« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
08/23/2007
Update: Words sometimes lead to sticks and stones
Last week, this writer responded to conservative columnist Timothy Bloedow's claim that there is no correlation between "pro-famiy" Chirstians' gay antipathy and actual acts of gay-targeted violence. Well, Mr. Bloedow has now responded to that response, saying the following in a new column (he's in red, we're in blue):
My last newsletter commentary, "Civilized societies don't have 'hate crime' laws," discussed the fact that homosexuals have no evidence of any link between Christian disagreement with homosexuality and acts of violence against those who practice homosexual behavior.
A homosexualist blogger commenting on this commentary has added further support to the case I was making by criticizing me without producing any evidence to buttress his position.
He drew particular attention to the following portion of my commentary: "The fact is that there is absolutely no correlation between the typically Christian criticism of homosexuality and actual acts of violence committed against homosexuals. Banning criticism of homosexuality will not, therefore, have any impact on violence against homosexuals.
"I believe that homosexual activists and other Secularist enemies of liberty know this. Therefore, one has to conclude that the passage of hate crime legislation, and the inclusion of hate crime provisions related to 'sexual orientation' in human rights codes were strategically planned as a bigoted agenda to suppress Christianity and shove it out of Canada's public square and into the closet."
He responded: "... If you work day and night to condemn an entire subset of the population, you cannot then turn around and wash your hands clean of the role you may have played in any harm that comes to your opposition's person! Nobody is trying to 'ban Christian criticism of homosexuality,' as such does go against the idea of religious freedom.
"However, we will never stop connecting the dots of bias, and we will never allow those who dedicate their lives to keeping us stigmatized, marginalized, and demonized, to pull their feet away from any literal fires that may flare up against gays."
So, let me ask this fellow - and all other Secular Humanists, homosexual and otherwise - the following questions: Does the fact that murder is criminalised lead to all kinds of vigilante action against murderers by Canadian citizens? Does even the disgust that most people have towards child sexual abusers lead to lynchings of pedophiles?
Well first off, Mr. Bloedow has trivialized the earlier words by truncating the piece in the way that he did (and not even providing a link to the actual post). What was actually said was this:
Hmmm...there's "absolutely no correlation between the typically Christian criticism of homosexuality and actual acts of violence committed against homosexuals"? So we guess society is only supposed to take away a message from Christian teachings when such messages make Christians look decent (love thy neighbor; do unto others; don't lie, cheat or steal; etc.)? And when those take-away messages are truly divisive to the society in which we live (no matter how hidden behind the veil of "love the sinner, hate the sin" they are), we are supposed to just discredit their faith-based root? Well sorry, Mr. Bloedow, but that is simply something we are not willing to do!
The simple fact is that Evangelicals are the MOST to blame for propagating homophobia and gay bias in this nation. While we 100% believe that the vast majority do not wish any real harm to LGBT persons, the fall-out from their constant cries of "gays are immoral," "gays are an abomination," "gays are sinners," "gays can be healed through Jesus," "gays are trying to destroy marriage," "gays are diseased," "gays took a dump and forgot to flush," etc., is that they have helped to foster a culture wherein those who DO hold actual malice towards gays can justify their violent, hurtful acts as somehow "Biblical." And while it is only this violence that gay-centric hate crime laws are meant to target, this savagery was certainly learned from somewhere. It is not a natural instinct to dislike same-sex oriented people.
The bottom line: If you work day and night to condemn an entire subset of the population, you cannot then turn around and wash your hands clean of the role you may have played in any harm that comes to your opposition's person! Nobody is trying to "ban Christian criticism of homosexuality," as such does go against the idea of religious freedom. However, we will never stop connecting the dots of bias, and we will never allow those who dedicate their lives to keeping us stigmatized, marginalized, and demonized, to pull their feet away from any literal fires that may flare up against gays. The stakes are simply too high on our side of the fence.
And you know what? This "homosexualist" writer stands by every last word of that! And now I will make an addendum so that I can respond to Mr. Bloedow's new thoughts:
Does the fact that murder is criminalised lead to all kinds of vigilante action against murderers by Canadian citizens? Well yes, sometimes there is vigilante violence against a murderer. But a qestion that would be more apropos to this particular situation is: Does the fact that murder is condemned by religious people lead to all kinds of staunch antipathy against murderers by citizens? And the question to that is a resounding yes! Society, steeped in religion, has long propagated the idea that murder runs contrary to everyone's best interest.
