The spoiled infant wail­ing from the Einsatzgruppen-​​ÜberKristians is going into over­drive mode, as Pam dis­cov­ered to be the case with the Traditional Values Coalition. Their chair­man, Lou Sheldon, is in a foam­ing frenzy about things that are … well, bet­ter to show than tell.

He titles his arti­cle thusly:

Pro-​​Homosexual Democrats To Push Anti-​​Christian ‘Hate Crime’ Legislation

There’s so much wrong with the open­ing salvo that it’s almost too rich to con­tem­plate (for instance, given recent GOP behav­ior, I don’t think Sheldon needs to be dun­ning Dems on sex­ual ori­en­ta­tion issues), but I’m gonna get out my biggest skewer and put it right to ’im anyway.

For starters, let’s leave aside for the moment whether hate­crime leg­is­la­tion is actu­ally nec­es­sary. I’m inclined to think not, pro­vided cur­rent laws are enforced prop­erly, par­tic­u­larly since heinous­ness tends to be a fac­tor in bigotry-​​driven crimes, and bru­tal­ity of the crime is one of the things judges have to con­sider (or at least ought to con­sider) when pass­ing sentence.

But since when did the idea of a hate­crime — par­tic­u­larly the con­cept that crim­i­nals who per­pe­trate them should be pun­ished — become anti-​​Christian?

Sheldon antic­i­pates me and and goes on to explain in the open­ing sentence.

With the Democrats tak­ing con­trol of both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives this January, we can expect the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and its pro-​​homosexual sur­ro­gates newly elected to Congress, to begin an aggres­sive push for pas­sage of a “hate crimes” bill designed to pro­vide fed­er­ally pro­tected sta­tus to the behav­ior of homosexuality.

It’s inter­est­ing how he seman­ti­cally asso­ciates the con­cept of human rights with homo­sex­u­als and Democrats, par­tic­u­larly since he’s so will­ing to tar Dems as being anti-​​Christian. What does this sug­gest about Sheldon’s ideas regard­ing human rights?

When did human rights become an anti-​​Christian value?

Further, he sim­ply lies when he sug­gests that hate­crime leg­is­la­tion is try­ing to pro­tect the “behav­ior of homo­sex­u­al­ity” — the idea is to go after those who kill gays.

The leg­is­la­tion isn’t about pro­tect­ing cock­suck­ing; it’s about pun­ish­ing first-​​degree mur­der.

You don’t have to get on board with the idea of hate­crime leg­is­la­tion to see just how slanted Sheldon’s words are.

The ques­tion, I think, is how much he buys into his own rhetoric. Does he really believe in this him­self, or is he sim­ply dem­a­gogu­ing? It’s very hard to tell.

The homo­sex­ual goal is to cre­ate pro­tected minor­ity sta­tus for homo­sex­u­al­ity as though it were equal to such immutable char­ac­ter­is­tics as race.

Actually, this should be a goal for any­one with a sense of com­pas­sion. It’s inter­est­ing how he antic­i­pates the par­al­lels with black strug­gles, by the way — and wasn’t that once called a human rights cam­paign as well?

There may or may not be rea­son to think homo­sex­u­al­ity is behav­ioral as opposed to inhere­ited; sex­ual behav­ior in humans is so ludi­crously com­plex that untan­gling nature and nur­ture here isn’t fea­si­ble given our cur­rent state of technology.

Leaving that aside, though, what dif­fer­ence does it really make if Adam prefers Eve or Steve? (Or, as in my case, both?) Whose busi­ness is it?

Certainly not Sheldon’s, but he doesn’t care.

The side-​​effect of this effort will be to crim­i­nal­ize crit­i­cism of homo­sex­ual con­duct and to vio­late reli­gious free­dom and free­dom of conscience.

He strung these two thoughts together to make them harder to strip down. Let’s rip him a new one — twice.

…crim­i­nal­ize crit­i­cism of homo­sex­ual con­duct” — wrong. Hatecrime leg­is­la­tion isn’t about crim­i­nal­iz­ing crit­i­cism, you reli­gious nitwit. It’s about, as I believe I men­tioned already, deal­ing more harshly with cer­tain types of crime, such as what hap­pened to Matt Shephard, for instance. I guess the men who beat him and left him to die in the Wyoming out­back were just “crit­i­ciz­ing” him, huh, Lou?

