Onward, Christian Soldiers
This morning, as usual, I settled in with the paper over breakfast, ready to see what was going on in the world. One particular headline caught my eye: "Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies." This piqued my interest, and I read the story.
Lately, there have been rumblings among the Religious Right about a "war" on Christians and "persecution" of Christians in this country. I find it amusing that evangelicals feel themselves under attack, considering the head of our gummint is a born-again Christian, his Supreme Court nominees are religiously conservative, and he has proposed, among other things, "faith-based" initiatives. Not to mention the U.S. has a majority Christian population-- so where's all these persecutions coming from? At a two-day conference on the subject, one speaker told the audience, "You have become the Jews of the 21st century." Now is it me, or have I missed the round-ups on the streets of Salt Lake City and Houston? Am I turning a blind eye to the concentration camps in South Dakota? It would be one thing if we were talking about Christians in China, or Afghan Christian converts. But somehow I don't see the Mormon Temple down the street being burned, nor am I hearing about devout folks in Orange County being denigrated, tortured, or "disappeared."
But I digress. I was curious to see if perhaps this morning's article was in the same vein, or if perhaps there was some true injustice going on. Apparently one of the initial objections one religious student had was being unable to criticize gays. "[Ruth] Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality."
Um. I don't recall hearing anything about churchgoers being forced to speak out about anything. Somehow I don't think her pastor is "compelling" her to denounce homosexuality.
The article continues by stating, "[b]ut the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation." Therefore, Malhotra is suing for the right to, uh, be intolerant.
So let's see-- Christians don't want to be criticized, challenged, or persecuted, but it's okay for them to treat gays that way? Is it me, or does that seem like a double standard?
In championing such lawsuits as Malhotra's, the Reverend Rick Scarborough, "a leading evangelical," stated "Christians are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian."
I have no problems with Christians being Christian; I do have problems with Christians not acting Christian. I don't know what Bible these people are reading from, but I was always taught that tolerance was the hallmark of Christianity. You know, turning the other cheek and all that. Fellowship of man and all that, you know. I don't recall anything in the teachings of Jesus about intolerance. Correct me if I'm wrong on that one.
The article continues: "The legal argument is straightforward: Policies intended to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination end up discriminating against conservative Christians. Evangelicals have been suspended for wearing anti-gay T-shirts to high school, fired for denouncing Gay Pride Month at work, reprimanded for refusing to attend diversity training. When they protest tolerance codes, they're labeled intolerant."
Ok. Let's look at that for a moment. These policies "discriminate" against conservative Christians. Let's take the word "gay" and replace it with "Christian"-- anti-Christian t-shirts. Denunciation of Christian Pride Month. Hm. You know what? I think I have no problem with granting Christians their wish. Let them wear these t-shirts. Let them speak out. But if they're going to do it, then I have the same right to do it as well. After all, if they are allowed to be intolerant, then isn't it okay for me to be intolerant as well? Oh, you say- that's unchristian? That's what I thought too.
Quite a few of the religious conservatives interviewed for the article defend their position by stating that homosexuality is a "lifestyle," not a trait or genetic predisposition. While I agree that the jury is still out on whether some folks are born homosexual or bisexual as opposed to being heterosexual, I blanch every time I read the word "lifestyle." One definition of "lifestyle" is "the typical way of life of an individual, group, or culture." Another definition is "a way of life or style of living that reflects the attitudes and values of a person or group." Put that way, being a conservative Christian is a "lifestyle." Again, if religious conservatives can be intolerant of the homosexual "lifestyle," then what's to stop me from being intolerant of the religious "lifestyle"? Fine by me-- I can attack people who come to my door, trying to educate or convert me. I can shout down people who offer their testimonies of being born-again. I can crumple up and stomp on pamphlets that I'm given as I walk down the street.
Sure, I could do some of these things-- but I can't do any worse. That's because religion is protected in this country (despite what those who are being "persecuted" might have you believe). That's okay with me-- I happen to believe freedom of religion is an inherent right of every human; but I also think it's an inherent right of every human to be respected, to be tolerated. That's where I disagree with Ms. Malhotra and her brethren. No one is forcing her to be gay, or to spend time with gays-- but by the same token, no one should have to be forced to endure mistreatment or intolerance from people like her.
This is one of my biggest issues with organized religion-- in their mission statements, their testimonials of faith, I have yet to encounter a religion that openly encourages intolerance and rejection of peoples. But in the leap from the abstract to reality, many religious leaders and adherents practice their religion with an eye to exclusion. The track records of most denominations leaves something to be desired. This current case is just another example of that. But hey, don't mind me-- I'm a comparative heathen in all this. Don't mind me-- just continue your brand of intolerance in your crusade towards hegemony. Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war...
