Wright vs. 'wrong'
It's just all so simple, right Wendy? From CNS News:
"It's been said that there are two Americas, and what I'd argue is that if there are two Americas, we're not divided economically, we're divided morally," Wendy Wright, president of the group Concerned Women for America, said during a panel discussion entitled "Beyond Our Pocketbooks: Social Issues and the Conservative Movement."
On one side, Wright noted, "we have hedonistic Hollywood that imposes their sense of indulgence that the only life worth living is one that indulges itself."
"We have the entire Planned Parenthood mentality that says other human beings should be used for your own sexual pleasure, and if someone else is a burden to you, if they are unwanted, then simply eliminate them, abort them," she told the gathering.
"And then, we have the other America that respects morality, that wants to end pornography in our society because it uses women and children as objects for other people's pleasure," Wright said.
That side of America "wants to put an end to the killing of little human beings who have been designated as less than human" because "of where they are located -- inside a woman -- or because of how small they are, or because they don't yet look like you and I do," she added.
"This is also the moral America that wants to protect marriage because we recognize that marriage is the distinct union between a man and a woman, and it is the foundation to a stable society."
This, my friends, is what you call a dangerous world view! The idea that there is a hard and fast "immoral" and "moral" America, rather than a diverse nation where viewpoints exist along a continuum. It's the way our opposition all-too-often likes to present debate on "culture war" issues, painting the picture of an uber-polarized planet where "Christian conservative" is the automatic height of all that is good and righteous, with "gay liberal atheist" at the lowest depths of depravity. After all, since those who embrace ALL who grace this planet are disinterested in hijacking morality, far right leaders like Ms. Wright can play Monopoly with values in the most uncontested of fashions. No one else is bold enough to stake such a claim to virtue or to deny others of their ethics!
Is there undeniably a "culture war" fence, with folks falling on one side or the other? Sure, with the addition of some fence-straddlers. But within both sides of these debates, there are many good as well as sh*tty people! There are those who agree 100% on gay marriage, yet disagree greatly on the limits of a woman's right to choose. There are both gay and straight people on both sides of the issues. There are evangelical leaders who are in their offices watching porn even as we speak! Human beings are multi-faceted. Hollywood is not a one-mind town! Life is not black and white.
This writer has lived in a tiny little, vastly Christian-identified town in the reddest of red states. He currently lives in one of the bluest zip codes in America. Some of the most finely tuned moral compasses I've ever witnessed live on the Upper East Side of NYC, with some of the most backwards-thinking, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-Semitic folks I've ever met attending church in that small town every Sunday (with a Reagan/Bush '84 bumper sticker firmly attached to their Chevy). On the flip, some of the rudest individuals with the poorest outlooks on life have shocked me to the core when our liberal NYC paths were unfortunate enough to cross, while some of the most genuinely decent and loving people I've ever met think the word "Clinton" is synonymous with "pig vomit."
Some people suck at life; others excel (status which is subjective, of course). Many go back and forth between the two states, even on a day to day basis. Some see eye-to-eye on one issue and are polar opposites on another. Such is life! The cut-and-dry world views of folks like Ms. Wright are truly what make "issues" like gay rights so annoying to debate with Christian conservatives, as so many of them have already painted those in favor of such as on the team of "bad." No matter the legal, rational, decent, need-based arguments pro-gay proponents present, their "side" presents an endgame that is unable to be debated. All conversation just stops when they something to the effect of: "My religious teachings tell me gay rights are wrong, period!" It is nothing short of enraging for those who, even if they agree in a religious sense, no that these issues are and must be detached from personal faith views!
This writer disagrees with Wendy Wright on most every issue. I think her stances on gay marriage and gay rights is reprehensible. I think the legacy of her work opposing gay issues, if it continues the way it is going, will someday be viewed in an extremely negative light. But do I think Ms. Wright is a bad, immoral person for supporting positions that I unapologetically consider to be disgusting? Absolutely not! In fact, I believe the vast majority of our opponents 100% want to live a virtuous life and think that their actions are loving, not hateful. What drives me in my work is is not the chance to see their lives destroyed or their image tarnished, but rather to open their eyes to the truth about gay lives and loves! I do not have the power or desire to judge the character of someone who I do not know. I will however judge her outlooks and teachings with a fiery passion. To not do so would be going against the values that I hold dear.
Social Conservatives See 'Two Americas' [CNSNews]
"And then, we have the other America that respects morality, that wants to end pornography in our society because it uses women and children as objects for other people's pleasure,"
Women and children? What about guys? Does gay porn not objectify men? And what about lesbian porn? Is that doubly objectifying, or does it cancel itself out?
Posted by: Ferin | Mar 2, 2007 8:19:26 PM
I'm iffy about abortion—I think it needs to be kept legal, but that it's rarely the best option—but the "pro-life" agenda really bothers me. Most of them seem to believe that once a woman gets pregnant, she ceases to be relevant and is reduced to the status of "incubator." (Those of them who don't think that women are irrelevant to begin with, that is...)
Posted by: Qit | Aug 7, 2007 5:24:26 PMcomments powered by Disqus