I was listening to a scary Christian radio station while driving to and from Richmond today — apparently part of James Dobson’s outfit — that was near apoplectic over Canada’s legalization of same-sex unions today. They conceded that a majority of Canadians support same-sex unions, but said that since Jesus preached against same-sex unions, they should be illegal anyway. (I suspect they have a different Bible than I do.) They explained that Canada permitted this because only a minority of Canadians are Christian. (72% apparently constitutes a “minority” in DobsonWorld.)
The really silly part was one of the hosts’ diatribes on tolerance. Apparently “tolerance” is a dirty word to Christian extremists (at least, I got that sense), and they really hate the idea that anybody would ever tolerate homosexuality. He explained that non-discrimination clauses should only cover immutable characteristics, such as, to use his example, skin color. Race is something that doesn’t change, Michael Jackson aside. Things that are a matter of choice, such as (according to the host) sexuality, should not be protected. Without breaking stride, the host went into a little lecture about how threatened Christians are in the United States, how Christians are a minority that is under attack by a gigantic, unified gay-rights movement (with the phrase “homosexual agenda” repeatedly uttered), and Christians must stand up for equal protection under the law and exercise their rights to not be discriminated against.
Religion is, of course, a mutable characteristic. This didn’t occur to the host, I assume, but it sure made the whole thing fall apart, at least from where I was sitting.
Mind you, this is from an outfit that sees species as being likewise immutable, having existed for the whole of Earth’s existence (6,000 years), so logic isn’t likely to get far.
All of this is by way of saying that I have a sort of a late New Year’s resolution. I’m no longer going to engage in any sort of discussion, debate, or even one-on-one fun-making of anybody who believes in creationism. It’s a group of people who believe that facts can still be facts, but be fake facts, having been established by a lesser god, Satan. (Example: “Dinosaur bones were planted in the ground by Satan and made to appear to be 250M years old in order to sow doubt among humans.”) These are people who are unpersuaded by facts — who actually believe facts to be propaganda, though still facts. And there’s really no discussion to be had at that point.
Making fun of creationists is like making fun of the mentally handicapped — it’s just not fair.
Given that their type controls the executive branch, both houses of Congress, the judiciary, a majority of governorships and just under half of state legislatures, if they are still being persecuted then they REALLY need to consider a change in leadership.
After an alarming conversation with my very religious grandparents, I came to the same conclusion: it’s just not worth it. They completely fail to recognize Christians as the predominate group in the country by a comfortable margin mainly because the Bible tells them to be proper Christians they must feel–or even better, be–persecuted. So, ignoring the facts we all recognize is simply a matter of being a better Christian; it means they are suffering for their cause, and suffering = martyr = ultimate sacrifice. A conversation with people with such mindsets cannot include reality as the rest of the world knows it. The FACT that Christians account for roughly three-quarters of the population and, as Mr. Kachur pointed out, control roughly the same percentage of our federal, state, and local governments is a grim one, one which unfortunately won’t change until the Dems find a way to wrest control of the framing the national dialogue away from Rove & Co.
Thanks for the excellent coverage and insightful commentary, Waldo. Your writing is refreshing, unassuming and free of pretense, which is so hard to find in an time of shallow insipid drama.
And thank you, Kat, for using the delightful euphemism of “free of pretense” in place of the perhaps-more honest assessment: “amateurish.” ;)
“The FACT that Christians account for roughly three-quarters of the population and, as Mr. Kachur pointed out, control roughly the same percentage of our federal, state, and local governments is a grim one, one which unfortunately won’t change until the Dems find a way to wrest control of the framing the national dialogue away from Rove & Co.”
Uh, think about what you just said, Kat. In the first place, the vast majority of Democrats identify ourselves as Christian, too. Just not crack-pot, fundamentalist Christians. In the second place, you’re suggesting that the fight against Rove & Co is in fact a struggle of Godless atheists against Christianity. Which is not only entirely false but is also EXACTLY what Rove depends on people believing in order to continue to draw votes from people whose faith should otherwise prompt them to vote against torture, lies and war.
Ouch! ;)
Haha, while I don’t exactly agree (especially with the Creationism point), I do think that Dobson’s position is a little extreme. Jesus called us to love each other, and while I’m still on the fence about homosexuality being “okay” or not, I still want to show love, not hate, towards people, regardless of what they think or how they feel.
It comes down to live and let live, if I might fudge some grammar there for clarity. The main problem I have with Christian control of government is their desire to impose their views on everyone else. They could pray until they’re blue in the face for all I care, but it basically comes down to the fact that they believe their ways would build happiness for the rest of the country, that Christianity is inherently a societal good. But we all know what happens when religion and government get mixed up together…just look at the Middle East. Their hold on government is despicable because they’re trying to criminalize things that, in the end, really don’t hurt anyone. It doesn’t really affect you if the neighbors are gay and get married. It doesn’t matter that the kid across the street lights up a joint everyday. It hurts you if they break into your house and steal some things, or key your car. They’re trying to enforce ‘good’ things on people instead of just limiting the ‘bad’ things. But I guess it’s all relative when there’s a guy in the sky telling you what to do. I applaud Hunter’s effort to look past typical targets of the church and be more like Jesus who, after all, dined with prostitutes and lepers instead of screaming at them on a street corner on how they’d go to hell.
Sigh. Sorry for the disjointed rant – just another disgruntled libertarian. ;)
Hunter and Chris, your comments hit on what is, for me, the crux of it. The whole “love the sinner, hate the sin” bit would be wonderful, were it acted upon, but those who preach it the most loudly so seldom follow their own instructions. If that’s love, it’s a funny kind of love that I’ve never seen before.
I don’t imagine that we’ll see Dobson dining with gay AIDS patients anytime soon. At least, not without being an asshole about it.
ATA, excellent point. I stand corrected.
“I don’t imagine that we’ll see Dobson dining with gay AIDS patients anytime soon. At least, not without being an asshole about it.”
If he’s dining with homosexuals infected with the AIDS virus, I would think the LAST thing he would want to be is an asshole. :)
As to the wacky Christian minority, reason and logic eludes them. A friend of mine holds views like them and she refuses to debate anything. She once told me up front that she had her views and didn’t feel obligated to engage in a debate over them. It’d be funny if it weren’t so sad.
And (as I’m sure you know, Scott), it’s not the kind of a thing that you want to debate with a friend. Because you’d just embarrass her, and that would be uncomfortable. Like with people who believe they’ve been abducted by aliens or that the government is monitoring them, it’s the kind of thing that’s just easier to overlook.