See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient with it until it receives the early and the late rains. - James 5:7

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Christian terrorists.

Who are they?
.
Homosexual thought police, activists, former celebrities such as Rosie O'Donnel, and the Log Cabin Republicans suggest - insist - Christians who oppose gay marriage and declare homosexual acts immoral are in fact, terrorists. Twisting language is nothing new in the upside down world of homosexual activism, but calling Christians terrorists seems to me to confirm the rather neurotic emotionality and unconscious self-pity that some researchers believe underlies a probable gender-inferiority complex many gay people suffer from. (I know gay people are offended by that theory - however, I find it to be reasonable.)
.
The details.
.
"The attack comes from Jamie Ensley, president of the Georgia "Log Cabin Republicans," who also compared the Illinois-based Americans for Truth to Germany's Nazi party. Ensley wrote:
.
"Most Americans and people of medical science believe that people do not choose their sexual orientation. Groups like Americans for Truth simply want to divide Americans, and truthfully their group would be more welcome as a mainstream Nazi Germany organization, than an organization which provides any value at all in 21st Century America," Ensley's message said.
.
"I hope you will continue to support the Log Cabin Republicans, and not listen to the radical christian extremist domestic terrorist groups such as Americans for Truth," he wrote.
.
The Illinois Family Institute noted the argument and suggested Ensley ruminate on several facts. It said:
.
-There is no research proving that homosexuality is biologically determined: none.
.
-There is no research proving that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to race or biological sex: none.
.
-It is no more anti-American to believe that homosexual behavior is immoral than it is to believe that polyamorous or incestuous behavior is immoral.
.
-There is a body of thought emerging from the homosexual community called "queer theory" that holds that homosexuality is neither inherent nor immutable.
.
-The view that homosexual conduct is moral is an unproven, ethical belief – not a fact.
.
-The belief that homosexual conduct is immoral does not constitute incitement to violence or hatred. It no more constitutes hatred toward homosexuals than does the belief that polyamory or selfish behavior is immoral constitutes hatred of polyamorists or selfish people.
.
-The belief that volitional homosexual behavior is immoral is not an extreme position.
.
-Throughout history, it has been the dominant cultural view and remains so both in this country and many other countries throughout the world.
.
-The Institute also insisted it is not bigotry to believe that homosexual behavior is immoral.
.
-"The Merriam Webster Dictionary," the group said, "defines a bigot as a person who is 'obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.'
.
-Clearly, there is a distinction between bigotry and moral views. Bigotry cannot simply refer to holding opinions or being in possession of moral precepts, for if it did, everyone but sociopaths would have to be considered bigots because everyone but sociopaths holds certain behaviors as moral and others as immoral." - Source

2 comments:

  1. It is daft to believe that modern moralists do not devote greater attention to homosexuality, which they believe is immoral, than to being fat, which is also immoral. As it stands, many would carry much self-condemnation if the latter were true, so it's much easier to choose one or two choice immoralities to rail against than to make one's crusade for holiness begin interiorly.

    How can any of us deign to convert the world if we have not yet fully converted ourselves?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Bigotry cannot simply refer to holding opinions or being in possession of moral precepts, for if it did, everyone but sociopaths would have to be considered bigots because everyone but sociopaths holds certain behaviors as moral and others as immoral."

    So how long before the vitriol on the side of the rationalists changes from calling us bigots to calling us sociopaths?

    ReplyDelete


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.