The same goes with pedophilia. The vast majority strongly condemn that disgusting act, and there are certainly LOADS of parents who would resort to violence against someone who harmed their own child. That's because again, we have long had people rightfully propagating the idea that these concepts are immoral, wrong, and heinous. And when something is so strongly condemned in the verbal sense, it will sometimes turn into a violent condemnation.
But here's the thing: Homosexuality is NOT immoral, wrong, and heinous! It is a normal part of the human condition that does not damage society in the ways that murder or pedophilia do. Or in any way, for that matter. However, many religious people -- especially evangelical Christians -- have drawn parallels with both pedophilia and murder (among other things) in their attacks against gays. Think of lines like, "I would speak out against the sin of homosexuality just like I would that of drug addiction, adultery, pedophilia, or a whole host of other sins." We hear stuff like that ALL THE TIME! The whole crux of the "pro-family" movement's argument is that gays are destructive to society. And many citizens internalize the oft-repeated messages, and justify their strong anti-gay bias as somehow what God wants for a productive world. In some people's eyes, a homosexual person and a homicidial person are just as worthy of punishment. No matter how much Mr. Bloedow wishes to deny the evangelical Christians' role in fostering this viewpoint, it doesn't take either a rocket scientist of master theologian to see the true picture!
Again, most anti-gay Christians are not violent and would strongly condemn violence. However, the culture of fear and stigmatization they have created against gay people has certainly not helped us walk the streets hand-in-hand with our loves without looking over our shoulder.
In the closing of his latest piece, Mr. Bloedow expresses a desire "to save North American civilization from the barbarians." So I'm guessing he means the kinds of barbarians who the Christians wish to see tolerated and accepted, not beatened and maimed, right?
Homosexualists have no argument against Christians [CCL of Maine]
Your thoughts
Sadly, this man doesn't see the connections between anti-gay religious propaganda and violent acts against gays and lesbians anymore the Senator Bilbo in the 1950's South could see his part in lynchings or the Nazi propaganda writers of the 1930s could see their part in the holocaust . For him to see this connection would also mean admitting his own guilt in the horrors of a climate of violence against any group painted "the enemy".
At any point in history you will find that a group of the population was made out as the "enemy" for some period of time. The history of hate shows us points where Jews were the target, Irish families were a target in the 1930s, Japanesse families were the targets during the war. The pro-segregation propaganda of the 1930s to the present should show anyone that hate speech leads to violence.
In each of these cases, the news media and other outside groups played important role in creating the culture of violence against said group. Lynchings and other acts of violence followed. This was all documented in the Film "Shadows of Hate" in 2000. I would suggest this Christina man watch and learn about bias based crime and propaganda.
The evidence against anti-gay Christian hate speech and its effects on violent acts is overwhelming. I would challenge this man anytime to debate this, solely because I know I can prove it. The history isn't on his side, but it is on mine. Beginning with the earliest forms of anti-semitic writings and speeches, the writings and speeches of segregationists and current anti-gay writings, it can be proven that hate speech leads to violence.
Posted by: Joe Brummer | Aug 23, 2007 12:46:25 PM
Excellent as usual, Jeremy.
Now what's it take to get a link from you?
Posted by: Jamie | Aug 23, 2007 12:52:21 PM
That was fast. Thanks! If you ever get a chance, read my "coming out" page. It seems to be the most well-received thing I've ever written. Thanks again!
Posted by: Jamie | Aug 23, 2007 3:18:27 PM
Joe is right. It is an "us" vs. "them" mentality. If these conservative Christians didn't have gays to dump on I believe they would be going after Muslims because of 9/11. Not that some haven't already.
Funny how a host of "other sins" don't have them nearly as worked up. I'd love for them to tackle divorce and remarriage. I'd love for them to condemn publicly the divorced and remarried population in the USA as adulterers. I'd love for them to try to pass laws that made divorce illegal.
I wonder how far they would get with it?
Posted by: Ken R | Aug 23, 2007 3:41:03 PM
comments powered by Disqus
