Liberty and Virtue

A person who experiences same sex attraction and who endeavors to live chastely in accordance with his religious beliefs keeps an eye out for examples of gay activists' (1) showing intolerance and hatred of traditional religious and moral beliefs and believers, (2) attempting to deny freedom of speech, assembly and religion to others, and (3) trying to cause the government to impose liberal views on sexual morality on society. Other stuff of interest to blogger may also occasionally be posted.

Gay activists do not speak for all those who experience same sex attraction!

Not all those with SSA reject traditional sexual morality!

Not all those with SSA support promiscuity!

Not all those with SSA believe the gay activist ideology of “gay pride”!

Not all those with SSA believe in making their sex drive their primary public identity!

Not all those with SSA support public indecency in “gay pride” parades!

Not all those with SSA support government promotion of homosexual activity!

Not all those with SSA support same sex marriage!

Not all those with SSA support biased teaching in public schools on homosexual matters!

Not all those with SSA demonize traditional religious believers!

Not all those with SSA wish to deny basic freedoms of speech, religion and association to those who disagree with the gay activists’ ideology and agenda!

Christian charity for persons does not require affirmation of sinful or immoral activity!

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

Andrew Sullivan has gone off the deep end ...

and Jonah Goldberg rightly calls him to account for it:

Andrew Sullivan writes:

"Hatred of open and proud homosexuals is intrinsic to Islamist fundamentalism, as it is to Christian fundamentalism. The struggle against both is the same one - at home and abroad."

I'm sorry. But:

1. Even if hatred of homosexuality were intrinsic to Islamist and Christian fundamentalism, the fight against Islamic fundamentalism isn't about homosexuality. It's just not and no matter how much you care about the issue, it won't ever be.

2. Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism aren't the same thing. They can both be "bad" but that doesn't mean they are the same. Depending on what you mean by Christian fundamentalism, I don't think it's bad. I certainly don't think it's bad if you go by Andrew's expansive use of the phrase. But even if I did, I would recognize some important differences between the two. Like: Christian fundmentalists have not constructed a grand theological construct to justify mass murder in the modern era. No followers of Jerry Falwell are suicide bombers. This is not a minor distinction. Christian fundamentalism gave birth to the Protestant reformation, individual liberty, the American nation, the modern American university, and the like. This is not a minor distinction either.

3. Writing things like this makes it nearly impossible to defend Sullivan from the charge that he lets homosexuality color his perceptions of every other argument and issue.

Addendum: It occurs to me that a charitable explanation of Sullivan's statement is that he's trying to persuade liberals -- gay or otherwise -- to understand the threat from Islamic fundamentalism in terms they can appreciate. Alas, Andrew's recent diatribes against fundamentalism don't really jibe with this interpretation. And, besides that wouldn't absolve the slander or inaccuracy.

Me: I would add further to what Jonah said and state that of course Christianity does not stand for "hatred of open and proud homosexuals" in any event. We are called to hate the sin and love the sinner. Gay activists like Andrew Sullivan, whose entire human personality and identity are subsumed in their sex drive, cannot and will not recognize the difference between a person and an activity.

Furthermore, Mr. Sullivan's rantings appear to confirm what I have suspected all along about him, and Christopher Hitchins as well, i.e., their beef with Saddam Hussein and Islamist terrorists has nothing to do with the horrible violent and criminal acts that they do, but rather Islam's traditional moral beliefs on sexuality. And even as a matter of pure beliefs, there is no comparison between traditional Islamist believers and traditional Christian believers of the present day, since the former use the government and Shariah law to impose their views, whereas most traditional Christian believers today would live with a government truly neutral on the issue of the morality of homosexual activity, i.e., a government that neither made such activity criminal nor promoted it through the public schools or civil same sex marriage.

The efforts of Mr. Sullivan and other liberals to demonize traditional religious believers is hysterical, unAmerican and unnecessary. Active homosexuals are in no way persecuted in present day America and indeed are the beneficiaries of much preferential treatment in the media and elsewhere. Our nation was founded on tolerance and religious freedom. The Godless and promiscuous liberals and gay activists are free and tolerated in this society. Why can't traditional religious believers be equally tolerated in Andrew Sullivan's America? Live and let live is the American thing to do. Too bad that religion-hating liberals have no intention of following that pacific American custom.

Charles S.


Post a Comment

<< Home

<< # St. Blog's Parish ? >>