This entry is in response to what transpired via my last entry. I want to clear some issues up off the top.
- I am not a republican. I am a centrist. If you insist on calling me a republican or a right winger, not that I take offense to such categorization, please do so with full knowledge that I support the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion, support equal rights for gay americans including the right to adopt and marry, and find the application of the second ammendment apalling and destructive.
- I am not a troll. I do not write to provoke outrage. I write to provoke discussion. I plead with you that if you cannot or will not respond to my entries in a civilized manner without cursing and name calling, please simply move on.
- Hiding comments that show my point are against the rules of Kos. You are not allowed to hide my comments if you simply disagree with them. They may only be hidden if they are innapropriate or offensive. Hiding comments of mine like "Obama is better for the common man" are done only to obscure the true meaning of my posts. Now moving on.
The purpose of this entry is to illustarte the hypocrisy of liberal outrage and the double standards that they apply to open and fair discussions. While reading the Philadelphia Inquirer this weekend I was presented with more of a platform to back up this point then ever before. The media has been prattling on about how mean the McCain campaign has been lately. Well in the Inquirer this weekend we had a nice little report of a man protesting Palin who said that she should be stoned. Here is also a youtube video of "tolerant" liberals at a McCain Rally. http://www.youtube.com/...
Am I saying Republicans are sane and tolerant and not hypocritical? No of course not. Both sides are ripe with such shennanigans. Recent examples of calling Obama a terrorist and wider examples of claiming to be for smaller government and fiscal conservatism come to mind.
But my overarching point here is that liberals, progressives, and democrats have a stronger propensity for intellectual dishonesty and a lack of tolerance for opposing views. I think the perfect way to show that is how they often propel vitriolic attacks at religious institutions that they disagree with. I can never understand why people are not just as tolerant of opposing views as they would wish people who oppose their views to be of theirs.
So who do I turn to to help me entrench my point. How about a gay jewish man. We would seem like strange bedfellows to a blind ideologue. But we are actually alligned in our pleas for fair and reasonable discussions on topics that stir the passions in the hearts and minds of the populace. So without further ado I ask that you read after the lines of the excerpts of the following opinion peace. This man puts it better than I could ever dream of doing. Tolerance is a two way street. And the sooner this is believed, the sooner true unity can be achieved. The parralells between radical oppressors of free speech here at Kos cannot be underestimated in comparison.
http://www.philly.com/...
Gay doctrine prevents honest religious talk
The debate over same-sex relations is not over.
David Benkof
Traditionally religious organizations and the gay and lesbian community sit across a vast gulf of experience, understanding, scriptural interpretation, politics, and theology. (Traditionally People at Kos can brutally attack those they disagree with.)
One organization trying to bridge that gulf, the Soulforce Equality Ride, deserves credit for trying to bridge the gap, but its approach needs some adjustment for true progress to be made. (I would appreciate more reasonable discourse.)
Now in its fourth year, the Equality Ride is currently traveling across the American South on a six-week bus trip with nearly 20 youthful gays and lesbians of faith. They are visiting seminaries, Bible schools, and historically black colleges to engage in dialogue with (and, where necessary, nonviolent protest against) traditionally religious institutions, in an attempt to make them more gay-friendly. (Kos makes the same good faith effort to spread their viewpoints.)
The program, which draws upon echoes of the early-1960s Freedom Rides, is run by Soulforce, an organization founded by the Rev. Mel White, a gay man I consider to be a rare moral voice within the gay and lesbian community. (Kos has a multitude of members with moral clarity and rational thoughts.)
Unfortunately, Soulforce appears to be much more interested in echoing gay ideology than in exploring the diversity of ways religious people have legitimately approached questions of spirituality and sin, goodness and God. (All too often it is ideology first here over exploring diversity of thought. Just because someone says something you may disagree with, it does not mean you should shout them down.)
For example, one Soulforce slogan is: "The debate is over." Their point is that whether gay relations are a sin is not up for question - any more than whether blacks are equal or slavery is moral. (A reasonable person sees that being righteous on eitther side obliterates any notion of fair debate.)
On questions like whether gay people are human, whether God loves us, and whether we should be welcome in religious institutions, I think the debate indeed is over. But as someone who takes the Bible seriously, I hardly think a real debate has even begun - nor needs to - on whether gay relations are sinful. The books that argue that gay relations are not a sin, such as What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality by Daniel A. Helminiak, and Wrestling with God and Men, by Steven Greenberg (an ordained rabbi), either lack sufficient understanding of biblical Hebrew and the oral law that explains it, or have a conclusion in mind before reaching it via illegitimate methodologies. It's one thing to say, "Gay relations are a sin in the Bible, but my being with the person I love is more important than the Bible." It's disrespectful and a little pathetic to say the Bible does not say what it clearly does say - and further, that the traditionalist viewpoint deserves no consideration whatsoever. (We should not overlook facts just to further our ideology. Judaism repudiates homosexuality in its texts, believed by billions to be the word of God.)
If I want to engage in dialogue with pro-gay religious forces, I'm hardly going to start by declaring that the debate is over! I'm willing to listen respectfully if the other side is similarly willing. (This is the minsdet that I apply, and that which I seek from others.)
But the Equality Riders do not appear to be similarly willing. A co-director of this year's Equality Ride, Katie Higgins, said in a news release that "we can't heal . . . until everyone has a place at the table." Yet Higgins told me a traditionally religious gay or lesbian person like me who thinks gay relations are inherently sinful wouldn't be welcome on the Equality Ride, because such views are "contrary to the mission." (How can readers at Kos ever hope and pray for equality, when vast swaths openly try to limit debate?")
But the whole purpose of her organization is to make room for gay-positive voices in traditionalist schools. If a Bible college kicks out a lesbian for her dissident ideas, Soulforce will employ Gandhian tactics to try to make room for her. Yet if someone gay with views like mine wants to come on the Soulforce road trip, he will be rejected for not following the program. Smells like hypocrisy to me. Either everyone should have a place at every table, or not. (Do you agree or disagree with this proposition?)
I'd like to see more openness everywhere - both within traditionalist religious institutions (which can learn from hearing gay and lesbian faith experiences) and within gay-religious organizations (which can come to understand that the sinfulness debate is not, in fact, over). (Openness done with sincerity, reasonableness, and thoughtfulness should always trump radicalism and thought oppression.)
Perhaps one answer is to foster conservative gay-religious communities. I'm not talking about the controversial ex-gay and the dubious reparative therapy organizations. I know I'm not the only traditionalist devout gay person, and if more of us felt comfortable being open, we could serve as a bridge between those who are traditionally religious and not gay and those who are gay but not traditionally religious.
Instead, we often get rejected by both sides, when we're actually the ideal people to help each side understand the other. (So instead of rejecting me, which happens by ideologues on both sides to me, how about you banish your fears and look at substance and come up with reasonable and rational responses and leave the name calling and blind ideology at the door.)
First Edit:
I know it is hard for some of you. But seriously, if you cannot or will not read the article, refrain from cursing, or address any of the points made, please move on. Cursing and not reasonably addressing the points is just backing up the postulation.