Gay Rights…

smash civil rights–as is their custom.  A reader writes:

I agree that he can’t force the Gay Pride organizers to give him a “booth,” but unless the Gay Pride festival is by invitation only, anyone can walk through a public place and hand out any legal item they want. Sure, the state can make laws against handing out food, or leafleting cars. There’s an absolute first amendment right to approach someone in a public place, ask if they’d like a book, and give them one if they say yes. As we’re seeing, homosexuality is rapidly assuming a privileged position in American life. Here it trumps freedom of association and freedom of speech — two things you need if you’re trying to lead a religious life.

Yup. Because the homosexual movement is a persecuting, intolerant and militant faith.

  • S. Murphy

    Well, silve lining – they can’t come into church and disrupt services with their message or slogans, then.

  • http://gloriaromanorum.blogspot.com Florentius

    It’s certainly not the first time this has happened. At least the guy in this article wasn’t arrested for disorderly conduct, inciting a riot, etc. as happened to the Philadelphia 11 in 2004. In fact, here’s the reaction their attempt to preach the Gospel at a “‘gay pride” event received:

    “Volunteer OutFest security workers (known as “pink angels) surrounded the evangelicals and used whistles to drown out their preaching. They held up pink styrofoam boards to block the protesters from view.”

  • lnxCthlc

    In the early 60′s, my baptist Grandfather used to make what he called “Leaflet Bombs”. They were rolled up and wrapped with a single rubber band. He would walk into the door of an unwelcoming establishment and toss them in. He said they would fly everywhere : ). I would imagine this to be littering now, unless you promised to clean them up in advance.

  • Irenist

    Happy update: the Eighth Circuit issued an emergency injunction, and he was allowed to table with his Bibles at the festival. See http://www.startribune.com/local/south/160198645.html

    Although I’m pleased that this fellow Christian’s First Amendment rights in a traditional public forum are being respected, I wonder how effective an evangelization method this has proven to be. If it’s just making the Pride folks feel intruded upon, then perhaps it’s not having quite the St. Paul in the Areopagus effects one would hope for.

    • Qualis Rex

      Irenist & Victor – I wasn’t going to respond here, but since Victor brought Dearborn up, I will say this is a perfect example that these fundies are really scumbags who do not care about Christ’s message so much as generating publicity and notoriety through the hate and violence they stir up. Dearborn is a perfect example: in an area where underage children were peacefully playing on rides with innocent music in the background these morons show up with a pig’s-head mounted on a stick and a bullhorn and begin shouting at the children over the music. You can watch the whole thing here. At the end of the video (around 46 mins) they lie to the police officer saying they weren’t proseletyzing or saying anything, and gee, must’ve been the signs that made the crowd violent.

      Our Lord was VERY careful to choose His words with regard to evangelizing, saying “teach all those who will listen” and if they don’t, “shake the dust off your feet and move on” and “do not caste your pearls before swine”. So, in sum, their evangelization method is not at all effective. In fact, one has to wonder what the children in this video will think of “Christians” when they are older.

      • victor

        I can’t speak to what happened at the 2012 festival, as I was referring to the peaceful passing out of bibles a few years ago which put Dearborn on the map. I guess it’s escalated since then. Still, I’d rather have my kids yelled at over a megaphone (still protected under the First Amendment) than blown up.

        • Qualis Rex

          I’d rather have my kids left alone in both cases. I honestly do not know how I would react if my children were shouted at by these fundies calling them “Papist whores” etc. And, FYI, that’s exactly what this same group does, they often protest Catholic processions (they’re leader is a former Catholic).

      • Dave G.

        Are these the same people that went around to those folks who submit to the megalomania and hegemony of a slave-owning, murdering paedophile named Mohammed who justified his actions by claiming to speak for God with pigs heads? Or are they actually different from, and therefore not to be confused with, those who showed up with those offensive displays?

  • victor

    “There’s an absolute first amendment right to approach someone in a public place, ask if they’d like a book, and give them one if they say yes. ”

    Whatever you do, don’t try that in Dearborn, Michigan.

    • Peggy Hagen

      Off-topic, but I’d rather be in Dearborn at Christmastime than most towns in America. ..the shops there not only decorated for Christmas, but did so tastefully and with real reverence for the season; the birth of Christ was not treated as a tacky excuse to “buy! buy! buy!” Yes, it’s Dearborn, etc; but there is that in the culture there that can be used as a way to present the Gospel, Christ is already taken more seriously than He is by many Americans.

