By Carrie K. Hutchens
Homosexual activists may be delighting in Fred Phelps' loss in the court battle and thinking it is a win for them against Christians, but it isn't! Phelps is not representative of the vast majority of Christians and to suggest he is would be a bold-faced untruth most likely presented to make it look like those mean Christians are at it again. See how these mean old out-dated Christians refuse to move into the 21st century with the evolved attitudes of the rest of the world. (Full Article)
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Phelps' Hate Muddies a Clear Issue
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I dealt with the Phelps family when I lived in Topeka, KS. That you would even acknowledge the "rightness" of his position on homosexuality yet denounce his tactics is disgusting and intellectually dishonest. Fred is just a little farther along the hate continuum that you and your fellow "Christians." It's simply a matter of degree and not form.
What would Jesus do, cha-cha?
Regarding your comment comparing gay people to the girls on the Girls Gone Wild videos, this just highlights the misunderstanding that society and people such as yourself have of gay people in general. All we ask is to be able to hold hands in public, just as straights do. It's not throwing sexuality in your face when a straight couple hugs in public, why is it when a gay couple does? No one is asking that gay people be able to have sex in the bus seat next to you, only that they be able to do everything that straight people do in public.
As far as gays in the military, you could say the same thing about women and men mixing together in the military. Whatever measures are taken to solve that "problem" could be taken with regards to gay people. However, I believe this "problem" is largely imagined. As you said, the military isn't a boys club where people go to socialize. Servicemembers, including those who are gay, sign up to do a service to their country. To suggest that there should be a policy of excluding these patriotic Americans because there could be isolated problems, which occur whether people are gay, straight, black, white, catholic, muslim, etc., is an extremely dim view to take.
Well said, Carrie. Every time I read about another hateful outrage committed by the Phelps coven (please don't call it a church), I contemplate the dilemma posed for those members of the loony left who so hate our military that they actively support and encourage those who would kill every uniformed American (is “loathe” an appropriate word for such hate?). So, on the one hand they hate Phelps for his homophobia, but on the other, they can’t help admiring his principled hatred for America and our military. You can easily appreciate the conflict they must feel in their hearts (were they to have one).
Todd, you put the word "rightness" in quotes, indicating that Carrie had used such in her piece. Apparently you are vying for a repoter position with CBS or the NYT.
It is fallacious to contend that hatred of the Phelps' actions must include disagreement with all their beliefs.
When Jesus was tempted in the desert, Satan quoted Scripture in an attempt to ensnare Him with a lie. Jesus rebuked Satan and drove him away.
Anonymous you must be kidding! All that gay people want is to be able to hold hands in public?
The following link is to photos of a sodomite celebration in San Francisco only a few months ago. CAUTION! Extremely graphic!
http://zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/index.php
Todd, the only thing I acknowledge the "rightness" of in Phelps'
position--and I believe I speak for Carrie here, too--is that the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin. Phelps is WRONG in his contention that "God hates fags." The Bible makes it clear that Jesus died for ALL sinners, and God loved all sinners enough to send Jesus to die this horrible death for murderers, rapists, drunks, liars, cheats, and homosexuals.
You're a lawyer, Todd. There is a clear "right and wrong" when it comes to the law, right? So if someone steps onto the wrong side of that law, is the correct way to deal with that to get in their face and tell them God hates them--or is it to address the wrong and deal with it appropriately? Conversely, if you don't scream into their face that God hates them, does that mean you approve of what they've done?
My children make mistakes all the time. Sometimes the punishments I administer are harsher than at other times, depending on whether we've been over this before or whether it involves rebellion, but I always try to administer it with respect to their humanity, and let them know that I love them too much to let them head down a destructive path of behavior.
What would Jesus do? Jesus did everything from speak softly to knocking over tables and running people out of the temple with a whip; in other words, he dealt with sin as was appropriate for each circumstance. Notice what he did with the woman caught in adultery (which was engineered by his enemies as a ploy to entrap him, not for justice' sake): he didn't tell her, "Don't let these religious nuts bother you; go, continue your normal, natural and healthy life of adultery." He told her, "Go and sin no more."
There's a BIG difference between Phelps' approach to the sin of homosexuality and mine--which I try to model from Jesus' approach--and it's disappointing that you claim you can't see it.
