I woke up pontificating this morning--- It's happening more and more. Yesterday, several members of Congress it was announced, now qualify on at least 3 or more major points to be declared as on 'terrorist-watch' by Homeland Security. Why? Because 'extreme views' of any kind, 'over-religiosity' and the opposition to illegal immigration on the Mexican border, to name a few are all criteria now to send up a red flag for profiling. Those who strongly believe there is a 'right' and 'wrong' now qualify in the United States to be tailed, watched, reigned in, and maybe even denied travel. I wish I was being sardonic but I'm not. Not one of those Congressmen are anti-Mexican or anti-Mexican immigration---only against ILLEGAL immigration. Lawmakers were supposed to be on the side of Law, one thinks, not against it.
If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? (KJV)]
The foundations are being destroyed. So destroyed that fundamentals we have all implicitly held since infancy are all open to question. Foundations like 'if the law holds, the truth holds', or that we are protected in our free speech about ANYTHING. We have always advocated and stood for across the board Civil Rights and Freedom of Speech and the practice of religion, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, whether or not one agreed with the person or issue involved.
. My own faith is Christian, what the world refers to as 'born-again' (the only kind), although I was once a raging liberal existential type. What has mattered to me in both cases is that people be free to follow their paths unencumbered as long as the very reasonable guard rails of society hold. We aren't to physically hurt one another, or destroy another with words or incite riot. We are to recognize the very righteous boundaries of personhood and ownership regardless of race , creed or color. We are also to uphold honor and 'right ways' as ensigns of a healthy society. Some cry 'you can't legislate morality' and I say, that is what we do legislate! Freedom though has always been the zenith of our societal goals, with safety closely in tow.
Real Tolerance
I have stood by most aspects of what is deemed 'tolerance': taught my children that while race makes one unique, that 'God is no respecter of persons'. No east nor west, no male nor female, no Jew nor Gentile, etc, when it comes to valuing a person or allowing them to journey through their lives, with the one proviso that no group, liberal nor conservative may so overtake the 'deciding factor' as to force their beliefs on another. NO GROUP, including those politically in favor, or 'correct', a dangerous misnomer. As such, I have stood by the rights of all, from Afro-Americans, to the Jews, liberals, conservatives, and even people like Randy Weaver, Zundel, Pro-Palestinians even though I downright hate what some of them believe and work against it non-stop. My children were taught when young that the Truth has a life of its own and does not need to be shouted down, sequestered or forbidden or banned: the light of the truth will stand against the most sinister sophistry, and therefore does not have to be bound or outlawed. Some a person can dialogue with and some one cannot, but decently and in order, free speech, even of extreme positions has always been allowed. If a dangerous position begins to arise, one can vote it down, boycott, walk away or any other form of legal protest. Civil disobedience for Christians is sometimes necessary but may only be used when to obey a man-made law requires disobeying God's laws.
In light of those 'basics' while I hold very strong opinions on some issues which are not 'politically correct', I am astounded over the past several years at how the law is being tossed aside, Civil Rights becoming a farce, the truth twisted or hidden beyond belief, and major factions of society who lobbied for their civil rights, gaining them ,only to forcibly deny other people theirs.
Miss California and the US-Gay Pageant
At the outset I am pro-civil rights for homosexuals as for all, but not at all pro-gay lifestyle. My trust in the Word of God does not allow the condoning of what I consider immoral practices. That is a BELIEF. I have a right to believe that gay lifestyles are unhealthy and even sinful, and lead a person into life-ruining dissension. I hold the right to state that openly. I do not have a right to harm or hurt, deny opportunities, employment or any rights to persons of a homosexual persuasion, and no one should be allowed to physically harm anyone, of any type or kind. It goes both ways, though, or it doesn't work. One ravel and the garment falls apart. It is with consternation then that I express even outrage at the way Miss California was treated in the Miss USA pageant.
I am not particular, either toward beauty pageants. Too often they demean the personhood of women, allowing them to be judged on outward appearances and as 'objects' more than as valued human beings but that is for another time. In the recent Miss USA pageant, though, an interchange so unjust occurred that I cannot but stand alongside many others in defense of Miss California, Carrie Prejean, in her right first not to have been asked the alarming question, and secondly, in not having to be assaulted for her dignified answer, because an gay judge, Perez Hilton , in a very aggressive stance, did not like her BELIEFS. Her answer, quite frankly was fairly nonplussed, and remarked at least vaguely on equal rights, while upholding her own position:
"Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. Um, we live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and in, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman," "No offense to anybody out there. But that's how I was raised and that's how I think that it should be between a man and a woman."
The Question and the Gay Lobby
Over the years there have been a lot of questions asked in that Pageant. "What do you want most for the world?", or even this year other questions were about mildly 'discussable' political events, but no one else was asked, for example about abortion, or the holocaust, or any other topic which raises armaments on both sides. I cannot understand why a gay rights extremist was even among the judges of what has been traditionally seen as a heterosexually-oriented event, or why the question was put forward to a born-again Christian (by her profession). More and more, events and podiums are being turned into forums on the 'gay' question, which had nothing to do with gay rights. Churches, especially evangelical churches, are becoming targets of Sunday morning 'rushes' where gay activists run into the
sanctuary handing out gay rights literature even during sermons and collections. Churches and Synagogues and other places of worship have traditionally been considered 'off limits' to outside disruptors of any kind but particularly to those of opposite beliefs. So why the question, and why to her? They know ahead of time the background of the young women, usually with in depth searches. They also are quite clear that Christians of a more conservative nature do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle. The question was not even about civil rights per se but about gay marriage, which even some who believe in the former do not endorse as a 'fabric of society' issue. And why the element of an embarrassing question? The other questions were not asked with the same demeanor. And why a gay judge posing the question? It stinks of 'agenda', and the pageant was not the place for it.