      • Qualis Rex

        Peggy – so true. If it’s one thing we can admire/be envious of the Mohammedan, it’s that they haven’t bastardized/commercialized their religious holidays as we have in the West. Glad to hear some of that may be rubbing off on the Christian residents of Dearborn.

  • Peggy Hagen

    No, the ones I’m thinking of were Muslim.

  • Peggy Hagen

    ^^^(reply to Qualis)

  • Qualis Rex

    Peggy Mohammedan = Muslim. Mohammedan is the proper way to describe the followers of Mohammed.

    • Peggy Hagen

      :-) That I know, but I misread your comment anyways. I hope it is rubbing off on the Christians in Dearborn.

    • Jmac

      Actually, Mohammedan was a word coined by Christians in the 16th century or earlier who misunderstood Mohammed’s importance in Islam. It’s usage today is really archaic and borderline offensive, according to the American Heritage Dictionary.

      • Qualis Rex

        JMAC – it has been used since the 8th century (they were previously called “Ishmaelites” since they claim descendancy from Ishmael’s line from Abraham) but “Mohammed’s importance in Islam” was never misunderstood; hence the correct and apt term “Mohammedan” (i.e. follower of Mohammed). The term is indeed offensive to them, since they claim they are following God/Allah, and not Mohammed (rather they follow his example, but the commands come from God/Allah). My view on the subject is a) it is a better/more accurate term b) it may be offensive to them, but their view/opinion on Christianity and Our Lord is equally offensive to me c) I have never been one accused of being “PC” and d) it was/is the word used in countless church documents throughout the centuries; if it’s good enough for the church fathers it is good enough for me.

        • Jmac

          Well, that’s not quite true. Early Christians certainly misunderstood Mohammed’s importance, and there was ample confusion for a time over whether he was a god they worshiped, a Christian heretic, or merely the chief among multiple gods (i.e. Islam was exactly equal to archaic Arab religion). I’m not trying to censor your speech, and I certainly have a similar knee-jerk reaction when the PC spectre raises its ugly head around me. Nevertheless, there’s been enough bad blood between Christians and Muslims throughout history, and certainly more than enough in the last several years that I’m wary of anything that’s going to inflame it. Just my 2 cents. Peace.

        • Jmac

          My source by the way: http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0871692015&id=hk4LAAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage#v=onepage&q&f=false

          While the medieval Church may have a host of unfair criticisms, it’s not in anyone’s best interest to whitewash its faults. The Church fathers were just as fallible as the rest of us. Hell, Tertullian was a heretic, and he’s still used as a great primary source.

          • Qualis Rex

            JMAC – I read the book you cited, and it’s dimestore quality writing at best. On page 4 it states “some Europeans believed that Moslems worshipped Mohammed as a God” but there is no citation for this. Doubtless there were/are people who misbleieve this (just as there are people who still believe the earth is flat) but that does not mean any of it comes from literature, teaching or legitimate thought. And if you read the texts carefully (even from this dubious source) they are not calling him a “Christian heretic” but that he is a heretic in the sense that he followed Marius (a Nestorian). This is a theory that is actually still in place today, which explains many references to apocrypha in the Qur’an.

            So, I repeat; the early Christians did NOT misunderstand Mohammed’s importance, regardless of whether they debated (and still do!) how and by whom he was inspired. If you don’t believe me, read “Heresies” by St John of Damascus (pray for us!) written in the 8th century or The Golden Legend written in the 13th. These were “best sellers” of their day and gave an accurate view of what the church believed (and still does) about Mohammed’s importance.

          • Qualis Rex

            JMAC – I read the book you cited, and it’s dimestore quality writing at best. On page 4 it states “some Europeans believed that Moslems worshipped Mohammed as a God” but there is no citation for this. Doubtless there were/are people who misbleieve this (just as there are people who still believe the earth is flat) but that does not mean any of it comes from literature, teaching or legitimate thought. And if you read the texts carefully (even from this dubious source) they are not calling him a “Christian heretic” but that he is a heretic in the sense that he followed Marius (a Nestorian). This is a theory that is actually still in place today, which explains many references to apocrypha in the Qur’an.

            So, I repeat; the early Christians did NOT misunderstand Mohammed’s importance, regardless of whether they debated (and still do!) how and by whom he was inspired. If you don’t believe me, read “<a href=http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspxHeresies” by St John of Damascus (pray for us!) written in the 8th century or “The Golden Legend” written in the 13th. These were “best sellers” of their day and gave an accurate view of what the church believed (and still does) about Mohammed’s importance.