Anonymous, I don't think there's a misunderstanding of homosexuals on the part of most people. While most people would probably manage to tolerate the hand-holding in public you mentioned, most of us would be highly offended by it, since same-sex romantic affection is unnatural both according to the Bible and to nature itself.
Speaking of public behavior, have you seen the link Theophrastus Bombastus provided here
on some public homosexual behavior? I wouldn't recommend looking at it if you're weak of heart, because it's public but it involves a little more than hand-holding. While this takes place in San Francisco, the vast majority of mainstream America isn't ready for something like this, which is why Kirk and Madsen in their homosexual strategy book "After the Ball" encouraged homosexual activists to keep this out of the public view and only present "nice" presentable homosexuals. If people stopped to think for a minute about his--or are confronted with it like on the streets of San Francisco--Kirk and Madsen knew support for the agenda would evaporate.
Regarding the military, no one is being excluded from military service based on their religious beliefs or an innate physical characteristic. Homosexuality is a behavior, one which is not only offensive morally, but causes many logistical problems (as I said in the pieces cited in this article).
The United States military's job is far too important to waste time and energy, and undermining morale, accommodating a behavior which is immoral, unnatural and unhealthy.
Carrie Hutchens makes the same kind of false generalization she projects on others when she depicts Christians as being of one mind on opposing what she calls `the behavior` of homosexuality.
Jesus did not say one word on record against homosexuality, and many Christians base their beliefs on what He taught rather than what they hear from the pulpit or from politicians.
Most young heterosexual Christians I know have no superiority complex over their gay brethren and support equal rights. Christians are no more united on this than they were united in opposing blacks 5O years ago.
Also, it is illogical to suggest that a military policy that requires gay members to lie about their identity is one that will somehow protect heterosexual soldiers from sexual advances. Whether a straight soldier knows that the guy next to him in the foxhole has a boyfriend back in Iowa or he is believing a lie that his friend has a girlfriend back home, any `protection` would be only imaginary and due to prejudices the policy presumes the straight soldier might have. This sets up gay soldiers for potential blackmail situations that would be irrelevant without the policy.
Inappropriate behavior should be dealt with, but forcing soldiers to lie to each other when they have done nothing wrong is a problematic solution to an imaginary problem.
Anonymous: Jesus did not say one word about rape--does that mean Jesus approves of rape?
Actually, Jesus said quite a bit about homosexuality. Remember when he said that since the beginning God created us male and female, and spoke of marriage? Right there he outlined how human sexuality was to work: one man and one woman within the bond of marriage. Jesus is also one with God the Father, and he is also known as "the Word" just as the Bible is known as "the Word." And God's Word, the Bible, says repeatedly in both the Old and New Testaments that he does not approve of homosexuality. Why? First and foremost it violates his design for human sexuality (He is the creator, after all), as I've already outlined. It's also an injurious and unhealthy practice; God wants far better for his children than that.
Homosexuals already have equal rights. They have the same rights of free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom from unlawful search, etc. that everyone else has. They also have the same freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex that everyone else enjoys.
Finally, I agree that homosexuals shouldn't have to lie. They shouldn't be in the U.S. military in the first place; if they're not, then they don't have to lie. Military service is a privilege, not a right. Homosexuality is incompatible with military service for many reasons which I've already outlined on this blog.
And trying to equate this wacko Phelps' behavior with that of normal, real Christians disingenuous and misleading--for the purposes of providing cover to normalize that which is not natural and can never be natural.
Bob Ellis, that commentary from Jesus focused on divorce and did not mention homosexuality one way or another. The main point was that divorcees must not remarry.
He did not agree with much of what was quoted in the Bible and taught that others should follow His teachings, not Bible verses which quote opinions that are all over the map. For example, the only OT verse that mentions men lying with men also says that haircuts and mixed fabric clothes are an abomination and proscribes isolation and animal sacrifices for men who touch women during the days of menstruation. These were the ideas of a very superstitious tribe which do not line up with what Jesus taught.
I`m not sure why you threw in the last paragraph about the nuts from the Westboro Baptist Church. Obviously, I don`t consider their ideas in any way consistent with what Jesus taught.
My Christian friends and family have nothing in common with them.
GV, you are correct that the referenced passage dealt primarily with marriage and divorce. However, the same passage can teach more than one truth, and in this case, it also teaches that God's design for human sexuality is to be expressed by one man and one woman within marriage.
