the Greater Nomadic Council

i allways thought(along with some 19th century thinkers) that pity was the worst thing about the church, quite a role reversal

1) You condemn an group comprised of tens of millions on a she-said-she-said testimonial. Ludwig, in any other situation you would have hesitated to run something like this because the source was so partial and one sided (both the girl and Sullivan).

2) Even if the mother flew off the handle to the degree the girl claims, you only assume that the measure she is seeking is out of hatred for her daughter. In fact there is no causal link, merely a Michael Moore-esque "congruity" which insinuates hatred. It could be out of love. People push to deny "rights" for these relationships because they do not want to have the laws providing refuge for people to remain in relationships that are painful, sorrowful, childless, unnatural, unhealthy, and short. Couldn't it be that the mother does this out of love? Or could n't it also be that the mother would do this in anycase in order to protect the family, so that people could be happy?

ludwig,
I don't see what is hypocritical about what the mother did.

And if you want to cite the Christian tradition then it has to be said that homosexuality has always and everywhere been opposed. The reason we are now "obsessing over" it is because activists are intent on establishing same-sex marriage. There is well planned strategy for advancing this cause that requires the courts. Sadly it will now take state referendums and Constitutional amendments to deal with same-sex marriage b/c the homosexual lobby refuses to allow the issue be dealt with democratically.

And if you want to see real intolerance ask a homosexual activist to respect and be open to the opinions of people like David Morrison who decided that their homosexual activity was harmful to their soul, stopped engaging in it and are now much happier for it. The hate mail he gets is revealing.

Downto,

I recognize that this example is not indicative of a larger sample and that we don't know the whole story. But if it is true, then I think it says a lot about the Religious Right, given that these are the kind of people they choose as leaders. And naturally I go further than Sullivan in arguing that this sort of sadistic aggression is indicative of the private side of a culture engaged in aggressive/crusading wars abroad. That is, there is a need to reject difference and cut off all communication with difference. The only solution to difference becomes force. Historically, homophobia is a hallmark of the modern authoritarian personality-from Franco to Hitler to Stalin and to militarists today.

I can understand why some think homosexuality dooms one to an unhappy life. But cruel insults and aggressively cutting off communication solves absolutely nothing. Simple common sense tells us it isn't going to make anyone "happy". Quite the opposite.

And I certainly don't see how this can be understood as 'love'. That is, unless you believe 'love' to signify nothing more than love of one's own, justifying hatred of all that is different. This is indeed a twisted and relativistic definition that might be suitable for warlike peoples requiring a great deal of cohesiveness, but is profoundly unsuitable for a civilized liberal democracy and surely a misinterpretation of the gospels. But I suppose it does help people justify their aggressive and sadistic desires--which are of course rampant and public when it comes to the Christian Coalition.

Indeed, I am genuninely disapointed that you can look at this behavior as anything other than destructive and pitiable.

Piraeus,

This woman acts as the leader of a Christian organization. Are you seriously suggesting that this behavior is consistent with Christian teaching? My assumption that this is profoundly unchristian was the basis for accusing her of hypocrisy.

As for the Christian tradition, it has been involved in all kinds of shady activities--from pogroms to supporting Franco. But most would argue that there is a redeeming "humanist" quality to Jesus' teaching that transcends the inadequacies and horrors of history. That is, the teaching of compassion, of empathy, of humility, of love even for one's enemies--with implications for the values of personal integrity and love and respect for others as autonomous individuals that are so essential for contemporary liberal democracy. In today's America, it often seems that non-Christians are better at practicing these ideals than Christians, as evidenced by widespread Christian endorsement of the kind of behavior this woman exemplifies.

Sadly, I saw quite enough of this sort of sadism during my years as a Southern Baptist and experienced its seductive effect on my own character. But there are plenty of Christians, including many in the Catholic Church, who remember that real moral progress consists in teaching love and compassion rather than indulging in paranoia and domination vis a vis the Other.
http://www.americancatholic.org/News/JustWar/justwar.asp

This woman acts as the leader of a Christian organization. Are you seriously suggesting that this behavior is consistent with Christian teaching? My assumption that this is profoundly unchristian was the basis for accusing her of hypocrisy.

Fair enough. I can accept that she acted in an un-Christian manner and likely has herself convinced . But I'm always a little wary of calling a Christi a hypocrite b/c she sins. To be a Christian is to claim that one shouldn't sin while simultaneously acknowledging that we are all sinners.

An let me be clear that I do not approve of her behavior and in general I don't find myself having much in common at all with Protestants of her ilk or the Christian Coalition crowd in general (though I do have to work with them on a regular basis).

With that said, you have complained in the past about media representations of protests that have focused on the limited violence of conservatives who discount the whole protest movement b/c of ANSEWRS' Communist ties. I would simply say that I don't think this lady's behavior is typical of parents who are traditional-Christians who learn that their son or daughter are self-identify as gay or lesbian.

As someone who has never been religious, I find it sad that we have to have this debate so often. Most Christians are undoubtedly good people in the truest sense, and constantly struggle to be better. But I think it's a hobbling sort of politeness that limits us to judging them against only their own standards.

I have great respect for many Christian or otherwise religious people, and I understand that many, if not most, people of faith struggle with that faith on a daily basis. But to be perfectly blunt, the reason that there is even an issue here is because we're dealing with a system of belief based not on reason, but on mythology and premodern superstition. If people could escape the cycle of dependence that teaches them from birth to lean on a Daddy-God through life's inevitable tribulations, they could take the world's great teachings (including those of Jesus) and make decisions for themselves without the bugaboos of Hell and Damnation weighing them down, or the shadowy, nebulous para-logic of religiosity limiting their faculties.

While that may be absurd utopianism, there's another way to put it that's less open to niggling critique: The fact is, there is simply no reason to fear, hate, or even disagree with homosexuality if you remove God from the picture.

Sleepy:

you: "While that may be absurd utopianism, there's another way to put it that's less open to niggling critique: The fact is, there is simply no reason to fear, hate, or even disagree with homosexuality if you remove God from the picture."

me: Similarly, there is no reason to fear, hate, or even disagree with the ebola virus, if we remove all oxygen from the atmosphere and die.

Homosexuals should be loved by Christians and there is no doubting that many Christians give in to hating them. For that Christians can be roundly criticized. Agreed.

But your utopian worldview is just that, utopian (meaning in the Greek "no place" and coined by a Catholic saint Sir Thomas More). Christianity is in no way irrational. In fact it has been the great preservative force in our culture over the last 2000 years. Universities would not exist, philosophy would have been lost to us. If not for the "irrational" and "myth"-devoted monks of the middle ages, much of the worlds history, art, geometry, logic, literature, and philosophy would have been lost to us. You should be thanking Christianity for tending the fires of reason and learning in some of humanities darker epochs, not wistfully dreaming of its destruction.

How irrational.