Miss California and Her Civil Rights
The outlandish reaction and over attention to the small remark which actually endorsed freedom of choice, but personally endorsed monogamy, was the utter right of free speech for Miss California, Ms. Prejean, and it was not Hilton's rights which were violated in any way, but Prejean's. She was graded down for her remarks because they did not express the will of the pro-gay activists. Further, she has since been targeted violently in the press, and even some photos with her back showing have been made into a bit of riotousness. In my view, those photos are not up to the standards of modest apparel for a Christian woman, but that is not the issue. The issue is the contestant stood up for her very normal beliefs, and was crucified in the press fore MERELY HAVING THE BELIEF, not just expressing it. It has been a nonstop hate crime against her right to both be a representative of a State or the US, and hold a very traditional belief that millions hold. Millions.
Controversy is one thing, and disagreement another but lambasting someone who is a reasonably tolerant person because she does not believe that a marriage contract extends to two same sex persons, is a violation of HER civil rights, not theirs.
There is a militant overtone or outright militancy by some gay rights organizations and lobbies. They are not willing to accept mere legislation or Civil Rights like the rest of us, they want you to be forced to agree that their lifestyles are moral and righteous and many, many just will not extend them that privilege, any more than we will extend it to other 'lifestyles' with which we disagree. This is not the first public crucifixion on the topic. Dr. Laura came out on her talk show several years ago, declaring that it was not a healthy lifestyle in her eyes and beliefs, and gay activists tried to run her off the air. Anita Bryant many years ago made a small remark and the Orange Growers Association was lobbied to ditch her as representative.
The militancy extends further, and may include interruption of church services, open lewdness and anti-religion displays in 'Gay Pride Parades', for which families who attend are never prepared , physical assaults (it goes both ways), and even setting up conservatives to look gay, because they know it will ruin them among their own kind. Deliberate and planned seduction of young people in families who are religious or conservative is also occurring and a whole lot of us are saying, wait, stop, this is not a 'right' for anyone or any position, and tolerance while one of our highest goals does not mean we have to adopt or agree with those very different from us and our beliefs.
I would fight vehemently for the rights of AIDS patients for gracious care and mercy, for equal opportunity in housing and jobs, and the right of any gay person not to be physically assaulted because they are gay. Please understand , that though I will fight also for persons who are assaulted because they lead conservative moral lives and do not want either themselves nor their children deceitfully seduced into a destructive and lewd lifestyle just so I can appear more tolerant than others. It is not a lifestyle of just Jane liking Judy, or Tim liking Glen, but the society of the gay person involves a whole lot more than most persons, even liberal straight persons would tolerate or want for themselves or families.
Homosexuality Over Time
Homosexuality has always been with us, that is certain, since recorded history. It almost always flares up though toward the end of a powerful but decadent society such as Rome, Greece, or now the US. It appears in animal experiments of 'overcrowding'. The Bible refers to homosexuals as 'sodomites' after the city of Sodom which was destroyed for its lasciviousness. It is warned against throughout the Scriptures as spiritual reprobacy , a threshold which once crossed makes a relationship with God near impossible. While some try and twist scriptures to make it sound o.k., such as trying to make David and Jonathon lovers, or worse, no case of homosexual behavior is ever endorsed and intimate friendships between men can and were healthy and whole without being gay. It is hard enough to live in these days and times as a celibate single person of either gender, even in the Christian world, because attributions are often made about any single person being gay and yet very often it is quite the opposite for those leading productive and disciplined lives. The gay lobby has been effective and pervasive, and has deeply imbedded itself in all levels of our culture.
In the 1940s and before, homosexuality was seen as a personality disorder in the DSM, or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the APA, an issue for treatment. By the time of the Kinsey report, Kinsey suggested that close to 10% of the population was gay or had that leaning, but it caused quite a stir in the 50s and early 60s as no one could believe there was such a preponderance. APA's DSM changed points of view, as psychological diagnosis often wavers with political expediency. Then, homosexuality was partially discluded as a gender issue in which it was a disorder only if one was dissatisfied with the leanings. It opened the floodgates to such a rash of 'anything goes' that many abandoned membership in the APA not on that issue alone, but the APA Monitor even ran articles on transcultural acceptance of pedophilia, and other aberrations. Efforts to be tolerant do not necessitate efforts to endorse immorality or allow even sadistic behavior to the young because it involves some valueless point of view, or psychological makeup: some 'psychological makeups' are dangerous. They destroy societies.
Miss CA and the Bad Hat
So to the 'Bad Hat' who will not allow Miss California to be herself or hold her own beliefs without a criminal assault on her character nationwide: back off. You hurt your own cause when you do that. That's so gay...I mean so 'girl with skirt as a shirt'. This is where the Gay Sidewalk ends... Freedom of Speech: yes. Freedom of belief : yes, for all. Freedom to crush those who do not like you lifestyle: No. Absolutely not, and I am not alone in that belief.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment