The Ranting Wren The Wren Forum Banner
The Glorious Wren The Movie Wren The Photo Wren Old Man Wren

Did I not say I should stop reading the newspaper? Did I not learn the ensuing lessons of posting anything about religion?

I did. And I didn’t.

Simply scanning the front page of the Times today, the following article came to my attention. Click it to read, perchance to weep [NOTE: Link now goes to a PDF file]:

Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies

Cute little headline there, but the reported nonsense isn’t cute at all. Just read it! Is it any wonder I feel I need to lash out against these morons? These people hang themselves with their idiocy, but I simply have to point it out to others so that those of us who are of stable and thoughtful mind might be the ones to finally kick the stool away. And Matt and any other sane religious people out there should want to join me in the kicking!

This quote is kind of like jumping into the middle of the pond without first walking along the dock, so read the story first.

Okay, now that you’ve done that, re-live, with gawking kisser, the following:

“What if a person felt their religious view was that African Americans shouldn’t mingle with Caucasians, or that women shouldn’t work?” asked Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay rights group Lambda Legal.

Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor responds to such criticism angrily. He says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different—a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.

By equating homosexuality with race, Baylor said, tolerance policies put conservative evangelicals in the same category as racists. […]

“Think how marginalized racists are,” said Baylor, who directs the Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law and Religious Freedom. “If we don’t address this now, it will only get worse.”

My goodness! Conservative Christians in bed with the racists? Horrors! This certainly would be the first time that’s ever happened. I proffer that the racists are marginalized for a good reason, and that Mr. Baylor needs to go buy his plot of land in Racistville right now, because he’s going to need to be building a nice little house for himself.

It’s the concept of “inborn” vs. “lifestyle choice” that is the very pivot of such arguments. (See, once again, John’s corresponence with Linda Harvey. Follow the links from this comment.) As the evidence for the genetic seat of homosexuality begins to accumulate, this final point of argument is in danger of being proved wrong. Now, of course, I’ve already spoken about how some (some, I repeat!) religious folks have no trouble ignoring scientific evidence. The people in favor of gay-bashing in the Times article will carry on bashing gays as long as they wish, despite any genetic evidence or otherwise to demonstrate that homosexuality is not a choice. But once the proof becomes overwhelming, these nutters will, indeed, begin to become marginalized just as racists are. In fact, the process has already begun.

I do believe that this sort of behavior is simply the final struggle, the desperate fight back against a social change these people consider detrimental and, I suppose, unholy. As the saying goes, when the cat is cornered, it’ll fight back. Is that a saying? If not, pretend it is for today. Anyway, that’s what’s happening. These mangy cats are fighting from a corner they’ve inevitably gotten themselves into. If the country doesn’t get any more screwed up politically than it is, these people will lose. They will hang themselves, and their souls will not go to heaven but to Racistville.

I might add that they could have difficulty finding people to style their hair or apply delicious window treatments once there. But there should be plenty of pleated slacks!

2 Comments

Robb Expounded Thusly:

I’m curious, do Christians consider “Christianity” to be a lifestyle choice? If they do, using their own arguments, should they even be allowed to have their precious tax-exempt status and inalienable right to freedom of religion?

Tuesday, April 11th, 2006 • 8:15am • Permalink

Steve of the Religions Outdoorsy and Gay Expounded Thusly:

Yes, very interesting. What makes religion NOT a lifestyle choice? And why do Christians get to claim that Christianity is a religion at all and not just some out-of-control weekend social club? In that case, if a university can ban a neo-Nazi club for what they “preach,” they can ban a religious group if they preach a similar doctrine. Don’t doubt many a Nazi “believed” the Jews should be harassed, just as many of these cutesy little hatemongers “believe” gays should be harassed. (So the Nazis took harassment way beyond the bounds of sanity… how many of these Christian goody-two-shoesers would jump on a bandwagon destined to kick gays out of the schools altogether? Many!)

Matt and I chatted a tiny bit about this last night, and after reading the first part of the article, he pointed out that the girls bringing the lawsuit were only 22. I told him to read on, because these “youngsters” are being supported by a large network of organizations that, I wager, include many people old enough to know better. But consider, too, is it okay for someone who’s 22 to behave so poorly toward her fellow man? No. If she killed someone, she’d be thrown away for life as an adult. Youth does not excuse ignorance, especially a youth who’s, er, not even a youth any more.

Tuesday, April 11th, 2006 • 8:30am • Permalink

 

Sorry, I ain't takin' no comments on this page. Deal, y'hear?