            • Jmac

              Well, I do know that the Song of Roland definitely casts Muslims as polytheists. Regarding the others, I suppose I was implicitly referring to western Christianity, so sorry for the Eurocentric bubble there.

              Regardless though, I think the term is archaic and baggaged enough that I wouldn’t dream of using it in contemporary discourse. After all Islam merely means “submission to God”. While I disagree with their theology, more power to them for their pursuit of God as they understand Him. As I said, we’ve had enough bad blood between our two religions for long enough.

              • Qualis Rex

                JMAC – do you not see the hypocrisy in your approach? On the one hand, you do not want to “whitewash” the “faults” of the church, you are perfectly willing to whitewash the fact that Mohammedans are following the commands and perscriptions of their “prophet” by using the word they prefer “Islam” which insinuates they are indeed submitting to God, and not Mohammed.

                Bottom line: if you believe they are submitting to God, call them Muslims. If you believe they are submitting to the megalomania and hegemony of a slave-owning, murdering paedophile named Mohammed who justified his actions by claiming to speak for God, then call them accurately Mohammedans (cuz that’s what they are).

                • Jmac

                  It’s exactly this kind of false dichotomy that makes modern religious discussions so much of a headache. I don’t see any sort of hypocrisy in my approach. I know they believe that they’re submitting to God, and I say more power to them. I can call them Muslims for the same reason I can call a Presbyterian or a Fundamentalist a Christian.

                  It’s perfectly fine to be at once confessional and ecumenical. And actually being nice to people makes them a whole lot more receptive than hurling cheap insults. I see parallels to this kind of thing with the internet atheists who are (in their own minds) honest to a fault by telling us we believe in fairy tales, or in the apocalyptic fundamentalist crowd who will denounce us as pagans addicted to the whore of Babylon. Once you promote that kind of rhetoric, there’s no real point in having a conversation.

                  • ivan_the_mad

                    There you go with the common sense. That is forbidden on the internets.

                  • Qualis Rex

                    What you deem as “insulting” is in effect accurate description. It’s only “insulting” insomuch as the truth hurts. And I have found that people who sacrifice the truth simply to make the other party feel good are not willing to stand up for anything of value in life.

                    • Jmac

                      I already touched on that: “I see parallels to this kind of thing with the internet atheists who are (in their own minds) honest to a fault by telling us we believe in fairy tales, or in the apocalyptic fundamentalist crowd who will denounce us as pagans addicted to the whore of Babylon. ” And I absolutely don’t buy that we get anything of value by using such rhetoric. And I think you’re pulling out the false dichotomy again. Read over the chapter on Islam in Crossing the Threshold of Hope by JP2. He, as you will probably agree was “willing to stand up for something of value in life”, but he didn’t need to resort to insults to get his point across, and found a lot of good things to say about adherents to Islam in the process. And as Ivan said, Nostra Aetate also backs up my point. I’m still of the opinion that honesty tempered by charity and humility is the way to go.

                    • Elaine S.

                      “What you deem as “insulting” is in effect accurate description. It’s only “insulting” insomuch as the truth hurts. And I have found that people who sacrifice the truth simply to make the other party feel good are not willing to stand up for anything of value in life.”
                      So I’m guessing that if you are a married man, and your wife asks you if her dress makes her look fat, you tell her “Yes, in fact, it makes you look like you’re expecting triplets any day” because anything less would be showing lack of moral courage? :-)

                • ivan_the_mad

                  Nostra Aetate thinks it fitting to refer to Moslems and Islam (Muslimos and Islamica in the Latin document, just to head off any charges of liberties taken with the English translation):

                  “3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet.”

                  • Qualis Rex

                    Ivan, the church did not begin at Vatican II (a pastoral council, I might add). And if you will remember, when this document was drafted, Jerusalem was still in the hands of Mohammedans. There is a reason for everything…

                    :0 )

                    • Andy, Bad Person

                      Ah, onto rejection of Vatican II. Sunrise, sunset.

                  • Qualis Rex

                    Ivan – I was quoting our current Pope and a Cardinal re Vatican II, and yet I’m put in the category of “those who invoke responsible dissent”? Not too smart. And whether or not you think I know what I’m talking about is as important to me as tractor-pull stats. Unlike most of the people who talk about Vatican II, I have read (and continue to read them) the document of the council, and often quote them to people who use the “spirit” of the council to justify their dissent.

                    Anyway, since you have decided to take this conversation in a “you don’t know what your talking about” direction and use ad hominem rather than thought-out ideas, the reality is that is a sign of someone who is not worth talking to. So, our conversation ends here, and thank you for that.

