Tuesday, April 11, 2006
I Have The Right To Intimidate You!
Remember what I said about fanatics? That one of the innate traits of fanatics is that they lack the innate ability to take a step back, look at what they are saying, and think, "Wait, are we framing this the right way?"
Well, here's a key example of fanaticism in action. Let's start with the opening sentence of this LA Times article:
Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant.
There. "The right to be intolerant." Not "the right to express her opinion." Not "the right to stand up for her religious beliefs." But "the right to be intolerant." At that point, any normal person would look at what's gone on, say, "Well, we screwed the pooch," and go back to finding a kinder, gentler means of getting their point across.
But not a fanatic.
With her lawsuit, the 22-year-old student joins a growing campaign to force public schools, state colleges and private workplaces to eliminate policies protecting gays and lesbians from harassment. The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all.
The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. "Christians," he said, "are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian."
Hmm, let's see: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, the vast majority of people in this country are Christians, and every single president has been some sort of Christian or another.
People have the right to be Christian. What they don't have the right to be is a person who believes it is their righteous duty on Earth to treat people of a certain subclass like they are shit on a stick. While I may disagree on the "all organizations must have gay people" point, fanatics like Scarborough don't want to stop there. As the list above mentions, they target programs that teach people that gays are just like everyone else, and not disease-ridden child molesters.
Still. Let's not stop there. Let's see what other fanatics have to say about codified protection of gayness:
Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor responds to such criticism angrily. He says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different — a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.
This particular meme has mounting evidence against its veritability, but let's examine it as if it is true. That's right, Baylor. Homosexuality is a lifestyle chocie- just as much as religion. If you argue that a Christian has a right to exist in this country and not be "prosecuted" because of their choice of faith, like Scarborough, then you're a hypocrite if you say gays should be specifically targeted for their "choice."
But, hey. Let's not leave Baylor just yet. I wonder what else he has to say about this matter:
"Think how marginalized racists are," said Baylor, who directs the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom. "If we don't address this now, it will only get worse."
"Think how marginalized racists are."
That's it. This argument, from a PR standpoint, is dead. It's deceased. No more. Tits up. Kicked the bucket. Singing with the choir invisible. This is an ex-argument.
As some wise man once said: "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." There is nothing wrong with being a Christian in this country. There will be nothing wrong with being a Christian in this country for its continued existence, unless we are taken over by al Qaeda or, far more likely at this point, Communists. What there is a problem with, however, is the idea that just because you follow a certain system of beliefs, you have the right to shit all over everyone else who does not follow that same pattern of beliefs. And you don't. You didn't when you were the Nativists, arguing that we shouldn't let people of other nationalities into our land of opportunity. You didn't when you were the Dixiecrats, arguing that America had a fundamental right to keep blacks and whites separate and unequal.
And you don't when you're the kind of fundamentalist Christian that Malhotra and her band of merry idiots are, arguing that you have a right to a state-supported platform for your disgust of gay people.
Well, here's a key example of fanaticism in action. Let's start with the opening sentence of this LA Times article:
Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant.
There. "The right to be intolerant." Not "the right to express her opinion." Not "the right to stand up for her religious beliefs." But "the right to be intolerant." At that point, any normal person would look at what's gone on, say, "Well, we screwed the pooch," and go back to finding a kinder, gentler means of getting their point across.
But not a fanatic.
With her lawsuit, the 22-year-old student joins a growing campaign to force public schools, state colleges and private workplaces to eliminate policies protecting gays and lesbians from harassment. The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all.
The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. "Christians," he said, "are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian."
Hmm, let's see: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, the vast majority of people in this country are Christians, and every single president has been some sort of Christian or another.
People have the right to be Christian. What they don't have the right to be is a person who believes it is their righteous duty on Earth to treat people of a certain subclass like they are shit on a stick. While I may disagree on the "all organizations must have gay people" point, fanatics like Scarborough don't want to stop there. As the list above mentions, they target programs that teach people that gays are just like everyone else, and not disease-ridden child molesters.
Still. Let's not stop there. Let's see what other fanatics have to say about codified protection of gayness:
Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor responds to such criticism angrily. He says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different — a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.
This particular meme has mounting evidence against its veritability, but let's examine it as if it is true. That's right, Baylor. Homosexuality is a lifestyle chocie- just as much as religion. If you argue that a Christian has a right to exist in this country and not be "prosecuted" because of their choice of faith, like Scarborough, then you're a hypocrite if you say gays should be specifically targeted for their "choice."
But, hey. Let's not leave Baylor just yet. I wonder what else he has to say about this matter:
"Think how marginalized racists are," said Baylor, who directs the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom. "If we don't address this now, it will only get worse."
"Think how marginalized racists are."
That's it. This argument, from a PR standpoint, is dead. It's deceased. No more. Tits up. Kicked the bucket. Singing with the choir invisible. This is an ex-argument.
As some wise man once said: "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." There is nothing wrong with being a Christian in this country. There will be nothing wrong with being a Christian in this country for its continued existence, unless we are taken over by al Qaeda or, far more likely at this point, Communists. What there is a problem with, however, is the idea that just because you follow a certain system of beliefs, you have the right to shit all over everyone else who does not follow that same pattern of beliefs. And you don't. You didn't when you were the Nativists, arguing that we shouldn't let people of other nationalities into our land of opportunity. You didn't when you were the Dixiecrats, arguing that America had a fundamental right to keep blacks and whites separate and unequal.
And you don't when you're the kind of fundamentalist Christian that Malhotra and her band of merry idiots are, arguing that you have a right to a state-supported platform for your disgust of gay people.