…vio­late reli­gious free­dom and free­dom of con­science” — wrong. It’s not part of Christian reli­gious free­dom to kill gays. (Maybe it’s part of Pauline free­dom, though.) And it’s cer­tainly not an expres­sion of free­dom of con­science to kill gays.

He’s also got his knick­ers in a wad over trans­sex­u­als, wor­ried they’ll “be a pro­tected minor­ity” — I sup­pose in Sheldon’s world, it’s bet­ter to have them vul­ner­a­ble and bashable.

With both the Senate and House now under con­trol of Democrats and dozens of pro-​​homosexual law­mak­ers, all Americans must be pre­pared to endure seri­ous threats to their free­dom of speech, their right to make employ­ment deci­sions as busi­ness own­ers, and their reli­gious free­dom in the busi­ness world.

Now, of course, he’s throw­ing a sop to money inter­ests, which isn’t a sur­prise. God and Mammon aren’t sep­a­rate under Sheldon’s rules — or, more accu­rately, if he can use his rhetoric to get the atten­tion of bul­lies with cash, he’s per­fectly will­ing to do so. Whose right to speech, free­dom and expres­sion is really under attack here?

And oh, the rhetoric doth fly thick. Consider this fine pearl.

We tried to warn vot­ers what would hap­pen should lib­er­als gain con­trol of Congress in January. We fear our pre­dic­tions will be correct—and reli­gious free­dom and free speech will die by a thou­sand cuts—beginning in 2007.

Religious free­dom on the outs? How, exactly, is that pos­si­ble? Consider the diverse nature of both the Democratic party and the American mid­dle voter bloc, which is what put the Dems in power. These peo­ple aren’t Sheldon’s fla­vor of insane (only about 30% of Americans are, but even that is prob­a­bly a dan­ger­ous num­ber) — some are athe­ists, some are Jews, some are Muslim; or Hindu, Taoist, Buddhist and maybe even Shinto. Some adhere to Bob, oth­ers to the FSM.

How likely is it, do you imag­ine, that this dis­parate pop­u­la­tion is going to reduce reli­gious diver­sity in the US?

And as to free speech — remem­ber that it’s Cheney and Bush who have been threat­en­ing users of that spe­cific right. Wasn’t it Bush who said it was unac­cept­able to think in cer­tain ways? Hasn’t the White House been com­plain­ing bit­terly about the hon­esty of “the media” in report­ing the bad news from Iraq?

Sheldon is try­ing to equate mur­der and assault with free speech; that’s not a right. But he refuses to see that.

With Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House and Harry Reid as Senate Majority leader, God help us.

Yeah — there’s noth­ing more hor­ri­fy­ing than the pos­si­bil­ity of a diverse and lib­eral mind­set … unless, of course, one is Christian, since Christians ide­ally thrive under diverse and lib­eral soci­eties. (Such as China isn’t. Or Iran. Or North Korea.)

But then, Sheldon isn’t really a Christian, now is he?

On a slightly dif­fer­ent tack, PZ Myers points to a blog post from cre­ation­ist Ken Ham of the “Creation Museum”, which is ded­i­cated to pro­mul­gat­ing the twad­dle known as … you guessed it, creationism.

On the site, Ham proudly dis­plays his K-​​9 “offi­cer” training.

These are dogs, trained to attack on com­mand, and Ham has this to say of them.

Our K-​​9 offi­cers and their part­ners con­tin­u­ally train and we are glad they are a part of the ministry.

These attack dogs are part of his min­istry.

I’d say that sums up his atti­tude well — and I won­der when he and Sheldon will get in touch, if they haven’t already. Imagine how Pastor Lou would use his free­dom of expres­sion if he had a German shep­herd that could go for the throat on command.

====

* Yeah, that’s right, Paul; most of the right-​​wing fanat­ics are actu­ally adher­ents to the gospel of Paul, not any of the gospels of Jesus. (And they hate it when you point it out.)

Share

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.