Many of the rules under which the OT Jews lived were ceremonial laws; they were intended by God to teach us lessons about God and our relationship with Him. Both Jesus directly and the writings of his apostles in the NT show that these ceremonial laws were no longer necessary under the New Covenant Jesus established. However, Jesus did not do away with the moral code of how we are live and to treat each other, nor did he change anything in the order of nature or human sexuality. The New Testament continues in several passages to condemn homosexuality.
And I included the last paragraph of my comments because a previous commenter(s) equated the fact that Carrie and I reiterated God's condemnation of homosexual behavior with Phelps' hateful behavior (e.g. "God hates fags"). Almost no Christian I have ever heard of shares their vehement, virulent, hateful attitude.
Todd, I feel sorry for you having to deal with that family ever. With that said... I got lost after you made that statement.
I was not acknowledging the rightness of anything to do with Phelps. He certainly isn't my hero!
One of my points is that he is not representative of the majority of Christians, and should not be held up as though he is.
As for your statement regarding hate...
Todd, I may not approve of everything you say or do, but that doesn't mean that I hate you to any degree. Where is it written that we have to agree 100% with someone's actions or we hate the person? If that is the rule, then I guess you hate me because you didn't like or approve of my article.
Anonymous, in pursuing your defense, you missed something very important in my article. I said, "On the other hand, we are not required to stay in the same room with a man and woman getting overly friendly, so why should we be required to stay in that room if it is the same activity but with same gender people..." I can freely walk out if it is a man and woman and no one will say a word about how that was politically incorrect. But... let me be upset about the same activity but because it is same gender and I have committed some sort of a crime in the eyes of the activists?
I have written about this before...
I was in a restaurant, as were families with children, when two homosexuals started making out in the booth. The manager asked them to stop. To make a long story short, he then had to tell them that if they didn't stop, they would have to leave. They threatened to file a discrimination suit. He welcomed them to file it. There was no discrimination involved. The "behavior" was unacceptable and the manager called them on it, just as he would if it had been a man and a woman. They weren't being singled out, but they kept yelling that they had been.
You said, "As far as gays in the military, you could say the same thing about women and men mixing together in the military."
I not only could say it, I did say it!
And to get the record straight, I was in no way defending Phelps! I was trying to point out how his attitude and actions are irrational and not representative of the majority of Christians!
Anonymous 11/08/2007 10:37 PM you said, "Carrie Hutchens makes the same kind of false generalization she projects on others when she depicts Christians as being of one mind on opposing what she calls `the behavior` of homosexuality."
I believe I am the one that said... "Christians come in all sizes and shapes, with just as many variations and degrees of specific beliefs. However, to suggest that all Christians hate the person, rather than simply the behavior, is an unfair assumption."
Thank you, Theophrastus Bombastus! Yes, you are right... Phelp's group is more liken a coven of hatred.
Carrie Hutchens said...``I believe I am the one that said... "Christians come in all sizes and shapes, with just as many variations and degrees of specific beliefs. However, to suggest that all Christians hate the person, rather than simply the behavior, is an unfair assumption."``
Ms. Hutchens, whether one implies that all Christians hate homosexuals or that all Christians hate `the behavior` of homosexuality, it`s the same false generalization.
Many Christians do not hate anything about homosexuals or homosexuality.
Similarly, many American`Christians` used to hate black in the 195O`s and many `Christians` hated the behaviors of blacks, or the behaviors of blacks who dated or married whites. But `all` Christians were never united on hating either.
Many Christians used to hate the behavior of women voting but certainly not `all` Christians did and eventually, most did not.
Most Christians I know don`t have a problem with homosexuality, even if `all` of the people in your social circles might.
GV, there's a big difference between saying homosexuality is wrong and hating homosexuals.
And I'm sorry, but your civil rights comparisons just don't hold a drop of water. Being female or black or a particular skin color is a physical characteristic, one that does not in the least diminish one's moral standing before God. However, God has made it clear in both Old and New Testaments that he does not approve of homosexual behavior; it turns his design for human sexuality upside down.
It doesn't matter what Carrie, I or any other Christian thinks of homosexuality. It matters what God thinks, and he's made it clear what he thinks. But you can keep on ignoring what he's said, to your spiritual peril.
Post a Comment