct things is a theistic quality not found among atheists or self-referential “smart” people who constantly confuse church and religion, public and ‘state’, civil and human rights, etc.

    • Chris

      Joe –

      I think you said something very important here, which informs the motivation of the forces arrayed against the Church:

      “I suppose the common sense solution of simply asking her to tolerate a different point of view and then giving her the chance to write up her own inspirational banner to add to the wall – which would allow the majority of students to likewise practice some tolerance – was never considered.”

      Not to get too analytical on a Saturday morning, but it really seems to come down to this:

      The Idea that is the City of God, can never be surmounted by any idea that originates in the City of Man. This persecution of the Church and Christianity is not fueled by the notion that the City of Man thinks its idea is better. It’s fueled by the deep-seated realization and frustration that the idea of the City of Man can NEVER be greater that The Idea of the City of God (that is to say, the Word of God). And the more intense the error, the more intense the burn that comes from the irrefutable Truth; and thus greater and greater anger in the City of Man directed towards the City of God.

      In our society, there is no interest in “tolerance” of the Idea of God. The City of Man wants to destroy the City of God – even though, deep-down, it knows it can’t win — much like Satan knows he can never dethrone God, but goes about his business building up the forces of the City of Man for a battle he knows he will lose anyway.

      There are no “Coexist” bumper stickers in the City of Man.

      • Manwe

        Chris, I think your on to something there!

  • Tom

    While I don’t support threatening anyone – this girl is what is wrong with America. She wants the banner removed because she “feels” alienated. There is no evidence of actual alienation or an attempt to isolate her. But, she feels it — so that is ok. Later, she can get a job and “feel” sexually harassed because a co-worker repeats a joke that she doesn’t like. And she won’t be alone. Every single person who wants to feel empowered need only find another group of people doing something that doesn’t include them and decide that they “feel” something and demand that it be stopped. Soon girls will be demanding that boys only sports be eliminated because they “feel” alienated from it, etc. etc. etc. (and for that matter the entire issue of the ordination of women). And any group like the Church that has standards will be attacked for alienating those who have no desire to be a part of it — but merely want it to go away because they “feel” alienated. What a horrific standard. Those of us who want to hold onto moral values are going to soon be looking for caves and catacombs to gather in. Because God forbid Ms. Alquist see or hear of us praising and worshiping a God she feels alienated from. What a sick sick world it is.

    • Mark Shea

      Agreed.

  • http://oceanstatecurrent.com Justin Katz

    Checking in from the benighted land of Rhode Island:

    Yes, some folks crossed a line, including the pandering politician mentioned and a perennially disruptive couple who’ve been known to require expulsion from public meetings in the past. The basic chronology gives perspective to the matter, though:
    * Anonymous person calls ACLU about the banner
    * Anonymous person declines to become not anonymous for the purpose of a lawsuit
    * ACLU seeks non-anonymous person
    * Ahlquist, niece of local “humanist” activist steps forward, having shown no palpable aversion to the banner previously
    * Local townsfolk attend meetings, angry that a single girl, a well-heeled secularist group, and a judge might brush away their heritage
    * Ahlquist attends those meetings with friends, apparently not fearing for her life
    * Judge finds for Ahlquist
    * ACLU sues town for $175,000 in reward for trumping local self-governance
    * Money flows in from atheists around the country to give a cash gift to the “courageous” girl
    * Much news made of florists declining to carry activist-group-sent flowers to the girl’s house, at least partly because doing so requires dancing through ring of security measures (with no evidence publicly displayed that those measures are necessary)
    * Ahlquist takes to Twitter and Facebook for back-and-forths with her detractors, apparently not fearing for her life
    * Police take precautions upon Ahlquist’s return to school without, as far as I know, any real, credible threats against her
    * News cycle moves on, and everybody goes about their lives, wondering why the banner, when removed, had to disappear into an undisclosed location like the Arc of the Covenant in the first Indiana Jones movie.

    • Mark Shea

      In short, Attack of the Godless Human Toothaches. I can see the irritation these people generate, but death threats still defeat the purpose, assuming the news reports were correct. If they weren’t then another urban legend is born.

  • Richard Johnson

    Well, as promised when such evidence of a mention was produced, I will give an apology worthy of Limbaugh.

    Let’s see…where to begin. Oh, I know…

    I erred in rushing to judgement regarding Mark Shea’s reaction to the threats made against Jessica Ahlquist, and against those who self-righteously parse her actions with regards to those attacks. For that I apologize, for I allowed myself to be lowered to the levels of those who issue death threats against people, or those who ridicule students, Christian or Humanist, who stand up for their principles in spite of the public reaction.

    Thank you all for showing me the error of my ways.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X