                    • ivan_the_mad

                      You really are insufferable. Minor objection: Saying “I highly doubt you know what you’re talking about” is not an ad hominem. Really, it’s not. Please review your definitions.

                      “So, our conversation ends here, and thank you for that.” You can choose not to respond, but the wonderful thing about the internets is you only have the authority to end one side of the conversation ;)

                • Mark Shea

                  The Council calls them Muslims. Relax.

              • Ted Seeber

                Part of my problem with Islam is that at least three schools of Islamic thought that I am aware of *specifically deny* that Allah is understandable or rational. And since those three schools politically control the country Mecca is in, they have a huge potential for evangelicalism in the form of the Hadj.

                • Qualis Rex

                  JMAC – this is the same JP II that kissed a Qur’an, right? Not exactly actions that are in keeping with the continuity of Christianity there. I’m certainly not looking at him as a guide on this subject. And as I mentioned to Ivan, the church did not begin with Vatican II.

                  • S. Murphy

                    More Catholic than the pope. No, really.

                    • Qualis Rex

                      The pope is the pope; the church has experienced good ones and bad ones. That is reality. Would you say JP II did well on issues, say, the church abuse scandal? Specifically the Legionaries of Christ (as discussed in another thread)? Or are you just nit-picking?

                  • Jmac

                    Wow. Okay, well at least now I know exactly where you’re coming from. Remember, the Church didn’t freeze in time during the 50′s either.

                    • Qualis Rex

                      No, it didn’t. And FYI, I do not reject Vatican II or the legitimacy of JP II as pope. But he was definitely flawed in a number of areas; kissing the Qur’an was one.

                      Our blessed Pope Benedict has already come out to state that Vatican II delcared no new dogma and is to be taken in light of the continuity of all other church documents. Nostra Aetate gives the opinion and understanding of the council at the time, but the church, as specifically stated by Cardinal Brandmuller says, “the two most controversial documents [Nostra Aetate and Dignitatis Humane] do not have a binding doctrinal content, so one can dialogue about them

                      I understand this comes as a shock to those who would hold Vatican II as the only council worth paying attention to.

                    • ivan_the_mad

                      “a pastoral council”
                      “do not have a binding doctrinal content, so one can dialogue about them”

                      “Nostra Aetate gives the opinion and understanding of the council at the time …”. And it’s been superceded by what? Nothing? Then I guess it *is* the understanding. And a declaration of a Church council, even pastoral *rolls eyes* is hardly an opinion.

                      Many people quickly reply to any mention of documents from Vatican II with statements like these. Like those who invoke responsible dissent, I highly doubt you know what you’re talking about. It usually seems to be no more than a cover for willful dissent, whether it’s Humanae Vitae (yes, I know it’s not a VII document) or Nostra Aetate.

                      I think this is the case, given how you immediately jumped to those “reminders”, when all I did was note that a recent Church document used a certain terminology regarding Muslims (not at all a proof or convincing argument, just a “hey, this is what a document of a recent council called them – good enough for a Church council, good enough for me”).

                    • Jmac

                      Well and good on the doctrinally binding point, Qualis. I was merely using them as precedent for my position of “Being right does not give you carte blanche to be an abrasive ass.” If that’s a sufficient condition for you to paint me as a Spirit of Vatican II Liberal, then I doubt this conversation is going anywhere.

                      And yes, as mentioned in other threads, if you need to pull out the abuse scandal to work your side, you’re pretty well out of arguments. While I know JPII was fallible and prone to making bad decisions during his later years while he was busy not dying, his ability to synthesize a vibrant faith rooted in our most ancient traditions while being a revolutionary ecumenical force was very inspiring to me, and many others of my generation.

                  • Ted Seeber

                    I’ve got no problem with the Pope showing respect to the Koran. I have a problem with modernist Islamic cults that like our Sola Scriptura Protestants, think that God is speaking to them *PERSONALLY* and telling them to take revenge on the unjust.

      • http://acricketchirps.blogspot.com acricketchirps

        It’s is a contraction of “It is” It’s usage today as the possessive form of “it” is really archaic and borderline offensive, according to the American Heritage Dictionary.

        • Gary Keith Chesterton

          cricket! I see no one is still reading your bog! I mean blog! I tried to leave a comment there but it’s broken.

          Are you going to run with Meadowlark Lemon in the fall?