Lately, there have been rumblings among the Religious Right about a "war" on Christians and "persecution" of Christians in this country. I find it amusing that evangelicals feel themselves under attack, considering the head of our gummint is a born-again Christian, his Supreme Court nominees are religiously conservative, and he has proposed, among other things, "faith-based" initiatives. Not to mention the U.S. has a majority Christian population-- so where's all these persecutions coming from? At a two-day conference on the subject, one speaker told the audience, "You have become the Jews of the 21st century." Now is it me, or have I missed the round-ups on the streets of Salt Lake City and Houston? Am I turning a blind eye to the concentration camps in South Dakota? It would be one thing if we were talking about Christians in China, or Afghan Christian converts. But somehow I don't see the Mormon Temple down the street being burned, nor am I hearing about devout folks in Orange County being denigrated, tortured, or "disappeared."
But I digress. I was curious to see if perhaps this morning's article was in the same vein, or if perhaps there was some true injustice going on. Apparently one of the initial objections one religious student had was being unable to criticize gays. "[Ruth] Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality."
Um. I don't recall hearing anything about churchgoers being forced to speak out about anything. Somehow I don't think her pastor is "compelling" her to denounce homosexuality.
The article continues by stating, "[b]ut the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation." Therefore, Malhotra is suing for the right to, uh, be intolerant.
So let's see-- Christians don't want to be criticized, challenged, or persecuted, but it's okay for them to treat gays that way? Is it me, or does that seem like a double standard?
In championing such lawsuits as Malhotra's, the Reverend Rick Scarborough, "a leading evangelical," stated "Christians are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian."
I have no problems with Christians being Christian; I do have problems with Christians not acting Christian. I don't know what Bible these people are reading from, but I was always taught that tolerance was the hallmark of Christianity. You know, turning the other cheek and all that. Fellowship of man and all that, you know. I don't recall anything in the teachings of Jesus about intolerance. Correct me if I'm wrong on that one.
The article continues: "The legal argument is straightforward: Policies intended to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination end up discriminating against conservative Christians. Evangelicals have been suspended for wearing anti-gay T-shirts to high school, fired for denouncing Gay Pride Month at work, reprimanded for refusing to attend diversity training. When they protest tolerance codes, they're labeled intolerant."
Ok. Let's look at that for a moment. These policies "discriminate" against conservative Christians. Let's take the word "gay" and replace it with "Christian"-- anti-Christian t-shirts. Denunciation of Christian Pride Month. Hm. You know what? I think I have no problem with granting Christians their wish. Let them wear these t-shirts. Let them speak out. But if they're going to do it, then I have the same right to do it as well. After all, if they are allowed to be intolerant, then isn't it okay for me to be intolerant as well? Oh, you say- that's unchristian? That's what I thought too.
Quite a few of the religious conservatives interviewed for the article defend their position by stating that homosexuality is a "lifestyle," not a trait or genetic predisposition. While I agree that the jury is still out on whether some folks are born homosexual or bisexual as opposed to being heterosexual, I blanch every time I read the word "lifestyle." One definition of "lifestyle" is "the typical way of life of an individual, group, or culture." Another definition is "a way of life or style of living that reflects the attitudes and values of a person or group." Put that way, being a conservative Christian is a "lifestyle." Again, if religious conservatives can be intolerant of the homosexual "lifestyle," then what's to stop me from being intolerant of the religious "lifestyle"? Fine by me-- I can attack people who come to my door, trying to educate or convert me. I can shout down people who offer their testimonies of being born-again. I can crumple up and stomp on pamphlets that I'm given as I walk down the street.
Sure, I could do some of these things-- but I can't do any worse. That's because religion is protected in this country (despite what those who are being "persecuted" might have you believe). That's okay with me-- I happen to believe freedom of religion is an inherent right of every human; but I also think it's an inherent right of every human to be respected, to be tolerated. That's where I disagree with Ms. Malhotra and her brethren. No one is forcing her to be gay, or to spend time with gays-- but by the same token, no one should have to be forced to endure mistreatment or intolerance from people like her.
This is one of my biggest issues with organized religion-- in their mission statements, their testimonials of faith, I have yet to encounter a religion that openly encourages intolerance and rejection of peoples. But in the leap from the abstract to reality, many religious leaders and adherents practice their religion with an eye to exclusion. The track records of most denominations leaves something to be desired. This current case is just another example of that. But hey, don't mind me-- I'm a comparative heathen in all this. Don't mind me-- just continue your brand of intolerance in your crusade towards hegemony. Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war...
<< Home