          Well, g2g
          Gary Keith Chesterton

  • Chris

    Either way, probably not an effective way to win people to the Christian way of life. The militancy of this movement precludes any real possibility of conversions. Best let the dead bury the dead and focus on the younger generations being indoctrinated by these groups…

  • Religion Free Realist

    You know, presenting God as a Bronze Age patriarch who has a stalkerish concern over what I do with my genitals isn’t very attractive.

    • Jmac

      While I don’t think that passing out bibles at a Pride Parade is particularly endearing or effective, there’s considerably more to the Christian understanding of chastity than “Sex bad! Do that and burn in fire!” It has much more to do with the proper ordering of desire to maximize personal and societal well-being. The same is true about our approach to other desires, including greed.

      I’d encourage you to get the first idea of why we believe what we do before resorting to the internet atheist technique of “lol, shepherd religion.”

    • http://www.blogger.com/profile/00805469860229478026 Irksome1

      Presenting God as a market-driven construct meant to be attractive to the largest possible demographic subset isn’t exactly better.

      • Ted Seeber

        True- which is why I present God as a natural law that created all other natural laws.

    • Chris

      But not nearly as attractive as your “stalkerish” concern that every man, woman, and child appreciate the finer points of sodomy, scissoring, and oral masturbation.

    • Ted Seeber

      If that’s all you see in sin, then I feel very sorry for your conscience, as it must be entirely dead.

  • Confederate Papist

    Did y’all hear something?

    Bueller?

  • http://www.SwanseaAcupuncture.net Dr. Eric

    http://www.startribune.com/local/south/160198645.html

    A higher court has now allowed the man to hand out the bibles during the gay pride march.

  • richardson

    It would be really rude and unhelpful but entirely accurate and truthful to point out that Qualis is a dick.

    • Qualis Rex

      Nice mouth. You’re Mom must be proud.

      • ivan_the_mad

        Just as proud as your grammar teacher ;)

      • Jmac

        Not a fan of rude, unhelpful, brazen honesty Qualis? What a surprise, nobody else is either. Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to continue not hating my Muslim friends.

        • Qualis Rex

          You gotta be kidding me. Really? You are equating cheap, low-grade insults as honesty? Very telling. And FYI, the “hate” card works both ways. Some of the most hateful people I have ever met are liberal, new agers who hate everyone who they deem as intollerant.

          • Jmac

            What you deem as “insulting” is in effect accurate description. It’s only “insulting” insomuch as the truth hurts. And I have found that people who sacrifice the truth simply to make the other party feel good are not willing to stand up for anything of value in life.

            Sound familiar?

            • Qualis Rex

              I cannot express how accademically stupid and ridiculous that analogy is. Mohammedan is a term used by church fathers, saints and the church itself to describe the followers of Mohammed. The other word is an ad hominem attack. The fact that you are either unable to see the difference or just too cowardly to point out that it is wrong to use vulgar/ad hominem language in an argument precisely prove my assessment earlier: “I have found that people who sacrifice the truth simply to make the other party feel good are not willing to stand up for anything of value in life.”

              You really did prove my point.

              • Jmac

                And repeatedly calling me a stupid cowardly liberal (which is at least 33% false, as I mentioned earlier) proves your point perfectly. Well, thanks for the enlightening discussion, Qualis. I’m done with this.

                • Qualis Rex

                  I called your analogy stupid…which it was. I never called you stupid or a liberal. Explain cognitive dissonance to me again.

                  • ivan_the_mad

                    “I never called you stupid or a liberal.” Hmm. For some reason, I suspect that many a reader would walk away with the feeling that you did, even if you didn’t come right out and say it …

                  • Jmac

                    From your previous comment: “The fact that you are either unable to see the difference or just too cowardly…” seems pretty obvious to me. The comment before that drew an implication that I’d have to be blind not to see.

                    So yeah, you did. Please continue to lecture me about ad hominem arguments when that’s been our point all along. Yes “Mohammedan” is an insult, and its usage continues to damage relations between Christianity and Islam. Before someone decides to tell me that it’s THEIR fault and we’re just the victims here, well, look first to the beam in your own eye, eh?

          • Jmac

            Seriously, the amount of cognitive dissonance you’ve gotta have to assume both that I’m being serious and not realize that you’re now arguing my point is just awe-inspiring.

  • http://www.frenchcookingmama.wordpress.com frenchcookingmama

    The “privileged” comment struck at the heart of this issue. Many that were formerly marginalized get a taste of it, and they act just as bad or worse as the “privileged” who were “oppressing” them. And on it goes.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X